Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Trump Park Lawsuit Dismissed, GOP Requests Kamala Removal, Sinema Filibuster & Whitehouse Beach Club

June 22, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Trump Park Lawsuit Dismissed, GOP Requests Kamala Removal, Sinema Filibuster & Whitehouse Beach Club
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Trump Park Lawsuit Dismissed, GOP Requests Kamala Removal, Sinema Filibuster & Whitehouse Beach Club
Jun 22, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Black Lives Matter loses a lawsuit against Donald Trump over the Lafayette Park incident claiming Trump allegedly cleared the area for a photo op. Republican Senators question the release of a Department of Homeland Security blueprint regarding major immigration system revisions and House GOP members request Kamala be removed from her position as border czar. Senator Krysten Sinema from Arizona releases a new opinion piece in the Washington Post explaining her justification for opposing eliminating the filibuster and Senator Whitehouse answers questions an allegedly whites-only beach club in Rhode Island where he is a member.​

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

🔵 Trump Lawsuit Dismissed, GOP Requests Kamala Removal, Sinema & Whitehouse​
🔵 Judge Dabney Friedrich rejects protestor claims that the Federal government and Trump administration violated their Constitutional rights.​
🔵 Review of the Lafayette Park case, filed by Black Lives Matter and others against Donald Trump in the U.S. D.C. District Court.​
🔵 What are Bivens action and why don’t they apply in this case?​
🔵 Manhattan District Attorneys discuss the Trump case in the final minutes of the election primary.​
🔵 Trump’s former bodyguard and Chief Operating Officer lawyers up as inquiries into the Trump administration continue.​
🔵 Republican Senators sign a letter to Alejandro Mayorkas with the Department of Homeland Security requesting information about a new document related to immigration.​
🔵 The document, entitled the “DHS Plan to Restore Trust in Our Legal Immigration System” was leaked to the media but not members of Congress.​
🔵 House GOP members sign bill asking President Biden to remove Vice President Kamala Harris from her roll on the border crisis.​
🔵 Senator Krysten Sinema from Arizona pens an opinion piece in the Washington Post explaining why she does not support filibuster reform.​
🔵 Washington Post columnist is not happy about it, calling her position “frightful”.​
🔵 Senator Whitehouse is asked hard questions by a GoLocal reporter about his membership at a Beach House that is allegedly reserved for only whites.​
🔵 Whitehouse says he is aware of the issue, that it has been a tradition, and that he hopes we can work through the issues.​
🔵 A review of Whitehouse’s tweets and his prior statements on rooting out racial injustice.​

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 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 sc

Show Notes Transcript

Black Lives Matter loses a lawsuit against Donald Trump over the Lafayette Park incident claiming Trump allegedly cleared the area for a photo op. Republican Senators question the release of a Department of Homeland Security blueprint regarding major immigration system revisions and House GOP members request Kamala be removed from her position as border czar. Senator Krysten Sinema from Arizona releases a new opinion piece in the Washington Post explaining her justification for opposing eliminating the filibuster and Senator Whitehouse answers questions an allegedly whites-only beach club in Rhode Island where he is a member.​

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

🔵 Trump Lawsuit Dismissed, GOP Requests Kamala Removal, Sinema & Whitehouse​
🔵 Judge Dabney Friedrich rejects protestor claims that the Federal government and Trump administration violated their Constitutional rights.​
🔵 Review of the Lafayette Park case, filed by Black Lives Matter and others against Donald Trump in the U.S. D.C. District Court.​
🔵 What are Bivens action and why don’t they apply in this case?​
🔵 Manhattan District Attorneys discuss the Trump case in the final minutes of the election primary.​
🔵 Trump’s former bodyguard and Chief Operating Officer lawyers up as inquiries into the Trump administration continue.​
🔵 Republican Senators sign a letter to Alejandro Mayorkas with the Department of Homeland Security requesting information about a new document related to immigration.​
🔵 The document, entitled the “DHS Plan to Restore Trust in Our Legal Immigration System” was leaked to the media but not members of Congress.​
🔵 House GOP members sign bill asking President Biden to remove Vice President Kamala Harris from her roll on the border crisis.​
🔵 Senator Krysten Sinema from Arizona pens an opinion piece in the Washington Post explaining why she does not support filibuster reform.​
🔵 Washington Post columnist is not happy about it, calling her position “frightful”.​
🔵 Senator Whitehouse is asked hard questions by a GoLocal reporter about his membership at a Beach House that is allegedly reserved for only whites.​
🔵 Whitehouse says he is aware of the issue, that it has been a tradition, and that he hopes we can work through the issues.​
🔵 A review of Whitehouse’s tweets and his prior statements on rooting out racial injustice.​

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 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 sc

