Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Fauci Emails Fallout, SCOTUS Cybercrime Van Buren Holding, Drug Cartel Weaponized Drones

June 04, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Fauci Emails Fallout, SCOTUS Cybercrime Van Buren Holding, Drug Cartel Weaponized Drones
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Fauci Emails Fallout, SCOTUS Cybercrime Van Buren Holding, Drug Cartel Weaponized Drones
Jun 04, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Dr. Fauci interviews with multiple shows in the media to address the email release controversy surrounding the government’s coronavirus response. The Supreme Court issues an opinion in new case that narrows federal computer crimes statutes. Border patrol facing new hurdles as drug cartels and other nefarious actors use advanced drones to conduct illicit business. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Dr. Anthony Fauci is making the rounds doing interviews in the media after over 3,000 pages of emails are released to the public covered in the early phase of the coronavirus.​
🔵 Fauci’s first stop is with MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace who does not press him on his emails.​
🔵 Dr. Fauci explains that science is dynamic and he was just trying to do his best to tell the truth about the data he had at the time.​
🔵 Fauci’s next stop is with former Fox News Anchor Leland Vittert, who presses Fauci on whether the United States should trust the Chinese.​
🔵 Dr. Anthony Fauci joined Morning Joe again with MSNBC and explained we need better information in order to answer questions about COVID’s origin.​
🔵 On CNN, Fauci is asked whether his relationship with Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance was too “cozy”.​
🔵 Does Fauci remember what the redactions are in his emails and is the Biden Administration going to toss Fauci?​
🔵 New poll from the Trafalgar Group shows Fauci’s favorability ratings are rapidly declining.​
🔵 The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s attempt to overly criminalize unauthorized computer access.​
🔵 In the case, Van Buren v. United States, the court found that a police officer was not liable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 for access data he did not have permission to access.​
🔵 Interestingly, the 6-3 decision crossed ideological boundaries, with Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch making up the majority.​
🔵 Drug cartels are using advanced weaponized drones in their fight with Mexican authority. ​
🔵 The Cartels are armed using the latest and greatest technology, according to former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s Special Operations Division Agent-in-Charge Derek Maltz​
🔵 The drones are being armed with explosives and poisons and being used to transport drugs across the border.​
🔵 New details emerge about a highly modified drone that outran police in Tucson, Arizona.​
🔵 The drone, found circling Tucson, may have first been seen circling the Davin-Monthan Air Force Base and potentially even inside the airspace.​
🔵 FBI Phoenix seeking more information about the drone activity and internet forums are buzzing with activity to try to identify additional information.​
🔵 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/Rober

Show Notes Transcript

Dr. Fauci interviews with multiple shows in the media to address the email release controversy surrounding the government’s coronavirus response. The Supreme Court issues an opinion in new case that narrows federal computer crimes statutes. Border patrol facing new hurdles as drug cartels and other nefarious actors use advanced drones to conduct illicit business. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Dr. Anthony Fauci is making the rounds doing interviews in the media after over 3,000 pages of emails are released to the public covered in the early phase of the coronavirus.​
🔵 Fauci’s first stop is with MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace who does not press him on his emails.​
🔵 Dr. Fauci explains that science is dynamic and he was just trying to do his best to tell the truth about the data he had at the time.​
🔵 Fauci’s next stop is with former Fox News Anchor Leland Vittert, who presses Fauci on whether the United States should trust the Chinese.​
🔵 Dr. Anthony Fauci joined Morning Joe again with MSNBC and explained we need better information in order to answer questions about COVID’s origin.​
🔵 On CNN, Fauci is asked whether his relationship with Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance was too “cozy”.​
🔵 Does Fauci remember what the redactions are in his emails and is the Biden Administration going to toss Fauci?​
🔵 New poll from the Trafalgar Group shows Fauci’s favorability ratings are rapidly declining.​
🔵 The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s attempt to overly criminalize unauthorized computer access.​
🔵 In the case, Van Buren v. United States, the court found that a police officer was not liable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 for access data he did not have permission to access.​
🔵 Interestingly, the 6-3 decision crossed ideological boundaries, with Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch making up the majority.​
🔵 Drug cartels are using advanced weaponized drones in their fight with Mexican authority. ​
🔵 The Cartels are armed using the latest and greatest technology, according to former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s Special Operations Division Agent-in-Charge Derek Maltz​
🔵 The drones are being armed with explosives and poisons and being used to transport drugs across the border.​
🔵 New details emerge about a highly modified drone that outran police in Tucson, Arizona.​
🔵 The drone, found circling Tucson, may have first been seen circling the Davin-Monthan Air Force Base and potentially even inside the airspace.​
🔵 FBI Phoenix seeking more information about the drone activity and internet forums are buzzing with activity to try to identify additional information.​
🔵 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/Rober

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get to. We're going to pick up on the Dr. Anthony Fowchee story. The one that we spent some time on yesterday, I think over an hour longer than that, talking about the emails, the Fowchee emails that came out that are sort of summarizing or revealing what he was doing, what he was discussing with other people around the country and really around the world. During the early days of the Corona virus from about January to June, we spent some time going through those emails and now Dr. Fowchee is making the rounds he's going on all the different media shows and kind of telling his side of the story. You know, people have a lot of questions about these emails. And so we've got a lot of clips from him today. He was , uh , all over the place. He was on MSNBC's Nicole Wallace . He stopped by the former Fox news anchor show, Leland Vitor . He was on morning Joe, and the list goes on. So you got a lot of clips about that, that we're going to get through, and we've got some commentary to follow. Of course, then we're going to talk about what is happening in the Supreme court, because there was a new ruling that came down today in the case of United States, vs van Buren. And this involves a cyber crime statute. The story here goes that a police officer was accessing data that he shouldn't have been accessing and then got in trouble for that. And so he was sort of charged under this, this law called the computer fraud and abuse act of 1986. And the Supreme court said, now can't charge that cop for it. And it's very interesting case because the conservatives and the liberals agreed, it was a six to three opinion. We have three conservative judges joining with the liberals and split opinion. So we're going to go through that and we're not going to read the whole opinion. It's a long opinion, but we're going to read the introduction there so we can break down what's going on in the majority. So who sort of, who of the conservatives voted in the majority? We have Sotomayor Kagan, Briar Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch. So Amy Coney Barrett is the person who drafted this opinion. We're going to take a look at that. Then in our final segment of the day, we're going to talk about drones and drone strikes because they are being used now allegedly by the drug cartels in transporting drugs and actually sort of engaging with law enforcement down in Mexico. And something very interesting happened here in Tucson, Arizona, we have the FBI now is trying to find information about this mysterious drone that outran the police. These drones are sort of souped up. They have all these bells and whistles and the police can't really figure out what they're doing. The problem here is that we have some pretty important air force bases , uh , locally in Arizona. And there may be some indication that the drone was flying in and out of federal airspace without being able to be tracked and in a manner that they really can't identify where it's even coming from. So we've got some interesting things that we're going to talk about there . Law enforcement got sort of outrun by this thing, and we want to show you what that story looks like. So we've got a lot to get into today. We want you to be a part of the show, if you want to do that, you can do so by going over and supporting [email protected] And it really means the world when you do that, I was just on Twitter and there was another locals person. Her name is Catherine . Her locals addresses kbb.locals.com . And she she's a doctor. She got just a strike assess to her channel on YouTube for talking about masks and things like that. And so, you know, I think it's , it's very important for every time that happens. Every time somebody sort of gets a slap on the wrist from YouTube. It makes me very grateful that we have some entrepreneurs and some people who are willing to build different platforms to compete with some of the tech monoliths and every time that one of you helps us go and build that platform and just show, you know, with your wallet, with your time with your eyeballs, that there are alternatives that really I think is powerful. And that's really the only way that we're going to start to kind of shatter the , the monopoly that exists in big tech, but by slowly, just whittling away and going over to locals. Anyways, that's a little bit of a tangent. If you want to support our show, you can do that. If you want to support Kat Dr. Katherine show, please go support her as well. But at our show, that's at watching the watchers.locals.com and there you can actually ask questions. So I'm going to go through some slides. You can download a copy of the slides. You can participate in the show by throwing out a question, a criticism, or a comment, whatever you want to do, feel free to send that to Ms . Face she's over there, clipping those and adding those to my slides. There's also a lot of other cool things that you can get when you're a member over there, you get a free copy of my book. If you want to download that, I've got some other fun projects there , like my existence systems, personal productivity device that you can use and download that for free. If you're a member, we have monthly meetups, we have a law enforcement interaction training coming up all for free. If you're over [email protected] All right , so let's get into the news of the day, Dr. Anthony Fowchee still kind of coming out of the hot water might still be in. It depends on what side of the aisle you're on, but Dr. Fowchee, we know because we spent a lot of time on yesterday's show talking about his emails, something like 10,000 emails now have come out 3,200 pages back and forth between all sorts of different people. Yesterday, we saw that Dr. Fowchee was even talking with mark Zuckerberg about supporting vaccine distribution and making sure that Facebook is communicating appropriately to their billion users. And so we were sort of peering through what Dr. Fowchee was doing here and there. And I was trying to be diplomatic about this and sort of being empathetic. And I've tried to hold that tone on this channel throughout the pandemic, recognizing that many people in our government, you know, they really don't know sort of what, what they're facing. This was a unprecedented crisis. We've never seen anything quite like this. And so I wanted to be sure that we gave our leaders of the people who are in charge of us. Some leeway, a little bit of flexibility, a little bit of humanity in dealing with a crisis like this, because it was something that nobody had ever seen before. And I would sort of want that if I were in their position, I would say, listen, guys , I'm doing my best here. I could use a little bit of grace and I would appreciate that coming my way. And so I've been trying to extend that out to these people, even though for a long time, you know , I've had a lot of criticisms and condemnations of Fowchee and our government's response from top to bottom, whether Trump was in office, Biden's an office. Doesn't matter to me. A lot of this felt like there was a lot of information missing that is now sort of being discussed about where the , the Corona virus came from and the list goes on and on. So we've got, I've done a lot of sort of deep dives on that. On my separate channel, I have a separate video that does a deep dive on the Nicholas Wade article, which goes over the four factors that help us differentiate and determine where the Corona virus came from. Was it a lab escape, or did this come from a bat in a cave in Wu Han or Southern China? So there's a lot of questions here. Now. We , we went through the emails and Dr. Fowchee is sort of out there now. He knows these emails came out Buzzfeed in Washington post. They did freedom of information act requests, and they got their hands on all of these emails. And we comb through them a little bit yesterday, but now Dr. Fowchee is out there responding to these because people have questions because there were some issues that were in the emails we were saying, well, you know, he's been really talking a lot about these masks and how important they are, but back in February, his tone was a little bit different. What happened there? We got questions about that. We've also got questions about some of the emails between Dr. Fowchee and Dr. [inaudible] of course he is associated with EcoHealth Alliance, which got a contract from the NIH through the NIH , uh , through the NIH through w which is Dr. Fowchee is the director of that. So we, we went through the chain and connected the dots about how this all may have resulted in funding from the U S government that stemmed its way through EcoHealth Alliance, through Dr. [inaudible] through the , uh, the Wu Han lab of virology through Dr. Sheet who was affectionately known as bat lady because of her work with bats. So we've got, it's this really sort of deep web that we can weave here. And Dr. Fowchee, we got questions about this. What , what was your involvement here? You got some very email, you got some emails here that make it seem like you're getting pretty cozy with some people that it looks like have a very big conflict of interest. If the virus originated from a lab in the U S government was funding the Wuhan Institute of virology, that's a big deal. We need to know about that. If China is covering up any of the investigations, or they're not communicating with the authorities appropriately, which we're going to see here is now sort of making its way into evidence. That's a problem. And we want to get to the bottom of, so we've got four different clips that we're going to go through. And what I've done here is I've just taken out kind of Fowchee his response. You know, these news acres , they like to sort of make their political statements cut all of that out. I'm just going to give you the question and Fowchee his response just for the sake of time. Of course, if you want to see the full clips, I've got links to, I think most everything in our slides, you can download those. So let's start off by getting some background here from CNN health. It says, Dr . Anthony Fowchee says publicly that if the released emails are being misconstrued, right? And so that's going to be kind of the big tone here. The big theme we've got misconstrued data, you're taking this all out of context, which I can actually sympathize with to some degree, right? There was a lot of information flying around. Nobody knew what they were doing. And we're going to talk about that more here shortly. This was written today, June 3rd by Jacqueline Howard says in an interview with CNN on Thursday, Dr. Fowchee said in an email that an email he received last year from an executive at the US-based EcoHealth Alliance, which is run by Dr. [inaudible] . He says it has been misconstrued and offered a hint of regret about a February, 2020 email downplaying the need to wear a mask earlier this week, news outlets, including CNN, Buzzfeed, and WaPo obtained. Thousands of emails, bace set, and received since the director of the national Institute and allergy and infectious diseases became a household name early last year, the NIH ID, which is the organization that I keep talking about in one email sent to Fowchee last April, an executive at EcoHealth Alliance, the global nonprofit that helped fund and research at China's Wuhan Institute of virology thanked Fowchee for publicly stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for the Corona virus and not lab release. And so we talked about this yesterday, talked about it in my deep dive Wu Han article, because the Nicholas Wade article covers all in depth about Dr. [inaudible] and actually show different clips from a podcast that he did, where he's talking about all of this gain of function research, that's all being done conducted out of the [inaudible] Institute of virology. Then we start to see the doctor does that goes radio silent. As soon as more evidence about the pandemic starts to unfold circa 2019 , December, 2019, then he just kind of goes Mia. So we have Dr. Fowchee. Now who's , we've got all these questions for him here. He is with what's this woman's name, Nicole Wallace. So here's Nicole Wallace on MSNBC, and she is going through this question. And of course, you know, a lot of this is sort of, there's, there's a lot of overlap here because Fowchee worked for Trump during the Trump administration and the first part of this pandemic. And now he's working for Biden during the second half of the pandemic, or let's say the , the cleanup portion of the ordeal. And he's on here with Nicole Wallace. And she's saying, Hey, Dr. Fowchee, you know, it sounds like your job is pretty hard, probably pretty hard because of all of those Trump supporters, right. And you know, the message that you're trying to get out there. It feels like there are a lot of people out there who are still hardened up against your message, you know, what do you , what do you say about that? And how do you handle this? So then Dr. Fowchee goes in and you're going to notice that he starts to talk about science being dynamic and that it changes. And if you were here for yesterday's live stream , we spent a lot of time talking about this. And I had to dig way back down into my science classes from, you know , fifth grade or whenever the heck you do that stuff. And I had to dig out the scientific method and I was thinking, well, let's , you know, science kind of has a, has a written format that we follow and what Fowchee was doing for this last 12 months, didn't feel like it followed that at all. Like, I mean, I , I kept hearing people scream at us science, follow the science. You all are Neanderthals and anybody who doesn't put the mask on or immediately follow all of our lockdown orders and , and , and be happy about it, by the way, then you're on the afterthought and you are just too dumb. And you don't understand that this is science and I'm scratching my head saying, well, you know, I'm hearing a lot of conclusions from the government, not really hearing a lot of hypotheses or discussions taking place or hearing even really an explanation about why they're coming up with the conclusions they're coming up with. We heard a lot of conclusions and we heard a lot of changing conclusions. Do you remember some of this? We went from absolutely do not wear masks to then suddenly you've got to wear masks . Then, you know, then we changed from, well, this can live on a surface for 30 days and 14 days now. It's like, does it even do that at all? We had a lot of concerns about whether you can catch it again. Do you remember that whole saga? Right? If you get it, there are people getting it again. Oh my gosh, you can get it again. We're going to have to, you know , we're , we're never going to escape the Corona virus. And so the government is all, is having these back and forth day after day. And they're just coming out with new conclusions and new guidelines. And we're waiting for our governors and our legislators to tell us when the new lockdown orders are and what other liberties are going to be taking away from us. Like not going out to eat, not going out to your church, not being able to go see your kids. And, you know, we saw pictures of grandparents hugging their grandkids through cellophane and stuff. I've gone. What kind of insane world is this? And everybody out there is screaming at us. It's science and anybody who objects to it is a Neanderthal who just is a troglodyte who knows nothing about anything. And if they object or talk about it, what happens? They got to get thrown off the internet. They are labeled conspiracy theorists. And so, so as we listened to Dr. Fowchee, remember that, remember that he's telling us about science being dynamic and about this ongoing conversation that we're supposed to be having, and about keeping an open mind in all of this, when that was not the same courtesy that we were afforded for the last 12 months, it was the opposite of that. It was you are against science. And if you don't do what we say, you're actually killing grandma . So let's listen to this. And remember that Nicole Wallace, her question was about kind of the hardened Trump supporters. How do you converse with them? Here's Dr. Fowchee.

Speaker 2:

Yeah. I mean, there's no doubt that there are people out there who for one reason or other resent me for what I did in the last administration, which was not anything that was anti-Trump at all. It was just trying to get the right information to try and get the right data and what they didn't seem to understand. I guess that's understandable that they didn't understand is that science is a dynamic process. So something that, you know, in January, you make a recommendation or a comment about it. But as you get more and more information, the information leads you to change because that's what science is. It's a self correcting process. So when you hear someone say something at one point, and then two or three months later, if you stick with what you said at the original time, when you had one fifth , the amount of data that you have now, I think that would be inappropriate. It's appropriate. Although sometimes it's difficult for people to understand how, as you learn more and more, you've got to continue to evolve with the data. And that's what I was trying to do is to always tell the truth on the basis of what the data is. And it was never deliberately something against the president. In fact, he's folk about my emails. You look at my emails. I never in the email said anything derogatory about presidency .

Speaker 1:

Yeah. But all right, so you didn't have to say anything cause we know it. And as soon as Trump left office, you were out there hitting the waves, going on. All the different media shows like, oh gosh, you know what, a change in scenery. This has been. So as we know, right, we saw Nicole Wallace. She gets really excited when he starts to sort of blame the prior administration. That's well, we can't really blame them. They didn't know what they were talking about. And it's acceptable that for people not to understand this, because it's really complicated because science is dynamic. And unfortunately, sometimes people just don't get that. You know, I'm a nice guy. I'm trying to deliver the truth. I'm doing the best I can. And science is dynamic and you're hurting like three or four times in there , condescend to everybody and just say, Hey, unfortunately, people just don't get it. And he's not talking about the enlightened left. He's not talking about Nicole Wallace and the people who have been following his orders lockstep for the last 12 months. He's talking about all of the other people that have questions. And maybe you have to take some issue with what the government tells us is happening when it doesn't make logical sense when it actually contradicts their own orders that they're telling us, we're just asking some questions here. And you know, Fowchee is moving the goalpost . And to be honest in that last clip, I agree with everything he said there. I mean, I totally agree with that. Science is dynamic. Science does change. And I don't, you know , I don't expect somebody to come out here and do an experiment and say, well, we , we, we, we settled this issue. Okay. You know, back in the 1930s, they do an experiment. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb and he goes, that's it, light bulb is done. We're done here. Thanks for playing. Right. We're going to do more experimentation, new hypotheses, new theories, new testing. And we're going to try new materials . We're going to improve science, improves technology improves. That's something that happens. And I agree with that, but that's not what we went through. That wasn't what the 12 last 12 months were about. It was follow your leaders, take our commands, ingest them, make them your own and obey. Don't contradict us. Don't fight with any of us. If you do, there's going to be some pretty serious consequences for you. And we saw this. I don't need to go through through the laundry list here, but we saw it all over the place. And Dr. Fowchee was the figurehead. He was the person at the very top. Everybody was following his orders. He set the tone for the entire country. Mark Zuckerberg was sending him emails saying, Hey, what do you want me to do about this for 250 billion people or 20 50 million people in the United States and 1 billion worldwide. And we saw what happened. We got the little COVID stickers on all on everything. There's probably one right here on YouTube and Facebook right now. You know, COVID COVID COVID because everybody was following Fowchee, his lead. So let's take a look. Now he said that science was dynamic. And if you recall on yesterday's show spent some time talking about this. As I mentioned at the start of the program, I was really digging back into my science days. I think I took AP chemistry by the way, which is advanced placement. So clearly I'm an expert at this stuff. But the point is, I remember that there was, you know , these charts and these flow charts and these, this, this sort of pinwheel and the circle that we followed. And then I got off the show and he on Twitter had a comment for me. And they said, Hey, Rob, you know, that's scientific concept that you're talking about. The scientific method could use a little refresher. How about I give you one? So he did, and this is over here from left coast is the best coast. And this actually has a happy ending. So let me show you, what's going on here. He says, Robert hope this helps, you know, that black hole in the middle of the Milky way. Apparently it might be sort of a strange dark matter. Instead he says, see question mark scientific understanding of a subject can change drastically. Then he gives us a couple of these charts, which we're going to look at in the next slide. He followed that tweet up. He says, look, this does not mean the observations we had already made. The background research were wrong. He says stars do weird things when they orbit the core. But the understanding of the cause changes drastically over time. So he's talking about science and he, he actually gave us these two charts , which I love. I, and I really appreciate that. He sent them over. We have two of them here that are sort of working this through the scientific method, right at the start at the top here. This is the one I think I remember from fifth grade, it says, you start with an observation or a question like, I don't know , you know, is the Corona virus something that emerged naturally or from a cave , uh , or , or from a lab that escaped from a lab? Well , we researched the topic area, meaning you do some actual research here. You actually dig into it. And you , you sort of try to uncover an answer the question and you come up with a hypothesis. You say, well, you know, we've got a couple options here. It could have originated from a cave and Wu Han, or it could have actually escaped from a level five virology lab where they're doing gain of function research involving bats could be that also. So we have a hypothesis. Then we test the hypothesis and we do a lot of rigorous testing and we tested multiple different ways. And we see what answer we get. Then we can get some data that we analyze. Then we report the conclusions. And typically the conclusions are based on all of this other stuff that you've done, right? The conclusions come out and you say, well, based on the data, based on the test , based on our original hypothesis, we try to answer question through other research. Couldn't do it. And so we've got a conclusion here, but listen, you know, this conclusion, it could be subject to change. This is what we found thus far. And so we're sort of telling you about the work that we've done and flushing out a couple of different options here. This is our conclusion. It's like 70%, right. Or 80%, but there are some alternatives here. If it were 100%, then that's the end of the inquiry. Isn't it. If it's less than that, well, then you got to go back around through the flywheel again, if it's not 100% and we can't rule anything out, well , we're still going to be asking questions about it and we're going to continue to go through this flywheel again and again and again and again and again and again, and guess what we're doing that right now, we, as we know, we we're , we're starting in this process again, we're going through this right now, but Fowchee back during his time, didn't, didn't allow us to do any of this. Okay? None of this happened. We actually kind of skipped most of the research in the topic area. He says he did it. We saw a bunch of emails going back and forth. We saw several different emails saying that, no, actually there, we saw one email by the way, from Dr. Christian Anderson, who said that it doesn't what they saw in their analysis. Didn't match the evolutionary expectations that you would see from a natural virus. Essentially, that's paraphrasing the email, but I covered it in the show yesterday. So in fact, when they're researching this area of topic about whether this was a man created virus or a naturally occurring virus, there was plenty of research that showed the alternative that in fact, this actually could have been engineered. As we now know, through Nicholas Wade, did that information not exist six months ago. Pretty sure that it did. So let's take a look. Now we have a hypothesis then. So, you know, w w we kind of really didn't get that. Did you ever hear 5g come out and say, well , these are two credible theories, and we're going to be doing a lot of testing. We're going to be doing a lot of investigation into this. No, they didn't do any of that. Really? The test came down to kind of accepting the Chinese and their word for it as we're going to get to later on, because in our next clip, Fowchee goes on. And , uh , and , and somebody asked him specifically about this. Are we just going to be taking the Chinese word for it? And you're going to hear him. He acknowledges it. He says , uh , yeah, that's kinda what we did because they just gave us information. We were not even able to go in there and investigate what was going on in Wu Han. So did they do any testing? Not really. Did they analyze the data? I mean, they , they, they say they did. Dr. Christian Anderson sent an email. He says that he did his analysis, then they report the conclusions. Okay . So we kind of just skip most of this. It went from, Hey, we've got a question about this. Where in the hell does virus come from to , you know , a little bit of, of like a little, like little touches here, maybe a couple of this stuff. Then we just get right to the conclusions. Lot of conclusions coming out of 5g and the government. And we really didn't go through a scientific method. We got a lot of conclusions and you can see the same type of process. Here. You ask a question, you actually do some research and come up with a hypothesis. You test it with an experiment. You and you actually investigate it. Then you determine, is this working or not? If not, you got to revise the test. Okay, you got this little loop here that test not giving us the results or the answers we want. Let's keep trying. Let's keep trying. Let's keep trying. Then you get enough data. You can draw some conclusions. If it aligns with your hypothesis, you can communicate their results. If it partially aligns with your hypothesis, you can communicate results. And then you can ask new questions again, right? And we just kind of missed most of this. We didn't, we didn't do any of this. Uh , and , and the results partially aligned with voucher's hypothesis about that. This was something that came from nature, even though a lot of evidence to show the opposite of that. And even though there are some pretty significant conflicts of interest here between Fowchee and Dr. [inaudible] and EcoHealth Alliance that was being funded by the NIH. So a lot of questions here, it doesn't sound like a really rigorous scientific method, does it not to me. And so when I communicated that back to our Twitter friend over here, I said, Hey, I do not have any problem communicating theories or conclusions and discussing them in the scientific context. I have problems when people state their scientific conclusions as scientific fact, beyond reproach and brow beat. Anyone who disagrees, which is what Fowchee did. He said. Yeah. And in that part, we wholeheartedly agree when testing the hypothesis, we treated it as fact test to tear up the facts and see what lays out in the end. I cannot conceive how good science would ever say I hypothesis is fact before testing. So he's, you know, he's exactly right. We also, I think agree, actually, he posted this year also, he said he was responding yesterday to the 54 minute mark from today. Instead said with that in mind, Fowchee is a liar. Read the science being dynamic. That's a whole topic, enjoy the Google search and your favorite initial result. So here we go . I got the, the, the , the, the real crux of the argument is science static or dynamic. It says here, those who view science as static, assert that science consists of a group of facts that are best memorized. Those of you sciences dynamic believe that scientific ideas develop and change. And that the best way to learn these ideas is to understand what they mean and how they are related. Right? So sounds like Fowchee sort of evolved. Like he went from a static science person that had a bunch of conclusions that were ready and available for the American. Public's consumption all about the mass and the vaccines and how long it's on everything that we needed to do. Fowchee said, we've got conclusions. Take them to the bank. They're not dynamic. They're static. Now Fowchee comes out. Oh, well, you know, science is pretty dynamic. Isn't it? A lot of things change here and there. And so I'm just doing my best. So Fowchee then late last night goes on another interview. He's over on the Don lawn report, which is this fellow here. And , uh, the, there are questions of course about what's going on. Now, this guy, Don lawn, or the Don lawn report is being hosted here by Leland [inaudible] , who is a former Fox news agent or a anchor. And so what we've got, I just wanted to sort of compare and contrast these clips. We just heard from Nicole Wallace over at MSNBC, I didn't play the clip there, but she's like, she's , she's feigning over , uh , Dr. Fowchee. She's like, Hey, you know, most people when their emails are released, there are , uh , a lot of bad things in there, but you pass the public inspection of your emails. And so you, you know, you're, you're basically good in my book. So very low lights interview, a lot of levity there. Then we get over to this interview. Okay. This a Fox news guy a little bit more contentious. Let's listen in here, Chinese

Speaker 3:

Word for it. Do we have any idea on what's going on inside the Wu Han lab or what went on inside the wool Han lab?

Speaker 2:

Well, again, let's put things in context, the , the , the scientist in the Wu Han lab for years and years among other credible trusted scientists in China, we're not talking about the communist Chinese party. We're not talking about the Chinese military. We're talking about scientists that we've had relationships for years. I guess

Speaker 3:

What I'm hearing from you is we should just trust the Chinese when they say, oh, the military has nothing to do with this. We should believe him .

Speaker 2:

No , what I'm, what I'm saying is that we have very many years of experience of productive interaction with Chinese scientists.

Speaker 3:

I'm not disputing that you had great work with them , but what I'm trying to get at is that all of the comments that were made about what happened inside that lab are based essentially on taking the Chinese word for it. No matter how good your experiences were over a years or decades, it seems pretty clear that the Chinese lied about a number of things related to the Corona virus. We can all agree about that. And I'm wondering now, how can the American people be assured as we, as we look at this, that for example, the money that went to the Wu Han lab didn't end up being used by the Chinese military. It seems as though you can't say that for certain

Speaker 2:

Well , can we, again, with due respect, put things into perspective, the , the, the, the Wu Han lab is a very large lab to the tune of hundreds of millions, if not billion dollars. Right? So now you making an extrapolation that we sent in.

Speaker 3:

No , sir , I'm not, I'm not making any blizzard . No, sir. No, sir. I'm not making any extrapolation. I'm simply saying the fact of the matter is, is that so much of what was, we were told as Americans about what we knew from the Chinese was based simply on taking their word. Right. That's fair. Okay. And based on that, we really have no idea who the scientists were in the ,

Speaker 1:

Okay. So , uh , yeah . MRC news busters pulled that clip and, you know, I kind of wish they would've left a little bit more of Fowchee in there, but we, you heard that kind of that last clip, like we can just kind of took their words for it. Right. And he goes, yeah, right. Yup . Yeah, we did. Right. So that is not the scientific method. That's not rigorous testing. That's not coming up with a conclusion that you can say is based in something that matters. It's just sort of, well , they said so. And he goes through, and he's going to make this point again, as we continue on here, that, you know, the, our , our Chinese counterparts or our people that we can trust, you know, that there , this is a billion dollar lab and these are good scientists and we trust their work. And you start thinking he has this, this , this guy, has he ever been to China? I've been to China. I've got a video of the wet market that we went through on second channel. But the whole point here is that they are an authoritarian government. They control everything. That's the whole point of China, right. That they are sort of a giant monolith. If , if they've got a level five virology lab, there that's a billion dollar enterprise, are they just hands-off on this? Like the Chinese military has not gotten no involvement in this at all. And that we should just take their word for it. So it's like, you know, come on Dr. Fowchee, like, nobody believes that you're this naive. So why are you feigning this for all of us to see this? Like, it's incredibly frustrating. All right. So we've got another clip from him. Now this is over once again on MSNBC. So this was this morning after he, you know , kind of had that contentious interview. Now he's back on MSNBC. This is morning Joe. And , uh , this anchor here, he says, well, you know, why is it so hard to find the source? Why is this so difficult? You know, is it that we need better access to the information what's going on here? He says, it's trying to opaque. Is it the world health organization or what's, you know, what's going on and here, you're going to hear Dr. Fowchee. Now you're going to hear him say a lot of things, like keep an open mind. You know, we're just looking for the truth, which is great. Okay. Thank you for that. Now, a year later, way too little way too late. And w there have been many of us who've been wanting to ask these questions for a long time. And we couldn't. I mean, if you look , go back on our channel, we have almost never talked about COVID because YouTube came down and put the kibosh on it. Now, you know, their, their, their policies are modifying a little bit and, you know , they're , they , we can talk about some of this stuff again, and I'm still walking on eggshells over here, given what happened to Catherine's channel, but it's just, you know, I appreciate his position now. Openness, open mind and truth. That's all we've ever been asking for. All right, here he is.

Speaker 2:

You know, there are several reasons Willy why it's difficult. I think one of the things is that we need better access to all the information. I mean, it's obviously in China's interest to find out exactly what it is and the is of the, of the natural theory would be to find that link. So you have to keep looking for it. I mean, obviously you want openness and cooperation. One of the ways you can get it is don't be accusatory. Try to get both a forensic, a scientific, and an investigational approach. I think the accusatory part about it is only going to get them to pull back even more. We've got to do it in a combination of diplomacy, scientific forensic investigation, and do it in a way that the people of good faith, not who want to do blame, but people in good faith are really trying to find out what the origin is. And we're seeing a lot of, you know , um, I don't even want to describe it a lot of pointing of fingers and things like that. Keep an open mind and go after the truth. You

Speaker 3:

Say it's in China's interest. That would you agree though? Dr. Fowchee is in their interest to hide it. If there was a lab leak or worse, if they were something in their labs , so that the world that America didn't know that it came out of their own lab, wouldn't they want to conceal that, you

Speaker 2:

Know, really , I don't want to be speculating on that because every time I say something like that, it, you know, it as well as I, it will get completely taken out of context and go into the Twitter world, like crazy. So, I mean, I'm going to leave that to other people and not surmise , and guess who's interested is it's not helpful because everything you say, and it gets completely taken out of context.

Speaker 3:

And , and it's, it's really, it would be like me talking about , uh,

Speaker 1:

Yeah, like what Joe. All right . So, you know, it just kind of punts on that last question, which of course he's going to do. Nobody wants to criticize China because they're all sort of, you know, in their pocket to some degree, one way or the other. So , uh, you know, he said that China has an interest in finding out what happened here and that we need better access to information. Well, then we have about eight , 18 months, where are we at now coming up on that to do the work on that? Right? December, 2019 was when we first started to get wind of the Corona virus . So we've had a lot of time to do an investigation. The last we heard that the world health organization was dragged around by their hair over there, by the Chinese saying, oh no, you're , you're going to see what we show you. Take a look over here, nothing here. And that's why people are asking for a second investigation or, or a deeper investigation. Even Joe Biden has asked for one now on the back of his canceling of Trump's , uh , investigation on the Trump's way out. So it seems pretty obvious to me that if the Chinese were complicit in the unveiling, the releasing of a pandemic that wrecked the world for a full year, that they might have a pretty strong interest in making sure that we don't ever find out about that. Okay . And making sure that it is the farthest thing away ever from a lab leak hypothesis, that in fact it is the opposite. It's allegedly something that came from a bat seems very naive to me. Now, we , we , we see sort of these talking points coming out, which is, what's been interesting about watching his evolution over these last 24 hours. And we're starting to see that his talking points are getting better here. It's talking about, oh, an open-mind and going after the truth, last time, the previous clip we heard about science is dynamic. We heard some sort of conversation about the prior administration and people being hardened against accepting the science and accepting reality, but he sort of switched from a static version of science, into a dynamic version of science. Now he's talking about keeping an open mind and going after the truth, dang it. We should go after the truth while then he gets asked, well, Hey, well, what about China? Don't they have a part in this. Maybe they should be asked what the truth is. Well , I'm not going to go there. Why not? Because Twitter is going to get ahold of it and they're going to take it out of context. All right. Okay. All right. So we've got one more. We've got a couple of clips over here from CNN. Now, Dr. Fowchee goes on this guy's job. And this gentleman here was this morning, eight 10. You can see here, CNN. And we got a couple of questions from him first and foremost, he goes through and he says, Hey, you know, you know about that email with Dr. [inaudible] , Dr. [inaudible] of course of EcoHealth Alliance, that was granted a contract from the NIH ID to go and conduct some of this gain of function, research experiments in Wu Han. He says, you know, you got that email from him that we all saw. And in that email, Dr. Dan Zack is thanking you for going out there and saying that you don't believe that this came from a lab, but you believe that this was the natural emergence theory. Dr. [inaudible] sends them an email and says, Hey, thanks for saying that. Appreciate it. So all of us are scratching our heads saying that's very curious. It feels like kind of a conflict of interest because you remember Dr. Dan Zack was one of the authors of an article that was published in the Lancet , which is a major scientific periodical along with a number of other authors. And in that, the abstract that we read yesterday, they said that anybody who thinks it came from a lab is a conspiracy theorist. It's actually in the article that article was sent out into the media and everybody ran with it. Dr. Dan Zack has got a close relationship with the Fowchee, given the connection between EcoHealth and the NIH. So the list goes on, but now they're saying, Hey, Dr. Fowchee, we saw the email, okay. We know you have this relationship. Don't you think that there's a conflict there? Don't you think that there was anything too cozy about this relationship that you have? What do you have to say about that? Here's Dr. Fowchee.

Speaker 2:

Oh, that's nonsense. I don't even see how they get that. From that email, that email was sent to me from them. I have always said, and will say today to you, John , that I still believe that most likely , uh, origin is from an animal species to a human, but I keep an absolutely open mind that there may be other origins of that. There may be another reason it could have been a lab leak. I believe if you look historically what happens in the animal human interface, that in fact, the more likelihood is that you're dealing with a jump of species, but I keep an open mind all the time. And that's the reason why I have been public, that we should continue to look for the origin of that email in no way you can misconstrue it. However you want. That email was from a person to me saying, thank you for , for whatever it is he thought I said. And I said that, I think the most likely origin is a jumping of species. I still do think it is at the same time as I'm keeping an open mind that it might be elaborate .

Speaker 1:

So two , two things here, two things that are very clever, he's doing a good job here of , uh, you know, smacking away the criticism. He says, oh, that email, they sent that to me. I was just re I just received it. I had no, I had no say about any of that. I can't control what people send to me all the time. All right . That's a good point. Right? You can't control that. Now he did respond and say something like, thanks for your kind note. Appreciate that. So we all know what was happening there. He knows his emails are public. He knows he's not going to. Yeah, no problem at all. I've got you covered. Don't worry about the Wu Han lab of virology or that contract that we signed for equal health Alliance. It's all covered. I'm running point on this. [inaudible] and I got it covered media. It says whatever I say, and they just cram it down. Everybody else's throat . He's not going to type that in an email or anything close to that. So he says, thanks for your nice note. And we all know what happened here because Dr. Fowchee knows that his emails are all public record and he's not going to respond. It was something that makes him look bad. So he's not an idiot. The other thing that I noticed here is he says that we should continue to look about the source of the Corona virus continued like, oh, like, oh yeah, we've been doing this all along. Well, your tone has changed pretty dramatically because a lot of people were lobbying the , uh , the conspiracy theorist claim around. Now, he's coming out saying, well, you know, I'm, I'm actually reporting a conclusion now in a way that I think comports with the scientific method, if he had been talking this way for the last 12 months and saying, well, you know, actually, we , we really, we really don't know on, on the origin. It, my, in my opinion, it's this, but it , it could be this. And here's some pretty good evidence about that. Well, maybe the media would have had a different tone. Maybe we all would've responded to this pandemic a little bit differently because we had real information. We had scientific hypothesis and a conclusion that was dynamic, but we never, we didn't get that. We got very static conclusions from Fowchee and the rest of the people who were relying on Fowchee to give us their conclusions. He was the source of all of it. So we have one more clip from the CNN guide here. You can see that there is an email that has a ton of redactions on it. And so he asks him about this email. We didn't talk about this one yesterday. This was sent April 16th. And of course, like the whole emails redacted, you can't see anything there. And I saw another clip. There was something like vouch . You said that there were 10,000 emails that they got in that six month period. The last count that I had was 3,200 pages. So there's obviously a bunch of emails in those pages, but that's a lot of emails. And so he's going to use the, oh , I can't remember all the emails defense. So watch this here. Do you remember, do you remember

Speaker 2:

John? They only took about 10,000 emails from me. Of course. I remember. I remember all 10,000 of them. Give me a break,

Speaker 3:

But to be clear, you're saying you don't remember, you can't tell us what , what was it a body of that? I don't

Speaker 2:

Remember what's in that redacted, but there, I mean, the idea, I think is quite far fetched that the Chinese deliberately engineered something so that they could kill themselves as well as other people. I think that's a bit far out, John,

Speaker 1:

A bit, a bit far out. Do you want to go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole here for a quick second? How about this? We know that this virus, right, it sort of impacts different demographics and ethnicities at different proportionality. And what if the Chinese had already created a vaccine or they've already sort of immune immunized their population for this, or since it's an engineered vaccine, it just doesn't impact their demographics or their ethnicities as much as it does other ethnicities. And we, you know, I don't know what the official data is on that. Uh, you know, it's sorta just speculation at this point in time, but if he says it sounds far fetched , well, not , you know , not, not really. If you're talking about engineering a virus, when you engineer it to not impact your country and engineer to impact other people's countries. And in particular, China had a pretty big vested interest in making sure that America didn't have a rolling economy. Didn't have Trump out there with these mega mega rallies, with 50,000 people packed into a stadium and you know , the economy's booming. Trump, Trump is this very aggressive anti-China person. And what we got to stop this, this train, the maggot train with no brakes on it. How do we apply some brakes ? Well, they release a virus, a pandemic to the world. So I'm not saying they did that, but Dr. Fowchee going well, it's so insane if you're engineering a virus, maybe you make it. So it doesn't impact your people, right? You, you would, you would do it that way. And I don't know if there's any signs , uh , you know, maybe that'll be a novel or a book or something someday. Actually, there was, there was a book about that. It was the Dan brown book. I think it was how it was one of those books. One of Dan brown is the guy who wrote the DaVinci code and angels and demons. He wrote another one of those books. I forget what it was, but there was this virus that is engineered and it's released into the world and it doesn't actually kill anybody. Everybody's freaked out because they think that this virus is going to kill people, but it doesn't, it's sort of selectively engineered to only go. And I think sterilize one third of the population. So they just, you know, it randomly picks certain people and it's coded to, you know, to do something that affects certain number of genomes. And then it goes, and it infects a third of the population. A third of the population can't have kids anymore. And it's sort of an unwrinkled , this population bomb disaster that AI predicted, right? Not, not a , not a great book, but , uh , interesting. And maybe something like that happened here. So love those conspiracy theories. Now let's take a quick look and see what the white house has to say about this. So according to Jack puss Sobek and Breitbart, there's a report that the white house is actively looking to dump Anthony Fowchee, amid revealed e-mails and flip-flopping . So I doubt this just right out of the gate. I just, I just doubted I think Fowchee has sort of been elevated into sort of demi-god status and, you know, for them to, to, to toss him would not look good. The white house, according to Breitbart is actively looking to dump Dr. Anthony Fowchee made a recent flip-flopping and released emails that show further contradictions on the pandemic response. So Jack was Sobeck shared this on Instagram. He said the byte administration is discussing an exit strategy for Dr. Fowchee following the release of his emails yesterday per white house official . Now, if you don't follow Jack [inaudible] , I think he's over at, he just moved. He was over, I forget where he's at now, but , uh, you know, he's, he's pretty plugged in, in, in the DC establishment. I think he actually works out of DC. And so he's a good follow if you're interested some of that stuff, but why would they dump voucher ? I mean, really, you know, the guy's been there. There are many people that I know that just whatever. Yeah . He says, that's it that's gospel. I go really, because he's kind of like, flip-flopped a number of times, but all right . So this is what Breitbart has pulled for us. This is a poll that was conducted over by the traveler guard group. We're going to take a look at that Breitbart's political editor though. Matt Boyle was also interviewed on America first with Sebastian Gorka. He said that he would not be surprised if Democrats would sacrifice 5g to save their credibility on the issue of the origins of the virus. And so it's , that sounds like that's just speculation. Fowchee, who was dropped in confidence by 42.2% since last year has been the center of a series of new cycles by flip-flopping in congressional hearings, along with media outlets, releasing Fowchee emails, via the freedom of information act. So let's take a look at this poll here. This is from the [inaudible] Lagar Trafalgar. I can never say that one. I've been, I've been following them for like four years now. Can never say the name has your confidence in Dr. Fowchee gone up or gone down in the past year. So 26% of respondents say unchanged, 31, 30, 30.1% say it has decreased significantly. Okay. So almost a third of the people have said, it's almost decreased significantly in the year. Then we add another 12% of that. So 42% also say decreased increased significantly. We've got about totaling 22% say it's gotten better. 42% say it's gotten worse, no opinion, 10%. So significant numbers saying that it's actually going down and it's going down quickly. So we see that , uh , ramp Paul yesterday showed a tweet from him, said, I told you, so he's been front and center holding Fowchee his feet to the fire, making sure that the proper questions are being asked and it's having an impact because people are sick of it. We've, we've, we've all sort of felt this in our gut, that what they're telling us is not the full truth or the whole truth. So help them God. And we're tired of it. And the polls are starting to reflect that. So of course, Donald Trump came out today and he posted , uh , he released a statement here through Molly , Hemingway, former president Trump asked what did Dr. Fowchee know about the gain of function research? And when did he know it? So let's take a quick look and see what he is talking about here. He says, after seeing the emails, our country is fortunate. I didn't do what Dr. Fowchee wanted me to do. For instance, I closed our borders to China very early, despite him not wanting them closed the Democrats and the fake news media even called me a xenophobe, which I recall in the end we saw this was a life saving decision. And likewise, with closing our borders to Europe, specifically to certain heavily infected countries, I was later given credit, even by quote Tony here for saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Dr. Fowchee, didn't put an emphasis on speed of vaccine production because he thought it would take three, four, maybe even five years to create what she's right. I got it done in less than nine months with operation warp speed. He's right. In retrospect, the vaccine is saving the world. Then I placed the greatest bet in history. We ordered billions of dollars worth of vaccines before we knew it even worked, had that not been done. Our wonderful vaccines would not have been administered until October this year. No one would have had the shot that has now saved the world and millions of lives. Also [inaudible] was totally against mass. Even when I thought that they would be at least helpful, he then changed his mind and completely became a radical masker, which I like that there are a lot of questions. Trump says that must be answered by Fowchee. The funding of UConn by the U S was foolishly started during the Obama administration at 14, but ended under the Trump administration. When I heard about it, I said, no, wait, what did Dr. Fowchee know about gain of function research? And did he know it? And I've got much the same questions myself, but we don't, we don't know. And we're going to continue to follow along here. Let's see if there are any questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. And I'm going to check with Smith, miss faith to see, cause I'm not seeing any in my queue, but that could be a sinking problem. So let's take a quick minutes and check here policies on that. All right . So I'm not seeing them. So we're going to go into the next segment and we will, we'll get to questions at the end of that segment. All right. So we're going to change gears. Now. We're going to talk about the Supreme court, Ms . Faith, send me the , uh, send me a different link or something and I'll just go that way. All right. So we're going to change gears. The Supreme court released a new opinion today involving cybercrime and in a police officer. So I'm sort of conflicted on this. I don't like the over-criminalization of laws in our country, but I also don't like it when cops do bad things. So I'm kind of torn here. Maybe we can help figure out what is going on by going through the case. This is a little bit of a background here from SCOTUS blog. So we're talking about this case called van Buren versus United States. It was the Supreme court's first serious look at the computer fraud and abuse act of 1986. So obviously a lot has changed since 1986 computers have changed pretty dramatically. Uh , I was one years old in 1986, and I don't even know that we got a computer until much later in life. So, you know, there's, there's a lot of this type of stuff happening. We've got very old laws that are now being applied. We've got, you know, new technology. And so from time to time, the Supreme court is going to try to , uh , you know , flush out how to apply and interpret these laws. So this is the computer fraud and abuse act and the Supreme court today on Thursday, they rejected the government's broad interpretation of a federal law that makes it a crime to exceed, authorized access on a computer. Okay. So that's what we're talking about. And so I want you to think about this sort of, from your perspective, I think about this from a perspective, even as an employee, right? What if you are on your work computer and you're not supposed to go and look at a certain file folder and you go and you look in there anyways, was that, did you exceed authorized access? Did you violate the computer fraud and abuse act of 1986? You know who you are? Let's take a look at what , what happened by a vote of six to three with an ideologically scrambled lineup, which we're going to talk about. The court overturned the conviction of a Georgia police officer who searched an official police database for personal purposes. Oh no. Justice. Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. So this happens from time to time. This actually it happens quite frequently. Uh , there was a situation here in Arizona with a Scottsdale crime lab person, somebody who does testing on DUI samples and lo and behold, I think it was an ex-girlfriend who guts busted by the police for a DUI catches wind of that. Oh, she got a DUI, huh? Well, I work in the crime lab. I do blood testing and I analyze blood samples, but I'm going to go and see if I can maybe access those body camera logs and watch the body camera footage of my ex-girlfriend making a fool of herself in front the police. So he does that guess what ex-girlfriend finds out about it because somehow somebody spilled the beans to somebody she finds out about it. She files was a complaint big no-no because there are a lot of policies and procedures in place. You can't just go and sort of access whatever you want. So he got in trouble and he got fired for it. Let's take a look at what happened here. This case van Buren versus United States. Let me, let me back up on that. I don't actually think that that guy was fired. So I don't want to get in trouble on that one. I don't think he was fired. I think that there was sort of a mutual departure on that want to correct that. So this case here it's a Supreme courts . First case it's important. One because the government in recent years has been applying the law quite broadly, arguing that users exceed unauthorized access. And then they face criminal liability. Whenever they use information from a computer for an impermissible impermissible reason. So in this case, for example, the police officer, Nathan van Buren, lawfully access, computerized license plate records, but as use of the information for a private purpose led to the federal criminal prosecution that the court has now rejected. So in my DUI case where he goes into, he tries to find the body camera video of his ex-girlfriend, right? That's not for a law enforcement purpose. Technically, maybe he has access to the body cameras. You can't go and look at that specific video because that nothing to do with his case, nothing to do with his work, he has , he has the credentials to get in, but they were not happy that he did that. He violated protocols. So, you know , he wasn't criminally prosecuted, but he departed ways, right? They said, no , this is a violation we're gone. So the relevant provision here of this , the CFAA, which is the computer fraud act Barrett wrote, quote covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer, such as files, folders, and databases to which their computer access it does not extend. So it, it, it, it, it, it does not cover those who like van Buren have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them . So it covers two files, folders, and databases where their access does not extend, but not when they do have it access, but just improper motives for accessing the data. Right. Kind of confusing six justice, majority consisted of three conservatives. So we've got Gorsuch, we've got Kavanaugh , we've got Barrett. Then we got three liberals joining the newly appointed conservative judges, right? Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett guests who appointed all those Trump did. And the courts three liberals, Steven Brier , Sonia Sotomayor, and illegal Elena Kagan. We have Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent joined by John Roberts and justice Alito who are traditionally more of the hard-nosed conservative judges. Okay. There are certain judges that every time that there's a case that , uh , you know , uh , certain like civil rights issues for , uh, search and seizures are right to counsel cases or any of those things. Traditionally, the conservative judges will rule in favor of criminal law , right? They they're sort of in support of police in support of law enforcement, in support of criminalizing certain things. And so those judges voted against this, the other judges and kind of interestingly, Trump's three, most recent appointees joined the liberals. And so we're going to have some commentary about that. This is what the split looks like, vote by the ideology. So you can see here, the three lefties traditionally all voted in favor of it, also joined by Kavanaugh , Connie Barrett and Gorsuch, all conservative judges traditionally joined in the majority and so left out. We have, of course the chief justice, John Roberts, we've got Alito and Thomas who all dissented to this. So two of the more senior judges, and then Thomas here wrote a dissenting opinion, which we are not going to really talk about. So let's take a quick look at this case. This is, this is what the syllabus looks like. And this is of course, subject to change. We're not going to read this whole thing, but I just want to show you what this looks like. So this was argued November 30th last year decided June 3rd, 2021. This was being appealed from the 11th circuit. It says that a former Georgia police Sergeant Nathan van Buren used his patrol car to access a law enforcement database to retrieve information about a particular light since plate in exchange for money. Oh, that just makes it that stinks. Right? So somebody was paying him and they're saying he can't be charged for this. Oh, that stinks . But I get it up. Although van Buren used his own valid credentials to perform the search. His conduct violated a department policy against obtaining this information, van Buren. He said, Hey , his actions were part of a federal bureau of investigation, sting operation. So the FBI was actually following this guy. So it sounds like he probably was doing this for some time. You know, Hey, give me your money. I'll look up this case for you. On my , uh, on my police computer , uh , FBI gets involved. So they want a sting operation, this guy, and they do, and they charge him and it goes up to the district court, then 11th circuit court, and he's being prosecuted and convicted the entire time way. Then Amy Coney Barrett, and two other conservative judges joined three liberals. And this cop is not going to be prosecuted. They're throwing the case up. Van Buren was charged with a felony violation of the computer fraud and abuse act liability for anybody who intentionally accesses a computer without authorization. And so the term exceeds authorization, authorized access is defined to mean to access a computer with authorization and to use such access, to obtain or author information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled to obtain or alter. So this is the language that they're fighting over a jury convicted him. They gave him 18 months in prison. Van Buren appealed to the 11th circuit. He said, Nope . Uh , the exceeds authorized access clause only apply to those whose information to which their computer access does not extend, not to those who use access they already have. So if you already have access, you can abuse that access. And that's not covered by the act. If you are, if you are somebody who does not have access and then get access, that is what's covered. So it's a pretty, pretty distinctive line here. And the court is , is drawing it in favor of this cop he's he was prosecuted and convicted 18 months, not anymore. Van Buren appealed. And we know that the , it overturned that so held an inner and an individual exceeds, authorized access when he accesses a computer with authorization, but then obtains information located in a particular area of the computer, such as files, folders, or databases that are off limits to him. Okay? So the parties agree that van Buren access to computer with author with authorization and he obtained information to dispute it. He was entitled. So to obtain that information, so van Buren says that the word so serves as a term of reference and that the disputed phrase, this acts whether or not one has the right in the same manner that one has been stated. So the government says that van Buren reading renders the word . So superfluous, look there . They're actually arguing about the words . So in this soap, so superfluous so makes a valuable contribution. The government says only if it incorporates all of the circumstances that might qualify a person's right to obtain the information. The dissent here accepts Van's Bureau's definition of. So the government contends that in common parlance, the phrase exceeds, authorized access would understand to mean that he exceeded his authorized access to the database. The relevant question is not whether he exceeded his authorized access, but whether he exceeded his authorized access, as the CFAA defines that phrase, the statute structure, the court goes through here, they're talking about another structural problem. They say that the statute has some other language that helps clarify that this doesn't apply in under those circumstances. Let's see what else we've got the government's claims. Okay. So it's kind of a technical ruling. They're talking about language and sows and different statutes and how this all interplays together, but that cop previously convicted for accessing data, that he was not supposed to access got charged with a crime, got convicted, got sentenced to 18 months in prison. Supreme court threw that out and they make a pretty clear distinction here about what that data access looks like. Now, this case was interesting because not only about that rule, but because of the split here and Jonathan Turley, who we checked in with yesterday wrote another article today, says the curious ruling in the van Buren versus United States. And they defy critics again with another consensus ruling, which is what we talked about yesterday. So remember now that in our current political landscape, we're having a lot of conversations about the filibuster about court packing, about what the Democrats can do to sort of adjust the judiciary, to serve and suit their needs. We've talked to , we've heard a lot of sort of threats and claims from, I think Senator Blumenthal saying that if they touch Roe vs Wade, that you know, there, there are going to be some real conversations that are taking place in the Senate about what to do with the court. And it may not be court packing, but it may be about limiting jurisdiction or expanding the circuits or whatever. So there's a lot that that could go on there. And it's been very curious to watch a number of unanimous cases come out of the Supreme court. We saw four of them very recently, the all unanimous, we covered two of them yesterday, briefly. And today, now we have another kind of , uh , uh , lopsided decision and one that is not overtly political one where you got three conservative judges joining on with three liberal judges. What I thought that our Supreme court was so dysfunctional, I thought that there was nothing that we had to pack the court because of these raging Republicans that Donald Trump put on there. But the three Republicans that Trump put up join with the liberals. Oh, interesting. So, all right , well, let's take a look at what Turley it has to say here. It says a curious thing just happened. Six, three decision out of this , the Supreme court is not one of the blockbuster decisions that many people are waiting on, but the case involving computer fraud is interesting to some of us about the intricacies of the federal statute, which we're not going to read about. I don't, you know, it's, it's, it's interesting if you're a lawyer, not if you're not a lawyer, the lineup of the majority must have been another disappointment for democratic members, which is the key point in advocates who are demanding raw court packing. The decision was written by Amy Coney Barrett joined by Brier , Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. The first name is important because it's the most senior justice Stephen Brier, right? He is the senior judge in the majority. So what we're talking about is, you know, the judge there's nine of them. So they say who's voting which way. So three of them say, Nope , I'm opposed. Six of them say, yep , I'm in favor of it. They go okay. Of you six, who is the most senior here, Steven Brier. So Steven Brown then gets the authority to assign the opinion. So he gets to say who who's going to write this opinion. And this is a big deal. Many people, you know, we talk about Supreme court opinions , sort of like they're ephemeral. They just come and go. And it's not a big deal. These are big deals. These are sinking the law in to the ground. It's like staking it into the ground for like the next infinity pay until another Supreme court comes in and wants to adjust it. So these have tremendous precedent value that will trickle down throughout the entire country. And so we're talking about this, like the word so and whatever, like it's only about that one particular cop in this one particular case. And that's the end of the situation. No, like this is, this is going to trickle down to all the circuit courts. All the prosecutors are going to know about this. Every defense attorney that has a case like this involving the computer fraud and abuse act of 1986, is going to know about this case. It's a big deal. So when Steven Brier , then the most senior judge assigns the case over to Amy Coney Barrett, who is apparently this radical right-winger, that's a big deal. It doesn't sound like this is a dysfunctional court. Sounds like we have a liberal judge giving a conservative judge, a very important opinion. Here you go. You can write it because it's [inaudible] . Charlie says it is a nightmare for activists, a consensus opinion written by Barrett for three conservatives and three liberal justices. That was not supposed to be the way the court operates. According to the democratic members, it is supposed to be hopelessly and blindly divided along ideological lines, but it's not Joe Biden called the court out of whack , due to what's conservative majority in calling for court packing, Jerry Nadler said, we are not packing the support. We are unpacking it as in it's already packed under Trump right now , Laura insisted that such a radical action long opposed by most citizens is necessary to restore balance. But is it as it had a balance because we got a bunch of nine O opinions coming out. And then this one where it seems like Joe Biden's vision of unity is come into fruition. Isn't that sweet others have openly threatened conservative justices that they had to either vote with their liberal colleagues or face dire consequences. Here's Senator Richard Blumenthal. We talked about this quote yesterday on the show. He says it will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the court. If this activist majority, what is he talking about? Because the majority was just split right here. Betrays fundamental, constitutional principles. It's already driving that movement chipping away at Roe vs. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme court. This is this , this is a sitting Senator from Connecticut. It may not be expanding the Supreme court. It may be making changes to its jurisdiction, requiring a certain number of votes to strike down past precedents, et cetera, which the Congress has the purview to do, right? They've got, they can just set the jurisdiction of that court. So it's not an empty threat. We have a little bit more here before we jump into some questions. It says Blumenthal, when , as far as to mention specific cases and expected the rulings . So he sort of, you know, I really dislike this and I think judges dislike this. You know, judges want to be able to act without political pressure from the other benches. And that's not what we're seeing. We've got Senate majority leader here shocked many in front of the Supreme court. He declared. I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh , you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hits you. If you go forward with these awful decisions. Remember when he said that out there in front of the Supreme court. I think that was last. I forget what month that was. But it was after the January six events after Donald Trump said, you know, fight like hell or whatever. And everybody lost their marbles over that. Chuck Schumer comes out and says, you won't know what hits you. If you don't do what we want. Right. That's sort of political pressure. So where was the media on that one asleep at the wheel, right? The court is expected to issue divided opinions and upcoming cases talking about dark money group. We've got a number of different figures here, you know, sort of w telling Briar, you gotta get outta here. So all of the, you know, a lot of the MCAT say you're too old Brier . If you, if you don't leave now and give back and the opportunity to appoint your replacement, what happens if they lose the Senate next year? And they don't have the majority there? What happens if God forbid, if you're a Democrat, the Republicans win the war lighthouse . And then we get a Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeats. Okay . Ginsburg didn't retire early. And Donald Trump got to a point in her replacement in the name of Amy Coney Barrett. Republicans got pick up on that one. So the Democrats do not want that to happen again. So they're saying, Briar , you gotta get out of here right now. Now briars going, what? Excuse me, not going anywhere. And they're saying, Brian retire don't risk your pressure. Right? Jen Saki said that the, she was once on the board of this organization. So the pressure on Briar to retire could backfire according to Turley, I think he's right. He could decide that the greatest harm to the court is not, it is not he continuing, but his leaving the court after such a chorus of and reckless campaign judges are meant to speak through their opinions. And this decision speaks profoundly and clearly to those like Blumenthal threatening the court. It again seems to speak by accident or by design that the court remains unpacked and unbowed in carrying out its constitutional duties . So nice article there from Jonathan Turley. Let me see what's going on with the questions. I'm going to open up a difference , little box here, and we'll get this sinked up. You know, the technology folks we're, we're, we're, we're trying to run this thing here on a shoestring budget. Many of you don't know this, but the , the software that I use, it's just PowerPoint, that's it. And we're just, we just put videos in there and try to sync it up. And sometimes it gives us some grief. And so I have to, you know, make these last minute maneuvers. And then I got to fill a bunch of time as I'm navigating through the slides that aren't changing in front of myself right now. So there it goes. So let's take some questions. Here we go. We're going to start, we're going to rewind the clock and we're going to do questions on the last thing that we just talked , talked about . What was that? 5g? Alright , Fowchee. Here's our first question. We got Nya , renal MD in the house, says my hospital administration fired one of my colleagues for speaking out to the media about masks, even though he made it clear, he was speaking for himself. So I made a decision given my local area in our need that it was better to play along, given that there was only a few of us who could have had, could handle and had hospital expertise with COVID-19, which is just, yeah, it's very wild to me. I mean, you know , on some level I sort of get that if you're in the middle of a war zone, right. It's kind of a good time to act in lock step with the rest of your team. You know, you just sort of look, coach, I don't agree with that play, but I'm going to run it. And after this game is over, I'm going to tell you why I thought , I think that's a bad play, right? We're going to talk about that later, but because we're in the middle of the game right now, we're just going to go now this guy, right. You know , uh , basically fired for speaking out. That sounds a little bit, actually a lot of bit over the top, it sounds like they just somebody who is a good medical professional, somebody who could have helped in the situation and they lost that person for no reason. Other than him speaking out, we have LT. 13 says not sure if you covered this yet or not. Peter [inaudible] is the person that who put in charge of the Wolf hunt investigation. Yeah. W I did talk about that. Maybe not on this channel. They wouldn't let him in and unaccompanied and said that they have denied, it came from them. So we had to take their word. Yeah. Investigation over. Yeah, exactly. Right. The Chinese said, we're only going to show you what, we're, what we want to show you and the world health organization. And Dr . [inaudible] said , that's fine because we don't really want to know the truth. Anyways. You say it didn't come from a lab. That's great. We, we, we, we agree with you. So we'll take that information. Thanks for all your help. We're going to give it back to CNN and they're going to spam it all over the internet. We have Sharon quit and he says the science, that's the way it works. Right ? In totalitarian states, you have an agenda. Then you have to give scientific basis for it. So you make up facts to fit the agenda. Pouchy actually has a point. Science is a dynamic process, but what happens is more of a refinement process. For example, Newtonian physics was not totally overthrown by Einstein, the laws of motion still . Yeah. It's , it's an , it's an evolution. I agree with that. And I think that's a beautiful thing, as we say, oh , we're , you were kind of inching closer to this. You know, we're kind of inching closer to launching rockets up in the air. It's, it's an iterative process. We make small, tiny improvements, and then we get big gains every now and then when somebody invents a microprocessor or something. So I understand that. And I appreciate that. And I think that voucher is 100% accurate on that. The problem is that's not what he did. That's not how he treated all of us for the last 14, 15 months. We have norovirus in the house as more and more of the mainstream media covering for Fowchee. They are not even covering that in the emails told about hydroxy chloric queen and Fowchee was instrumental in banning physicians from prescribing it. Norovirus is a physician by the way. And Fowchee personally benefited from the vaccine. He should not be on TV talking to the networks. He should be on trial. He said he was instrumental in banning people and physicians from prescribing that particular drug. And a lot of people may have died as a result of it. So thank you. Norovirus norovirus is an actual physician. We have had the opportunity to communicate in a clubhouse from time to time. You know, this, this is, this is I think part of the problem, you know, if more people would have had the actual truth, people would have been a little bit more discerning about how to handle and respond to this whole thing. And especially if this theoretically came from China, right? If this look, if this was a weapon, right ? I , the virus that came from the Chinese military, do you think people would have responded differently than if this came from a bat in Wu Han somewhere? The DOB says, why don't the thousands and thousands of effected creators get together and file a class action against YouTube? Well, cause I think we all basically wave most of that when we agree to their terms of service is YouTube not considered some sort of an employer? Uh, no , I don't think so because I'm not an employment lawyer, but I think that it's more like a 10 99 relationship, right? They don't, they don't dictate to us what to do or how to do it or anything like that. They do regularly pay people into their contractors. Can't break contracts like that. Can they either way people need to start suing, even if you'll lose in the end, it's better than not doing anything. And at faith joy, thanks for what you do. Faith. Yeah . Send some love to Ms . Faith . She's outstanding. So I think the real answer here is not in the court of law. I think that the answer for the big tech monopoly stuff, candidly is five, 10 years from now. It's going to be blockchain, but for the foreseeable future it's it's alternative platforms and they are springing up all over the place, actually a lot faster than I anticipated. If you recall, back in November, December, there was a lot of down in the dreary dumps on this channel. A lot of people were very upset about what happened as a result of the election and all of the aftermath. And especially after all of the cancellation, because it felt like, oh my gosh, it was just this bloodbath happening. And if you're somebody who's on sort of the, the right side of the political spectrum, you were watching, Trump gets booted. Then they , uh, everybody flees over to parlor. Then they just shut down the whole stink and social media site. Everybody's going, oh, we're in for a long haul on this one. But lo and behold, what did that do? That prompted a migration. It prompted a movement and a lot of people, myself and other people throughout, you know, throughout locals, we got Viva and barns . We've got ricotta law. We've got , uh , you know, everybody saying , all right, enough of this garbage, and we're going to start the migration. We're going to start to move and it's going to take years. Okay. Think you think how long it's taken for YouTube and Twitter and Facebook to turn into the monoliths that they are. It's going to take some time, but we're in the process of doing that. And, you know, we can, we can go try to sink our time into a loss cause in the , the court of law on YouTube, you know, so w when that lawsuit, they let you back on, they say, you can talk about this stuff for so long before the new issue, you know, the next new issue comes out and they put a bunch of new, additional rules on you. You've got to go through it again. All right . Enough of that, right? How about we just find a place that is dedicated to free speech. We talk about, you know, sort of , uh , you know , decentralization and censorship resistance platforms. We just go over there. You can have YouTube, you can have Facebook. It's fine. You're not talking about anything. Interesting. Anyways, cause everything that you, you, you are allow on your platform is all bubble wrapped and it's all very safe and protective and everybody feels good, but it's not interesting or meaningful. So we'll go have the real conversations and the people will follow up. We have NYU renal MD in the house as the, for insight and the Argentine Conan's by this virus as a tip-off. I talked a lot about that. I , you know , I didn't know much about a fear, insight or code ons , but after I read that article, I felt like I got a crash course in it. The virus has too many incredible changes to make it perfect for a human, but not much else. The fact that we can not find any recent genetic relatives in the wild is a tip-off this virus may have been, may, may, but that's the point, right? Question. And we want to ask questions and many of us, we're not allowed to do that. And I actually, doctor I posted a, an interesting, let me see if I can grab this real quick. Okay . I posted an interesting tweet today in response to somebody who had a question about what you just mentioned there, sort of the evolution of the virus. So I want to show you this quick, this quick clip. I can find it basically. Um , I don't , I don't think I can find it right. Hold on one second. I'm going to do this time . Cause this is , this is right on point, but there there's a conversation that's happening right now about if you can trace a virus through its evolution so that you can actually follow it along. And I can not , I find this, this clip right now, but if you go on, if you go on my different, on a different video on my second channel, there, there's an article that I covered. It's a scientific article that was written, I think back in 2005. And it talks about the evolution of Corona viruses from bats into human specimen. And it walks us through, I think it was, you know, whatever that virus was back then. And it says that from version 0.1 of a virus of version 0.2, these are the things that changed. We have, you know, this genome, this code on our Janine over here and whatever, whatever we , we noticed that changed . And when it went from 0.0 0.1 to 0.2, wasn't even a big deal. Uh, didn't infect humans. Didn't infect anybody. It became a little bit different, but not a big deal. Then we go to version 0.3 virus upgrades a little bit. We get some more mutations. We have , we see 27 changes in these genomes, okay, we're still studying it. Then we get 0.4 and 0.5 and 0.6 and the virus just keeps evolving. And then we see in this article, and this is all scientific. They're talking about genomes and Cotons and whatever. And they tell us at version 0.8, that's when the virus became an epidemic, that's when it then evolved into the world. So we would actually be able to see that, right. We'd be, we would be able to follow that along as we're going through our analysis. If this came from a natural specimen, where is that evolution? We've seen that scientists can do it for other viruses. Why , why not? This one Sharon quit ? And he says, is Fowchee kidding. It's not the CCP, not the Chinese military. What kind of idiot is he anyways? What kind of idiots does he think we are thinking of going to be sick? I know it's kind of , it's kind of strange. We have Sasha in the house. He says, Hey, faith, what's up Rob and RNR fam. I have a question. So if Fowchee is found to be funny, that will Han lab indirectly, what kind of legal action will be taken against him in your opinion? So, you know, if, let me let , I'll finish the question. Also, if people still think flip-flop Fowchee, I like that it's more of a doctor than a politician. They clearly have not been following the tales of flip-flop Fowchee 2020, which were a doozy. I mean, a lot of them, I have a list on my phone of like eight different things that changed like 180 degrees. So , uh, what's going to happen to him. He funded the Wu Han lab, even indirectly. That was probably a part of his official duties, right? As the director of the NID. And I would, I would guess nothing, right? Maybe there's some reform that happened , but I don't see any, you know , criminality or anything here. It sounds like he was doing his job. He was just doing something that was not so good based on the research. All right . So we've got norovirus says, Robert, then there's this multiple images are online in case anyone is interested. Obama, Fowchee, Melinda gates touring a Corona virus lab. Not sure if this is China is still the U S prior to them deciding to weaponize the Corona virus . Now look at that. There's Fowchee . Yeah. There's there's Melinda gates. You know, the gates thing, it was , it's so funny. There was that one clip of them. I'm gonna have to find that for another show. There's that one clip of bill and Melinda gates and they're talking and they're, they're , they're sort of scolding us looking at us down their noses. And they're saying, well, you know, there's going to be a , well, hopefully this is , this is a good learning lesson. This pandemic was a good experience for all of us. Cause there's going to be a next one coming. And, and bill and Melinda gates, they look at each other like this and they kind of go like, they know what's coming. You're going well , who are these people? That clip is out there. And it's a scary, all right , we've got, Sharon says people of good faith, the Chinese totalitarian government exterminate the weekers and the Christian and these people are people of good faith. According to Fowchee, they is a Furby Slayer says, it looks like they're going to hang, hang this debacle on Fowchee. We cannot forget that he did not do this alone. Do not let the government scape those scope, scope this guy and walk away. And that's kind of the point that I was making yesterday, right? It's very easy for the government to just blame a particular individual. I take issue with the entirety of the government, everybody there, everybody who was involved, who enabled this whole thing, that just sort of picked it up and ran with it. And I mean, even down to the , to the local people, there should be, you know, political ramifications down the line for everybody who was involved in this, because what happened here was everybody just passed the buck. Dr. Fowchee was the person in charge. He said, where are the mass? So all the governors everywhere just said, oh , got to wear the mask. Then all the legislators and all of the politicians all trickled down the line, all doing the same thing. And you're thinking to yourself, this, this was a bipartisan effort. Okay. And I'm in Arizona. We have a Republican governor and a Republican legislature. And we also got most of the same lockdowns and the same heavy hand that the rest of the country dead now , not as bad. Right. And certainly Florida sort of is a , is an anomaly in the entire world [inaudible] framework. But the point it has been that this has been a catastrophic failure across the board. I did a video back on the network state where I talk about Balaji Srinivasan and this idea of the new network state as an evolution, a natural evolution from the nation states. So, you know , mankind sort of went through these three epics where we have a religious state where we were all kind of following the religious church, the Catholic church, or, you know, the, the , um, whatever religion you're in, you were sort of following that. And then we sort of evolved into this nation state where we organize ourselves into countries and states and regions. And then now maybe the next thing is we have this network state. And in that video where I was talking about that, I went through the laundry list of all the problems that the government has had catastrophic really throughout the board. We've got, they can't keep the electricity on in California every summer. We're going to see that again, they got wildfires roaring all over the place. It's still clean water problems. In certain parts of the country, Texas was frozen to death. Nobody could figure that out. Great. We've got a lot of problems systemically. If you want to use that word with our government, Corona virus just magnified all of it. We got to see it all on full display. So if everybody wants to turn around and say, oh, Dr. Fowchee, that's your fault or Donald Trump, that's your fault. Or Joe Biden. That's your fault. Give me a break. This ship is too big for anyone , man. This was a , uh , system-wide failure. And we all had had to take a , take a bite out of it. And so I think that now's the appropriate time to say, you know, when you were eroding all of our constitutional liberties, that was a problem. We're not going to let that stand again. And there are going to be repercussions coming your direction. I think that's reasonable. And I know some people don't. I know some people think that well, that's , you know, it was a, it was a crisis and everybody was working their way through this. And let's, let's let people go with a little bit of grace. No, I don't think so. If you were, if you were involved in a coverup or any sort of manipulation in this debacle that went on, there should be some serious consequences politically. Okay. Because a lot of people have suffered serious consequences, drug and alcohol uses are up. Suicides are up across the board. Kids have lost an entire year of their lives. Businesses are permanently closed, lot of serious consequences. There needs to be some serious repercussions. We need to do a real analysis on this, not one that Dr. Fowchee and the likes of him have been just scolding us about for the last 18 months there , there's more to uncover here. And I'm excited that we're getting into it. Angel says I angel two , two underscore nine nine says I actually agree that Fowchee says that he followed the science known at the time. I don't believe it was fogey who told big tech and the mainstream media to beep to D platform and shame for asking questions. The question is who told them to do this? And why was it all just orange man, bad? Or was there something more sinister afoot ? That's a good question, angel. I don't know. You know, we do know that Zuckerberg was emailing back and forth with Fowchee, so we know that they were communicating. So it was there, you know, obviously I'm going to guess that the extent of their conversations were not just limited to email. I'm going to guess that they met and talked and had a lot of conversations about what the policy should look like and how that should be shaped. So Fowchee may have been involved in that, or may not, you know , like sort of like my prior point, there are a lot of moving parts here, and a lot of people share responsibility in this. So it's, you know, it's easy to just blame Fowchee for the whole thing. But I think it's a bit bigger than that. We have, oh, socks , as question is a little off topic. So if you have a case and there is a possibility that the law will change in your favor and make it easier, would you wait or move forward? Those moving forward hurt your chances. Could you apply the new law during your case? It's a great question. This does actually happen. So it kind of depends on what the law is and what the facts of your case are. But in Arizona we just had this change . Okay . We , we , we just had a proposition passed that legalized or indeed legalized marijuana in Arizona. And prior to that, there were a bunch of cases that were being prosecuted as felonies in Arizona. My marijuana used to be a felony. Okay. Worse than a DUI. If you have a little possession of some green leaf, that is a class was a class six felony. If you had a vape pen or anything that was distilled down, that was a class four felony insane in Arizona marijuana laws. So that just changed. So that means that a lot of people who had those cases pending against them, there were people who were being prosecuted certainly for marijuana. And , uh , they call them narcotics drugs violations. During that time, as soon as the law pass prosecution, what'd they do. They dismissed them all. They just dismissed all the cases. Cause they know that the law is changing and that all the defense attorneys would have to do is just file a bunch of continuances. We just continue, you know , we're not, oh, you want us to plead guilty here. The laws changing in like six months, we're not, we're not pleading guilty to anything. So they know that the courts would know that. So the courts would grant our continuances. If the prosecution wouldn't dismiss the case. So almost always, it just works. It just works itself out. And I, I , uh, I can't say that. I can think of an example of where it didn't actually. All right . So hello . We're catching up on questions. Let's take a look at some of the questions from segment number two, which is of course the Fowchee questions. Let's let's take a look. Let me show you what's going on here, folks. This is my life right now. So see you , you see this mouse. It's just not doing anything. It's not changing. I can't change the slides. Nothing is changing here. So we're going to do a quick refresh. You're going to join me along. I apol I'm wasting everybody's time right now and you're not going to be able to get this time back. It's just not coming back. We're going to fly through all of our slides. See it's not, not working again. All right . Well that's all right. We're going to go back and we're just going to continue on with the show, I suppose. So. Oh , I'm having a frustrating day right now. All right. We're going to go through some more questions. Okay. All right . Well, so we're going to go back to the show. All right. We have Furby slayers in the house right now. Very frustrated, extremely frustrated. All right . We've got Furby . Slayer says, I mean, we are the letter of the law in the U S could they not charge something else? Like fraud? So this is for the computer crime case. The we in the letter of the law, in the U S they could have charged him with fraud. Yeah . I think they could have, there are a number of different criminal statutes. They could've charged him with, they just didn't. And now we've got a, we've got some clarity on that. Oh, Sox says , Rob question for you. So when it comes to legal terms of words, would the fed definition, Trump, the state definition who would be right? So when there's a conflict there, the federal law supersedes, because we have what's called the supremacy clause in our constitution that says that when there's a conflict between the feds and the states, the feds, when we have Nadar says, just a random idea, since courts are always arguing over language and context and overall, meaning, what do you think about courts or Congress? I don't know which one start making, recording video recordings of the reading of the law, contextualizing it and explaining the extent of the limit of the law, and then storing it for future reference that way. No one could say they meant this or that. And that's all on film, LOL. Yeah. So there's, there's kind of a version of this that happens. You know, they write everything down , uh , typically as part of something that's called legislative history. And so you need yet , you got a minute entries and meeting reports and , um, you know, we approve last, last sessions meetings. And we, you know, all of that stuff is sort of formalized, but I understand what you're saying. You know, if you've got some Congress people and you just put a camcorder in their face and said, Hey, you're signing this. What do you think it means? And what are you gonna do about it? Right. And, and make them own it. Maybe we'd get some more continuity with our Congress people. All right. So I think our tech is back working again. We're going to , um, change gears. We're going to talk about weaponized drones now. Oh my goodness. Weaponized drones, drug cartels have the border patrol, shaking their heads, scratching their heads, questioning what is going on with these drones. We're talking about weaponized drones that are being used in Mexico and also potentially in the United States. And we really don't know who is running them because they're drones. It's hard to track that. I want to share this story with you today from USA today, it says that the drug cartels, they attack enemies and they spread terror with weaponized drones in the U S and Mexico. So this was posted yesterday by Carol Suarez , short read, we're going to talk about this story. And then we're going to take a look at something that's going on in Tucson. And we've got the situation where there was a drone flying around super fast in a way that was , it seems like it's highly modified that they're having problems, sort of keeping pace with its range and its speed and how much battery power it has. And they really can't find out what's going on with it. So the internet is sort of a buzz with this. If you're not familiar with, you know , the niche online, there's a lot of people who are very interested in this space. They study the skies, they're watching radar , uh, you know , websites where they can track planes. They know all the call signs and where everybody's going. And they know government, you know , airplanes, oh, you know, CB 27 40 was flying around Nevada today. That's weird because the CB 24 70 is the, you know, special reconnaissance plane that the, the FBI bought two years ago, right? They'd like, it's that detailed? And so they have this whole form of people now trying to figure out what was going on with this drone, where did it come from? We have air force bases here in Arizona, and this drone may have crossed over into the airspace. And so there's pretty significant questions that are happening here. And first and foremost, let's start with Mexico. So it began as a routine operation. Mexican police were clearing blockades placed by organized crime groups in Mexico, a Western Mexico town, suddenly authority said a drone flew over dropping a gunpowder bomb and wounding to members of the may Hawk , state police in the arms and legs. So they dropped a gunpowder bomb. The attack in April underscored, an emerging danger in the international flight fight against illegal drugs, weaponized drones. Did you ever see that black mirror episode with the bees ? There was a episode on black mirror where they have these bees . We know there's, there's a sort of a bee problem that exists right now. They're not pollinating different plants. And people are wondering, where are the bees going? And it feels like their population is declining. So black mirror is a series on Netflix. And in this series, there was one episode where they have a company that is solving this B crisis, which is a real problem. So they create these drones, these little micro bee drones, and they just go around and this company just kind of pollinates them, send them out there. And all the wilderness and greenery comes back because the bees are back doing their work well, something happens and somebody kind of hacks one of these bees and these bees are pretty powerful. So they can actually sort of kill you. They can like fly into your eye and you know , Jack around your brain, they can go into your ear and go up your nose and go in your mouth or other orifices. And somebody takes control of these bees. And they have these controls of these swarms. Now that can just kind of, you know , get into your house. You can go lock yourself in a house, but you can get a B in, through the roof and under the doors and whatever. So all these bees are coming and it's a horrifying , uh , episode, which may be real coming up soon. So the bloody and powerful [inaudible] new generation cartel and its rival have upgraded their arsenals. They're using drones to bomb, enemies, posing a growing threat to Mexico and us citizens and allowing more drugs to flow into the USA. Drones are a part of the cartel's larger strategy to arm themselves like rogue militaries. We're going to hear from Derek malts, he's a former agent in charge of the us drug enforcement administration, special operations division. He says, quote , I've been a strong advocate of designating the Mexican cartels as terrorist groups, because they're acting like terrorist groups. They're equipped like terrorist groups. They are distributing record of poisonous drugs in America. They're going to use the latest and greatest technology to defeat their adversaries, go after the police and fight for territory that gives them better routes to funnel drugs into the USA. He says, so this is what we're looking at. Uh , you can see here in this image, we've got several different drones, decent sized drones, right? These aren't the ones that you just kind of, you know , fly around your backyard with your GoPro on it. These are significant. We've got, you know , some nice weight here. They can carry a moderate size payload. We know here, Mexican drug cartels use drones to further their aims. These drones were seized by the attorney general of Mexico in 2020. So they're , they're getting pretty sophisticated with a lot of this stuff in an exclusive interview. Part of the USA today, one rookie drone operator with cartel, us Unidos, who did not want to give his name. Given the cartels activities said his organization has about a hundred drones. Cartel members received training on their UC , said from a man nicknamed Lord of the skies. Ooh, he's been training us since last year. We have many drone models. They're not too sophisticated, but they can carry a considerable amount of explosives. He said, the drones come legally from the U S through groups in [inaudible] that support us and have legitimate money to buy the drones. The man said that they deploy the drones to keep, watch over territory and attack another rival. He said that neither the organization, nor the other opposing opponents use the drones for trafficking drugs, because it's not worth the money or the effort. Drones are an inefficient way to carry large volume of drugs into the U S yeah. You just, you don't need to use the drones because the borders are just wide open. You can just drive right in there. So nobody even cares. Uh, another organization cartel, which is known for kidnappings torture and murders is blamed for the spread of fentanyl . One of American's America's deadliest illicit drugs. So they take fentanyl and through clandestine clandestine laboratories, Mexican secretary of defense, Luis Sandoval blamed a cartel for the drone attack against police in April. So the person who used the drone was arrested. So they found the guy, the municipality containing the area where the attack occurred, become a strategic hub for the production of meth. The burst place of another cartel leader called El mentio powerful guy shortly after the attack, AP reported that somebody visited AGI Leah , offering a mass for residents walking through the streets with an image of Christ to symbolically reclaim the roadways where dozens of bodies, Sunday capitated had been left in recent months. The drone attack was one of many in the past few years during a briefing in Mexico, Sandovall said the attacks are concerning, but haven't been as effective as the cartels would like while they're working on it, thirties are concerned. The cartels could get ahold of more deli devices, and they worry that the cartels may step up efforts to smuggle drugs. Some say that they use this tactic to bring marijuana and other drugs into the USA. Well, that doesn't make any sense. Why would you bring marijuana? It is legal in most parts of the country or in many parts of the country, not most, but you would think that you'd want to sort of bring in high density, drugs, right? Stuff that you can really condense down, then cut up once it lands across the border, but that's not drug trafficking advice. We have drones here used by Mexican cartels, often carry explosives like these. You can see here, you know , they look like sort of improvise coconut bombs , experts in Mexico, in the USA, worry more militarized. Cartels will mean more casualties. Last month, government officials from both nations, they held talks in Mexico, Kamala Harris. Wasn't there though. The ministry said that two countries priorities include reducing arms narcotics trafficking and the like over the years, various strategies have been used against organized crime with no success. The so-called war on drugs has led to tens of thousands of deaths. Cartels grow stronger they're better able to fuel America's drug epidemic. Good reason why the drug war is so stupid. The epidemic kept taking more lives according for, from the us center for disease control and prevention, more than 81,000 people died from drug overdoses in the USA in the 12 month period ending in May, 2020. Okay. 81,000, the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in 12 months, they are killing our citizens. As we've never seen in the history of the country said malts , which is exactly right. Right. Th th th I mean, this is a , this is a , a big problem. There are a lot of kids and adults, everybody fentanyl, and the opioids they're indiscriminate. They just take everybody. So kind of the big kind of big problem. Now let's take a look at what's going on in Tucson. Very interesting story. So we're going to do a little bit more reading, but we've got some interesting, I want to show you this first, before we get there. This is some of the radar maps that we're going to be looking at. So we can take a look down here. We're going to look. You can see this sort of flight pattern circling around here, squiggling around Tucson. They're making these big loops to come back in. So this is what I'm talking about. We have a lot of people who are tracking this and they really can't figure out what is going on. So let's start with this story. It's over from the drive written by Brett Tingley says new details emerge on the highly modified drone in quotes that outran Tucson police helicopters, okay. Over Tucson, not other drone operators, helicopters, plural. Alright , last month war zone, which is one of these websites that sort of monitors this stuff reported on a bizarre drone encounter that occurred in the skies above Tucson. According to reports, February 9th, 10:30 PM at night helicopter belonging to us, customs and border patrol encountered what has been described by Kalos Dan marries , who interviewed an FBI agent assigned to the case as a highly modified drone, right? We've been talking a lot about UFO's and stuff on this channel to the government is having a report come out this month about UFO's. So maybe, maybe it's just these highly modified drones. Another helicopter operated by Tucson PD was called in to help track and identify the drone. But the drone was able to evade. Both of them remains unidentified shortly after the incident was disclosed. FBI released a statement asking from help from the public and the day since they first reported on this story, individuals have reached out with new information that adds further context source with direct knowledge of the incident told the war zone. They believe the drone was highly unlikely to be battery powered based on altitude, just in speed at which it flew. Right? So, yeah , it's, it's very fast and it's been flying for a long time. The source also stated, it seems as though the drone was equipped with an infrared camera based on how it was able to dynamically maneuver, including in relation to the helicopters, chasing it, despite the low level of ambient light at the time of the incident. So they really don't know what the capabilities are of this thing because they can't follow it. They also added that the only logical that it was looking towards DMS, which is the Davis Monthan air force base flight line, okay. Based on its location. So we've got this really fast drone that police helicopters can't keep up with. It can dynamically maneuver might have infrared capabilities, highly modified, very, very fast can fly very high and can travel for a very long distance. And it's taking a look at an air force base flying around, circling around that air force base. So the FBI is concerned about this as is border patrol. And for good reason, the same source also tells us that the unusual drone was first spotted near a complex of fuel tanks, just west of the runway at the U S air force Davis Mon Montana air force base. While within the classy airspace that surrounds the base classy airspace is defined as airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport surrounding those areas. The FAA states that for flights near airports and control space, drone operators must receive an airspace authorization prior to operation, but they didn't in a statement. The FBI wrote that the drone violated us code unsafe operation of manned aircraft, FBI called the drones actions illegal and extremely dangerous, right? Because what if you have a fighter pilot taking off at that time, and you got an unknown drone flying through the airspace and they're not communicating with each other big problem could lose , uh , you know, tens of millions of dollars aircraft and a human life and cause very significant ordeal, military militarily speaking, all right here is the statement from the FBI that they're seeking information on the alleged illegal drone activity that was taking place in Tucson. And they posted this not too long ago, May 20th FBI seeking information. We know February 9th, 10 30, over the next few hours, multiple law enforcement agencies work to locate the drones operator, but were unsuccessful. The drone appeared to launch from an area about five miles south of Tucson flew across Tucson and over Miranda , which is not close. I've been I've drive . I've driven there. I've been to court in both places. Many times, no one was injured. No other similar incidents have been reported in 2018. FAA made it illegal to do all this stuff. Anyone flying a drone prohibited by law and face federal charges. We got all that. So if you know anything, call the Arizona FBI at six (234) 661-9999 . So that is a error zona phone number, of course. So we'll continue on. I want to show you why Mike D actually wrote about the incident. So as I said, there's a, there's a, there's a form that sort of exists for a lot of these conversations where this stuff is discussed. There's a forum post here and we're going to read through, he said here, cause it's interesting. Now the description of the drones initial observed location, it would appear to match the location of a terminal owned by kinder Morgan and energy company. Some 40% of natural gas, or it could be them while drones are used in pipeline and take expections that kinder Morgan, the unique nature of what was and has been reported. So it doesn't think that it was them, right? It doesn't appear that they were doing any professional work. It feels like somebody was tinkering around with a drone at 10 30 at night. The drones initial observed location was also largely confirmed by a post from another individual on jet careers.com, which describes itself as an online community of airline corporate professional pilots, including air traffic controllers, dispatchers and mechanics. They posted there. Somebody named Mike D on February 10th described this says last night, there was one just east of us , about 1200 feet AGL cruising. I don't know what any of that means, but it sounds flight language. It passed about 30 feet away, co altitude with the police helicopter flying the opposite direction. Hilo made a 180 turn to give chase. The quad copter was described as approximately five feet long by about three feet wide. It was big, right? That's big with a single green flashing led light. It continued east into Katie MAs airspace and began orbiting the base over the parallel taxiway near the fighter jet ramp Tous and DM towers were unaware of it as was United FAA approach controllers. The operator apparently realized by this time that the drone was being followed, because it then proceeded Northwest at high speed and climbing with the Hilo and another law enforcement Hilo in trail copter began to climb and flew out of the tus area, about 50 miles to the Northwest of town, into the middle of the nowhere desert out by the mind west of KV VQ , it was last seen climbing through 14,000 feet and into the under cast where it disappeared. The hate halos remain in VMC, visual meteorological conditions. They couldn't go up to 14,000 feet and one hunt hunt around for about an hour to see if it would reappear descending, or if there were any vehicles driving through the middle of nowhere as either the operator or someone to potentially cover it, neither appeared you 90 informed their FAA chain of command about it. That's as far as I've heard so far, pretty miraculous little drone happening here that the government doesn't know what it is. The radar track of the Tucson police department helicopter that pursued the drone is detailed here. Below took off from Tucson international airport flew towards the edge of the airspace near Davis Montana . And it was followed the drone Northwest away from the city before circling back sources have confirmed. This was indeed a police helicopter sent to aid the CPB AAS 33 50 steel. That's what I'm talking about. So it sounds like this was actually the helicopter that was chasing this thing around. And if you look in here, if you, if you see this, I really can't zoom in here on this, but you'll notice it. It looks like this it's a squiggly. It looks like they were doing this the whole way down here for this whole section. They're just going loop, loopy loops around and around. And we go all the way through here is another image. The class C airspace surrounding the Tucson international airport and Davis Monthan air force base is all right here. And then we can see that they were right in that area, right? Sort of circling right above that. This is a, there's a precedent of drug cartels using drones and to bring munitions and drugs across the border. It's been speculated. This may have been the case in this incident, but Tucson is over 50 miles from the border, right? It's not close. In addition, it makes a little sense to why smugglers would have an interest in an energy storage Depot or an air force base. There's also plenty of experimental aircraft activity in the area, multiple airstrips at varying sizes and close proximity, Raytheon missiles, and defense also operates a facility south of Tucson, but this type of unscheduled flight close to a major Metro area, even over an air base and up to into flight levels where planes fly above where a normal helicopter can fly as far from typical, when it comes to experimental aircraft testing. In fact, it's outright illegal behavior, according to the FAS own rules, whatever the case may be. The drone reported proximity to both an international airport and an air force base is worrying. The drones reported altitude. And the fact that it outran to law enforcement helicopters is also concerning given the increasing threat drones pose to critical infrastructure and defense installations, we will continue to investigate the strains incident and we'll report back when we find out more. So I would definitely go follow that website if you're interested in anything more there, because it is a, it is a doozy, isn't it. So let's see if I can get some of these questions to work and if so, we will take them . Otherwise we'll just wrap up for the day. Let's see what we've got here. All right. So, all right. So here , here , my , my , uh , my screen here of course is still doing the squiggly circle. So we're going to reconvene and figure out what happened with that. So if anybody has any other solutions to , to what we're trying to do here, that would be great. Let me see. Faith is sending this one here. All right . So we're just going to , but up here folks, we'll figure it out tomorrow. So , uh, anyway, I apologize for that. It's extremely frustrating for me when our tech doesn't work, but what can you do about it? So we're going to be back here, same place, same time tomorrow doing the same show, hopefully with functional technology. I think the problem is when I put a bunch of videos in there, it sort of screws up the file and it just doesn't sync properly. So I may have to come up with a different solution for the videos, but , uh , we got through one segment today. Okay, we're going to get back in and work on the other ones. Thank you for your patience. And I apologize for wasting everybody's time. We're going to figure it out and be back tomorrow. So a couple quick reminders before we get up at an atta here, we have some links in the description for some other channels that are down below. If you want to follow us, we have a crypto channel. There is a non live channel where I put stuff that I don't record live, gives me a little bit more sort of flexibility. And I can work on my intro, nailing the intro and get it a little bit better at my production value. So go check that out if you want to do that. Otherwise, one last thing before we get out of here is that I am a criminal defense lawyer. That is really what we do a daily basis at our law firm in Arizona. And so if you happen to know anybody in Scottsdale that is facing a criminal charge, we would love the opportunity to help. We have a whole team of people, and we're all dedicated to helping good people facing criminal charges, to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so if there's anything we can do to help anybody facing a criminal charge, like a misdemeanor, a felony case, domestic violence, DUIs, disorderly conduct, anything and everything in between even traffic offenses, we have reckless driving and criminal speeding here in Arizona. It's kind of bizarre, but there's a lot that we can do to help. Many people think that it's kind of, you know , open and shut anytime you're charged with a crime. And that's really not the reality. There's a lot of work that we can do to help put people in good positions. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs a little bit of that help, we would love the opportunity to provide that. And so we offer free cases , evaluations, we offer payment plans, financial services that we can, we can work a lot of stuff out. So it's really worth your time. We want to make sure that you leave our office better than you found us. And we want to do everything we can to help you with that. So , uh , that is it from me. My friends we're gonna be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow. Hope to see you here. It's going to be at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM at mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast for that one, Florida man out there, everybody have a tremendous night's sleep rest. Well, I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .