Biden vs. Putin Meeting, Capitol Hill Riot FBI Co-Conspirators? Maxwell & Weinstein Case Updates

President Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and we review what came out from the meeting. Revolver.news, Tucker Carlson ask questions about the Federal Government’s involvement in the January 6th riots, and we review the angles. Harvey Weinstein is being extradited to Los Angeles to sit for a new trial and Ghislaine Maxwell attorneys complain about more sewage leaks.​

And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 President Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and we review the aftermath of the meeting.​
🔵 According to the AP, the Biden and Putin agreed to focus on cybersecurity, claiming that most of the attacks come from the United States.​
🔵 In strange exchange, Biden yells at CNN reporter saying that she might be in the wrong business.​
🔵 Joe Biden still peddles the lie that the Capitol Hill Rioters killed a police officer.​
🔵 In a departure from his campaign language, President Biden confirms he trusts Vladimir Putin.​
🔵 Revolver.news releases story on the Capitol Hill protests that sparked a firestorm across the internet.​
🔵 Senator Amy Klobuchar questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray about the attack on the Capitol without specifically asking if the government had any informants.​
🔵 What is difference between an un-indicted co-conspirator and a government informant?​
🔵 A review of the various groups often left out of the conversation regarding “Domestic Extremism.”​
🔵 Review of a 95-page government Senate Homeland Security report reveals there were massive failures in the intelligence community.​
🔵 Harvey Weinstein is set to be extradited to California to face a sexual assault trial.​
🔵 Already serving a 23-year sentence in New York, Weinstein is set to face new charges in California.​
🔵 Review of the Court docket and the pending case against Harvey Weinstein.​
🔵 Your questions from WatchingTheWatchers.Locals.com after each segment!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

💎 CRYPTO LATEST: https://youtu.be/rjs128IlTHA​

Channel List:​

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

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)​
📌 Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

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

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! ! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

WATCH ON RUMBLE:​

🟡 MAIN: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​
🟡 LIVE: https://rumble.com/vin0ep-biden-vs.-putin-meeti

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the 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 because we've got a lot to get into. We've got Joe Biden who just finished wrapping up here, a little a pal talk with Bladimir Putin, the president over from Russia. So we're going to go through the aftermath of this meeting. This is something that, you know, they were all sort of puffing up a little bit and then sort of downplaying a little bit talking about, oh, this is going to be a contentious high stakes summit. And then suddenly, oh, well, we weren't really expecting anything to come out of that anyway. So who cares? So we're going to go through that. We've got some interesting imagery. You know, the body language is something that everybody always takes a look at. And so we want to do that here as well. So we've got some stuff, but we're going to get to Biden versus Putin here shortly. Then we're going to talk about this new story. You may have been seeing this on Twitter or being kicked around. It was on Fox news last night. Tucker Carlson was talking about this news story from revolver.news. It's a very interesting website, very interesting article. As soon as you're done with this show, I would encourage you to go and check that out. Not right now, of course you're busy, but after the show go to revolver.news. And th they have a very, very long article that is breaking down sort of the allegation or the implication that may be the FBI. Maybe the government itself was more involved with January 6th to Capitol hill riots than anybody is letting on. This is something that we all sort of kind of hinted out and sort of tiptoed around a little bit, because you want to ask yourself where it's weird. We have like 18 different intelligence community agencies in this country and they all failed massively. And so we're going to talk about that as well. We've got some Capitol hill updates over from revolver.news dot, uh, revolver.news is the address there. Then we've got to check back in with our favorite sexual predators. We've got Harvey Weinstein is back in the news. He's being extradited from New York over to California. And of course, Colin Maxwell is back in the news. She's got some complaints. Her attorney filed a motion last night or a letter last night in federal court saying we are sick and tired of these conditions in Golin Maxwell's facility. And so we're going to go through that Bobby stern Haim, uh, and then the government responded back to Golin Maxwell. So we've got a lot to get into, as I mentioned, if you want to be a part of the show, I would love it. If you did that, by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is our separate website, it's a sort of a community that we're building that is building our own little information, super highway separate and apart from YouTube and these other big tech platforms. And so if you want to ask a question or leave a comment or LABA criticism, there's a live chat happening right there right now@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. You can get some other good stuff over there, like a free copy of my book, copy of the slides that we're about to go through. We've got some promo codes for some of my courses that are down here in the description link@gumroad.com slash Robert Mueller got some links for other channels that we're working on, including our law firm, which is where we really make the magic happen, representing good people facing criminal charges. So check out all the links down below, and then let's go ahead and get into the business of the date, pure business. According to the AP, they're saying that Biden and Putin, they kind of worked things out a little bit, not a lot of fanfare, but not a lot of, uh, you know, takeaways, nothing really kind of explosive happened, which is good and nothing too shocking kind of happened either. So kind of a big fat nothing burger. Well, so why are we talking about it? Cause it's kind of a big deal. And on this channel we've been hearing for a long time, how big a problem the relationship is with Russia? Right? We, we heard a lot of the criticism from the Democrats from Biden, from, uh, you know, basically everybody who was anti Donald Trump at one point or the other we even had. I remember Stephen Colbert, right called Putin's something, holster, something about genitals, something, you know, not appropriate for late night TV, even if it is late night and awful TV, but there's still, you know, shouldn't be saying stuff like that. But that was the implication that Donald Trump and Putin, they were sort of, you know, uh, you know, two peas in a pod singing kumbaya around the campfire together and Russia, lo and behold, th everybody's been telling us is this really horrendous geopolitical foe that the United States states needs to take? Seriously. We know that the Democrats, their allegation was back during the 2016 election that some Russian hacking took place or something that influenced the election. They were upset that the, some Russians, I guess, bought some Facebook ads somewhere. And so, you know, a lot of people said, well, is that, was that really consequential? Did it matter? At all? Doesn't matter. The narrative had already been written. Russia's responsible for all of our ills. They're probably responsible for Donald Trump member. Trump was supposed to be a Russian puppet and the list goes on and on. So today was going to be the big day that Joe Biden was going to go over there and set the record straight, tell these Russians, we are sick of your hacking. We are sick of you interfering with our elections. We're sick of all this other stuff. And so we want to see did that happen because we heard a lot of that language back during the campaign, a lot of criticisms towards Donald Trump based on his posture with Russia. So let's get some backstory here. Then we're going to take some look at some of these images. First and foremost, I want to show you what's going on here. Was that transition. Let's, uh, change that.

Speaker 2: 5:54

Shall we turn

Speaker 1: 5:57

Off? Let's do a, let's do a mix. Let's see how that one works. Yeah. That's what we want right there. That's good. That's better. All right. We like that. So pure business at the summit, no hugs, no brick bats. This was written over here by Jonathan Lameer and Vladimir is shank evolve. So we've got maybe some people over there, uh, at the Russian bureau, Russians, you know, AP bureau, whatever president Joe Biden and Russian president Vladimir Putin concluded their summit on Wednesday with an agreement to return to their nation, to return their nations ambassadors to their posts in Washington and Moscow. Right? So remember sort of how this works. If you have a little bit of a quarrel between countries, everybody goes, how dare you? We are taking our ambassadors home. And so they just pulled their ambassadors out of the, uh, the facilities there. They take them out of the ambassador posts. They bring them home and everybody goes, wow. Russia just recalled their ambassadors. Do United States just recalled their ambassadors from, from Russia. Oh my gosh, are we on the brink of world war three? No, it happens all the time. Then what ends up happening? Is they just so, and they say, well, we're going to have this really important summit and what are we going to do? We're just going to send the ambassadors back. No, we're just gonna send, so we're just bring them home. It's in the back, bring them home, send them back. That is foreign diplomacy. Well done. So they're going back now and they're going to plan to begin work, replacing the last remaining treaty between the two countries limiting nuclear weapons. So that's good. But the two leaders, they offered starkly different views on difficult simmering issues, including cyber and ransomware attacks originating from Russia. I forgot about the ransomware. Yeah, that was the other one. Apparently the Russians were responsible for the colonial pipeline hack as well. Putin insisted a knew that his country has nothing to do with such attacks despite us intelligence indicating otherwise Biden. Meanwhile said he had made clear to Putin that if Russia crossed certain red lines, including going after major American infrastructure, his administration would respond quote. And the consequences of that would be devastating. Okay. So that's coming out of Joe Biden's mouth. So sounds, you know, it sounds kind of Trumpy and really the consequences of that would be devastating. Didn't he say something about that? A little rocket man, Kim, Jong-un over there and now we're going to basically eliminate you or something like that. And everybody world war three, everybody flipped out about it. Here is Joe Biden, Joe Biden saying that he's going to, you know, basically devastate Russia. And it's just sort of, you know, mum, no hugs, no brick backs, pure business, according to them, the AP. Now a lot of this is very interesting because one of the things that you typically see out of these little charades is that you put both of the politicians up on the stage and you sort of watch how they interact with each other. So historically we put Trump up there. I think Trump was in Helsinki or something with Putin last time. And you know, and so I think there was a basketball that was exchanged or something, and everybody was very, very upset about that. They said that Donald Trump was a little bit too cordial, right? To use coal bears, you know, holster analogy, that's sort of where that was going. Everybody said that he was in Putin's back pocket and you know, so, so I can understand why perhaps, but the Biden administration may not want to actually go through that again and do a press conference where you put both of these puppets up there on stage and you just kind of watch how they interact with each other. So they didn't want to do that. I mean, to their credit, the whole thing's a joke, but you know, they, they sort of re did not do that. They did not want to do the press conference. And, you know, they might say because they didn't want to, um, you know, lend any credibility to Putin. They didn't want to share the stage with a, an evil person like that. Uh, in reality, I think it's because, you know, Putin sort of has a little bit of bigger to him and, uh, Joe Biden. Oh, he has it. He has a little bit of bigger. We're going to see some bigger today, but we're going to see whether it's good vigor or bad vigor. There's there is good vigor and there is not so good, bigger. We're going to see which one, uh, which one we've got there. So I also want to make note of this. It's very easy for one politician to start running their mouth when there's nobody else on the stage to stop them from running their mouth. So that's the other point of putting them both up on a stage is that one of them can say what? I didn't say that at all, because the whole theory here is you kind of cram them all into a room. So we've got, I'm going to show you the picture here in a second, but we've got, well, let's do it right now. Let's take a quick look at this picture. So, oh no, I didn't get it. Perfect. So here is the closeup of the two guys in the room now on an expanded view, you'll see that sort of two Biden's right. You've got Anthony Blinken over here. And then on Putin's left, you've got somebody sitting to his left. So, you know, four people in a room, then they break out, they're supposed to have this talk, you know? Okay. Uh, you know, stop hacking our stuff, stop interfering in our elections, blah, blah, blah. Right. And then they will come out now. And they're supposed to, after that sort of private cordial, candid off the record conversation, come out and give a press conference and say, Hey, this is what we talked about. You know, we were supposed, we were meeting behind closed doors. We wanted to make sure that we could be candid with each other. So there was sort of a safe space for us to talk and that the media wouldn't be there. But then after that, conversation's over, they're supposed to go in front of the press and actually tell the press about what they had or what the conversations were about. And then if there is an issue, if let's say Biden comes out and says, I warned Russia, that if they interfere again, that the consequences would be disastrous, then can say, actually that never came up. I understand he's concerned about that. But I expressed to the president, Russia does not believe we're responsible for this. And we actually believe that many of the U S cybersecurity hacks are emanating out of the United States, which is what he actually said. And so what w as we're going to see as we go into the story today, but the point is we didn't have that opportunity. We couldn't put them both up there and have them compare and contrast their statements. So there's no verification of this. So then Putin just takes the stage. He does his own press conference, and he talks about how amazing he is and how great Russia is. And then he says a bunch of stuff that who knows whether it happened or not. And then Biden does the same thing. He does his own press conference. He runs his mouth. And there's no ability to verify what happened behind closed doors, because nobody's back there. So it's very convenient. It's very convenient for these bureaucrats to do this and, and sort of, you know, get a lot of press about it. Hey, we're working through our issues. Meanwhile, nothing happens. All we're doing is just sort of sending our ambassadors back to where they were before. And that's a good thing though, because that means that they're back there. So the next time we get mad, we can pull them back again. We can take them back home, send them there, pull them back and around and around. We go, that is our government. Let's take a look at this picture. So this was the handshake heard around the world. Everybody's talking about this handshake. So, you know, this is like a Rorschach test. It kind of depends what side you're on. You know, how, how you sort of frame this out. We, it looks like we have a nice strong handshake there. I mean, I will grant you that we're going to zoom in and take a closer look at the handshake here in a minute, but you'll notice, you know, if you go on Twitter and you, and you go in the lefty lefty, Twitter verse, you're going to see that a lot of people are very happy with Joe Biden and how he approached this performance. We don't have the video here, but they're going to say that that Putin, uh, you know, wouldn't look them in the eyes, right. So you're gonna hear a lot of that talk. Uh, if you go to the right side of Twitter sphere, you're going to say that while Putin looks like he's just kind of laughing his off here. It's kind of like, are you kidding me? I'm like, who am I? Who am I shaking hands with? Right. And then we've got, you know, this sort of plastered on, uh, you know, smile for the cameras face over here. So you, you know, it's always fun to make fun of these types of people in these little things, because apparently a lot of people, you know, think that matters. Uh, let's take a look here. What are we already saw this picture? So here they are, uh, seated. There's an image going around that apparently Joe Biden had some, uh, uh, flashcards here. Some there there's a lot of, uh, sort of Twitter commentary about flashcards. We have over here was the actual meeting, right? So we've got these two, you know, people sitting across this aisle here, who knows if anything, meaningful took place. Here's a closer shot of that handshake. And I gotta, I gotta tell you this, you know, Joe Biden here, those look like he squeezed them pretty hard on that hand. I can see a little bit of a crease of Putin skin right here, and it's just sort of bunching up around the edge. So he's, you know, he's gripping hard there, little low. So we'll say that that's good vigor from Joe Biden. We've got good vigor and bad vigor. And so that's good energy America. All right. So Joe, Biden's, uh, shaking hands. Now, the big question that comes out of all of this, of course, if you're talking about American interest, and if you're saying, Hey, you know, we go through a lot of this stuff with the intent of having a positive result. Otherwise it's just kind of masturbatory, you know what I'm saying? We want to see some action. We want to see problem presented a dialectic engaged in, and then a solution proposed and acted upon. And my question always, anytime the government does anything, is, are we thinking that way? Are we thinking about solutions are, or are we maybe just, you know, making people feel good and trying to talk about doing the right thing and sort of know, focus on these broad, uh, very, very, very indefinable concepts like justice, or like, you know, social justice or environmental justice. And, and we're going to go, we're going to address the root causes of the immigration problem. Well, what does that mean? I don't know, fly down to Guatemala and tell them, don't come. I guess that's something. But the point here is, you know, are we actually seeing incremental progress? Are we moving towards something that has beneficial? Let's see what we've got here out of this summit. So the question is from the AP will Putin change his behavior Biden was asked at a post summit news conference. He said, he said, quote. I said, what will change their behavior is if the rest of the world reacts in a way that diminishes their standing in the world by inset, I'm not confident of anything. I'm just stating a fact. We're going to take a look at this clip here in a minute, because that got a little bit bad vigor. Now, both leaders have stirred escalating tensions since Biden took office suggested that while an enormous chasm between the two nation remains, the talks were constructive. Putin said there was no hostility during the three hours of talks, a session that wrapped up more quickly than expected Putin held forth for nearly an hour before international reporters. Right? So, so they finished that little talk that we just kind of went through here, this little thing, right? Three hours, a bunch of, you know, truck shuffling papers around then we've got this. Uh, so, uh, Putin goes out. He goes in front of people for an hour international reporters. He shows defiance at queries about Biden, pressing him on human rights. He also express respect for Biden as an experienced political leader. And we saw that historically. I mean, we saw that, I think even before this summit, what Russia has been doing, and I think China has been doing it as well, sort of scrambling jets. I've got a story in here that, that I think earlier this morning, the Russian military was sort of, you know, uh, sending some, some ships around the Hawaii area, causing the U S to scramble some F 30 fives or whatever they're flying. And it's all part of this game. Everybody's moving their pieces around a little bit. So now, now Putin is doing that in front of the media. Russia noted that Biden repeated wise advice. His mother gave him and spoke about his family messaging. The Putin said might not have been entirely relevant to their summit. So you see what he's doing there, right? He talks about this a lot. Putin is very good at this. So is China giant. We're going to see what they're doing here, but basically sort of Putin is doing that, uh, that nice insult, you know, he says, well, Joe, Biden's a, a, you know, a wise man. He was telling me about his mother. And he spoke about his family. Wasn't really related to international diplomacy or anything that Russia cares about, but that's good for Joe. At least he's telling us about that. And he says, uh, it demonstrated his moral values. So that's, so that's how he's talking. And then he says, you know, he's been a, a very well, what do you think about him? Well, I he's been a, he's certainly been a politician for a long time. I'll give you that. It's like when you're on a debate stage and you say, can you say nice about your opponent? And you say, yeah. I mean, he's like the best communist I've ever seen on the world. He's great. Yeah. I mean, if you're talking about somebody who wants to sort of, uh, you know, eliminate all of your rights and freedoms and liberties, he's excellent at that. He's, he's really good. One of the best, nobody better than that. So Putin is doing that same type of thing here with, uh, with Joe Biden and nobody knows any better though. He raised doubt about the U S Russia relationship. He said it could soon return to a measure of equilibrium. Putin said that Biden is someone he can work with. He said the meeting was actually very efficient. It was substantive. It was specific. It was aimed at achieving results. One of them was pushing back the frontiers of trust. It sounds pretty nice. President said that was an agreement between the leaders to return their ambassadors to their respective postings, which is just excellent. So pack up your bags, boys. You're going back. Both countries had pulled back their top envoys as relations chilled. So Russia's ambassador to the U S uh, and Tali Antonov was recalled from Washington about three months after Biden called Putin a killer. Okay. So this is, this is the language that now we're sort of concerned about a little bit. Uh, he called Putin a killer at one point, and Russia was so mad about it that they said, Hey, we're taking our ambassador home now, how do you think about that? So now you ask ambassador to Russia, John Sullivan, he left Musk out two months ago. So Russia pulled theirs first. It sounds like so, so Biden starts it. He calls it a killer, uh, Putin, a killer, a Moscow takes their ball home first, then S turns around and takes their ball home first. And then it rusts, uh, Russia suggested he returned to Washington. Putin said the ambassadors were expected to return their posts in the coming days. So that's good news. The meeting in a book line room had a somewhat awkward beginning. Both men appeared to avoid looking directly at each other during a brief and chaotic photo opportunity before a scrum of jostling reporters. Now this came up Biden nodded nodded. When a reporter asked if Putin could be trusted, oh, that's weird. Cause that doesn't really jive with this killer concept. So Putin is a killer. How do you trust the guy? So a reporter asked him if he could be trusted by nods, but the white house quickly sent out a tweet insisting that the president was quote very clearly not responding to any one question, but nodding in acknowledgement to the press generally. So were so, you know, we, uh, when that, when that, when you see stuff like that, there's a word for that. It's called cope, cope by like coping, you see, you can sort of like make that a, now I see that as cope, right? This is something that, uh, you know, uh, people on the internet site and I happened to be on the internet. So I say it, you know, this, this is very clearly cope, right? By says somebody's reporter, Hey, Mr. Biden, do you trust? Put him here? Yeah. White house there, Twitter Twitter team is on high alert. They're just crap. Boom, right? Fire that out because they gotta be on a high alert, red alert, not because of anything, uh, you know, that Russia is doing, but because Joe Biden is out there speaking now. So let's take a look now at, uh, we, we talked about some good vigor, you know, that the handshake, and now let's talk about, you know, not so not so good vigor here from Joe Biden. Now the New York post is reporting this. It says that Biden blows up at a news conference. After the Putin meeting, this was published today by Steve Nelson, Bruce Golden on the defensive and appearing on edge about after seeding public relations, advantage to Russia and Putin at their historic summit. I don't know what was historic about it, but Biden lashed out at the American press at the end of a short 33 minute briefing. So he tried to wrap up his Q and a after fielding questions from just six journalists. So a very big, you know, important events, something that, that the media has been saying is historic. We take six questions from six journalist, okay. During an appearance lasted 30 minutes. About half the time that Putin spent during his own news conference, they were in Geneva, Switzerland. And we're going to hear from Biden, but let's just read through the transcript. First and foremost, he says, what I said was, and let's get this straight. I said, what will change their behavior is if the rest of the world reacted to them and they diminish their standing in the world, he said, angrily, I'm not confident in anything. I'm just stating facts by interrupted again. When Collins followed up by noting how Putin had denied any involvement in cyber attacks against the us and downplayed Russia's human rights violations, then asked Biden how their meeting would be considered constructive by and says, if you don't understand that you're in the wrong business. Okay? So we're going to watch that clip here in a second. Now, before taking any questions by an acknowledged that the staff had told them ahead of time, which reporters would get a crack. He said as usual folks that gave me a list of people I'm going to call on why is that right? It's because they have it all prepped out for him. Speaking to reporters before air force one, a few minutes later by an apologized for having been short with Collins, right? So he's apologizing back to CNN. Now this was posted over here by Curtis Houk says, why are you so confident Peters? Well, Putin will change his behavior. Mr. President, I'm not confident I'm gonna change behavior. What the hell? What the hell do you do all the time? I'm so confident. Here's Joe Biden.

Speaker 3: 22:49

It's like, how could it he'll change his behavior, Mr. President? I said, what changed her behavior? The rest of the world, relaxed. I'm not coughing. I'm just stating the fact that given his past behavior has not changed. And in that press conference, after sitting down with you for several hours, he denied any involvement in cyber attacks. He downplayed human rights, abuses and refused to say, uh, lucky to have all these names. So how does that account to a constructive meeting as prison praying? You don't understand that.

Speaker 1: 23:35

Oh, yikes. So, you know, that's bad. That's bad vigor there from, uh, from Joe Biden. He, he, he's not, that's not his stick. Right? The, the, the anger with the press, that's a Trump stick. Joe Biden is that confused old man that everybody just goes up. It's just Joe. You know, he just doesn't know what he's doing anymore. So we're just going to let him just kind of, you know, walk around when you have that sort of outburst, it kind of reminds you of somebody maybe having, you know, we'll just leave it at that. So Joe Biden, you know, uh, doesn't, doesn't look particularly good there, humbly speaking, but the bigger point on this whole thing is he didn't answer the question, which happened to be a pretty good question. Kind of the only good question that we've heard recently for many journalists anywhere happened to come from CNN. Hey, you know, you came out here and said, blah, blah, blah, all that garbage. But what about the idea that when we asked Putin some questions, he basically is denying everything he's saying, Nope, it's all the U S oh, your fault. Biden's just gets mad about it because she has a great point. What's he going to say to that? Well, uh, what I you're right. Uh, I, a bunch of garbage before the election, and now I have to eat. I have to eat that because I'm not acting on what I said about what I spoke about previously. I was making a bunch of claims about Putin. And now when it's time to put my money where my mouth is, I kind of fall don't I? So that's why he's angry. And it makes sense. You should be angry. Cause it's a great question. Now let's carry on. He says also during the news conference Biden, mis-characterized the death of Capitol police officer Brian sickening. Remember him? We talked a lot about this case, this he clashed with supporters back during the January six riots. And when asked about to comment on that with Putin was likening, federal prosecution to scores of rioters, to his own crackdown Biden called it a ridiculous comparison, right? So we've seen this happen. Uh, previously we saw this happen with, uh, uh, Anthony Blinken and the Chinese delegation. Remember they came, I think that was over somewhere in, uh, near, near Hawaii, that side of the world. And they came and blinking, comes out there and he says, Hey, China, we're very mad at you. We don't like what you're doing with the weekers. We don't like what you're doing with censorship. We don't like what you're doing with all of these things in the world. And so on and so forth. And the Chinese consulate just turned around and said, excuse me, what did you just say to me? You're, you're saying that we've got issues here in our country. How about you slave owning Americans that have BLM and racial protests burning down half your cities. Maybe you should think about yourself before you start criticizing us. Right? And so we've seen this happen now, a is doing the same thing. He's saying, if you're going to be criticizing us about, you know, federal, federal prosecution of rioters, or if you're going to be mad at us about, uh, Alexi Navalny, sort of arresting our political prosecutions, or you're going to come criticize Russia for anything like that, we're just going to do exactly what China did. We're going to turn it right back around on you and cram it down your throats. So how about you deal with your humanitarian problems before you come into our house and right. It's a pretty good point. I think it's a pretty good point. It's one thing for literally criminals to break through a cordon and go to the Capitol, kill a police officer, and be held accountable than it is for people objecting and marching on the Capitol saying you're not allowing me to speak freely. You're not allowing me to do ABC or D so, so when, when I said it was a good point, I wasn't sort of endorsing, uh, Putin's, uh, ideology here. I'm saying what he's doing is, is a, is a smart, uh, negotiation strategy, right? He's saying don't come into our house and throw stones because you're living in a glass house yourself, right. Not a good idea. So it it's sort of this moral superiority thing that we see coming from the Democrats a lot, right. That, you know, they're going to come down there and wag their faith, their fingers down our noses. Talk about how awful we are. And they're going to go around to the rest of the world and do the same thing to them. Well, many Americans here are going to just accept that. Just say, yeah, I guess I am a racist. I guess I am somebody who's just an awful person. And I'll just go ahead and accept your pejorative framing of me as an individual, which, uh, you know, these other countries just aren't going to do, right? And there, there's a huge portion of Americans, myself included you as well. That's why you're on the show watching this channel, that we're just not gonna accept that framing, right? We just say, Nope, that's you. If you want to live your life, thinking that everything's a racist, oppressive nation, you're welcome to do that, but we're not going to live that way. And neither are these other countries. China is not going to stand for it. Russia is not going to stand for it. The, the CRT people, the people who are, you know, trying to engage in political prosecutions that want to use this stuff to their political advantage. Uh, they may be able to get away with that here, but these other countries are not going to allow it to happen as we are seeing. So when Putin then makes that, that, uh, comparison now Biden comes out and rightfully so right there they are. They're not the same thing he says, it's, it's, you know, it's not the same thing to compare both. Uh, Biden also said he told Putin that meeting that certain critical infrastructure should be off limits to attack period, by cyber. And other means talking about critical infrastructure and other things. He pointed out to him, we have significant cyber capability and he says, he knows it. He doesn't know exactly what it is, but it's significant if in fact they violate the basic norms, we will respond cyber. He knows in a cyber way, whatever that means. So, you know, the language is kind of escalating a little bit, right? He's talking about devastating consequences and you know, we're going to respond and all of that. But then the big thing that stuck out here is that he is saying that Trump supporters, I believe murdered a police officer in the Capitol, which when I listened to this, I was thinking about that didn't happen though. I mean, I remember that you put that in the, uh, the impeachment articles against former president, Donald Trump. I remember that everybody in the media was screaming about this. You guys had a, uh, uh, a lot, a lot of Democrats who were really milking his death for their own political gain. I thought it was reprehensible and sort of a disservice to him and his family and his memory, but they did it anyways because it served them ideologically speaking. And now by an of course, because he doesn't know, he doesn't know much about other than what he's sort of being told. He's just sort of parrots, whatever, you know, the last hoax was, he was talking about the Charlottesville hoax for a long time to find people hoax, you know, all of these sort of things that are just not accurate. He just keeps spouting off because he can't really remember. I think, uh, anything differently here is Joe Biden. Now talking about Trump supporters, you know, murdering a police officer, which of course didn't happen here. He is

Speaker 3: 29:42

Mr. President, when president Putin was questioned today about human rights. He said, the reason why he's cracking down on opposition leaders is because he doesn't want something like January six to happen in Russia. And he also said he doesn't want to see groups formed like black lives matter. What's your response to that? Police. My response is kind of what I communicated that I think that's a, uh, that's ridiculous comparison. It's one thing for literally criminals to break through cordon, go into the Capitol, kill a police officer,

Speaker 4: 30:17

Ronald other accountable. And it

Speaker 3: 30:18

Is for people objecting, marching on the Capitol. When saying you are not allowing me to speak freely, you are not allowing me to do a, B, C or D. And so they're very different criteria, Mr. President,

Speaker 1: 30:32

Not a bad answer, right? I mean, that was a, that was a fairly good answer. I think that what's happening in Russia is not quite the same as what's happening with BLM. And especially if you sort of, I think, you know, segment BLM into different categories, you know, the, the let's, let's be generous here and look at it in a light most favorable to BLM. Let's say that we did separate them into different buckets. You have the people who are okay, torching down, used car lots and Wendy's, and then you have the people who want some justice reform. And I think that might be reasonable, right? We sort of separate them out and I might disagree with how they want justice reform. I might disagree with all seven of their statements that are on their website, which are all politically based, not justice reform based. I think there's only one statement of their seven of their BLM demands that actually has anything to do with justice reform. But my point is really the same, right? Political organizations are kind of not the same thing at what Russia as Russians government is doing, taking a Alexei Navalny and some other people who would, you know, in a democratic country be considered legitimate opposition and sorta rounding them up and throwing them in horrendous prison conditions. So the Biden's right, it's not quite the same thing, but he's also wrong that the Trump people killed a police officer. Okay. We know one officer, if I recall correctly, died from suicide. We also know sick. Nick died of natural causes, took like three months to get that report. Finally, they milked that one to death until that was no longer possible for them to do. And then the actual news came out and then the other people who died, Ashley Babbitt was shot and killed by a police officers. Don't still don't know who did that one. And we've also got other people who died essentially from natural causes or, or stress-related injuries based on their involvement, their right hearts gave out, or they had complications as a result of the physical activity. So, uh, just wrong on that, just absolutely wrong can grant him that. Now that being said, he didn't look particularly, you know, vigorous up there. So maybe he was saving that for that blowout with a CNN reporter. I mentioned earlier at the start of the show that Russia was kind of poking, poking Biden, poking us defense officials before this all started the U S Navy. We see this was published earlier today, published nine hours ago as of this morning that the Navy conducts massive drills in the Pacific right before Biden Putin meeting. Okay. We've been seeing this Russian Navy, they've been conducting exercises 300 to 500 miles west of Hawaii, prompting the U S on Sunday to scramble F 20 twos, three of them F 30 fives. I think the F 35, right? Isn't that, that program that we spent like a trillion dollars at, and it doesn't even have an airplane yet. CBS news citing us. Defense officials reported on Tuesday. Russian bombers never entered the air defense zone report said Russian officials called this exercise, the largest in the Pacific, since the cold war. Do you think it's any coincidence that they're doing it right now? Us Pacific fleet defense department did not immediately respond at two hours after the email inquiry. The exercise has come as a president and Putin plan to meet on Wednesday. Russian defense ministry said that the drills involved up to 20 surface combatants, submarines and support vessels, Russian news agencies reporting this list goes on. It was happening outside of Honolulu. The paper said a Russian surveillance ship last month, the lady U S missile defense off of coal white paper said the ship. The ship was loitering and international waters for several days. So the Chinese are doing this. We talked about this here on the channel, right? There's the tongue, a scraped depression down there over, I think, near The Bahamas where they do the underwater sub testing, the Navy area area 51 as they call it. And the Chinese have these souped up, uh, fishing vessels that are filled with all sorts of, you know, surveillance equipment on there, just floating around up there. So what we're seeing, what the world thinks of the posture here of the United States, and you can be the judge of what you think of it. So let's take a look at what Joel Polak over at Breitbart is saying. He sums this up quite nicely. He says that Joe Biden got nothing in Geneva and about Vladimir Putin got everything. He said, Biden gave Putin almost everything. He could, everything he could have wanted. There, there Geneva summit said, he's the elevated Putin above other leaders, including American allies failed to force any real concessions on Russian policy. He says the degree to which the summit was a disaster. Well, it became evident when Putin emerged from his press conference alone with the forum all to himself, he got to have an hour to just go out there and clear the record in front of everybody. Biden was not there to challenge him on anything, which way you just kind of just let him do whatever he wanted. So he's been running his mouth saying he's going to go, you know, be tough guy with Putin. And then doesn't, didn't even stand on the stage next to him. Biden team says, Joel did not want to appear with Putin at a joint press conference after the meeting, both because Biden would look frail next to. And because the media dogma that president Trump had somehow done something terrible by behaving cordially when appearing alongside Putin in Helsinki, Finland in 2018, right? So Trump took the stage Biden didn't when he was up there, he fielded softball questions from Russian news agencies, but he also welcomed hostile questions from the U S media. In fact, Putin, an enemy of press freedom was more polite than Biden would be, right? Cause we saw, we didn't see an outbursts from there, from Putin over there. And he took far tougher questions according to Joel, the opportunity to defend his own position and to attack the United States without fear of by Biden, who should have been standing. There was a massive gift to the Russian president. He used the old Soviet tactic of pointing to American problems as a way of deflecting from questions about human rights and political opposition, right? Which we already talked about this, the Chinese do this. Every everybody else does it. They're using, you know, many Americans are using this sort of moral superiority as a sword, right. To go into other countries or to go into other classrooms and say, you're a bad person, unless you believe like us. And so when we go and try to do that, they just say, well, we're just gonna use your, your own standards against you. And it's, it's a good argument. So maybe the better argument should be, maybe we shouldn't be sort of, you know, preening moral authoritarians all the time and talk about things that maybe don't involve sort of touchy, feely, minutiae. Just one man's thought on that he did. So without contradiction, he cited black lives matter movements. As an example of human rights abuses, right. He knew American is that he knew no American journalists would object because how can they object? They can't they go, oh yeah, that we've been saying that for a long time. It's a good point. There Putin. You're right. We also had our country. So here it is. We'll finish this up. We've got reporters, press the two leaders separately to reveal what commitments, if any, what commitments, if any Putin had made to change Russ's behavior button up there weren't any Putin walks away from Geneva with no significant response to cyber attacks. Okay. No, nothing with the nor to stream pipeline, the Nord stream two pipeline, which Trump had opposed. Okay. So now Russians, they're going to, they're going to build their own pipeline. So in the United States, we don't get a pipeline Keystone. No, no, it doesn't happen here because we have environmental problems. We want to save the planet. Donald Trump though, opposed the Russians doing the same thing. They want this nor to this Nord stream two pipeline to be built. He said, no, we're not gonna, we're not gonna back that because what that's going to do is it's going, it's the environment, whatever what that's going to do is give Russia a very nice pipeline of oil that they're going to need, which is going to make them less dependent on external resources, which makes them a little bit more independent themselves and makes them a little bit more of a threat to the rest of the world because they don't have to engage with the rest of the world to get a very vital, necessary resource. So Trump thinks about, you know, about it strategically. I really don't know what Biden is doing. Sort of, you know, backtracking on that. So now they get to build a pipeline in the United States. We don't get one. It's kind of a twofer, double loss for the United States. Vis-a-vis the Russians here because now you've got, well, if you're a liberal, now you've got a pipeline that's being built at in, in your philosophy is going to wreck the planet. But you also have a less stable geopolitical environment because now Russia can isolate itself a little bit more knowing that one of its vital resources is being provided for through the pipeline that Biden just approved. What else? We have no real pushback against his aggression in the Ukraine. Notably Biden met with Putin before meeting with the Ukrainian president and the meeting is to be announced the response of the American media echoed Biden's posture of appeasement CNN, which had raised the alarm when Trump and Putin appeared to get along together, gushed, they gushed about Biden's optimistic tone at the sun summit and how wonderful it was that Biden and Putin seemed to be having a friendly conversation. During the 2020 campaign Biden claimed that Trump was unwilling to take on Putin, Putin leaves, Geneva, winter, Joe Biden got nothing. All right. So that is over from Breitbart thought. It was a very nice summation of kind of what I am sort of feeling right now. So I wanted to share that with you. Let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. All right. We've got first in the house, we've got speech unleashed says, I think Putin I've been all for going against Biden on the same stage. And by knew it, that's why they didn't want them on the stage together. I agree with you, right? It's just, it's sort of, um, probably the right move, candidly. You know, if you're, you know, I would have liked to have seen them up there together because Joe Biden has been talking a big, big game. I mean, all the Democrats have been talking a big game for a long time, 2016, Russian interference. We, we, we saw there was hints of that the last, uh, election. And this was the moment to call them out. You many people on the left basically say that the Russian help Donald Trump steal the election from Hillary Clinton, that the catastrophe of the Trump presidency for the, for the last four years was all a direct result. Literally there are people who think this of Russian interference with the election. This was the moment. This was the big day for Joe Biden to go in there and get some repercussions for what they did to this country. And he didn't do that. Didn't even take the stage, oh, we talked for a few hours behind closed doors, and then I'm gonna scream at a reporter for asking me a legitimate question about whether he holds, held him accountable or not. As he said he was going to do. All right, we've got, want to know, says Biden did say that criminals broke into the Capitol and killed a police officer. And BLM is about free speech. And that's why Putin is putting down his insurgence to the world. Press. I'm surprised he didn't blame Trump too. You know, I was gonna take this, this, uh, uh, image. There's a clip. There's an image of Joe Biden looking at a, uh, cue card, right? His, his flashcards. And there's a whole statement on one of the videos. I think OAN did a zoom in, this is a telescopic photo zoom-in lens. And the whole thing's about just ripping on Trump. I'm like, you can't remember that there, Joe. Alright. We got Sharon says, I'm sorry, but I don't believe a syllable of this AP story crediting biding with taking a firm stance against Putin. But on the other hand, if Biden is in China's pocket and Russia and China arrivals makes me wonder CUI bono who benefits? It's a good question. Yeah. It's a good question. You know, I look, if I had to guess, I would say China is really the, the, the, the master puppeteer of a lot of things happening around the world right now. If I had to guess we've got next, we've got leafy bug is in the house. He says, when are we going to concede that? What is being done to Biden is elder abuse. How can the U S lecture Russia about its human rights abuses when it's forcing a senile old man to be president? It's a good question. You know, when, when Joe Biden was going after that CNN reporter, I was like, whoa, okay, we're going to get a little bit of a, you know, intensity out of him. Let's see what he's got to say. Then he sort of mercury around in front of everybody. And then he opened his mouth and then it's like, Ugh, like a mumbled Jarbell of marbles were falling out of his mouth and everybody's sitting there just waiting for him to go, oh, what's he going to say, what's going to happen next? And he was able to muster up enough of, of, of, you know, a sentence or two. Then he passed it back off to the reporter and she asks a follow up question. That's really substantive. That actually matters. And he just kind of says, if you don't, if you don't know better, you're in the wrong industry, which is, which is really insulting. I mean, I think that might be a little bit sexist. I dunno, what, what, uh, ethnicity that woman might've been, but she might want to look into that sounds like a, you know, uh, some white supremacy going on there we got eat on test is in the house, says these press people. They don't know what they're talking about. They're all in the wrong business. These lying dog face pony, soldier, jurors, president Joe Biden. Yeah. I mean, you know, I have no love for the press. Maybe, maybe Joseph, we've got Jeremy what's up, Jeremy. Haven't seen you in a bit. He says there is no contest for professionalism and presence and the ability to speak in with international leaders when comparing the 2 45 and the 46 presidents. Oh yeah. It's a good one. Jeremy. I liked that. We've got Sharon Quinny says the only difference between the January six political prisoners and Putin's rivals is in the living conditions, afforded the prisoners. Another good comment. Thank you, Sharon. And we've gotten a dark over here. It says, I don't know if you saw this, but I shared a video to the community cage, a page where a cop pushes a man off the top of a tall staircase during the capital chaos. And that man later died. But all we are hearing is everyone died naturally. What else? Don't we know? Wow. So we're talking about this next in the dark. We are going deep into Capitol hill. Oh, I'm not sure how deep it is, but, uh, but I'm going to tell you where to go deep. Uh, that is the revolver.news story. Yeah. I did not see this video. I have not seen that, but I didn't realize that that person had actually died. Is that oh, Ms. Ms. Faith put the video here. Here's the video. I don't think there's any audio. Oh my goodness. That guy die. Wow. Okay. So yeah, he kind of did get pushed off there. I have not seen that. No, I did not realize that that happened. Um, and I didn't know that that guy might've died. Wow. Interesting. The point is, yeah. Where there's a lot, we don't know about what happened at the Capitol and we're going to take a look. We've got next up. We've got no doubt as in the house, as the rough Russian pipeline, transports oil from Russia to Europe provides them a market for their oil. Okay. So, so it's, it's the opposite way. So thank you for correcting me on that. So going to go from Russia out while de-stabilizing oil producers in Russia. So strategically that is poor. If conflict between Europe and Russia erupts, as they will be dependent on Russia for their part of their oil supply. Okay. So cool. So that's awesome, which I love this show. So I got corrected on that. So I was saying that maybe, you know, the Russians are going to be importing oil. No, it sounds like they're going to export oil, which might mean that the, that the, the, the basis for Trump opposing the original pipeline would have been more something like maybe the U S wants to be the supplier of the oil to the Russians. And they don't want Europe to be sort of held hostage to their oil supply from the Russians that gives the Russians a little bit more leverage over Europe than the United States, which may want to be the sole provider of that vital resource. So. Excellent. That was awesome. Thank you. No doubt. Very much. Appreciate that. And our last one in the house, we've got, oh, Sox 71 says, Hey, rod, big fan. So I'm very disappointed with Mr. Biden right now, not for the current reasons or issues, but more on a personal level. You know, the reason is when Biden claimed he is now the president, I made a choice to start learning the Chinese language. Now Mr. Biden has placed us in another bad place with the Russians. So now I don't know what language I should learn first. Any ideas would be helpful. It's a good question. You know, I would probably pick the language I'm not real familiar with with either of them, but I would pick the language that has more pronouns because you're going to want one that gives you a lot of pronoun versatility, because we have, I think like a hundred of them now, I don't really know what the total limit is, but in the United States, you know, we speak English here. We have like, you know, of course he, her, you know, they, them, there's all those, but I think we also have like Zs and deserves and, and those are complicated. And there's also, I think some like animal, um, pronouns, like, you know, like cat ish pronouns. And it's, it's very complicated. I really don't know the extent of where this is going to go. So if you're gonna be picking a language, you know, I would pick one that has a lot of expanse expandability for all the various pronouns that we're going to need to be using in modern America for the foreseeable future. So good luck. Oh, sock. Let me know what you decide. Maybe I'll learn that one myself. All right. So thank you for all of those questions. We are going to move on now to our next segment of the show. All of those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. All right. And so in our next segment, we're going back into January six, January 6th, the day of the Capitol hill riots. We've spent a lot of time talking about these cases. We were broadcasting on that very day, doing a minute by minute analysis of what was happening. And we've been following the cases along throughout the entirety of the prosecution. We've talked about the government sort of asking for continuances, not agreeing to let certain people out of custody. We've talked about the inability to sort of deal with a big bubble of cases that are working their way through three, four or 500 new cases seem to be something that broke the prosecution's office out there at the U S attorney's office. And so a lot of criticisms about how this has all been unfolding in front of us, but I've always had a lot of questions about how did this all happen in the first place. And I've been pretty consistent here on this channel, asking for investigations. I want to know who was responsible from top to bottom because in this country, we have a lot of people who are responsible for making sure that we're safe. We've got, I think, 18 different intelligence community agencies that we're going to be looking at. And we've got DC, Metro police, the Capitol hill police, and the list goes on national guard was there and there was a catastrophic failure. And so in my mind, you know, yes, it is easy for me, somebody who has a lot of criticisms for the government in general, recognizing that it's a massive ineffective bureaucracy that doesn't do much. It's easy for me to say, well, I guess they all just failed, right? They all just failed. Every single one of them from the FBI all the way down through the Sergeant of arms for both houses, we have every single entity just failed. And the center of our government in the United States was commandeered by, uh, you know, three or 400 or a thousand or however many people. It doesn't matter. The point is, is it happened? How did that happen? If we spend billions of dollars every year to, uh, prop up every one of these agencies, they're supposed to be intelligent, they're supposed to be encouraging and protecting the country in particular, the Capitol building and they failed dramatically. So what happened then? I want to know who's responsible for it, right? How do we have this domino effect, a sequence of catastrophic failures to such a degree that something like this can happen seems pretty, pretty amazing to me. So I always had questions about this. Did the government, you know, were they sort of involved or did somebody sort of ask, you know, have a stand down order and I know it's conspiratorial, but it is something that sort of[inaudible], it might, might have a little bit of smoke there, right? Maybe there are some people I've known this in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer who are a part of law enforcement who kind of bend the rules a little bit, right. They sort of maneuver things around the edges. And so I want to share this story with you from revolver, where they're talking about another situation and comparing it to this case where something like that may have happened, where the FBI, where law enforcement, where anybody who was investigating a lot of these militia groups, the people that the media and that the government is claiming is responsible for the January six riots. What if the government was sort of, you know, kind of in on it, what if they were, uh, acting as informants or co-conspirators and they were encouraging some of this activity to take place. Wouldn't that be a big stink and problem? It certainly would. Now revolver has done a lot of the heavy lifting on this. I want to show you their article. We are not going to be able to go through this in its entirety. It is a long one, and they're going to go through a lot of it in very, very, very intensive depth. I would encourage you to go read thisCase@revolver.news, it's right on their homepage. So go check it out. This was published June 14th, Tucker talked about it yesterday, unindicted co-conspirators in the one six cases raised disturbing questions of federal for knowledge, right? And we're going to go through this, uh, you know, as, as topically as we can. And it starts off, it says of all the questions asked of all the words spoken of all the ink spilled and the so-called capital seed, none hold the key to the entire event. Quite like what Senator Amy Klobuchar asked of Christopher Wray. Okay. Amy Klobuchar is this woman we've seen her before. She was a big, you know, highly involved in, in the last election. I think she was even running for the last election in the primaries. Got kind of far in fact, and she's been involved, right? She's a Democrat from Minnesota. She asked the Trump appointed FBI director, did the federal government infiltrate any of the so-called militia organizations claimed to be responsible for planning and executing the siege. Okay. And it's a, it's a pretty important question because we've seen historically, and we've covered it on this channel. We're going to talk about it very briefly here. Uh, another case, very similar to this, where there was a group of, of people who were going to allegedly go in, you know, uh, commit a kidnapping of the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer big Gretsch Rona. And what happened was it turns out there were like of the 14 people who were all involved in that little scheme, like five of them were FBI informants. They were, they were part of the government. And some of these people were kind of really encouraging the criminality. And what revolver is saying, the big takeaway from this entire article is that the government is not being honest about who those people are. They're putting them in reports, not as informants, not as undercover agents, not as CIS, you know, confidential informants, they're calling them individuals, just other people that are making it into these reports that are part of these investigations that are unindicted co-conspirators, but are in fact more than that. And so a lot of the response to this article has been like, well, uh, w w while they're there, it's not possible for the government to charge an FBI format because they're not actually co-conspirators. So we're kind of missing the mark here a little bit. So we've got, we've got some work to do on this article to sort of dissect it a little bit. Cause there's a lot of stuff that's being said about it that I think is sort of missing the mark. Let's start off by going back to the beginning, here is Amy Klobuchar. Now this is back taking place on March 2nd. She's asking FBI director, Christopher Ray, about whether or not he knows that there was anything taking place or whether there were any, uh, undercover informants from the government that had infiltrated the militias. But I actually oversold that a little bit. She's not asking that she sort of opining, she's saying like, wouldn't it be nice if we did have informants in there and then Christopher Ray goes, gosh, it would be, and you're going to hear him, right. He's just a, he's an,[inaudible] just golly, gee shucks guy. He says, you know, you're darn tootin. What listened to him? You're going to hear him say this, our FBI director, your darn toot. And we're going to work hard out there, Amy, and solve American problems. So we've got this guy here, uh, nobody's actually answering the question. She says it would be nice if we had undercover informants in there. Not do we. And if so, how many? And if so, why did they fail to notify law enforcement about this pending attack? And why didn't you do anything to stop it? Right? No, follow-ups like that. It's just two people who are on same side who want to make a political statement commiserating with one another here. And they

Speaker 5: 53:29

Show up. We now know in this complaint with encrypted to eight Chinese radios in military gear, um, that, um, even less, there must be moments where you think if we would have known, uh, if we could have, uh, infiltrated this group or have found out what they were doing and that you have those moments. Absolutely. I will tell you, Senator, uh, and this is, this is something I feel passionately about, uh, that anytime there's an attack, our standard at the FBI is we aim to bat a thousand, right? And we aim to, with word every attack that that's out there. So anytime there's an attack, especially one, that's this horrific, that strikes right at the heart of our system of government, right at the time of transfer of power is being discussed. You can be darn tootin that we are focused very, very hard on how can we get better sources, better information, better analysis, so that we can make sure that something like what happened on January.

Speaker 1: 54:26

All right. So it's, that doesn't happen again. Got it. Right. So, uh, he doesn't really answer anything there. You know, she kind of allows him to just like revolve her says weasel his way out of answering the question directly, clobber char doesn't the courtesy of not asking him anything, Clover chart instead asks the director. If he wishes he had infiltrated, right. Rather than digital revolver news, they say they want to address it directly. And so they've got these questions that we're going to ask, and I want to run through these briefly in the year leading up to one six and during one six itself, to what extent or the three primary militia groups and recall these names. We talked about a lot of these here, oath, keepers, proud boys, and the three percenters. Okay. We're going to revisit those. They're saying that the FBI, the DOJ, the Pentagon network news, they've labeled the most responsible, how much of those agencies were infiltrated by the federal government and, or had informants within there. Okay. How many? I would love to know that we're going to break that down. Number two, exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous seat and what roles did they play merely passive informants, or were they active instigators? There's some very interesting YouTube videos floating around, making an argument that it is the latter. Finally, of all the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the documents, how many work is confidential informants or as an undercover operative for the federal government, FBI army counter-intelligence, et cetera. So very good questions. Very good questions. And if you read this revolver news actually says that up. There's a lot more coming. So buckle up. My question might my initial thought is maybe they filed foyer requests asking for, for some of that information. And I'm not sure if they would've gotten anything back since they would have been undercover, confidential, but maybe they have, you know, maybe, maybe they've seen what they've asked for what they've gotten and they can identify and sort of piece together what is missing from what should be there. And they can deduce make some deductions about that. We don't know, but some very good questions. And one of the big responses has been from, you know, law, Twitter and from the lawyers is, Hey, you're kind of mixing things up. Everybody's getting all this confused. So we've got Brad Heath. He says guys, agents and informants, basically can't be co-conspirators and says, this has been the law for a while. Right. Agents and informers. They cannot be conspirators because conspirators means that you're sort of intending to go, you know, break the law. Like you, you've got you. Can't, it's got to be more than just sort of talk. You've gotta have a common scheme or plan. You gotta do, do an act in furtherance of it. And so if you are a, an agent, then obviously you're not a part of that common scheme or plan and you're, and you're not really doing anything to, to further it because you should be, you should be if you're an informer or an agent preventing the harm from happening. So Andy McCarthy also says, not sure I understand the story, but by definition, a government informant cannot be an unindicted. Co-conspirator right. Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime. If you are there on behalf of police to inform, then you have an agreed. Okay. Now, so the sort of the, the ancient here becomes are they being properly labeled as government informants? Or are these people just being labeled visuals, right? That they're not indicting unindicted. Co-conspirators, you know, these could be, individuals could be a wife. This could be a friend. This could be somebody who ratted out on somebody, but that's kind of, it's kind of what we're talking about, but also kind of not because we're talking about maybe the fact that the government is not labeling certain of these informants or these undercover people as government agents, as government informants, they're just calling them individuals, which is why they have to label them as unindicted. Co-conspirator. So there's a lot, there's a lot of mess going on here. Let's see if we can tease out what's happening now on Twitter. I want to show you some more cope. Okay. So Twitter did not like what Tucker Carlson did last night on his show. And if you miss that, I'd encourage you to go watch it. There's like a 10 minute clip that's floating around on Twitter because he gets hot about this as he should. It's a big, it's a big issue now, Tucker Carlson on Twitter. The way that Twitter works, if you're not, if you're not a person who's on there is on, uh, from time to time, you'll get on the sidebar. There'll be this trending box. And the trending box is sort of supposed to be, you know what, what's trending on Twitter, but it's not being run by an, by an algorithm. Okay? These are, you know, certain people who see what's going on and they write these little things that they post up there. So it's sort of an explanation and the way that this works, practically speaking, it's sort of the worst part of Twitter, but they, they make these little propaganda statements that come out. So when something's trending, then they really go in and they have it. They have to cope. They have to sort of do what they can to, to justify what's happening. So this was trending today and they said, uh, Tucker Carlson, right? A lot of people were talking about this clip 69,000 tweets. So they want to clarify for you in case you're too dumb to know. They say that federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy. Okay. So first of all, that's, that's hilarious, right? Because there, there is never anything in the law that is sort of absolute. So they say federal law does not permit it, cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy. Like that's a blanket statement, right? And you can find a lawyer who will tell you that, but they're being a little bit intellectually dishonest because what all lawyers know the first day of law school, when you go to law school, you learn what is the answer to any legal question ever, presented, ever it's the right answer, right? Any question, two words. It depends. And you argue both sides of that because that's kind of how the law works. That's why you are never done being a lawyer, right. You're always practicing. Cause there's always arguments to be made. So you can say federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy. Pretty sure I could find you probably 25 cases that make an argument to the contrary in some way, shape or form. Don't know if it's going to be a successful argument, but it's probably, it's probably very possible, right? I've never personally made that argument, but I would guess that you, that you could. And so it's, it's kind of hilarious as a lawyer to see some, you know, Twitter intern, you know, moron out there typing up a response because they didn't like Tucker's response. They didn't like that. He was trending. So they got to respond back. They also say that the federal law does not allow it despite a baseless suggestion by Carlson that come, some co-conspirators were not charged because they were undercover FBI agents. So it's like, you know, they, they have to just chime in on that conversation. It's like, it's like when you're at a, at a, at a dinner table and you've got a friend there and you're, you're having a conversation and the person across the table says, uh, actually, you know, that's not how that works. Uh, I've been to Peru. Okay. The boats there, they're not that big. You're going, we're not even talking to you. I don't care about Peru or the boats, or what are you talking about? Leave us alone. So it's kind of like that Twitter just wants to inject itself when nobody cares. So the question that I've always had here, of course, and I mentioned this at the start of this segment is where has our intelligence agency been? Where were, where are they? Okay, this, this is the list of them. There are a lot of them. Let's take a look at them. We've got the air force. So this is something that you can gather over from the oh, DNI, the office of the director of national intelligence. It's a clearing house for all of the 18 different agencies that manage intelligence throughout this country. You're going to see a lot of them on here. We've got the air force intelligence, army, CIA coast guard. We've got the defense intelligence agency. The department of energy has its own energy. Of course we have DHS department of Homeland security state has there's treasury has there's for the money. We've got the DEA, we've got the FBI, we've got the Marine Corps. We have the national geospatial intelligence agency, which is doing things in geospatial intelligence. We've got national reconnaissance office. We've got the national security agency. We've got the Navy intelligence and now newly added the space force. These are all being held and managed by the office of the director of national intelligence. Okay. And they're supposed to investigate all sorts of crimes, all sorts of criminality. They should be. Uh, I would imagine, you know, one of the top priorities would be to protect the U S government places like the Capitol building and all the people that inhabit that building because they're kind of important to the U S government. Now, this is not the extent this we have the national guard. We have the capital hill police. We have the Sergeant at arms for both the Senate and the house who responsible for their little forces. They've got the Metro police and the list goes on and on. And everybody failed from top to bottom. They all just dropped the ball. So, you know, how does that happen yesterday on the show, we tried to talk about how to prioritize and break down what some of the harm looks like. And I want to just recover this quickly. If you recall, there was a report that came out yesterday, 32 pages from the Biden administration that was detailing how they're going to be handling domestic extremism in the United States, whatever that happens to be. And they lumped them into all these different categories. Yesterday, we put together this chart and we were trying to identify which groups are the biggest problems. Okay. Because we know what the current administration is saying. They're telling us, it's sort of these people at the top, the white supremacists, the Q and honors and the malicious. Okay. We've seen this a lot. We're also hearing that these are the big groups, right? These are the big, big groups that are responsible for all the madness and chaos and destruction, which I personally have not seen much of that, uh, outside the allegations that maybe this was something responsible for the January 6th stuff. Then we also have the government is sort of saying that in addition to wanting to put this, you know, really hard law enforcement emphasis on the groups that really this is difficult to solve because a lot of this stuff is done by individuals as well. And so this is what's going to justify this massive national drag net. That's going to gobble up more information, capture more innocent people, but these are all based on things that are individual like race based, shootings, violence against women, you know, violence against the LGBTQ. We've had some shootings take place we've had, but you know, the list goes on. And so what I would like to do it as somebody who is a, uh, in person, interested in solutions is have our government sort of prioritize these for us, tell us which ones are the biggest, which one of these groups organizes, sorry, result in the most loss of life. Who's, who's responsible for the most desperate on the planet, which one is it or in this country. And once we know that number, then maybe we can identify how much monetary loss they are causing how much actual property destruction. And then in addition to that, we can talk about economic loss, right? What are they preventing you from doing when Chaz took over that little, you know, zip code of land there, what did that do to the economy there for those, you know, for, for that city, for those local business owners and things like that, then we want to take a look at group size. You can easily take a look at all of the other demographics. We talked about this yesterday. Things like income, religion, ethnicity, right? The list goes on because we want to solve the problem right now. They're telling us it's white supremacists, Q and honors and the militias. But do we know that they tell us that, but we don't really know Dewey. So now we're starting to see that there are some clarity about the militia groups, right? We we've seen this from, uh, from the revolver story where they're telling us, how about we take a look at the oath keepers specifically, we've covered this. I know they're blaming the oath keepers and the proud boys and the percenters. Those are the big three that they labeled for January six. So now let's take a look at those and let's compare them to maybe some groups that arguably are on the left. Okay. So I want to show you, I did some research on this this afternoon. Let's take the top three that they're claiming are, are the right wing organizations. Then we've got let's, let's pick some, some other groups that may be on the left. Right. I don't know where Antifa would actually put themselves, but I I'm going to put them on the left. We've got BLM, which some people might argue is sort of, you know, middle. So we'll kind of, you know, kind of keep them in the middle. We've got Antifa, we've got Alf, which is the animal liberation front and elf, which is the environmental liberation front. And then we have the black block. Okay. You can go on a counter extremism.com and look up extreme, left wing groups. You'll find many more. So the question then is now we've got sort of this category that they're saying are the right wingers. We've got this category that maybe are the left-wingers. And we can just do a simple analysis. How many people that each group killed, how many, how much money in damaged each group, cause how much loss of economic activity that each group result in? How big is each group? How many confidential informants do you have in those groups? And then really you could come to some sort of a, a total, uh, equation on what the harm is, right? You could say, okay, we had, we had a hundred, people were killed here. It costs a million dollars over here. And the economic loss was maybe 2 million in lost productivity. The group is 5,000 people. Big. We have 500 or 50 confidential informants in there. And so you can just come up with an equation. We add all of these up that plus that plus that, you know, maybe multiply that times the size, divide that by the total number of confidential informants in there. And we got a harm ratio, whatever that looks like, okay, you come up with some sort of way to defy this. And then we start to solve the problem, whatever that looks like. Right. And I, and this is for the government and the FBI and all these people to figure out, but I don't buy the premise yet that the groups that they're saying are responsible for it are in fact responsible for it because we know the government is filled with liars. So now that we have that data fleshed out, we have some information that is on a chart that we can sort of plot. I want to show you how I'm sort of thinking about this. This is the distribution curve, right? So we're all familiar with sort of a bell curve. But my question for our government, my question, before they start passing all of these domestic extremist laws, before they start trying to, you know, take more stuff away from us, I want them to quantify how does the amount of harm distribute across the nation? So let me show you what I mean by this. We all know what a bell curve looks like. And if the total amount of harm is what let's say, Biden and Merrick, Garland say, what does that relationship look like? Right. All of the harm is coming from the right. Okay. So this is what the distribution of the curve would look like. It's all happening here. We don't see anything from BLM. We saw yesterday. We read through that 32 page report, nothing from BLM harm over here, all empty, nothing from Antifa. So what they are telling us is that all of the harm is coming from the right militias, oath, keepers, proud boys. So on Magna Trump supporters. So my question is, is that accurate? Okay. Or does it look, you know, something like maybe like this, like a regular bell curve. Okay. Well maybe, maybe, maybe most of the violence isn't actually coming from the left. Maybe most of the violence isn't actually coming from the rights, maybe most of these shootings and deaths and all the loss, all the harm. It's kind of coming from people who maybe are just not apolitical. They're just a little bit crazy, right? They're just kind of, uh, you know, not really political one way or the other. You've got some people who just want to go shoot up a building or shoot, shoot up something. Cause they're just kind of mentally deranged, right? That's going to happen in a country of 370 million people. You're going to have a lot of harm that just comes from the center. That's not connected politically one way at all, right. It may not even be domestic terrorism or domestic extremism by the standard definition. It's just a crazy person. Okay. We're going to have those. And they are thankfully very few and far between and the likelihood of you being injured or killed by one of those things is so infinitesimally small. It's almost not even worth considering, but we're, we're turning it into something where it looks like. What we're trying to do is make stuff that may be in center distribution. We're trying to sort of cram this all one direction, right? We're sort of saying, oh, let's all this, everything that happens is going this way, because we want the, you know, the, the administration, the people who want to harm the rights want to make it look like this. When in reality, in my perspective, from what we've been covering on this channel, it more looks like this. Okay? The burning buildings, the torching of used car, lots, Wendy's being burnt down. I mean, everything outside of capital of the Capitol building that we've been following on this channel has largely been, been, been this K and T has been setting up their own stink and cities within cities in different parts of the country. So is it, is it, is it this, or is it something that may, that may be okay?[inaudible] looks like, like this, right? Maybe, maybe the, maybe the harm is something maybe the political violence is more evenly distributed. But if this is the case, folks, we're not talking about any enforcement over here, we're only talking about this malicious Oathkeepers right-wingers, we're not talking about Antifa. They don't meant they don't come up at all in any of this stuff or BLM or Alf or elf or the black block. None of it, because we're only focused on a political group. They want to skewer one political idea. And so I would like to know where do we stand? This does not feel exactly right. And if it is, if they're gonna be making that claim, I would like to see some evidence to back that up outside of January 6th. And I haven't seen it thus far. So the story continues. If it turns out the federal government did in fact have undercover agents or confidential informants embedded the so-called militia groups indicted for conspiring to obstruct the Senate certification, the implications would be nothing short of seismic, especially if such agents informed informants enjoyed extremely senior level positions within such groups. Okay, we're going to go through this. Oh my goodness. This is, this is a explosive, let me show you this. We're going to get there in a second. We've got a couple more slides first. Let's say this. Let's say that the FBI had agents or informants that were in extremely senior level positions. This posits, that allegation. And one of the key consensus points among the FBI DOJ and the regime media is that while one six is primarily the fault of Trump supporting Q1 on infused domestic terrorists. It is secondarily the fault of so-called intelligence failures. Okay? So we've got sort of two groups, all the Trump maniacs and all of the intelligence failures, which were a lot of them now, what are they talking about? Let's take a look, Clover Char's own question at the March two FBI hearing reinforces this quote intelligence FA failure narrative. She's not alone. A five month bi-partisan Senate investigation recently arrived at the very same intelligence failure narrative to explain the breach. This block quote says a bi-partisan Senate investigation of January 6th found the security and intelligence failures at every level of the government that led to the breach of the Capitol by a pro Trump mob 95 page report product of a monthly, roughly five month joint probe found significant breakdowns ranging from federal federal intelligence agencies, failing to warn of a potential for violence, to a lack of planning and preparation by the U S Capitol police and law enforcement leadership. There was no overall operational or staffing plan for that day. A total failure of leadership, according to the committees, which is we've already seen this story before, right. Sort of saw that on nine 11, right? The last time that they wanted to go after the terrorist, those were foreign terrorists. Now it's sort of domestic terror. Oh, the government is incompetent. They just, w we throw literally hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent this stuff. They couldn't even communicate. It's, it's, it's shocking at how incompetent our government is. I mean, it's really surprising. I've I've always known that and suspected it, but it, it is actually quite something. Now they go back and they show us, they walk us through this click, uh, that this story we've talked about, the story here, the Whitmer kidnapping plot, right? And this is where we're going to see some evidence that maybe they're classifying their undercover people a little bit differently. They say, and I want to just flesh this out again. They go into extreme depth on this. I am, I'm like picking out a couple of paragraphs of a massive document. So bear that in mind, they say, of course we could point to countless examples of undercover agents being actively involved in domestic terror plots. But for the purposes of argument we're making here, we only have to go back a few months back to prior to one six, the so-called Witmer kidnapping plot. And the allegation here is that the FBI was involved or somebody was involved. Indeed. What if you were told that scarcely three months before the one six Capitol siege, the FBI actually arrested 14 people for planning to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer. We talked about this. They also wanted to overthrow the state government and that the alleged conspiracy to overthrow the state government involved storming the state Capitol sounds pretty familiar. Doesn't it. And what if we told you that of the 14 individuals who allegedly plotted the quote, kidnapping and overthrow of the government that at least five were undercover agents and federal informants. Okay. So almost a third over a third, at least five, at least the third were actually undercover agents and federal informants. And is that if that's not enough, this article says many of the individuals allegedly involved in this plot appear to belong to quote to three percenters. One of the same, very militia groups now blame for the storming of January 6th continues. And as the cherry on top, what if we also told you that the director of the Detroit FBI field office who oversaw the infiltration of the Michigan plot was subsequently granted a highly coincidental promotion to the DC office where he is now FBI lead agent for all of the judges, January six cases. That sounds sounds pretty interesting. Hmm. Sounds kind of coincidental. Doesn't it? Maybe that's all, maybe it's just a coincidence. I don't know, read the full article if you want to get more on that. But the point here we're going to get to is we're going to revisit that. And we're going to talk about that concept of at least five agents, maybe more because of this misclassification problem. And if you recall, I mentioned previously the idea that maybe there are informants who are at senior levels of some of these organizations. I talked about this yesterday and Rica Tario remember, this was the white supremacist, who is a white guy who is leading a white supremacist organization as the president of some chapter. Well, what if actually I had questions about that yesterday. I was saying, how can you be a white supremacists without being white? I, that it was not computing for me, but what do I know? Tario according to this article may have actually been in cahoots or actually was confirmed to be in cahoots with the FBI. Let's take a read of this article. A full discussion of Tario is outside the scope of this piece though. They say, but for now, we're going to simply note how remarkably convenient it is that the head of the proud boys, a known FBI informant just happened to get arrested and banned from DC the day before the January six protest in which the proud boys were involved. Did they pull him out, set the whole thing up and pull him out? Article says, what better excuse for the leader to not be present on that fateful day? Right? Big day. Why wasn't he there? Oh, he got arrested. Oh, that's why he's not there. No, that's pretty convenient. Isn't it? Upon TAROS arrest on the fourth, the quote, the upper tier leadership of the MOS de telegram channel was Newt and a channel new MOS D took place. We now know that this top leadership telegram group included unindicted co-conspirators UCC, one person, one person, two as well as proud boys, North Carolina chapter lead Charles Donahoe. Okay. On January 4th, shortly after the proud boys chairman's arrest pursuant to a warrant was issued. Donahoe expressed concern that the encrypted communications that involve the proud boys chairman would be compromised when law enforcement examined proud boys chairman's phone Donahoe created a new channel on the app, took steps to destroy a nuclear earlier channel. The new channel included several additional members. Okay. Now it's, it's a, it's a possibility, isn't it? This is where defense attorneys live in possibilities. And we'd like to play with these ideas and let's take a look at how this wraps up now. What if this person Steve Robeson. Okay. And you're going to note here in quotes, it says, quote, an individual. Okay. So Steve Robinson is being categorized by the FBI as an individual. They're saying that him being outed as a deep cover, as, as a deep, undercover FBI mole, just months ago in the Michigan plot, among other incidents calls into question, every other major unindicted co-conspirator in the case. So here's what happened. Let's see here. It says, indeed, in this case of Robeson, the FBI and the DOJ conspired to use this exact language trick to hide evidence of the secret FBI informants from the judge defense counsel and the public. So what does this mean? They're saying that when they were writing their reports against the Whitmer plotters that they were calling people person, one person, two UCC, one individuals. And they were saying for some time that the individuals not confidential informants, right? They were unindicted co-conspirators. But what if, because, because you can't, you can't indict an informant, so they can't be labeled unindicted co-conspirators because it would be the wrong, like they, like, you cannot indict them. So they're sort of fighting over the language here. But the point is, what if in the FBI investigations, they we're not properly labeling their undercover agents. They were calling them individuals later on. It comes out. Oh, they were in fact undercover agents, undercover individuals that makes it almost impossible for the defense to know anything about how to prepare the defense, because it's looking like all of this undercover, confidential information it's outside of our ability to review it. It's outside of discovery because it's confidential and undercover. Whew. Okay. So here's what, Hey, let's wrap this up. It says in the end, we are left with burning questions that outright, that ought to entirely reshaped the way the nation thinks and talks about the events from now on every politician, commenter who cares about one six has a duty to pressure, FBI director, Ray, to come clean in the very beginning of the piece, we drew attention to Clover char asking Ray about whether there were anybody who infiltrated don't you ever kick yourself. She asks you as the director for not having infiltrated these groups now armed with the research in this article, any politician to kick themselves. If they do not ask the following, how many of the unindicted co-conspirators in January six cases are now or have been undercover agents or confidential informants, indeed. Pulling on the thread of the developed word world. They're saying this is could be a potentially extraordinary scandal. They say, stay tuned. We are not done yet. Yeah. All right. We're going to see, we're going to see if anything else comes to that. Let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Joe Snow is in the house, says I'm hearing some of the January six prisoners who are being denied. Bond are showing up to court with black eyes. And the ones who have been formally charged are being charged with things like trespassing versus insurrection or terrorism. Have you heard anything like that? What's your opinion of judges who observed black eyes and people who've been held in solitary confinement and do nothing. So you know that that's not something that I have heard, but it does not surprise me. I have heard not specifically about the black eyes, but about, I've seen text messages sort of back and forth, uh, that are being posted on Twitter from people who were inside these facilities saying that they're being treated very, very poorly in subhuman conditions, which is not something that surprises me even a little bit. Okay. We're going to talk about in the next segment about Gulen Maxwell and some of the conditions that she's in. Here's what my experience has been with. Things like this. When, when prisoners complain, when defendants complain, when they're in custody, it is in my opinion, something that just gets totally thrown out out the other way. Uh, you know, what most people in positions of authority tend to believe. Yeah. Is that everybody complains, all the complaints are sort of unjustified. People are doing things to themselves, or they sort of take things one step further, which is, I think a lot of, unfortunately, people in America think about criminals to some degree is that they're just criminals. Who cares, right. Nobody throw away the key. They did something wrong. They are subhuman and they sort of get what they deserve. So I know the January six prisoners are getting abused. I have no doubt about that. Uh, because they are essentially in many cases, in many cases, folks, they are being politically prosecuted. It doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be charged with a crime. But what we're seeing is not a regular criminal prosecution. We're seeing political prosecutions and there is a big difference. There we have LT. 13 says, did you ever, did you see the ever elusive pipe bomber on January 5th where the tape released was spliced together? So there are parts of the video missing. I did not see that one. Yeah. The pipe bomber, right? The guy who put, I think stuff over by the different Capitol buildings, they were firing that guy. I'm not sure. No, but I, I did not see the splice together video a lot videos out there for sure. Leafy bug is in the house. As the January 6th incident was infiltrated by the feds, likely initiated by the feds, look at how the FBI provoked and then trap those dumb guys to mouth off on the internet about what they were going to do with Gretchen. This is what they do. You have to be very naive to believe they knew nothing about January 6th in advance. Right. I agree with you leaving. I agree with you, which is why I've been upset about this. All right. We've got Sharon says easy answer to the question as to what group is the most dangerous. Number one, Trump supporters. Number two. Libertarians. Yeah, I know. Uh, three pro-life groups and number four, second amendment defenders. You, you got them Sharon. I mean, that is a lethal combo. Wow. That is dangerous. Wow. It's um, pretty disastrous to be a libertarian. Somebody who sort of adheres to the non-aggression principle. Yeah. We're pretty dangerous. Aren't we we've gotten a Dar about there says 161 days and still no ID on the supposed pipe bomber. That's nice. Yeah. So, uh, nothing on that. Right. Which is, which is just, you know, excellent work, their intelligence community, all 18 of you agencies can't find somebody who was in and around the most protected geographic area should be in the world. It's pretty embarrassing. You know, my, my thought is on this. It's like, what if we just didn't have those intelligence communities? Like what if they didn't, what if they didn't exist? Or let's say we just cut them in half. What would you say? You, you all are terrible. We're going to pay you what we think you're worth. And as far as we know, uh, all you're doing is just stealing all of our data and spying on all of us. And you're sort of just letting you know, basic things go wrong. Like it's basic. Okay. You know, like if, if the CIA couldn't get their hands around, you know, a Jack Bauer 24 situation to stop a wolfhound lab, escape virus from bursting out of the seams. And you know, Jack is racing in there and everybody's waiting in the last minute and the virus escapes, oh, darn it. Right. That's, that's, that's a tricky thing. Virus is complicated, but just making sure that a bunch of people don't cross a certain barrier and get into a building. It's like, you know, law enforcement, one-on-one like they can do this at concerts and schools and sporting events and our entire intellect, uh, inter inter connected intelligence community. Couldn't muster that, that feat. So if we just cut their budgets in half, like what, what would the Capitol building have been twice as bad? What would have happened anyways? Ridiculous. Oh my gosh. All right. We've got eat on tests says, uh, please pronounce my name with the same inflection as leafy bug. We got, oh man, I can't do it. We got eat on tests. We'll try that. I'll play with it. Eat on tests. We'll try it. The, that extreme is group matrix you made is perfect. I've been thinking along these lines, someone show me the evidence on which groups are posing. What threat? I like the cut of your JIP. Like you back there, eat on tests. I'm going to have to work on that one. I appreciate that. Right? It's like, Hey, you know, we, we structure our lives this way. If we have a to-do list, we put them in a to-do list. We say, ah, that one's due this time. I need this much money for that. And so they just come out and say, it's all white supremacy. And I'm looking around on the news. And I don't see big organizations of white supremacists roving around the streets causing havoc and madness. But maybe I'm just missing something. We have, I do have a condition. As you know, farmer's daughter four says the media belongs on that chart. Oh, your rights, your rights. Yeah. That's that's a good one. I like that. Well done. We've got Sharon Quinn. He says, you ask for evidence, a preponderance of violence coming from the right. Sorry. Evidence. What evidence we don't need. No stinking evidence. Thank you, Sharon. Be brave. Says our federal government is so far out of hand. I don't see how it can be fixed. That's a good point. You know, somebody was asking me about this on Twitter today. And I said, pretty clearly there that the solution, if the government does not become dramatically more effective or reduce the burden on its current citizens, people are going to find alternative systems. And, and my opinion, that's going to be in the network state on the back of cryptocurrencies, in a decentralized, non, non governmental system of governance, decentralized governance. That's the answer. So, all right, we've got LT. 13 is here. It says I had a convo with my police officer friends, and it was saying, how signal is hackable? And he said he had just taken a class on it. And it isn't guess how they have the convos. Someone showed the convos. Someone show the convos. Yeah. So signal, I've heard that about signal. Actually. I've heard that signal sort of less secure than telegram. I don't know. I think that it's probably a good idea to just presume anything that you type in, anything digital is going to be monitored. All right. We've got no doubt says after much head scratching, I've decided that white supremacists and white privileged definitions are not what you would intuitively think. He says they are really using the definitions of American supremacy and American privilege and replacing American with white. That way they can hide the attack on the American principles behind evil sounding terms. Ooh, wow. Yeah. I like what I like what, you're what you're, you're saying there. Yeah. Sort of, you know, rather than saying that the entire country is bad, it's a divide and conquer strategy is what it is. Right. Rather than going at the whole and saying everything in America is bad. You just start sort of separating people. And we've talked about this, right? The idea that there are accelerationist who want to increase the division and animosity amongst different demographics in this country in order to exacerbate increase and bring about a major revolutionary social change in the country. Right? That's what, that's the solution. If there is systemic racism, you got to rebuild the system. You've got to throw that out and, and build a new equitable system on top of it. But it's hard to attack an entire system. So now what do you need to do? But you've got to just sort of start peeling the layers off, start attacking one demographic after another. And so you start dividing people. You say, no, you're white, you're black, you're Hispanic. And there are big problems between all of you. And we're all standing here going, I don't, I w w really are there. And they say, yes, there are. And, uh, we're going to educate you about this so that we can start, you know, causing a lot of animosity there. Then if you can peel off, you know, like the white folks, it's just a matter of time until there is a another group that is oppressive because this ideology cannot exist without an oppressor and a victim. Currently, it's the white people. Eventually it's going to be somebody else. And, and it's just going to just sort of, you know, pass around and be the rich people. It'll be, you know, the Jewish people it'll be whatever. And around and around, we go until they can just continue to decimate society, because this is where they get their value. These people have, you know, very, very, very, uh, uh, twisted hearts and minds and souls. And what they want to do is, uh, is gobble up power at your expense. And they're there. They're working hard at it. We've got Jeremy Trita over here, says great show is always my brother. I'm always listening, not always able to safely comment as to the last topic, a great man used to say wisdom, guidance guided by experience. Many stories have been coming out that are confirming many of our previous feelings we had about these events. It's right. Jeremy. And you've been here for the long haul. And, you know, we've been talking about these things, right? Just scratching our heads, saying everything that we're hearing doesn't logically resonate. It doesn't make sense. And we start asking questions and, uh, you know, people don't like that. We got the monetized in the middle of all this. We got, we got the monetized for what we were talking about right after January 6th, it happened right in February. Okay. We were talking about all of these cases. YouTube said harmful, dangerous information. So you're demonetized now. And you know, there, why is that? Okay, as I've said this before, other people may not have been able to sort of, you know, carry on with the show like this, there are other YouTubers being demonetized means that's the end of the content, right? There's nothing else to talk about because they got to go, um, you know, earn a living. Fortunately, uh, you know, I happened to work at a law firm and we're doing the show anyways. Cause I, I believe in it, but believe me, YouTube is, is doing what they can to sort of limit these conversations. Big tech is big. It is. And we're just going to keep, keep on the, the train to truth. And we're just going to keep sticking to the truth, intrude principles that we know are right. Okay. Freedom. The ability to live your life without an overly burdensome government, we want honesty. We want accountability. We want transparency. We want justice, all the things we talk about here every day and the government has not been giving it to us, but yeah, we know the truth shall set. You free free, and it does come out eventually and we're going to be continuing to cover it. So very good stuff over there. And I want to tell you about some very good stuff happening at our law firm, by the way, there's a phone number right there to call. We do some pretty good stuff over here at our firm. We help people with things like traffic tickets and felony charges and, and drug charges and DUI charges. And the list goes on and on the phone number is right there.(480) 787-0394. There's a QR code there as well. And we're very passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their lives. And so if you know anybody we'd be honored if you sent over a referral our way. And if you don't know, that's okay, because you may not need actual criminal legal representation. In fact, I hope you don't, but you definitely need knowledge. That's right. Knowledge is very important. And I've got a place for you to get some of that right here. So law enforcement interaction training is now up and available. This is the program, my friends that you need, this is something that it is better to have it and never need it than it is to need it and not have it. We talk about the 1, 2, 3 rule in there for dealing with law enforcement. So go check that out if you have not already. And if you've already gone through the course and you're watching the show, I would really appreciate a review over there at gumroad.com/robert ruler. All right. Thank you for all of that. And we're going to move on to the next segment. All right. Last segment of the day, our favorite sex offenders are predators are back in the news. We're talking about the two big ones. Of course, Harvey Weinstein and Glenn Maxwell. They're back in the news because Harvey Weinstein he's already been sentenced to 23 years in prison, but he's going to go through another trial. Again. They have are extraditing him from New York over to LA, and he's going to stand trial again for a number of other sex crimes. So let's take a look at what's going on here. Then we're going to get to Ms. Maxwell. So Weinstein now he's being sent over. He's a convicted rapist. Former movie mogul is going to be sent over to California. A New York judge ruled on Tuesday that he's going to be extradited. He was convicted of a 23, I'm sorry. Third degree rape in February, 2020 sentenced to 23 years in prison. So he's currently at the Wendy correctional facility in Buffalo. He's been charged with 11 counts, sexual assault in LA. So five women now accused him of assault in LA Beverly Hills from 2004 to 2013. Okay. Rape forcible oral copulation, sexual battery by restraint, sexual penetration by force. His attorney said we were disappointed in this decision today, just now his attorney filed a writ of habeas Corpus in the LA county superior court, asking the court to hold off on the extradition until he can receive the needed medical care here in New York. So you're going to see this kind of theme here, right? We've seen it with Glen Maxwell. We've seen it with Harvey Weinstein that they need, you know, additional resources and things like that. So a Weinstein now is going to be, you know, on his way back, let's finish this article. It says, the writ says that his rights would be violated by extradition because he's got a degenerative eye condition that requires months of medical attention. We have Elizabeth vegan and another attorney who is over in LA. She says, this is excellent. It is. So she's thrilled about it says he has used every excuse for delay. She says, time's up. It's going to have to answer again for his horrific sexual abuse, Gloria, all red lawyer representing two of the women says, she's very glad I'm looking forward to seeing Weinstein finally appear in LA. One of the many women who have accused Weinstein of sexual assault, Louise Godbold said in a statement that she is happy that five more women will have the chance to face their abuser. Sadly, the statute of limitations means that at least a hundred more can only look so it's incumbent LA uh, extradite. So he's going to be extradited. It sounds like the he's entitled to a trial with within 180 days. Although it's unclear at this time when he will actually arrive in LA. So we'll see. Now we talked about something like this member in the Rittenhouse case, Kyle Rittenhouse was charged out of Kenosha, Wisconsin. He went across the border, back to his home in Illinois and they extradited him and he had some pretty bad lawyers at that time, but they were going to be challenging the extradition and, uh, they failed massively. And if you recall what happened there is when we talk about extradition, you know, it can be, it can be a little bit complicated because you're dealing with two different states and they've got their own rules and how they process things. And so you kind of have to be somebody who, you know, who, who, who sinks some time in to understand what the relationship there is. But, uh, in Kyle's case, what happened was he went back over there to Illinois. They challenged extradition and the judge granted it, but, and they said that they were going to challenge the grant of the extradition. So they were going to appeal it. They wanted to keep Kyle in Illinois. And so John Pierce, the out attorney there said that he went into court, we're going to fight this till the end of the earth. But Kyle was already on the truck going back to Kenosha say, so I think it was like on a Friday. He on Twitter all weekend. Oh, we're raging appeals, appeals appeals. And Monday morning Kyle's and was in Kenosha in front of a judge. So, you know, that might happen here, right? We're we're, we're talking about, you know, they're going to appeal this, they're going to contest it and blah, blah, blah. We'll see whether or not that actually happens. And it sounds like, yeah, if I had to guess, are we going to have a Harvey Weinstein trial in the next 120 days? Uh, no, definitely not. I would guess that that would be something that we see far down the road. We'll see though. All right. Now I want to, well, let's talk about Gulen Maxwell because this is where the good stuff is. Glen Maxwell. Now, uh, this is her attorney. We've talked about their attorney a lot here. I want to show you what's going on. So this was filed on six 15, late last night, 32 pages looks like we're not going to read all 32 pages. Of course, this is from Bobby C stern, Heim defense lawyer. Extraordinary. I am so sort of impressed by this firm or this, this woman or person, uh, I don't know the gender, but, uh, here's what they're saying. Doctor, dear judge Nathan, this letter is submitted in response to the government. Third hand information presents a one-sided review. So let me frame this out a little bit. Before we start getting into the document what's been happening here is Bobby sternum has been just peppering the government and the court with all sorts of, uh, information, uh, and requests. And we've talked about this on the channel here previously Golin Maxwell. The guy has told us that she's got 2.3 million pages of documents that, that she needs to go through. Okay. When we first came up with that number, I think my Fox was on the show and he, and he was, he did an analysis for us. And he said that if you, if you sort of add everything up 2.3 million pages, it would stack up to like 900 feet high, which is like one of the taller skyscrapers in America. Okay. It's a lot documents, a lot of material. And so in order for a defendant to be able to process all of that, they got to go through it, right? Every single document, every single sentence, every single sentence, uh, up, up, uh, period, hyphen, everything so that you can prepare for your defense. And government's going to be disclosing 2.3 million pages. Well, by God, you better believe that Bobby stern Haim is going to is going to demand every scrape of leeway in order to process that amount of documentation. The judge is going to have to look at that and go, are you serious? 2.3 million pay you can't like whittle that down a little bit. All right. So then the judge has to be accommodating to Glen Maxwell because there's basically an unreasonable accommodation that that must be met based on what the government is providing. Okay? So based out of this sort of mess, that's happening, Glen Maxwell. Now her attorneys are just fighting for every inch. We want everything. And every time that the guards do anything that sort of encroaching on Glen Maxwell's free space. They say that this is a violation of her due process rights. You don't want guards hanging over her while she's going through her formal documents, right? The guards are with the government. So we don't want them to see what she's doing to prepare for her defense. There's a major conflict there. So every time there's been any incident, Bobby Bernheim just fires off a letter and says, Hey, uh, the last time we talked about Gulen Maxwell, the allegation was that Bobby stern Haim brought something in with her and left it with Gulen Maxwell that she shouldn't have done. And then Bobby stern Bernheim fired that off and said, are you accusing me of committing a crime? How dare you? And now I want everything from you person who's accusing me of that crime, which I think was the prison facilitator. So now sort of what's happening here is there are all these different procedural techniques and tactics that are being brought into this case. It's not even really about this, this, you know, allegation of sexual assault involving minors from, you know, 20 years ago. This is all about now due process problems, due process violations, because the guards are interfering with Maxwell's ability to prepare her own defense, which is a very fundamental philosophy concept and right in this country. So now what Bobby is doing is every month or so often, there's a, there's a periodical requirement that the government updates the court on the conditions of Glen Maxwell. Because if she can't sleep, she can't prepare for her defense. If she can't eat appropriately, if she doesn't have proper facilities, then she can't prepare. So when Dylan Maxwell then has a trial and loses her case, guess what appeals because of due process violations, Dylan Maxwell was not afforded the ability to prepare her defense. Of course she lost based on the fact that the government didn't comply with standards of care that are appropriate, the penalty they're going to argue down the line. This is coming two years from now. The penalty should be a dismissal of the charges. So we're going to see that what they're doing right now is they're just laying it all out there, sort of laying out the framework and they're just walking their way through it. And they're doing a pretty masterful job in one man's humble opinion. Let's take a look now at what's going on. So now this is Bobby stern Haim sending this letter over to the judge saying, Hey, we're responding to the government's letter, June 7th, we're updating the court about the conditions of Glen's detention. This letter, like the one before it contains second, third hand information, it prevents a one-sided review giving the court, the public and the public, a false impression that Ms. Maxwell is detained under favorable and privileged conditions. So she's saying the government sent a letter on June 7th, and they're basically saying that she's living in a resort. It's not the case. Bobby says each time the defense feels compelled to respond, to give the court in public, a complete and accurate picture of the unacceptable conditions of her confinement. This is not the purpose that these updates were designed to serve. Okay? Accordingly the defense requests at any further updates, be limited to change circumstances. Okay? So th so they don't like what the government is sort of surmising for the court counsel for Ms. Maxwell can personally attest to many problems that are not reported to the government, not conveyed to the court, not docketed for public review. The following is a sample of new and recurring problem. Last, let's see what's going on in here. We've got Glen Maxwell says last week, raw sewage permeated, Ms. Maxwell's isolation cell necessitating her removal to another. So sewage is coming up. The toilets we've got vermin droppings. They fell from air vents. So that's nice. Now prevent Ms. Maxwell from removing legal documents from the video conferencing room for review during the lunch hour. So they're not letting her get her, her legal documents due process problem. Obviously, you can't prepare for your case. If you've got sewage coming out, you've got vermin droppings coming from the air vents on Sunday. Guards refuse to allow Ms. Maxwell to bring a notebook in to her scheduled in-person legal conference, disbelieving her assertion, that it contained legal material. Okay? So she has a notebook. She says, no, these are my legal notes. And they say, no, we're not going to let you have that notebook in. We don't think there's legal material in there. She says, yes, there is. Let's say, that's too bad. You can't take it. So can she open them up and show them? No, she can't. So she just has to leave that out. Now, she's going to say, I couldn't take notes during my very important legal preparation conference room meeting. And this is her attorney making these claims. Okay? So this is a little bit different than some other complaints. Let's say from some random prisoner, this is how the guards view it and how the courts view it. Oh, that's just some random person who cares. Right? Who cares what they say? They're subhuman. They're just criminal scum. So we don't really care about we don't. We're not going to take their complaint seriously. Now you've got a very reputable attorney. Who's got a lot of power behind her who is now making, you know, making these assertions to the court and putting her reputation and her bar license on the line, confirming these things. It has some, some heft to it. Okay. It contained legal material, a guard reviewed the contents of the notebooks. So the guard actually looked in it, read the pages, containing confidential and privileged work product. So that's just outstanding. That's just great. Before permitting Maxwell to bring the notebook into the legal visit. So I was wrong. The guard actually said, oh, oh, it is. Let me see. I mean, I'm going to read it. Oh man. Contrary to previous legal conferences, somebody needs to smack those guards in the head and just tell them, Hey, let her have what she wants. Cause it's, they're gonna, they're going to that's that's a can opener. I'm a defense attorney. I'm like, oh, that's, that's a beautiful cat. Let me get my can opener right there. Just open it up. Ooh, that's going to be delicious. We're going to eat that up and enjoy it. Contrary to previous legal conferences, neither council, nor Ms. Maxwell were permitted to have any water in the individual conference room during a four hour legal conference. Okay. You can't even drink three to six guards. Watch the mass, miss Ms. Maxwell and counsel for the entirety of the conference. So three to six guards making sure. So now you're watching, you know, now you're making arguments. Are they, are they overhearing things? Are they reading your lips? What are they doing? Why do you need six guards watching a private meeting with your attorney? Neither council, nor Ms. Maxwell were permitted to use the most rudimentary of earbuds to listen to audio files on the laptop. So they had to turn the volume to be raised to maximum level Ms. Maxwell. She can't have privileged communications with their counsel and adequately prepare for trial. If the prison guards can hear what she is reviewing and discussing with counsel, hello, due process, problem, prison guards ordered council to reposition her portfolio, which was being used to shield glare from the plexiglass divider separating council to permit her counsel, to view a clear view of the laptop because the portfolio was restricting the guards view of council, right? So she posted, she holds it. There's a glare there shoving a laptop through a plexiglass or whatever. And she puts up, sounds like a portfolio to block some of the lights and no, you can't do it. Yeah. So they want to see apparently what she can see. Oops, the prison guards then ordered counsel to reposition her portfolio, which was being used to shield glare. God, I already got that one at one point a prison guard, interrogated counsel about what she was doing with her hands counsel was blotting a bleeding finger with a note pad with paper. So that's it. The conclusion of Sunday's legal visit counsel requested the guards inventory, Ms. Maxwell's documents in the presence of counsel to avoid the problem that ensued the last time when counsel was falsely accused of improperly leaving documents with Ms. Maxwell yesterday, the monitor which had been used for video conferencing for months was repositioned to a distance further away from Maxwell impacting her ability to review the screen shared documents with counsel, the request to fix that was denied. Today's video conferencing was reduced by 90 minutes while changes were made to the equipment. So she's not getting the time. So, you know, they, they come to these different agreements, right? What her attorney is negotiating with the courts is time. Okay. Okay. Bobby, how much time does maximum need 24 hours a day? Well, we can't give you 24 hours a day. So how much? Well, at least 16. Wow. We can't give you 16 either. So how about 12? Okay. We'll take 12. So she gets the 12 and they reduce it by 90 minutes. So then they go, you violated your own standards that you just said, judge it's due process violation. Now, which had, uh, these changes have disrupted the video conferencing. This had been working well. It's now severely impacting the attorney client communication. Oh no. And it's severely impacting the ability to prepare the case for trial on counsels. And the audio is impacted by a whirling whistling, sound like water, going down a drain. The video is completely blurred causing eyestrain, compromising the shared documents, which are too hazy to decipher onto the prisons. And the audio is loud and echos are on the, on the, uh, sort of the, the other side of the plexiglass. The audio is loud. It echoes, it makes it difficult to understand. The monitor is enclosed with a bow box and a plastic cover is now positioned three to four feet away from Ms. Maxwell. This distance impacts her ability to view it. She has to contort her body. Her back and neck are injured, a risk further injury, just all she wants to do. Everybody is just see those legal documents, man. She just wants to prepare her own defense. Poor Bobby stern. Haim is just noting how impossible it is to do that. So let's, we'll wrap this up from Bobby stern. Haim says during a recent sentencing, in which defense counsel described deplorable conditions, judge McMahon acknowledged that the defendant had been subjected to conditions as disgusting and inhumane as anything I've ever heard about any Colombian prison, but more so because we're supposed to be better than that. Okay. From a different case. Now we have a judge McMahon boldly stated there was no excuse for the condition in these two institutions. Detainees should not suffer for the incompetence of the U S department of justice and its subsidiary agency. The bureau of prisons. I will do what I can to bring your situation to people who will give them who, if they give a might do something okay. From a judge, a judge is acknowledging that what a joke, the department of justice, right? Exhibit a and Bobby surname is calling that out. Numerous complaints have been brought to everybody's attention. Little, if anything has been done to improve Ms. Maxwell's conditions, the government updates the court to embolden the MDC to status, to maintain the status quo. The ever-changing rules are negatively impacting her ability to prepare for trial. They're interfering with her privilege. Attorney, client communication, the hyper surveillance of Maxwell and counsel during legal visits is highly inappropriate and invasive at minimum. This should not be sanctioned by the court. Very, truly yours, Bobby, certain time. So got that one fired out. Now, a lot of, a lot of issues in there, right? Most things you might say to yourself, well, is that, that big of a deal. So, and individually, maybe not right individually, if you have a sewer leak one particular day, now you fix the toilet and it's resolved, but that's kind of not what's happening here, right with, well, it has been something that has been a, a re re re repeat problem. And they're doing that on purpose. Bobby surname is just making a record it's death by a thousand cuts due process, due process, due process, due process. And then what they do is they just bundle those all up. And they say the same thing that the police say on a regular basis, the totality of the circumstances, any one of those individually is not enough, but when you add them all together and you consider the totality of it in context, it's a due process violation. Isn't it? Let me run through briefly what letter they were talking about. So this is what the government was saying. Uh, firstly probably should have started here, but we'll just run through this quickly, the government summits, this letter to provide an update regarding the conditions this was posted. Uh, so, so this was sent, it looks like on June 7th, but then it was filed today. So the first time I saw it was on June 16th, but it sounds like this is what, what came out to, uh, Bobby stern Haim previously. So they're saying that that they're saying, you know, that the defendant, she receives more time to review discovery than any other inmate. They say that she's permitted to review 13 hours per day, seven days a week. During that time she's got access to a computer. We already read this. Actually we've already covered this one. I think the last time this came out. So I'm not going to do it again here, but, uh, it, you know, it is let's, let's do a conclusion here and then we'll see if there's any questions ready to go. But after any in-person visit, the defendant receives, they conduct a body scan of the defendant non-invasive machine scan, they check for any secret contraband. The defendant's cell is you is checked once per day for contraband. Finally, as discussed in the government's report, the staff conducts wellness checks every 15 minutes at night to confirm that she is breathing. She continues to be in view at all times necessary for the safety of the institution and the defendant, including the re the, the other details, MD staff and psychology staff continue to monitor her daily. Then we have a redacted sentence. So it must be something about her medical condition. Staff continued to assess that she's physically healthy. Should the court have any questions? Let us know. So, all right, so let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromourcommunityatwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, which is really the place to be. It's kind of the best place on the internet. And I want to invite you to go check that out. First up in the house is from Jeremy.[inaudible] says I'm not sure which is worse, solitary confinement, or never having privacy. Oh, good question. Yeah, probably never having privacy would be worst or we will be worse. I think I could do solitary. I don't want to do solitary confinement. OK. Ko. Kamala Harris relax out there, but it's, you know, never having, having somebody just look at everything, it's just it's so just degrading, you know, watching you go to the bathroom, watching you eat, watching you wipe and everything. Oh, humiliating. Right. But we want to make sure she doesn't kill herself or be killed. Like Epstein was however you want to interpret that little debacle. Now let's take a look on our last question of the day from dog whistles as how do we know the government wants to know what she is saying versus say Clinton and Epstein's friends. She can eat out rat out. Okay. Um, how do we know the government wants to know what she is saying versus say Clinton and Epstein's friends. She can rat out. So, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a great question. It's kind of a complicated answer, but there are, you know, criminal cases, there are possibilities for plea deals. Okay. Right now, Glenn Maxwell sounds like she's not even remotely considering a plea deal, right? If the gut or maybe the government is not even offering her one, but in most criminal cases, that's what happens. The defendant is charged with a crime. The government says, all right, look, we, we think that we can convict you on these three, but we're going to drop off the most serious charge. If you agree to plead guilty to the lower charges, we think we can get you on that on the most serious one, but we're not positive. And because you've made some good points, we're going to let you sort of plead guilty to a lower charge. Now there are some situations where that's worth it. If there is a significant benefit, right? I always tell people that you shouldn't be taking a plea deal. If you could get the same thing, if you went to trial and lost, what's the, what's the point of just sort of rolling over and pleading guilty rather than asking the court to find you guilty. You're asking the jury to find you guilty and exercising your presumption of innocence all the way up until the last moment is some people though, there are situations where you say, well, you know, the risks, the reward, the cost benefit analysis, don't really make sense. And so we're going to just take a plea deal because we have achieved some major benefit, right? We've worked with, let's say, you know, if we go to trial, we might be looking at five years in prison. They're giving us five months in jail. We say, okay, well, you know, that's a good deal. We have a lot of exposure. If we lose a trial, this is a smoking plea deal. So maybe we take it and, you know, you might be able to see that work its way out in, in any criminal case now, Glenn Maxwell's case. I'm not sure I see that at all. Right. She is fighting tooth and nail. Sometimes what you see is all of that clawing, all of that fighting sort of, you know, wash sort of, you know, causes the prosecutor to, or some sort of a deal to say, all right, listen, uh, we want you to serve 25 years. We're only going to ask for 15, does that sound good? Take it or, or not. And so if Glenn Maxwell had something very, you know, very, let's say compelling that she might offer, she could theoretically do what's right called through a free talk, right? She's going to give them a bunch of information whereby she is outing, you know, prince Andrew or whomever, somebody who is big that the government goes, whoa, we'll let you walk. If you deliver the goods on all of those other people, right. It would have to be something major, something catastrophic. And I, you know, I just, I, I'm not sure that she has anything. I'm not sure what the government would be willing to do in that case, but it is an interesting conversation. You know, there are some situations where plea deals just don't happen sometimes because it's just too politically volatile, right? Derek Shovan, they were sort of murmurings that there was a plea deal, but I don't know how serious that ever was. It was. And probably because everybody would have been very mad if he got a plea deal, they want it, their pound of flesh out of him. They want their pound of flesh out of know defendants frequently in high profile cases. And so they're going to continue to get it. So, all right. So great questions from everybody@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and a quick reminder that we also have a law firm over here. So I want to share some of these charges with you, drug charges, traffic tickets, felony charges, anything and everything in between. You can give us a call phone number(480) 787-0394 for the law firm point your camera at this QR code. And it will take you there. If you want to check out any of my other informational offerings, you can download the law enforcement interaction, training, uh, program, purchase this over at gumroad.com/robert ruler. And I would really appreciate a follow over here. So if you want to be up to speed, stay up to speed on some of the, some of the info products that I am working on. That is a good place to follow me. Thank you to everybody who asked some great questions today. You see yourself up there on the screen. Very much appreciate that you keep the community lively and fun. And I appreciate it over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. So if you go over there, a lot of other good stuff, you can download free copy of my book, copy of my slides that we went through today, impeachment party document, you can download that. You can download a copy of my existence system template. We share links and we meet with great people all throughout the day. We have another monthly locals meetup coming up on Saturday, June 26, which is going to be about what a 10 days from now, my goodness coming up soon. So I'm going to post the registration link over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com if you want to join in on that. And so lastly, of course I am a criminal defense lawyer. As I mentioned previously here at the RNR law group, we've got an awesome team of people here in Scottsdale. We offer free case evaluations. We really love the work that we do, helping good people find safety, clarity, and hoping their cases, and then hopefully their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody who needs help with a DUI drug offense, anything like that, we would love the opportunity to see if we can lend a hand free case evaluations. All of our information is down in the description box below, along with some of the other channels, if you want to stay connected, because we do put out a lot of other content. We've got a crypto channel down below. If you're interested in blockchain and decentralization, that's really what I'm interested in that for less so about, you know, making money or following doge coin or whatever. I'm very interested in the decentralized version of governance that we may be able to actually create, to create a parallel system on top of our current broken system. One that provides more freedom and more autonomy without being burdened by a, uh, uh, overly bureaucratic government. So I'm very interested in that. Check some of that stuff out. And I've got an R and R law group Arizona channel. If you're interested in Arizona law, a lot of good stuff to be connected on. Definitely check out watching the watchers.locals.com and my friends. That is it from me today. I want to thank you so much for being a part of the show. We are going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow, 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody have a tremendous evening eat a nice hearty dinner and sleep well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.