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal 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 big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. We're going to start off by talking about Donald Trump's Lafayette civil lawsuit. If you recall, we talked about this some time ago where Donald Trump, the allegation was that he was sort of commanding law enforcement to disperse, peaceful protestors out there at Lafayette square, resulting in people being injured in damages and things also that he could go take a photo up, walk across the street, hold up the Bible and take that picture in front of St . John's church. Well, that lawsuit sort of was dismissed today. The judge dismissed most of the claims. And so we're going to go through this. We're going to see what's happening here because he was being sued by black lives matter and some other organizations. So I want to show you that, but is this the end of the investigation for Donald Trump? Because there's a lot more going on in his wheelhouse. We're going to take a look at what's going on in New York. There is a district attorney's race that's well underway right now as we speak. And they are , uh, the , the business insider weighed in and they wanted to know from these candidates, what are you going to do regarding the Donald Trump Trump organization investigation? And so we're going to check in with that, but it doesn't stop there, there . Now the district attorney current da out of New York is investigating Donald Trump's former bodyguard. So we're going to take a look at all the stuff that's going on there. Then we've got to transition yet again, over to the border, because I think 50 52 Republicans signed a letter and they sent that off to the white house saying , uh , we don't have much confidence in Camila Harris. The duly appointed borders are that Joe Biden said was going to go and fix the problem. So Republicans not particularly happy about this. And we want to read through their letter and see who is a part of the , the chorus screaming about the massive failures at the border. We've been talking about this for some time, in fact, yesterday as well about what's taking place there. And the states are starting to get pretty tired of the federal government dropping the ball. So we're going to get into that. And then lastly, we're going to talk about some updates from our us senators, Senator cinema Kiersten cinema here from Arizona, came out with an op ed late yesterday saying that she's not supporting the filibuster not going to be happening. So that brings to now Democrats not going to support the filibuster, meaning that the Democrats are going to have a hard time , uh, you know, breaking through the , the congrats Congress in order to pass certain bills. And so I should say, I would say filibuster reform is what cinema and mansion are not in favor of. They want to keep the filibuster in place. The Democrats want to reform it. Or in other words, Reckitt so that they can cram through a bunch of legislation on a simple majority vote. Kiersten cinema said, no, not going to happen. She came out with a Washington post article today, and we're going to go through that. It's an opinion piece. And she gives some justification as to why she is landing the , where the , the , the way that she is as it relates to the filibuster. Then we've got an interesting thing happened over the weekend. Senator white house got asked a question about a private beach club. That sounds like it might be a little bit racist and he's kind of in hot water over this. So we want to go through that. He's got a video out there, you know, Senator white house is of course a very good Democrat. Somebody who every time there's any, any moment to opine about, you know, all of the racial problems in America is a , the first at the gate first at the line, he wants to get out there and get rambunctious about it. But little did we know, it sounds like he is. It's a part of an all white beach club , uh, and wherever that is, we're going to get to that story. So , uh , you know, it's, it fits, it's sort of par for the course on the double standard narrative that we've got going on on this channel. So we're going to get into all of it that, and more, I want you to be a part of the show, but not today. So I would ask you to go over to watching the watchers.locals.com and of course support us there. But the show is you can tell right now it's recorded. We're not going to be taking any questions today because I've got a couple events tonight and tomorrow that I have to attend to at the time that we would normally be live, oh, doing it. So, yeah , we are going to do a live Q and a, or we're going to do a Q and a , a post video on Sunday for locals supporters. So if you want to support us and ask a question, I'm going to answer them all in a recorded video on Sunday night to make up for missing a couple of these nights. And so it's just going to be sort of a back loaded , but if you want to be a part of that, go over to watching the watchers.locals.com. That's where we all hang out, post some more videos, some more sort of exclusive stuff, a little behind the scenes thing, posted a video. Last night, I was at a hotel here in Arizona because my air conditioning is still broken for some reason. So it is a, you know, it's a little bit of an adventure over there watching the watchers.locals.com. And of course, you're supporting us there. We are totally demonetized here on YouTube, the entire channel. And so if you, if you support us, there really goes a long way. And remember, we're building a separate sort of, you know , information supply line that are separate and apart from big tech, and every time you sort of, you know , speak with your wallet a little bit, it helps lay another brick in that , that very strong foundation that we're building elsewhere. And so we appreciate all the love and support at watching the Watchers dot locals com. And before we move on couple of quick reminders, got some other links down in the description below to my other crypto channel, which I'm going to get back to working on. As soon as my , uh, my house is back in order. And then I'm going to , uh, I want to , I want to , of course mentioned that we've got our law firm here in Arizona, where we love helping good people facing criminal charges to find safety, clarity, and hope with their cases. And so all of those links are down in the description below. All right. So let's get into the news of the day. Donald Trump has been the subject of a lot of litigation. He's not somebody who's foreign to this area of the world. And he's kind of in the thick of it right now, at least kind of, depending on who you ask, if you're a Democrat right now, there's a lot of news people , a lot of media personalities who are very excited about all of the developments surrounding Donald Trump, every time he sort of sneezes, they go, he's going to get indicted for that. And the question is, is he really, is he not? You know, I've always been of the perspective here that people who are presidents don't get indicted. People who are close to the presidency, don't get indicted. And largely because it's , it's a, it's a political thing, right? If you, if you indict former president Donald Trump, you're going to have 71 very angry Americans who say that this was a political prosecution, because largely it is. And that does not bode well for any party in power. You can sort of create a very, very volatile , uh , base of people who are angry. I think for good reasons when it turns into a political prosecution. So of course, you know, I've always been of the perspective that this is probably not anything that's going to go anywhere, but if you are a Democrat, you're very excited. Every time there's a new development with the da out of New York, we've been covering some of these stories here on this channel that we're going after the treasury of the Trump organization, or the CFO, the chief financial officer investigating where his grandchildren went to school, because they're thinking this might be a sort of an unreported tax gift, and they want to indict former president Donald Trump for that. So, you know, they're very excited about it. They're kind of, you know, pleasuring themselves a lot as it relates to this story, which they're free to do. It's America. They're welcome to do that. But on the other side of things , uh , today Trump had a win, right? Trump had a win today because a judge tossed a bulk of the federal lawsuits that came out from the Lafayette park protestors . So we don't have a picture of this here today, but you remember this, this was, this was that scene when there was a lot of protests during the summer of unrest, they were right in front of the white house, lot of, sort of peaceful protestors , but non peaceful protesters were there as well. A lot of chaos was sort of pandemonium was, was taking place out there. Well, we all saw this, this sort of March of former president, Donald Trump, bill BARR, and some other officials from the white house walk out of the white house, down the streets through Lafayette park, walk over to the church St. John's church, I believe. And Trump stood there with a picture of the Bible right in front of the church and , uh , held up the Bible and everybody was taking pictures of him. And so the media went bananas. They said that Donald Trump, you know, use law enforcement use the FBI or the , uh, the , the Capitol hill police to sort of eliminate the protestors by tear, gassing them and tasing them. Didn't give them adequate warning. And the list goes on and on. And they ran with that. And we played clips here, sort of the montage of the media hyperventilating over this. This is an evil dictator who's out there scrubbing the streets of his political enemies and going, okay, whatever. So anyway, what happened was they filed a lawsuit. Everybody who was a part of that, not everybody, but you know , a , a significant portion of those protestors were a part of different organizations. And they all sued Trump. And they said, Hey, what you did was wrong. It was illegal. And we want monetary damages. You violated our constitutional rights and we have a right to protest. And therefore you we're we're . We want, we want money for that. We want to be compensated for what you deprived us of. And the federal judge said, no, not so fast before we get into this, I do want to mention though, we also sort of heard earlier, I think this was actually last week, we talked about this, but there was an actual report that came out from the office of inspector general. If we recall, who did an independent audit of this entire scene, went through and said, yeah, you know, we got a lot of claims here that Donald Trump is an ego, maniacal genius, evil genius, who wants to just eliminate his political enemies. And he did this for the sole purpose of taking a photograph in front of the church. Well , the OIG came out and said, no , not really. We don't see that at all. In fact, it sounds like what was happening was we were already clearing the area well before Donald Trump ever even thought about leaving the white house. Why? Because it was not a good, safe environment. We're talking about a lot of very important buildings with a lot of very important bureaucrats. They tell themselves walking all around that city, not a good place to have violent protest taking place right outside the white house, in other words. So they were already shipping in barricades chain, link fencing. They were already rounding up the guard saying, Hey, we're , we're bracing for impact for another night of this stuff. And as the reinforcements were arriving, that's when Donald Trump and co walked out that turned into this media hyperventilation panic attack about him being, you know, an evil dictator. So he got sued about sued today. We know federal judge dumped a lot of those cases. So dismisses the bulk of the suits against the feds. Let's go through this. Federal judge has dismissed a series of lawsuits against federal government over the use of force to drive black lives matter protesters out of Lafayette park last year. But the order from the judge will allow protestors to continue to seek damages from DC over actions of their police forces. I'm going to show you what that looks like. Okay. Couple additional claims that basically the government or the judge is saying the government hasn't kind of defended themselves adequately on yet. We'll see if those go anywhere, but there are most of, most of the lawsuit allegations, the claims the issues are being dismissed. The rest a very small portion of these are moving forward. So we're going to go through it. The judge , his name is judge Dabney, Friedrich rejected the demonstrators, the protestors claims for damages. He suing president Donald Trump. He was suing William Barr. He was suing a defense secretary, mark Esper, as well as some current federal officials. So they kind of just labeled the entire federal government and said, we're mad at all of you Friedrich a Trump appointee. He's the judge. He also declined to consider requests for an injunction barring similar use of force against protestors in the future. So the protesters are now suing saying, Hey, we know we got injured, we got pepper sprayed. We got pepper balled or whatever. And we want compensation for this, but it's more than that. It's saying, Hey, you know, the federal government we've got constitutional rights, which I am a huge supporter of love. Those constitutional rights, make an, make my entire living, defending those things, because I think they're that important. We've got a whole team of people here who are just passionate about fourth amendment, fifth amendment, sixth amendment also happened to love the rest of them a lot myself as well. But what we're talking about here is a constitutional right to let's say, free, free speech, right? The first amendment you're out there protesting. You're mad at Donald Trump for whatever reason. So you're out there and you want to , you know , shout at him in America. You're free to do that under certain circumstances. And what they're talking about here is they're saying we're offended. We've been constitutionally damaged because some of our rights have been stripped away from us in the form of law enforcement, overstepping their bounds and abusing us. And so we want damages for that. So it's not just necessarily about, you know, I was physically injured. I got hit with a pepper spray or my eyes were watery for a couple of days. It is about my constitutional freedoms being stripped away from me. And I want compensation for that, so that we're going to see those types of claims. But it's also important to note that in addition to that, they were also saying that they don't ever want this to happen again, that's the point of the injunction they're telling the court that this was such an egregious offense. Not only do we want compensation for that for, for the actual physical damages, we want compensation for the constitutional damages, but we also want an injunction. We don't want this to ever happen again. And so judge, we're asking you court to make sure that this never happens again. So let's see what the judge has to say about all of that. Let's take a look at the header of this, of the first page here. It says , uh , black lives matter. You can see as a plaintiff versus Donald Trump at all. And so this is sort of, everybody's being lumped in under the Donald Trump , uh, title here. So we've got at all down here, we've got multiple , it looks like five different plaintiffs here, Ryan Roth, we've got Isabella Kavanaugh , we've got [inaudible] cannon . And then we have black lives matter DC . So it's only for my apologies. And then Donald Trump is being listed as the defendant in all of them, right? We've got different case numbers. This is filed out of the district court for the district of Columbia. So we're in federal court and let's go through this. I'm not going to read through the entire opinion. It's about 51 pages, but we have some interesting things that we can gather right here from the start of the opinion. So it says these lawsuits arise out of law enforcement response to protests in Lafayette square on June 1st, 2020. Right? And so remember George Floyd died near the end of may. And so these protests were sort of, you know, going on all over the country at this moment, in these related cases, four sets of plaintiffs, they bring various constitutional and statutory claims against the federal and state officials, including Trump seeking both damages and injunctive relief. They want money and they want this to never happen again before the court are 15 motions to dismiss. Okay? So that's a bunch of motions that are all being filed, of course, by Donald Trump. So their motions to dismiss the complaint, the BLM and the plaintiff sued the president and his , uh , colleagues. And they're moving to dismiss the charge that the complaint against them. So for the reasons the court will grant the motions in part and deny the motions in part, which means some of the dismissals are going to be granted. Some of them are not some, some of the issues that are being discussed may be dismissed. Others may not. So background factual though, the parties dispute various facts in deciding these motions to dismiss the court must accept as true all material, factual allegations in the complaints. Okay. At this stage of the proceedings, the court will not accept the defendants invitation to consider facts, not explicitly judged in the complaints. Okay. So what's it . What's he saying here? He's saying at this moment, we've got, let's call him BLM versus Trump. Okay. Cause that's sort of the title , uh , plaintiff and defendant. So BLM assuming Trump and what the court is saying is at this moment in time, because they have filed a complaint. BLM is saying, we're mad about these things, this, this, this fourth amendment, fifth amendment free speech, blah, blah, blah. All of the , the offenses w w w were upset about these things. They send that over to Donald Trump at this moment, Donald Trump and his defense team, he says, we're going to w w we're moving to dismiss all of these allegations. So the court is saying, well, wait a minute, we've got some disputes about what the XR in the first place BLM is saying, this happened, Trump, your people are saying this happened. And so we're kind of, you know, we haven't gone to a trial yet. We haven't presented all of this evidence in front of a jury or in front of a court or anybody. This is all just sort of being done in the pleadings, in the documents that are being sent back and forth. So Trump and his people now file a motion to dismiss. And the court says, all right, well, listen, I'm going to come . I'm going to consider your motion to dismiss. But because we have some disagreement about what the facts are, I can't consider your version of the facts. So let's do this. Let's say, if I take it , their version of the facts, BLM his version of the facts. And I just decided all of those are true. And then I take those facts and I analyze them according to the statute, according to the law. And I , and I come to a conclusion again , if that conclusion would still support a dismissal, even if everything works true, then I'm going to grant those emotions. Okay. Cause, cause so what, right? So even if they came into court and we fought about the facts and they won every single factual issue, if the law says that the case is still needs to be dismissed, well, I can just go ahead and dismiss it right now. We don't actually have to go through everything. Cause we're just going to presume that everything is in their favor. It's looking at things, a light in a light, most favorable to the non-moving party. In this case, Trump wants to dismiss, we're going to give BLM every benefit of the doubt. All right . So let's see what the judge is talking about here. He says, so for example, some of the defendants here, Trump asked the court to consider news articles, referenced in the complaints that preceded and detailed the unrest of July. One saying that there was rioting, looting and property damage that occurred the night before in the area of Lafayette square. He says they also Trump's motions here. Also point to the fact and the factual findings of mayor Muriel, Bowzer, who, whose order on may 31, 2 21, 20 21 implementing a citywide curfew on June 1st, 2020. Okay. So we've got some more information. It says, he says, the judge has , the court will not consider these disputed allegations because they are not integral to the plaintiff's claims. And he says also, nor would they affect the outcome. So the defense is saying, Hey, you know, we've got some things that we want to show you about this. He says, it doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter. It doesn't even, it's not even integral to their claim. And it doesn't, it doesn't change the outcome either way. So defense keep your facts, don't even need them. All right , let's go on. We're going to take a quick paragraph here from the actual order of the opinion. It says the plaintiff's here. So that would be BLM and co. They alleged that quote, peaceful protestors assembled in the historic Lafayette park across from the white house, which we all saw to protest the racial injustice after the death of George Floyd and other black people at the hands of law enforcement, they further alleged in response to the peaceful protest that officials wielding. Bhutan's sprayed the crowd with tear gas, Flashband grenades, smoke bombs, and rubber bullets. To the extent that any of the plaintiffs alleged that the law enforcement officers provided warnings before dispersing the crowd. They say that those warnings were a few tiles and they were also inadequate. So they were given via a megaphone, approximately 50 yards away from the closest protesters . And they were barely audible. So the allegation is that, you know, they were just kind of standing there peacefully protesting with the signs up, you know , uh , Trump is an evil monster. Yay. Okay. So they were doing that and you know, down the street, 50 yards away, half a football field, you've got some police officers like, oh , disperse, everybody get out of here before. Oh, well we gave them three or four orders. So Hey Lou , they didn't hear us , uh, hit him with the gas. Lou's like, yeah, perfect pup , pup, pup, pup, just, you know , flying off a projectiles. And so, you know, it's kind of a , a tricky situation going on there. And so we've got some different facts that we're going to fight about, but the judge says, mum , not even going to care about those facts don't even care what Trump and his people say could have been 50 yards. It could have been 10 yards could have been 2000 yards. Doesn't really matter because we're just going to move on with the rest of our analysis. He says, let's see 50 yards away now before the court. So I wanted to just flesh this out for a quick second, not going to read through the entirety of the complaint. Cause it , cause there is really a lot here, but there is, it's about 16 pages and they talk about some of the different complaints and allegations that are moving forward. Let's go through this again. We've got before the court, now our 15 motions to dismiss that were filed by the defendants. Okay. So we've got former president, former AIG , we've got us park police, national guard, us secret service. We got federal bureau of prisons, Arlington county police department. Uh, we got the district of Columbia, Metro PD in their official capacity, secretary of defense, chief, us park police director of the secret service commanding general of the national guard, FBI for these reasons and follow the court will grant the motions in part and deny the motions in part. So I want to show you sort of how this works. And I just wanted to pause on that slide briefly because you see all of the different agencies that are involved in all of this stuff, right? And I've , I've made this point many times on this, on the show. It's kind of amazing to me that we had the January six insurrection take place when you've got the secret service bureau of prisons, Columbia park, police, national guard, federal bureau of prisons, us equal service, us park, police DC and DC national guard, Arlington county police, the attorney General's office and everybody else who is just like, you know, just like, you know, rats around a Cheeto. And they're just going hog wild over there. You know, law enforcement all over the place, but they can't stop, you know, a thousand people from , from getting into the Capitol building. It's just like amazing. The, the incompetence is just outstanding. So, all right . So let's take a look at what the biggest claim that is being brought here brought forward, which is sort of the idea that federal agents Trumpers were seizing constitutional rights from the peaceful protesters . That's kind of the main allegation here that they were exceeding the use of force, the , the proper use of force. They were infringing upon constitutional rights. There should be monetary damages and an injunction. So the , uh , the , uh , about the first 16 pages of this entire opinion are talking about this thing called a Bivins actions. What is that? What is a big one's actions ? Let's take a quick look. It says a [inaudible] action generally refers to a lawsuit for damages, which is exactly what we just saw. Okay. Cause they want money. They want damages when a federal officer who is acting in the color of federal authority, allegedly violates the U S constitution by the federal officers acting okay. That comes over from Cornell. And it says that we go through this analysis here. So , so now that we kind of know what it is, it's, it's the idea that a federal agent is depriving you of a constitutional rights called the [inaudible] actions. And if you go through the full 16 pages, essentially the judges summarizing, or I will summarize what the judge was arguing or were ruling, but that this is essentially not a violation of, you know , acting under the color of law. So when we talk about the color of law, sort of acting with authority, right? A police officer comes and orders you out of the vehicle. He's doing so under the color of law, he's got the , the lawful authority to do that. If some random person pulls you over and says, get out of the car, you're like, well, who the hell are you? What what's no , you're not an officer. You don't have any authority to make that order. And so here are the allegation is that they're sort of acting under the color of law to do something that's not constitutional. And what the judge goes through is he says, listen , uh , perfectly lawful what these officers did. In fact, Congress has even considered this. And he goes through in 16 pages analyzing the context of what was taking place there . Talking about public safety concerns being right on the perimeter of some very sensitive buildings. It says that Congress actually, when they were drafting some of the national security laws and some of the guidance for how to manage this space specifically contemplated, you know, sort of removing protesters away from there. And so the idea that they were acting, you know , unlawfully or outside of the color of that law courts say, no, they were doing exactly what they're supposed to do. In fact, there are federal officers and they're supposed to be maintaining security on these premises. Congress even specifically contemplated the removal of protestors and we had the OIG report come out and everything's kind of, kind of kosher here. So not nothing even really worth taking much more time on. He says, in conclusion, these special factors make it inappropriate to extend Bivins into the new context presented by these cases. Court will grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the Bivins claims case . So all of those just go right away. Congress has contemplated this wasn't a violation of constitutional rights on that basis. So the one claim I mentioned at the start of the show that really does stick with them is this equitable claim for relief here. The plaintiffs, the court says have standing to challenge the continued restrictions on the Lafayette square. So they have plausibly alleged an ongoing injuries as to this day over a year after the events of June one, Lafayette square remained subject to heightened restrictions that periodically limit protesters access to the square. So he says, despite the changes in the administrations , federal defendants here , here , the Biden administration, they still have not met the high bar of showing that this claim has been mooted by subsequent events. So, you know, this is the idea that the park is still on lockdown essentially. And the court is saying, well, why is that, you know , justify if you're going to continue this course of action, it was justified back on June one, but maybe not now anymore. So if you want to, to explain that, you're welcome to do that, but you have to meet the high bar. The , the plaintiffs will still have a claim. They can still move forward with that. Uh, and , and, and craft some sort of equitable relief for that. Okay. And I want to show you the sentence here, dismissing most everything else. If you recall, back during the election, we talked a lot about standing and about a dismissal of , of , of a case prior to it ever reaching the court. Well, here we've got something similar. It says the plaintiff's remaining claims for the injunctive relief are dismissed for a lack of standing. Their remaining statutory claims are also dismissed for a failure to state a claim, right ? So basically they put a bunch of stuff in a complaints, but it's not kind of a legal claim. It's like, you're mad about a bunch of stuff, but so what, what do you want us to do with that? What is your claim? It's gotta be something that the law recognizes and what is the remedy for that claim set up. You didn't state a claim that is recognized under the law. Therefore, that gets dismissed and you've got no standing to come and complain about the injunction for , for whatever they were requesting to follow. So , uh, most of the cases that are dismissed think largely a big win for Trump. And we've got for the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss are granted in part denied in part showed you what, that was a separate order, consistent with this decision accompanies the memorandum sign off on here by davening El Friedrich. So don't know if anybody is going to appeal this, right? A lot of these people were plaintiffs, not the government. So they'd have to come up with some funds to hire an attorney, to appeal these up to a higher court. We'll see if it, it goes anywhere. Does that mean that the Trump litigate saga is over in any way, shape or form? No, definitely not. Are you kidding me? It's probably just getting started. In fact, there's a Manhattan district. Attorney's race happening right now. People are probably voting literally as I'm recording this and you'll take a snapshot. This is what these people look like. And there's an article here today from business. Insider says the next Manhattan da will take over the Trump organization investigation. Yes, they will. We asked all nine candidates how they'd handle the case, right ? So if you ever hear anybody say, you know, to be fair to the DA's, they all answered this extremely professional and very well, as far as I can tell, but you know, the media is just like just salivating over anything, really , to Trump investigations, you have all these people running, you know, that they're prosecutors, their district attorney . They can't comment on that stuff, that it would disqualify their office. So they, they're not going to say anything, but the media is still like, they want that sound bite . They want that slip. So they went around, of course , uh , Jacob champion champion over here asked everybody all these questions. What are you going to do? So we've got all these people top row tahini. I Boosie Deanna Florence. And so on across the top, they're all running. I think the election is happening right now. So they asked all nine candidates how they'd handled the DA's investigation into the Trump organization. Many of them declined to comment directly saying it would be unethical to speculate about an ongoing case while some criticized opponents for perceived conflicts of interest. In Trump's case, all of them vowed to protect new Yorkers, keeping mind the violence at the Capitol. Of course, virtually every candidate told insider they would take a straight and narrow approach to the Trump investigation, looking at the facts and making decisions based on the evidence before them. So somebody said , uh, Eliza Orleans, who used to be a public defender, said that if the facts demonstrate that a crime has been committed, it's up to the district attorney to make a determination as to whether that crime should be prosecuted. Donald Trump is no different from any other person in that way. Okay. So yeah. I mean , perfect answer. Flawless answer, Eliza Orleans and the rest of the da people. I mean, it's great. Excellent job. So it's going to be hard to show that there's a conflict of interest here. If one of them had come out and said, yeah, no, absolutely. We're gonna , we're gonna wreck Donald Trump. We're actually gonna prosecute him and wreck him. Well, then Donald Trump would have a pretty good argument for , for trying to disqualify that particular district attorney saying that this is a, you know , uh , prosecutorial misconduct. This is an unethical, you know, personal political bias rather than anything that resembles probable cause that would lead to legitimate criminal charges. So we , you know, they're saying the right thing , so good for them. Uh, does anybody believe it? That's a whole nother story now it's not just stopping there. They are going to continue the inquisition into Donald Trump in every little facet and crevice of his entire organization. And here we are now with his body guard . So if you recall, just to catch you up, back up to speed, there was a CFO, I think from the Trump organization goes by the name of Weisselberg, who is somebody who is under high scrutiny from the attorney general, from New York and from the DA's office over there, Cyrus Vance Jr. Is the current Manhattan district attorney. So they're just going hog-wild they're on the Trump investigation, very excited about it. And they're even going so far as to investigate the place that Allen Weisselberg, the CFO, where his grandkids, I think go to a school because the allegation is that Donald Trump was improperly funneling money to pay sort of pay for their tuition. And then using that to finagle his way out of taxes, rather than paying the CFO, let's say $150,000 for this private school. And then him having to take that as income and then actually pay it out to the school. Maybe the Trump organization just kind of funnels that through as a, as a business expense, or I don't know how he would've done it, you know, as an educational gift or something like that. But they're saying, Hey, this is a problem. Donald Trump didn't pay taxes on it. Oh, that's a crime. Now we're going to investigate Donald Trump and you know, grind through that. So my point here is like everything. I mean, they're , they are every single stone they've been doing this for what is it? Six years, seven years, six years now. I mean, if Donald Trump really started getting serious about running and what was that? 2015, yeah. Seven years were , were 15, six years, six coming up on seven years here. Ooh . So a lot of investigation, a lot of deep dive in on that. And now they're going after the body guard . So this story comes over from the wall street journal, Rebecca Ballhaus and Corrine Ramey said that Matthew calamari, he is now the Trump's organizations . A chief operating officer has hired his own attorneys as prosecutors investigate the company's employees perks so that it looks like they COO is now also under investigation as, as well as Trump's former body guard . So let's take a look calamari . They're asking whether he received tax free fringe benefits, part of a probe into whether Trump were and his employees were illegally paying taxes, prosecutors interest in Mr. Calamari once Trump's bodyguard. So it's the same guy. Actually, the bodyguard got promoted to the COO man that Trump organization likes to promote within that's outstanding indicates that their probe into the Trump organization's alleged practice and providing some employees with cars and apartments extends beyond Weisselberg the company's CFO and his family. So neither Mr. Calamari or Weisselberg nor anyone else connected to the company has been accused of wrongdoing. They're just looking at investigating him so they could get Trump receiving benefits, like a free apartment, subsidized rent , or car leases from an employee and not taxes on the benefits can be a crime. Although experts say prosecutors rarely bring cases on such perks alone, unless you happen to be Donald Trump, who they all have a political bent against the office of the Manhattan district attorney general attorney Cyrus, Vance has for months been pressuring Weisselberg to cooperate. There's no indication they've been successful. And Mr. Vance's office in coordinating with Latisha, James has we talk a lot about Latisha here? She is, has said it is working on a broader criminal probe into the potential bank insurance or tax fraud by the organization and its officers Latisha . James we've talked about her a lot here on this channel. She was the one who specifically ran in order to go against Donald Trump. We played a clip of her on this channel member . She said , um, oh gosh, I can't remember the quote. I played it like two times. It was a good one. And it's something like illegitimate president. She was very mad about it. A lot of facial animation going on when she was saying it, which is how you can tell she's very upset because a lot of, a lot of movement going on there when she was president. I remember that one. Yeah, it was fun show. All right . So who is this guy? Now? This guy I wanted to just show you a picture of Trump's bodyguard and the COO. I mean, it's very Trumpy. Let's take a look at this guy. Here he is. And he looks like a bodyguard. I mean , I'm not laughing at the man because this guy could just like snap me in half. But look at these shoulders, my friends, I mean the shoulders here, it's like, it's like, like five feet right here. Right? He's like as wide as I am tall and look at this , he doesn't even have a neck . This is a bodyguard. And the COO of the Trump organization, there is no neck there. His hands are like, you know, outstanding. So it's very perfect. When I saw Trump bodyguard looks like, I don't know what he looks like. Somebody who's perfect for the role Donald Trump's bodyguard is now under investigation from Latisha James. Right ? So Trump is still going to be going through some litigation and hopefully he's got some good lawyers by the way, if you need a good lawyer, if you happen to have been charged with a crime in the state of Arizona, that's what we do on a daily basis. Want to show you the RNR law group. These are the crimes that we help with. These are the criminal charges that we can help people get through things like drug charges, traffic tickets, felony charges, DUI charges, traffic violations , uh , clearing up old mugshots, old expungements. We can do a lot to really help people restore their rights and get things back on track. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs some help, I would very much appreciate a referral to our law firm. We offer free case evaluations. We would love the opportunity to help. And if you don't need actual legal services, maybe you could use legislation. How about the law enforcement interaction training, which is available now at Robert , uh , gumroad.com/robert ruler . And we did a two and a half hour training here. Law enforcement interaction training was a lot of fun. I thought it was very, very, a very good turnout, great questions, very interactive. And so if you want to get, catch the replay, you can get [email protected] slash Robert Mueller . If you're looking for personal systems, check the existence systems out, and if you are somebody who's a lawyer or a legal assistant, or somebody who works in the legal field, check out the griller method, we call it the legal mastermind. We've got a call coming up on that next week. I've been doing that for about two years now. And I've got a little bit of , uh , some, some good stuff going on there. So check that out. If you're interested, also be sure to check out all of the links down in the description below and do not forget to come and join [email protected], which is really the place to be all of the, all of the good stuff that's happening in all the different projects Homebase . Is it watching the watchers.locals.com? We really do appreciate your support there. All right. So we're going to change gears here a little bit. We're going to talk about the border. We've been talking about the border for a long time here on this channel in particular had some concerns about Camila Harris and how she is handling the so-called border crisis. Well, I call it that and many other people do, but the white house so far has kind of been a little bit mom on that. Phrasiology saying that a lot of this is just kind of coming from root causes. It's all sort of natural ebbs and flow of immigration. And it's been a little bit of kind of hands-off approach until very recently when Kamala Harris went down to Guatemala and she wanted to go solve the root cause problem about immigration, because you know, it's not really anything to do about the actual border, like the interface between the United States and Mexico. It's more about the root causes about things that are taking place in Guatemala, like climate change and some other, you know, concepts that she thinks are ultimately causing the push of people and the poll of people into the United States. So she goes down there and she kind of scolds them, you know, in , in Guatemala. And Hey, don't you come over here? I know I just got done for like a full year, really in about 2019, begging that you believe that I am a humanitarian person who cares about the immigration plight that is taking place throughout the world. And that she's going to be somebody who's actually empathetic as opposed to the racist former know Donald Trump, who was just sort of a , uh , an absolute monster when it came to immigration kids in cages. So Camila was going to come and fix all this problem for us, goes down to Guatemala, wags her fingers. They kind of don't like that. So she picks up, goes over to Mexico, does the same thing. Everybody's kind of looking around saying, what is she coming down here for? Her administration made the changes in the policies that exacerbated the current problem. She created incentives and many of the very immigrants who were making the Trek across the scalding desert are, are verifying that for us. We've played clips here on the channel where they say, yeah, why are you coming here? Well , uh , canola and buy-ins had to come on over here. So that's, that's the cause. And in my opinion, it's the incentivization of the trend . The, the, the migration that is ultimately the problem that is causing good people to uproot their entire families, crammed themselves into you halls at 106 degrees or lay themselves stack themselves on top of one another on flatbed trailers that are coming across this border in order to reach a little bit of that fake, false promise that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden promise . So these great humanitarians are causing a humanitarian crisis by their inane policies, but, okay, so I've never, as you can tell, I've never had much faith in Camila Harris or the current administration's policies. It all seemed political. It seemed much more about appeasing their Twitter base than it ever had to do about fixing a humanitarian crisis. It's not about the immigrants. It's about the people who are pretending to be for the immigrants who are screaming from their phones on Twitter, complaining about racism in America, right? So they're the ones that these policies are really helping more or less helping to satiate their diluted worldview, but it's actually harming the immigrants. It's actually harming people. It's causing people to pick up and try to come here. And there , there are many I'm I'm , I'm certain of it are dying that we never even hear about on the journey over. We just heard that there were 13 people that got picked up in a U hall , uh , that were all taken to the hospital. Something like 33 people were in the back of the U-Haul and 13 of them were hospitalized with heat exhaustion and all sorts of, you know, heat , borderline heat stroke. So that's just what we were able to help at the border, who knows how many people are dying on the Trek from Guatemala up through Mexico to try to make it here. So I'm sure the numbers are just abounding, but the point here is I've never had any confidence in Kamala Harris. Uh, I think her record as a prosecutor and attorney general were both reprehensible her record. Now on another humanitarian crisis, that's working its way up through our Southern border is also reprehensible. Good news is I am in good company because 56 Republicans here signed a letter saying that they also think that she's basically useless on this issue. The Republicans, as they've done for months noted that Harris has not visited the border yet. Some democratic lawmakers who represent the areas have called on her to go there. We've got rep grant , Glousman 55 other Republicans in the house. They demanded Harris's removal from her border assignment, citing a recent customs and border protection data that shows 180,000 people were apprehended last month after crossing the border illegally. Right? And we remember what happened here. And this was back, I think in March Biden brought Camila into the white house and said, oh, you're the smart, you're super smart. I trust you with this issue. Here you go. And almost immediately, Camila was like backpedaling from missing and rightfully so she should have done. So because it's almost an impossible issue to fix. It's been a problem. My entire life, both parties on both sides of the aisle have been sort of kicking the ball back and forth. You know , sending it over to one side, they send it back over to the other side of you're a racist. Now you're a racist. Now you're a racist. And here we go. And you know, it's never going to be solved essentially, because I think both parties have a vested interest in making sure that it's not solved. So Camila knew exactly that she was being handed a bag of excrement from Joe Biden. And so she has, I'm not going to the border at all. I don't want to even associate my image with that even in the slightest. So she has not been down there now. Harris has defended not going. And she says that she's going to go at some point in the future. When she visited Guatemala, she said that the root causes , uh , really should be addressed. However, her explanation to reporters in Mexico about why hasn't she visited the border yet, overshadowed her trip saying the white house is aiming to boost economic development in the region. So that's good. So maybe we'll see a change in what, 15, 20 years once the , the, or the entire economic infrastructure of Guatemala changes. How about , uh, this month or next year she told reporters it would be very easy. We'll travel to one place and therefore it's solved. I don't think anybody thinks that that would be the solution. What does that mean? When , when pressed about visiting the border again, Harris said she did. So when she was a Senator from California, we played that ridiculous clip. I think she was with , uh , uh, who was that guy? I think CNN guy. All right. So a dozen Republican senators have demanded the immediate release of a Biden administration blueprint for expanding and overhauling, the immigration system kind of amazing. They don't have that already, according to a draft that was obtained by selected media, but it was not disclosed to Congress or the general public. So it sounds like the white house has a blueprint, something they're working on. We'll see what it is in a joint letter to Homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas senators demand the release of 46 page draft called the DHS plan to restore our trust and our legal immigration system. It's a nice title , uh , which was first reported by the New York times, reportedly maps out the Biden's plan for a significant expansion of the immigration system. So they're, they're , they're moving on to immigration next. We've got infrastructure. They've got to wrap up before they go wreck the immigration. According to the New York times, the blueprint lists scores of initiatives intended to reopen the country to more immigrants. Okay, well , not just rolling back some Trump era policies, but also addressing backlogs and delays that plagued prior presidents. Most of the documents policy proposals could not be implemented by executor authority would require a broader overhaul of us immigration laws, according to the report. So we have this letter that was drafted. This is coming over to the honorable Alejandro Mayorkas here from the us Senate. So they're saying, Hey dear , Mayorca a couple of things we want to talk about today. We write a request that you immediately released that document, the DHS plan to restore it or trust in our legal immigration system. I mean, I like that on, on theory. Sounds good. Yeah. What's the plan. This document, which was reported by New York times contains details of the president's plan to use and abuse executive authority to reshape our system. We are troubled by the reporting on this document. We want to see it. They say it's disturbing that the DHS would keep this kind of information hidden from Congress and the public, but yet share it with the media. These proposals have the potential to compromise the integrity of our entire immigration system and national security and public safety. The fact that this is being withheld from Congress is troubling. Considering we have an ongoing crisis at the border policies, allegedly proposed would double down on a racing, the successful policies of the Trump administration that actually secured the border and restored the rule of law. We are deeply concerned. These policies are going to continue to act as a pull factor about this yesterday. Okay. Kamala Harris went down to Guatemala and said that it was about a push. That it's the economic conditions. It's about the climate change. I mean, I know I keep saying that one, but I just can't believe okay. If she's going to go solve climate change in Guatemala, that's fine. But it's about the idea that they're pushing them out. And that the only place that they have to go is is America. We should be open and empathetic to them, which I can understand that to some degree. But what happened with [inaudible] was she said, yeah, come on over. And then now goes down there and says, Nope, sorry, door's closed. Don't come anymore. And the real, the real problem with this is that her policies don't match the rhetoric. The policies are still acting as pull factors that you can still come to the border claim asylum. And you're going to wait in the United States. You don't have to remain in Mexico, which is the main policy change that many people were saying was the impetus for this entire new surge in migration. Okay. Back to the letter. So they want access to this document. We're going to see if we can get it at some point, but in addition, the policies proposed in this document, they can open up new ways for immigrants to enter the country legally, that extend well beyond the plain text and the meaning of the law. So sort of redefining an underlying term while there are many rational suggestions for reform in this document. These are decisions that must be made by Congress, Congress alone, not the stroke of the pen by the president. A decision with such serious public safety consequences should be open and accessible. But instead DHS has kept this information from everybody except somebody in the media, which sounds about right, in order for Congress to exercise its legislative and oversight authority, we request that you immediately released a document dated on May 3rd and any other documents. They want it no later than July 15th. It's about three weeks from now. Failure to share the documents by that date will be treated as an obstruction of legitimate congressional oversight. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, signed off on, let's see, oh, a bunch of senators. We've got Mike Lee over here. We got Rick Scott. We got Cindy Hyde Smith, Susan Collins, Maine . We got bill Haggerty Kramer , Inhofe, Ron Johnson. We got Tuberville Danes , Ernst and Thom Tillis. So you got a whole bunch of senators now signing off on that. Let's see what else we have looks like. This is a letter from the , the congressional Republicans now, same type of letter. Let's see what we have here. This is coming over from Congress. So we just covered the Senate. It says, we've got rep Glenn Grothman over here says the VP still hasn't visited the border. You can't truly know the situation until you speak with people on the ground. I in 55 of my colleagues sent this letter demanding, right? So they're sending the same thing. So we got the senators over here. Now we've got the , uh, the Republicans in the house of representatives saying, Hey, we, you know, we want to express our concerns about the vice-president Harris, her visit to the border. In may. We had 180,000 people comment cross . That was just 23,000 compared to last year, which I actually think is a little bit disingenuous on that. Okay. I actually don't think it was that, that significant. I think that comparing 21 to 20 is a little bit disingenuous because 20 was a last year kind of just erase that one, I think, from the numbers. And we've gone through the numbers. I think it was 180,000 up from , uh , I can't remember a lot. Right. It was up pretty considerably. Another like 70,000 people, I think from one 10 in 2019, maybe up to 180, but it's, it's still a very big number. It's just not as big because I don't think anybody was really doing what it was really trying to come across back during the COVID era. If you remember, we , we , we looked at an actual chart and then sort of a bar chart graph chart. And, and I think it was like, and it looks like this all the time. And then this was, so this is currently right now, then this was where we're at currently. And then in , in 2020, I'm sorry, let me do this again. This was, we'll say this was 2020, so this will be January through December. Then we have in 2019, it was actually like this. And then now in 2020, it's like this, right? It's like way near the top. So , uh , it's sort of different. We , we , we covered them all forget about what I just drew there. All right, moving on. We have president Harris wrongly presumes that the root causes only stem from the migrants country of origin. Huh? It says, even if we assume that the root cause is only stem from the country of origin, our exclusive focus on central American ignores the fact that many migrants attempt to legally cross our Southern border from all countries like Russia, Brazil, Cuba, Haiti. So on, we're also aware of no dramatic changes in central American countries over the last few months that would result in such a wide gap of encounters. Huh? So he's saying, you know, we're looking at the numbers here. Well [inaudible] and we went back and we looked at the last five years and we looked at what has changed related to root causes in the origin countries. We haven't found anything. So what accounts for this sudden surge, he says 675%. I think it's like 300% really, but it's still a surge . So yeah , if it is a root cause problem that caused the surge, you would imagine that there was something there that changed , right? That , that actually made the migration increase. What is that? So they went and they looked , they couldn't find anything. He says, additionally, the presumption ignores the role of policy decisions that were made in the first four months of your administration. Maybe those play a role in enticing migrants to illegally cross our Southern border. Perhaps if the vice-president took a moment to speak with our border patrol agents who are on the front lines of this crisis, or even the thousands of migrants currently held in our border facilities, she and your administration we'll be able to grasp this reality. They go on, they say at the time her appointment, you stated I can not . I can think of nobody who is better qualified to do this. We disagree. The country cannot afford another minute of an act from president Biden Harris. While you have publicly, the vice-president even, you must be discouraged with her in action. Are you Joe ? We've all made mistakes in hiring. We understand when someone else needs to be to a task, we sincerely urge you to find someone else in your administration to assist you in getting a handle on this border crisis. So they're just kind of being a little condescending there , right? Listen, Joe, look, I know being president's heart . It's very difficult for you to get through, you know, five minutes speech. I know it's hard, but hiring and firing everybody else has this problem. So you're in good company. Uh , you know, a lot of people have difficulties here, but it's , it's pretty simple. Let's just, you know, find somebody else in your administration. Uh, let us know if we can help. So who signed off on this? Let's take a quick look. We've got Glenn Grothman, obviously Jim banks, Kevin Brady, Andy Biggs. He's here from Arizona. We've got Mike Johnson, James Colmer and the rest of them. So a lot of them signed off on this Lauren Bobert who else? Anybody else stand out here? All right . So , uh, the list keeps going on. Mike Gallagher, Madison Cawthorne new addition to Congress recently, Scott Fitzgerald, Mo Brooks what's up Mo Brooks. We got Marjorie Taylor green signed off on that and Louie Gohmert. All right. So that was the letter over to Congress. Now some interesting things are happening at the border, but not because of immigration it's because of COVID. Of course you knew that Homeland security says that they're going to be restricting. Non-essential travel at our land and ferry crossings with Canada and Mexico because of COVID. We've got a new variant that's spreading around allegedly. And a DHS says that there are positive developments in recent weeks. And it's participating with other us agencies in the white house is experts working with groups with Canada and Mexico to identify the conditions under which restrictions may be ease , safe and sustainably. All right . So that was it or that segment. And you saw the clip, the next slide coming up R and R law group. This is where I work as my law firm here in Scottsdale Arizona, we can help good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and beyond that in their lives. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who does need help with a criminal charge, we would love the opportunity to help. We can help with felonies, drug charges, traffic violations, DUI charges. We can here , uh , help clear up old records. We can help remove mugshots off of the internet. We can restore your right to vote, restore your right, to possess a firearm, lots of good stuff. So our , our mission is just to help people get things back on track, and we would love the opportunity to be able to provide that assistance. And if you , you don't need any actual legal assistance, well, knowledge never hurt. Little knowledge can go a long way. You know, they say an ounce of prevention is worth , uh , whatever of the problem or something, whatever that phrase is . So get your knowledge is my point. You've got law enforcement interaction training, how to deal with the police available now at gumroad.com/robert ruler two and a half hour course. If you go there, you can poke around. I have a whole sort of a big description about what is in here. And it's a lot of good feedback on that. Pretty pretty, I think fun course. I have a interesting way of organizing topic. How do you deal with the police? Well, I , you know , I've read a ton of law books. I practice, I've been practicing since 2013, and I've got a lot of material that I can go through. And so if I wanted to say, Hey, here's how you deal with law enforcement. I could literally give you stacks of books. They're right back there and just say, read all of this. Or you could take this two and a half hour course, and you can learn everything synthesized into the 1, 2, 3 rule. The one rule, the two questions that a law enforcement officer can ask you that you have to answer. And the three responses, if they don't ask you one of those first two questions, see how that works too . That's allowed three responses. If it's not one of the two allowable questions, everything into the 1, 2, 3 rule, check that out available. Now gumroad.com/robert grueling. All right . And we're going to continue to move on to our next segment and a what's next. Oh yeah. Senators, Senator Kiersten. Cinema is in the news. She's a Senator here in Arizona. And although I'm from Arizona, I'm not really interested in talking about her because she's from Arizona. And this just happens to be an interesting coincidence. What I am interested in is the fact that she is not acquiescing to the Democrats, demands to basically reform the filibuster. If you're not familiar with the filibuster and how it works, the filibuster is essentially this concept. It's a procedural rule in the Senate that, that says that in order for, for debate to end, that they have to have a certain number of votes in order to move the debate forward. Well, there's a mechanism where you can conduct. What's called a filibuster, and that basically precludes you from ending the debates and what results there is. You can't get any legislation passed. And so in order to overcome the filibuster, what you need is I believe it's 60, 60 votes in the Senate in order to pass anything substantial. And so what they're talking about right now, of course, if you know the balance of power in the Senate, it's currently 50 Republicans, 50 Democrats, and the tie breaker is Camila Harris. She's the vice president . And under our constitution, she gets to split the tight . So they have 51 votes and they can get a lot of stuff through, but not everything. And one of the things they really want to get through is voting because if they can modify and federalize elections, then they can kind of control everything else there thereafter. Right? We talk about this a lot here. The first amendment free speech is the entry. It's the gateway into your other rights. If you can't speak well, what does everything else matter? If everybody's controlling what you can say and do. So what you can't really even object to anything, same, same type of concept here. If you can get the , the voting regulations federalized, if you can have one party go in and modify the rules to suit their party. Well, then everything else that flows from that is going to probably suit them greatly, right? So they've got a lot of interest here. So they want to break this filibuster rule. They don't want that to happen anymore. They, they, they, they, they want be able to pass more legislation with less votes. A simple majority would be great for them . And so Kiersten, cinema and , uh , mansion over from, I think West Virginia, they're both Democrats and they're both telling us, Nope, sorry, Democrats. We're not going to be able to work with you on reforming the filibuster rule as it currently exists. We're not changing anything. So if you want to pass your voting bill, you're going to need to go get some Republicans on board in order to cram it through. We all know Republicans are not going to be joining on board and they're not going to cram it through. So Democrats are up in arms about this. They are not happy with Kiersten cinema. They are not happy with mansion out of West Virginia. They are very upset that these two Democrats are sort of like turncoats and they're not joining in voting rights. You know, they're, they're sort of now on the outs , uh we're uh , we're going to see how that plays out for them . This is the scene right outside of Kiersten cinema's office earlier today. And you can see, right, this is her office, Kiersten cinema, Arizona. And let's see what the media is already primed up there. They can't believe it. They started hearing . Okay. Cause what can't they believe? Well, Kiersten cinema came out late yesterday, five 30 as we were live on this show and published an op ed and opinion piece here in the Washington post. So I want to show you this, okay. This is coming from an actual us Senator. The opinion is by Kiersten cinnamon . So this is why this is our explanation as to why I, you know, she is not going to be supporting or ending. The filibuster does not want to remove that speed bump in the process. So she wrote this June 21, 5 31, and I want to go through it. She says, listen, every day Arizona's are focused on questions that matter most and there's lives like is my job secure? Can I expand my business? Can we afford college? Healthcare? Retirement is the community safe. She says, meanwhile, much of Washington is only focused on the Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. So you see what this was actually very nice. This is well written . So she's actually giving us some education on what the filibuster is. Arizona's expect me to do what I promise when I ran for house to be independent, like Arizona lasting results rather than temporary victory is the best way to achieve these long lasting durable results, bipartisan cooperation. Oh, that's nice. Well , let's see. She says , since I was elected, a bi-partisan approach has produced good laws like curbing suicide, boosting manufacturing and others. It's no secret. I oppose eliminating the Senate 60 volt threshold. Okay. So in other words, 60 votes in order to pass anything meaningful through the Democrats, want to just make it a simple majority 51 so they can cram through the four of the people voting rights stuff. All right. Let's take a look says it's no secret that she opposes eliminating it. I held the same view during three terms in the U S house. Okay. So this isn't new, it's baked into her equation and said after that time I was elected to the Senate in 2018. If anyone expected to me to reverse my position because we now control the Senate. Well, they should know. My approach is the same. Whether in the minority or the majority good for her, once in the majority, it is tempting to believe you will stay in the majority. She says, but a democratic Senate minority use the 60 vote threshold just last year to filibuster a police reform proposal and a COVID relief bill that many Democrats viewed as an adequate, those filibusters were mounted, not as attempts to block progress, but to force continued negotiations toward better solutions. Sometimes the filibuster is needed to protect against attacks tax on women's health, clean air or water or aid or families in need. Right? If you Democrats can just pass whatever you want with 51, guess what happens the next time the Republicans get it? They do the same thing. She says my support for retaining the threshold is not based on the importance of any particular policy it's based on what's best for our democracy. The filibuster compels moderation helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy polls , to those who want to eliminate the filibuster to pass for the people act that she says I support. And if co-sponsored, I would ask listen, would it be good for our country? If we did only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections or over rejections of the minority, right? It's a great point. The Republicans are going to come back in the pendulum's going to swing both directions. And so what she's saying here is look, we , we need to have at least a modicum of consensus on these things, or you need to have a bigger majority, right? If the say, if the Democrats had 60 votes, they pass this all day, right? They'd cram a bunch of stuff through. So go get a bigger majority or you need some sort of a consensus. And they're saying right now, a Kiersten cinema saying , no, you don't have that. So it's not good. Now good faith arguments that she says has been made both criticizing and defending the 60 vote threshold. I share the belief expressed in 2017, by a third 31 Senate Democrats opposing elimination of the filibuster, a belief that was shared by Biden while I am confident that several senators in my party still share that belief, the Senate has not held a debate on that matter. Right? And so she's saying in her party, so what's happening here also is Kiersten. Cinema is acting as cover for a lot of the other senators. Okay. So think about it this way. Right? Many people are saying, well, you know, Kiersten cinema, she's doing this for America, right? She's uh , you know, acting as another speed bump in this entire thing. Well, I'm a little bit more cynical than that. I think a different way to read this is that Kiersten cinema kind of doesn't want the responsibility being that, that 51st vote. Okay. So let's say for example, that the filibuster goes out by the wayside. We now have literally 50 senators , 50 democratic senators. So what happens if a policy position by 50 plus one with Camila ? And what happens if a policy decision comes down the line and Kiersten cinema doesn't want to vote with the Democrats because she's in Arizona and in Arizona, you know, it used to be red redder. So she doesn't want to go with now, she's got the Democrats screaming at her, right? Screaming, w you better vote with your party lady. It's going to be a big problem if you don't. Can you imagine if she goes and sides with the Republicans so that she can get reelected in Arizona, but then she's going to get primaried if she votes with the Republicans. So then she's going to face a challenge and probably lose her primary. So she's not, this is, this is pure self protection. We want to make sure that she doesn't have to be that person. They're making that decision. Now, look, if you really want to pass something, make sure you get the full 60 smart, good politician says it's time for the Senate to debate the legislative filibuster. So senators can fully hear and consider the consequences. Senators can then focus on crafting policies that earn broad support support a group of 10 Democrats and 11 Republicans that I am helping lead has reached an agreement on infrastructure. We're now negotiating, blah, blah, blah. It's possible that not all of these efforts will succeed, but bipartisan policies that stand the test of time can heal our country, instability, partisanship, and tribalism, continue to infect our politics solution. However, is not to continue weakening our democracy's guardrails . If we eliminate the 60 vote threshold, we'll lose much more than we gain. And I completely agree with her. I think that the more speed bumps we can put in front of all of these people, the better, right? I want more dysfunction , not necessarily more unity, unless it's, unless it requires unity. Anytime that we have the both parties, like yeah, no we're unified in this. It's never good. What? We just went through a lot of unity last, last year, they were both unified. We didn't have either party speaking out about any of this stuff. For most of the year. They were very happy with lockdowns , governor Republican, Republican governors, democratic governors, everybody was hyperventilating over it. And what happens when that when, when the government is unified? Well, the citizens suffer of course. So a 60 vote threshold, a little speed bump there in the Senate. I'm okay with that. Well done there . Kiersten cinema. All right . Now of course the Washington post is not happy with her. So w w we had this fired off, you know , first thing, this morning opinion, Kiersten cinema here over by Greg Sargent says that she accidentally reveals a huge hole in her filibuster defense. So let's see what she says. One of the last holdouts against Philip Buster reforms , she's making big news. Some of its central pronouncements have already been debunked. She says, so he says, despite her claims, the filibuster does not facilitate moderation or bipartisan cooperation. Okay. Even more fundamental flaw. So he's linking to some articles defending democracy. And the filibuster simultaneously is simply incoherent to his core . So you can see how mad he is, cinema his own treatment of these questions. Inadvertently served to reveal that choice. That must be between the two she's she's choosing the filibuster over defending democracy. You like these, there's not even really a much substance here. He's just using a lot of these words like defending democracy. Okay. So , uh , it's th this is truly frightful. He says, imagine a world in which legislative majorities could pass voting restrictions over the objection of minorities, exclamation point. Those include exactly the, that she alludes to stricter voter ID laws to curb vote by mail other anti-military and tactics such as extreme gerrymanders. Okay. So I think this is not going to go particularly well for them. You know, if you start really battling your own sort of belittling your senators on your own side, this guy is clearly a, a , uh , he's a Washington post journalist should tell you what you need to know about his political leanings. So, you know, by them kind of coming out and really beating up Kiersten cinema, you know, that might just push Kiersten cinema further into the John McCain camp. Right. We saw the same thing here when John McCain was getting a little flirt flirtatious with the Democrats. A lot of Republicans got very upset about that. What did that do? Kind of, I think, drove McCain more towards the center, less in favor of the Republicans. And then as soon as Trump came along, that was kind of all she wrote. So the same thing might happen. This actually might come back to bite them in the butt . If cinema decides, okay, well going to vote, how I'm going to vote my conscience then. Cause obviously I'm not going to get any favors for you by trying to adhere towards some of the same procedural mechanisms that have been in place and utilize for long time. All right . So that's Kiersten, cinema and hats off to her, you know , big, big hats off to her and Joe Manchin for keeping that 60 vote filibuster rule in place. Well done. All right. We're going to change gears. We have another Senator that of course we have to talk about here. We're talking about Senator white house, not the white house. The Senator who's go goes by the name of white house. And based on this story, he will never be actually the president in the white house because he's kind of sounds like he's kind of a racist. I mean, a lot of other people would be , uh , absolutely labeled as being a racist for going to a private beach club that allegedly only admits white people. All right. Well, let's see what this story says. This is coming over from the Washington post. If you can believe that Senator Whitehouse defends his family's membership in a private beach club, I made questions about whether it is all white. So of course they, you know, they framed this nicely, whether it's all white and that's kind of the allegations here. Uh, so we're going to of course determine what that looks like. This was written by Felicia sewn , mez , June 22, senators, Sheldon he's defending his family's ties to an exclusive beach club in Rhode Island. They made questions about whether the club's membership is all white, white house . His family has longed belonged to Bailey's beach club. Also known as the spouting rock beach association. I tried to find some information about it, but their online presence is pretty sparse. The private club is located in Newport, Rhode Island been described as a Haven for the Vanderbilts, the asters and the members of America's quote ruling class. So that's perfect. And an interview on Friday with the new site go local prov. So probably Providence white house. The Senator was asked whether the club has any non-white members. So, you know, they go right to the source. So the Washington post says, Hey, we got questions about whether it's all white. And so the actual Senator, the person they're writing the story about says, well, when , when asked about it, he says, well, I think the people who are running the place are still working on that and I'm sorry, it hasn't happened. So it sounds like he's sort of acknowledging that they're working on it. And it's a, it's a known problem that it is all white and it's , it hasn't happened yet, but they're still working on it. So he's kind of well aware of the problem. And you , sorry that it hasn't, hasn't been resolved yet, which is interesting. So we're going to see a video of this guy, but I just wanted to show a couple quick tweets of Senator white house here today. Uh, he , you know, he's somebody who's at the forefront of a lot of the racial social justice issues. And , uh , back on, it looks like June 4th. He said that we hear the voices. This is in 2020. After the George Floyd death, we hear the voices of the peaceful protesters who have marched. We can, and we must do better to root out systemic racism in its many forms and meet America's full promise of justice for all. So like , like an example of one form would be like, I don't know, a beach house that is racist that only accepts white people in their club. That's one form. And if you're concerned about sort of it being systemic, it might be kind of ingrained into this beach club system there in Rhode Island. Isn't it? Because Senator white house said specifically that they've been they've , they , they know about it. I'm a Senator, in fact, and I go there and I'm aware of that. They recognize this as a problem, they're working on it. And I'm sorry that it has it hasn't happened sooner. All right. So , uh , this was of course, brought to us by goal local Providence. Here is the video. You can see this guy. So they caught him right up by a construction site, probably getting out of this , uh, you know, SUV here. It says it's a long tradition in Rhode Island. And this was posted by the go local prov news team. So they didn't put an author on there Monday, June 21. Here is the video. Look at this guys grin don't. You just love that. He's just so happy to be answering questions from a very nice reporter. Let's listen to what he has to say and what she has to say. Okay.

Speaker 2:

Back in 2017, you had expressed concerns about the membership of the all white Bailey's beach clubs said that you hoped it would become more diverse. Now, your family's been members, your wife is one of the largest shareholders. Has there been any traction in that? Are there any minority members of the club now? I think the people who are running the place are still working on that. And I'm sorry, it hasn't happened yet. Do you have concerns in 2021? I mean, obviously it's been four years. You had remarks on the floor following the deaths of Brianna Taylor and George Floyd saying, you know, hoping to root out systemic racism in the country. Um, your thoughts on an elite, all white wealthy club, again in this day and age , um, you know, should these clubs continue to exist so long tradition in Rhode Island? And there are many of them , uh, I think we just need to work our way through the issues. Thank you.

Speaker 1:

Just got to work our way through the issue. So that is the Senator and, you know, he's, he's , um, bringing about some changes in, in the many forms. We had some other of those tweets, let's see what else we have here. It says today, we remember George flora , tragic death one year ago sparked a global movement against racial injustice. We're working in the judiciary to , uh, bring lasting change. Our country must engage the legacy of slavery and the injustices that black Americans still face every day , except being admitted to the beach clubs. I hope that all of us take time on the Juneteenth, just posted this to reflect on our history and how we move forward. And probably, maybe your traditions also maybe reflect on your traditions and some of the clubs that you're a part of. Like this one, the spouting rock beach association looks very nice, right? I'd like to be a part of that club. Go hang out here, wherever this is , uh , at the spouting rock beach rock beach association here in Newport. And you'll notice not a lot of information here. We got employment opportunities, nothing to click on. You can get directions to this place. You want , wanna go check it out. Or if you're a member, you get to LA again . But aside from that, not much information . Now back to the Washington post, they tell us that pressed on whether he believes they should continue to exist. As we heard, he said so long tradition, many of them just need to work our way through the issues . Okay. So a white house spokesman on Monday, not the white house, the Senator white house said that beach Bailey's beach club has no such restrictive policy regarding race or ethnicity. Okay . The club has had members of color said the spokesman Richard Davidson has had and has members of color. Okay. So maybe, maybe it's sort of not accurate, even though Senator white house just said, they're still working on that issue. Okay. It's unclear on Monday, whether white house had at some point said he would leave the club according to a gold local Providence. During his 2006 Senate run, white house had pledged to leave the club. New sites said that he instead transferred the shares to his wife who is now one of the club's largest shareholders. Now Washington post says while gold, local prov didn't provide any attribution for that claim. So it's not clear whether he made a statement. David said on Monday, disputed that part of the report. So , so the Washington post is not happy when go local Providence, doesn't name their sources, you know, unconfirmed report from so-and-so. They don't like that. But when they do it, not that big of a deal, the Senator did not say that Davidson said in the statement, the Senator recalls transferring his shares to accommodate a club policy. So asked about whether he was going to leave. He didn't say that it says the club, but they did need to transfer the stock of the club to the wife. Cause they both can't have that. So Davidson said that while white house is no longer a member, his wife is he added to the Senator has dedicated his entire career to promoting equity and protecting civil rights as his record shows, which, which is of course, why you get a lot of, sort of flexibility to be a racist candidly. Right? Sort of like you , you , you get a bunch of excuses if you're in the right political ideology and the right political camp. I mean, where's the outrage over hunter Biden actually using the N word repeatedly, no ears in anywhere. Okay. And, and you know, Donald Trump says find people and it's like through the roof now one's the president. One's the president's son. But if, if Donald Trump Jr said something like that, oh my goodness. Right. It would be the end of the Republic because we would have been taken over by a racist, you know , totalitarian, dictator, Hitlarian monster named Donald and now nothing. Not, not, not so much. It's just quiet, all quiet, Doug , because he's he , although he's clearly somebody who has, let's say, you know , racial insensitivities at the, at the

Speaker 3:

Best, he

Speaker 1:

Still gets a pass because he's part of the in club right now. It's like high school. All right. So a woman who answered the phone at spouting rock beach association on Monday, declined to answer questions about its membership also declined to put a reporter in touch with anyone who could provide of the details saying to the club. It was a very small beach club. No comment at this time. Yeah. It's very small. It's tiny. Look at this thing. Yeah. It's very small, you know , a little shanty, a little shack there that we all just kind of come and hang out on . What do you think this place costs? Are you kidding me? Oh my goodness. Give me a break. So that's some fun out of our congresspeople and our senators. Uh, all right . So if you need criminal representation, that's where I'm going. That we're we're we wrapped up that segment. So now we're going to transition to the final plug of the RNR law group for the day. But this is our law firm. We help with any type of criminal charge here in the state of Arizona. And we love to help good people get through the criminal justice system. We're very passionate about what we do. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that has been charged with a crime, or they want to clear up an old record, if they want to remove a mugshot off the internet, they want to restore their rights so that they can possess the right to vote again and be in possession of a firearm. There's a lot that we can do to help. And so we offer free case evaluations. You can take a picture of that QR code. If you're watching this on a TV or call that phone number (480) 787-0394. And we very much appreciate it. We have an awesome team of people here. We love the work that we do, and we'd appreciate you affording us the opportunity to help somebody who needs it. If you're not interested in legal services, no problem at all. We have some information offerings that might be useful and entertaining, and actually practicable for you. I want to share with you my law enforcement interaction training. This is a two and a half hour training that we did a live. It's got some Q and a in there, and it's got the 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with law enforcement. Check that out. If you're an attorney or somebody who works in the legal profession, come check out our , our legal mastermind. We talk a lot about using video and about speaking your message and about being better attorneys to help more of our, our clients and the people in need out there. All this stuff is [email protected] slash gum road, my friends, and that is it for me, for the date . As I mentioned at the start of the program, we are going to be back here. It's going to be the same time, same place, but it's probably also going to be recorded because I have another event that I have to go to. I have sort of a late loaded evening events for the , uh, for the next couple of days. So I'm going to be recording these just like we did here today. And we will upload it and premiere it. I'm sorry that I cannot be with you there in the chat, but we are going to do a Q and a recording on , uh, on Sunday. So what I will do what we're going to do with the monthly meetup on Saturday night . So be on the lookout for the registration link, and then we'll do a Q and a that's a little bit more sort of , uh, you know , uh, more, more, more questions and response type of a video. I'm going to post that exclusively over at locals, watching the watchers.locals.com. And I'm going to be trying to sort of do some more exclusive content over there. You know, we've been saying this for a long time, that as that community builds, it's sort of, you know , it makes more sense to just do more stuff over there. And so we've been unrolling more things as the months go by. We just did our law enforcement interaction training for the locals community. And we just did , uh , we had , we had a monthly meetup back in may. We have another one coming up in June and it's going to be a lot of fun. So I'm excited about it. And I hope you join us over there and watching the watchers.locals.com and one final reminder that you can actually now transition into an annual subscription. So you save two months. If you want to transition , uh , you can, you can save two months off of a yearly subscription , uh , which is great. And then , uh , if you're new, you can also just sign up and just pick that option from the first get go . So , uh, that's it for me, my friends. Thank you so much for understanding the scheduling shifts a little bit. We are going to be back here tomorrow, same place, same time. And I hope to see you back here. There everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. See you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .