Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Derek Chauvin Sentencing Hearing, Kamala’s El Paso Border Trip, Pelosi’s January 6 Select Committee

June 28, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Derek Chauvin Sentencing Hearing, Kamala’s El Paso Border Trip, Pelosi’s January 6 Select Committee
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Derek Chauvin Sentencing Hearing, Kamala’s El Paso Border Trip, Pelosi’s January 6 Select Committee
Jun 28, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Derek Chauvin was sentenced today in Minnesota for the killing of George Floyd. Judge Cahill read the final sentence and we review the proceeding. Vice President Kamala Harris went down to the border and President Joe Biden communicated simply with the media. Nancy Pelosi is forming a select-committee to investigate the Capitol Hill riots and we review the wreckage caused by the overzealous anti-terrorism tactics.​

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

🔵 Derek Chauvin was sentenced today for the killing of George Floyd – we review what happened.​
🔵 Chauvin was seen in Court for the first time since the verdict with a shaved head and a mask.​
🔵 Members of Floyd’s family, including Philonise Floyd, spoke with tears in their eyes of the death of Floyd and asked the Judge for the maximum penalty under the law.​
🔵 Derek Chauvin spoke briefly before the Court took a brief recess.​
🔵 Judge Cahill announced the final sentence in the case of Minnesota vs. Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd.​
🔵 Vice President Kamala Harris travelled to El Paso, Texas to visit the border after months of inquiries from the media about a trip to the border.​
🔵 Kamala was greeted with a swarm of reporters and protestors with signs saying “Que Mala”​
🔵 Joe Biden weighs in on the border and immigration crisis, explaining fear of deportation is responsible for the low vaccination rates among LatinX people.​
🔵 Joe Biden “Media Whisperer” is communicating simply for the press and solves the hiring problem for small business owners.​
🔵 Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) decides to form a Congressional Select Committee to investigate the Capitol Hill Riots.​
🔵 The January 6 Committee was announced after Republicans refused to agree to a bi-partisan commission.​
🔵 49-year-old Indiana woman, Anna Morgan-Lloyd is the first to be sentenced, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor illegal demonstrating charge.​
🔵 Allegations that undercover journalists masqueraded themselves as Trump supporters and OAN reporters during the January 6th riots.​
🔵 New York man Joseph Bolanos details wreckage from erroneous FBI investigation that led to his arrest at the hands of an anti-Terrorism task force.​
🔵 Your questions after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

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 schedule a free case evaluation!​

Show Notes Transcript

Derek Chauvin was sentenced today in Minnesota for the killing of George Floyd. Judge Cahill read the final sentence and we review the proceeding. Vice President Kamala Harris went down to the border and President Joe Biden communicated simply with the media. Nancy Pelosi is forming a select-committee to investigate the Capitol Hill riots and we review the wreckage caused by the overzealous anti-terrorism tactics.​

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

🔵 Derek Chauvin was sentenced today for the killing of George Floyd – we review what happened.​
🔵 Chauvin was seen in Court for the first time since the verdict with a shaved head and a mask.​
🔵 Members of Floyd’s family, including Philonise Floyd, spoke with tears in their eyes of the death of Floyd and asked the Judge for the maximum penalty under the law.​
🔵 Derek Chauvin spoke briefly before the Court took a brief recess.​
🔵 Judge Cahill announced the final sentence in the case of Minnesota vs. Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd.​
🔵 Vice President Kamala Harris travelled to El Paso, Texas to visit the border after months of inquiries from the media about a trip to the border.​
🔵 Kamala was greeted with a swarm of reporters and protestors with signs saying “Que Mala”​
🔵 Joe Biden weighs in on the border and immigration crisis, explaining fear of deportation is responsible for the low vaccination rates among LatinX people.​
🔵 Joe Biden “Media Whisperer” is communicating simply for the press and solves the hiring problem for small business owners.​
🔵 Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) decides to form a Congressional Select Committee to investigate the Capitol Hill Riots.​
🔵 The January 6 Committee was announced after Republicans refused to agree to a bi-partisan commission.​
🔵 49-year-old Indiana woman, Anna Morgan-Lloyd is the first to be sentenced, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor illegal demonstrating charge.​
🔵 Allegations that undercover journalists masqueraded themselves as Trump supporters and OAN reporters during the January 6th riots.​
🔵 New York man Joseph Bolanos details wreckage from erroneous FBI investigation that led to his arrest at the hands of an anti-Terrorism task force.​
🔵 Your questions after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

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 schedule a free case evaluation!​

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 a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, it's Friday, we've got a lot to get to. And I mean a lot to get to, you know, there's a new UFO report out that we're not going to get to

Speaker 2:

Today, but apparently there might be

Speaker 1:

Out there. It just came out. So we're not prepared for that, but we're going to be talking about some other bizarre behavior from some of our elected officials today. So we're going to be talking about before we get into some of that, of course, the big news of the day is Derek Shovan Derek . Shovan got sentenced and oh my goodness. We got to talk about this. I posted a little bit of a pre-sentence summation over on locals this morning. If you miss that, I want to go through a recap and sort of a detail what I was, how I was framing this out, and then we'll go through the actual proceeding itself. So Derek Shovan was sentenced, got a pretty big sentence. And judge Cahill was only out in front of the court for about four minutes. So we're going to break that up into about two sections and go through what happened here. George Floyd and his family took the courtroom floor, Derek Shovan and his mother took the courtroom floor. We're not going to listen to most of that, but we are going to take a deep dive into the sentencing memorandum. Why did judge Cahill sentence Shovan to what he did? And so we're going to spend some time going through that, get those questions and those comments and your feedback ready, because I'm sure you've got some stuff that you want to say about that. Now, then we're going to talk about some bizarre behavior from some of our elected officials that sort of resembles aliens, but we can neither confirm nor deny their existence, but they are bouncing around different parts of the country in the world. Kamala Harris was in El Paso, Texas, very briefly visiting the border, which, you know, a lot of people are saying,

Speaker 2:

Well, there you go. How about that? About Dan

Speaker 1:

Time there , Camila , I've sort of been, you know, on, on, on either side of that conversation. Okay. She goes down there, a lot of people now or are, you know, kind of criticizing the, going down to the border. And so we're going to go through that story because it is interesting. She showed up down there in El Paso, got sort of overwhelmed by this, this a hoard of reporters. And we're going to break down what went on there. But then more of the weird happened back in Washington, Joe Biden was talking to the press and he was doing this weird little creepy whisper thing , uh, for a good portion of the interaction with the media. So we're going to go through that now. He's got some things that irritate the hell out of me talking about he's acting , he's actually weighing in on the border crisis. And then he's kind of condescending to small business owners. One of which I happen to be, let's just leave it at that. So we're going to talk about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. So that's going to be fun. Then we've got Nancy Pelosi that we're going to get into at the end of the show, because she has now unilaterally decided that she's going to be forming a select congressional committee to investigate the Capitol hill riots. And so we know that they've been really trying to milk this thing for as much as they can for as long as they can. Nobody expected it to go away. And now Nancy Pelosi is confirming that for us. So they're going to continue to beat the hell out of this horse indefinitely, and we're going to go through it and see what she specifically wants to do here, because there are some pretty clear areas where the FBI may have overstepped his bounds a little bit, and it's causing wreckage to other innocent people throughout this country. And of course, we need to think about them as well. So we've got a lot to get into, as I mentioned, want you to be a part of the show, if you want to participate, I'd encourage you to do that head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com , which is where we have a little bit of a separate community where we do other things separate and apart outside of YouTube and Facebook and even rumble. And some of these other places. For example, we have a monthly meetup that we do once a month. We're on our second month, we just started this puppy. And so that's taking place tomorrow at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, Pacific 7:00 PM Eastern time. And it is for supporters [email protected] . So we're going to hop on zoom camera's on or off totally optional. And it'll just be an hour just to sort of, you know , put a name to a face, put your avatar or your name on your zoom profile and come in there. And we can say, oh, it's Sharon Courtney , oh, it's Jeremy Margherita or whomever. And we can go through and just kind of get to know each other and build a little bit of a community. So that's taking place tomorrow and we've got other good things. We just did a law enforcement interaction training, but the real reason that you want to be a part of it. So you can participate in the live stream, which is happening right now. So Ms . Faith is over there, moderating away doing an excellent job, nice job, faith, hello, faith. And she is going to be taking questions. So if you have anything you want to chime in on any comments, concerns, or criticisms, feel free to put those in the [email protected] and as always, we very much appreciate your support here. All right. So let's get into the news. The big news of the day is Derek Shovan . Now, if you've been following this channel for some time, you know that we've done a lot of deep dives on this case. Every single day of the trial, we were here with clips analyzing all of the direct examination, the cross examination, the expert witnesses, and we've sort of taken the trial apart multiple different ways, analyze it. I've gone on shows and been interviewed. People have come on our show and been interviewed and we've really sink our teeth into this case. Now we're just getting to the closure of it. At least for the lower level court proceedings. Now there's going to be appeals and post-conviction relief motions and all sorts of stuff that I'm going to guess happens later down the road right now, while we're talking about what happened in the, in the lower level court for a felony offense, in the case of Derek Shovan , uh , you confirm now convicted for killing George Floyd. And a lot of this is this has been a long time coming. This happened over a year ago. Finally, today, many people are recognizing that this case is coming to a close or , or, or, or are considering it now done and close . And so this morning, if we took a look at the court docket, we noticed that the sentencing hearing in the case was in fact scheduled for today. And so we're going to go through it. I have some clips from judge Cahill. He spoke only for about four minutes, very, very brief sentencing, because what he said is that I'm going to explain it all in a very long memo. It's called the sentencing memorandum. It's 22 pages. And he says, rather than me trying to sort of flub my way through this, I really organize my thoughts and I got them down on a memo. And so we're going to go through a couple of clips from the trial, from the sentencing proceeding today, and then spend a little bit more time in the trial memo. So we can unravel what was going on here, because if you've been following our channel, you know that as we were watching the evidence come into court against George, against Derek Shovan for the killing of George Floyd, we were identifying and I'm a criminal defense lawyer. Okay. This is kind of my wheelhouse all sorts of reasonable doubt. And I've gone through the litany time. And again, I'm not going to do that here, but what I did do is much like judge Cahill this morning. I got my thoughts organized a little bit on watching the watchers.locals.com. And so to frame out what I was thinking about seven o'clock this morning, I want to just go through it briefly. I'm not going to read it verbatim, but I want to show you sort of where I was starting the morning. So we know that he was being sentenced today. One 30. I said, watch it on YouTube defense attorney, Eric Nelson. Okay. We spent a lot of time with him. He was asking for probation, which basically means they're asking you for Shovan to just get out of jail. Right? He's done. Just give him probation. He learned his lesson. That's all he needs the prosecution. However, asked for 30 years, which would be the standard maximum. So for a recap, we talked about judge Nelson. I'm sorry. That's not, that's not right. It would be judge Cahill, finding aggravating factors here. And we talked about that. I linked that up on a different video. We spent some time talking about that here on the show specifically. Remember when we talk about sentencing, what we're, what we will ordinarily do is kind of start in the middle. We said, okay, let's, let's bring everybody who has been charged with, let's say DUI, or let's say aggravated assault, which would be a more felony level offense in Arizona. And we're going to bring them all in front of the court. And we're going to say, okay, you know, you've got person, a person, B person, C , we're going to start them all at the same starting line. Then we're going to take person a, B and C. And we're going to, we're going to sort of look literally at a chart. We call them sentencing charts or sentencing guidelines. We take that person and we sort of look at their criminal history. We look at some of their mitigating factors, some of their aggravating factors, and we just kind of move them around in the chart. We said, okay, this is a class four felony. That's a class four felony. We're going to this, person's a category three offender because they've got criminal history. We go bup, bup, bup, bup, don't think , think, think , think over here. And we look at that range. And within that range, you'll see different types of sentences. And specifically what I'm talking about is time in prison. So this will mean that we'll start at, what's called the presumptive sentence. We'll start right in the middle. And we'll say everybody a, B and C, they all start here. But a he's got no criminal history. B has a little bit of criminal history and C's got a ton of criminal history. And so now based on that criminal history or some of those different variables, those permutations for each one of those individuals, now we can start moving them around the different boxes in the sentencing charts. And so we know that there are different frameworks for deciding whether to move somebody up in severity to aggravate the penalty or to minimize it, to mitigate it and work it down the other direction. And so what judge Cahill did is he came out and he said, I know that there is a lot of allegations surrounding the severity of this case. I'm going to look at the Minnesota statutes and I'm going to just sort of take what they say are the aggravating factors. I'm going to take Derek Chauvin's case and sort of apply it to those factors that I'm going to see if they fit. If they do, then I'm going to consider those to be applicable. And that's going to move Derek Shovan up in the sentencing box towards a more severe sentence. So we know that historically already Cahill has found that, that there were aggravating factors. So we said, it looks like the sentencing is going to move forward today. No new filings on the docket. And I said that sometimes these things can get bumped out. Sometimes you'll go in their pre-sentence report. We'll have some surprises and be a little bit squirrely . And so you'll want to ask for a continuance or something like that. It was not expecting that today because Cahill was a very, very, you know, he's running a tight ship throughout the entirety of the trial. So it, it, I was expecting it to happen. And it did. We know that Ellis at Eric Nelson , the defense lawyer was asking for probation. I said, that's obviously out, right. That's never going to happen. But I'd say also I think 30 years is also out. I say, I said, so his 30 year max, I say , technically, you can go up to 40 years, but that would be an appealable issue. And I don't think that the prosecution was going to ask for that. They didn't, they asked for 30 years. So I said probation no 30 years. No, I don't think the judge is going to do that. I said, I have no experience practicing in front of judge Cahill, but watching him in trial, he seems pretty neutral, I guess, that he tends towards the upper end of the sentencing range, but mitigates it slightly from the maximum due to Chauvin's time as an officer and some of Floyd's contributing conditions. Okay. So I was saying that when we're, when we're looking at those sentencing charts, that box that says that that Cahill would move Shovan up in terms of severity, but then work it back down a little bit, based on his time as an officer and his contributing conditions , voice, I'm a floor contributing conditions. Now I'll be, I'll be honest, right? I want to hold myself accountable to my analysis. I did not see that anywhere in any sentencing memorandum. Right. It was very much in it supporting his aggravation. But I also just want to make a note that he also didn't give him the max. Okay. So he's not going to go in there and say, yeah, but he's been an officer for so long without any prior history, he's got no criminal record. He didn't really go into the mitigation, but we know that he didn't give him the maximum. So he must have considered some mitigation. We just don't know specifically what it is. We are going to go through the memo. So we'll get there in a minute, but let's keep going on here just so we can see what I was thinking at the morning. It says , so keep in mind. There will be a lot of politicking in both directions. Once the sentence comes down, he needs to find something I'm talking about. Cahill. The judge Cahill needs to find something that splits the outrage somewhat evenly. If he throws the max at Shovan 30 years, the police may resign on Moss . If he is overly lenient, then it's going to be a conviction without a consequence. And there will be more problems everywhere. Right? There would be more riots and protests and a lot of angry people. So my ultimate analysis came in here. It says Shovan is 45 years old. A 25 year sentence would mean he is out when he is 70. If Minnesota allows for early release two for one programs, any other incentives he may get around, he may get out around 20 and would be a mid sixties with plenty of life left. That feels like an even split. Larry David from curb, your enthusiasm and Seinfeld fame. He said a good compromise is when both parties leave dissatisfied, we'll have plenty of that here, probably. And so, you know, this of course doesn't take into account any of the appeals or post-conviction relieves. I said, this is such a volatile trial. It is hard to see how any neutral judge can consider it to have been fair and impartial. I've gone through the litany of reasonable doubt. Don't need to do that again, but more simply, I wonder whether the pro conviction crowd here, if they genuinely think that Derek Shovan enjoyed the presumption of innocence in Minneapolis, when the trial started on the day of opening arguments, do they cause he was certainly entitled to it. And if so, would they trade places with Shovan in an instant, knowing that that fundamental right was being preserved? Would they be confident that the truth would come out in court? Probably not. I said, because it's a, Dogpile the general response is I would never do such a thing is what they say. And that's exactly what Derek Shovan said. You just didn't hear the words in court because he didn't take the stand because he was exercising his right against self-incrimination. So, you know, this was something that I kind of threw out there in the morning. We now know that the total verdict or the total amount of time, 22 and a half years, so pretty close right in there. Right. And I think the judge side of that kind of did it right in the middle, split it right down both sides. Didn't give him the max all the way up to 30. Didn't give him anything close to probation. And his sort of, you know, my analysis was between 20 and 25, more or less judge gave him 22 and a half. So I was pretty sort of happy with that analysis. Now let's go through and see what is taking place here a little bit more background here. And let me just also clarify, I don't practice law in Minnesota, so I don't necessarily know what the statutes are. I was just thinking about this in terms of politics, right? And , and what does the judge need to do given the range? And so we sort of know what the range is and you know, what both parties are asking for. You can make somewhat of a prediction. And we know now that it's a decades, long sentence, former officer was, he was awaiting sentencing. There were concrete barriers, razor wire around the patrols at the courthouse during the trial. And it's says still there was recognition of sentencing. Floyd died May 25th, 2020. He's facing a decade long sentence in terms of Shovan. And he's also got a trial on federal civil rights charges along with three other officers who have yet to state their trials. So we've got, now I want to show you the actual sentencing proceeding. So if you've never watched a sentencing, they can be pretty emotional. Obviously, you know, there's, there's a lot of people who will come in and explain why they have been harmed by the defendant. Jury has found factually that person committed a crime. And now the question is, you know , what was sort of the impact and some of the consequences. And so they'll bring, you know , the victims in and the people who've been impacted by the defendant. And they'll just kind of, you know, go up there for a few minutes and say whatever they're feeling. So we had a lot of that today, and we've got some pictures from a couple of the, of the family members who came in. We're going to go through that. But before we do, I want to show you sort of the, I want to break up judge Cahill's sentencing response. So he's, he's only out for four minutes. And the first part of this is he's going to be telling us he's going to be sort of addressing the public component of the case. He's going to be talking about , uh, I'm sorry. That's not, that's not accurate. He's going to be talking to George Floyd's family and specifically addressing them while also sort of making note of some of the other public concerns. So he's talking to the family, but then he's saying, you know, also other people in the community and elsewhere. So he sort of, you know, he, he doesn't want to go on the record much, only four minutes because as we're going to hear , he explains, this is saying I'm going to leave most of it in writing, but he made a pretty, pretty, you know , important point to , to actually make sure that he made a statement to the Floyd family because of his, his, his belief, right? This is the judge. This is what he does is what he thinks is appropriate to do. And so I think that is sort of in alignment with the ultimate sentence, right? He he's, he's not happy with what he saw Derek Shovan do. So let's go in, we're going to watch the first part of the sentencing. Then we're going to watch the second part of the sentencing, which is where he goes into the specifics. And you'll, you'll see sort of a , uh, uh , side-by-side of Shovan and Cahill . So here is judge Cahill now explaining why he is going to be sentencing the way that he is.

Speaker 3:

I have reviewed the pre-sentence investigation and carefully considered all the facts, the case in the law. But my comments are actually going to be very brief because most of it's going to be in writing. I have a 22 page memorandum that is going to be attached to the sentencing order. And why am I doing it? And writing to emphasize the fact that determining appropriate sentence in any case, and in this case is a legal analysis. It's applying the rule of law to the facts of an individual and specific case. And that is why, as opposed to trying to be being profound here on the record, I prefer that you read the legal analysis. That explains how I determined the sentence in this case, what the case is or what the sentence is not based on his emotion or sympathy, but at the same time, I want to acknowledge the deep and tremendous pain that all the families are feeling, especially the Floyd family, you have our sympathies and I acknowledge and hear the pain that you were feeling. I acknowledged the pain, not only of those in this courtroom, but the Floyd family who were outside this courtroom and other members of the community. It has been painful throughout and up in county, throughout the state of Minnesota and even the country. But most importantly, we need to recognize the pain of the Floyd family. I'm not going to attempt to be profound or clever because it's not the appropriate time. I'm not basing my sentence. Also on public opinion, I am not basing it on any attempt to send any messages, a trial court judge, the job of a trial court judge is to apply the law to specific facts and to deal with individual cases.

Speaker 1:

All right. So did you see judge Cahill's facial expressions there when he says I'm not making this for any, you know, any public statement or anything, you kind of looks over to Nelson over there. So he addresses Floyd. He's looking one direction. Floyd's family talking one direction, says I'm not doing this for anybody else, but me there Nelson, you know, sort of like, you know, making sure he knows this is not a political prosecution, a political sentencing or anything like that, but also, you know, it's , it's funny, it's sort of, you know, these judges kind of will come out and they'll say, I, I, I don't want to be profound, but I also want to make a statement. So it's kind of having it both ways a little bit, but I mean, to be fair, I thought judge Cahill was very reasonable guy and he sort of left this, you know , four minutes quick and easy. And I want to, we're going to spend more time going through the memo itself, but let's give a quick recap on some of the other people who spoke. We're not going to go through the videos cause we've already really spent a lot of time on, on, on, you know, hearing from a lot of the people impacted. Obviously we want to have empathy for the people who lost somebody. Uh, you know, I know what it's like to lose somebody and it's, it's traumatic, right? The sentencing and, and criminal trials are like little nuclear bombs that go off for everybody, including the defendant, including their families. Everybody gets wrecked by these things. It is not a good thing. And so, you know, I know that this case has been more weaponized and politicized than many others throughout that , that we've covered here. But I think there are always moments where you don't have to be, you know, calling each other, eyeballs out, something tragic happened here. Chauvin's, life's ruined Floyd's, family's ruined , Floyd's dead. The city of Minneapolis is in despair, race relations. I'm not sure that I've ever been worse in my lifetime than they are currently. We have all sorts of, you know , domino effects about fundamental changes happening in our schools and elsewhere in our, in our, the , the whole, the whole, the whole thing is, is, has been a bomb that has had a domino effect that is permeated throughout the country. It's very serious. It's very , uh, you know , it's very, it's very important. I know it's , it's highly politicized, but for, you know, a little bit, we can all just sort of put the pause button on that and just say, listen, man, you know, this, this family lost a brother. Uh, you know, and it's just a terror . It's a terrible thing. So here is felonies Floyd. He's wiping tears away for an entire year. I had to relive George Floyd being murdered. Totally understand that. Right. We got Floyd's brother, Terrence tearfully gave his statement directed at Shovan . It says, I want to know why, why, what were you thinking? What was going through your head when you held your knee in my brother's neck, his nephew, Brandon Williams, to the right set in his statement. Shovan killed George. Not only did he kill George, but he also displayed a total lack of consideration for human life as he did. So, okay. So, you know, it's those types of statements, very emotional, very , um , you know , angry, right? Uh , obviously they lost somebody who was close to them, so I can understand that empathize with it completely. And I wish them genuinely a recovery in terms of dealing with their grief and hopefully, you know, moving beyond the situation. Not sure that that's possible when you have something like this going off. Now, something that was surprising is Derek Chauvin's mother was also there. So Chauvin's mother, Carolyn Pawlenty made a surprise appearance at the sentencing. She said, Shovan is her favorite son spoke of his innocence ? She said, Derek has played over and over in his head, the events I've seen it take a toll on him. I believe a lengthy sentence will not do them well, when you sentence, my son you'll also be sentencing me. Okay. And this is true. This has been my experience. You know, a lot of the time , um, you know, the defendant is not necessarily in particularly , uh, upset candidly about what is happening because they know a little bit more about the case. You know, they were there, they know what happened, they know what the maximum is. They know what they're getting. They know whether there's a deal or not, and sort of what the risks versus reward analysis is. But oftentimes the family just doesn't , you know, they just wake up . They go, my , I thought my son, a police officer for like 20 years, what are you talking about? What do you mean? He killed, he was out doing his job. He was conducting an arrest. And this, this happened right. And this is just a mom, right ? Whose son just, what was a police officer like know 17 months ago. And now she's got to deal with it, not to mention everybody else. So it , it is a, it's a , it's a catastrophe. It's a terrible thing. And hopefully we learned something as a result of this. I'm not sure that we will though . Now here is judge Cahill. This is the second part, the second half of his sentencing, where he is actually dictating what the term is, the , the full term of the time in prison. And so let's pick that back up.

Speaker 3:

And so Mr. Shovan as account one, based on the verdict of the jury, finding you guilty of unintentional, second degree murder, while committing a felony under Minnesota statute, 609.19, subdivision two Perin one. It is the judgment of the court that you now stand convicted of that offense pursuant to Minnesota statute, section 6 0 9 0 4 counts two and three, where remain an adjudicated as they are lesser offenses of count one as sentence for count one. The court commits you to the custody of the commissioner of corrections for a period of 270 months. That's 2 7 0 . That is that 10 year addition to the presumptive sentence of 150 months. This is based on your , uh, abuse of a position of trust and authority. And also the particular cruelty shown to George Floyd. You were granted credit for 199 days already served pay the mandatory surcharge of $78 to be paid from prison wages. You're prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition, or explosives for the remainder of your life, provide a DNA sample as required by law register as a predatory offender, as required by law. And then you will receive a copy of the order. And also the attached memorandum explaining the court's analysis, anything further from the state, if this needs to be decided , we just ask that it be executed. Forthwith tenant is remanded to the custody of the sheriff to be transported back to the doc or whichever custody is currently holding him . Anything for the defense. We are adjourned

Speaker 1:

There, you have it. So that was it, right? That's it short time, boom, two minutes each time he S he clipped that all together into 1, 1, 4 minute spiel, but that was it. That was the , that was the order from the judge. That was the sentence. So now Derek Shovan is going to be getting 22 and a half years in prison. And so you see how he broke that up. Great . He said that it's , it's 120 months over the presumptive. So he said it, or whatever, 150 months is the presumptive. And we're going to take it all the way up to 22 and a half because of the aggravating he went through. And he said, basically what he saw there made it worse. We're not going to start at the middle, just like we had person a, B and C. We're going to take that person C because it was so bad. Those factors mean that he deserves a worse or harsher more aggravated sentence. So 22 and a half years fell short of the 30 years that the prosecutors had requested came after Shovan broke more than a year long of silence, a hit with good behavior. Shovan 45. He could get out on parole after serving two thirds of his sentence. So, or about 15 years. So it's actually considerably more generous than, than even I was predicting. Right. So from 25 from about 22 and a half down to 15. And so, you know, when you, when you see stuff like this, of course, you know, there's, there's sort of, especially when stuff has this high profile, you've got kind of two headlines that you can see. You've got the stuff that the public knows about. What do we see? We all see 22 and a half years in prison, right? What does Derek Shovan in his defense attorney? See, while they see the 15 years they go, okay, so two thirds here, if we can, you know , um, maybe, maybe have an appealable issue down the line. Maybe we can do something about that, you know, re you know, whatever. So they're , they're not looking at it as the 22 and a half. Now, the public sees that they're very happy about that. Wow. 22 years, that's a long time. And Shovan really knows. It's kind of about two thirds of that. And so, you know, the judge is sort of, is sort of finessing both sides. He's making sure he's splitting the middle. He's saying, wow , we're going to show, we're going to show everybody what a very strong, serious, stiff penalty. This is knowing that about a third of that is kind of not really going to be there. So now you have the other officer wing. Remember in my post this morning, I said, you kind of got these two constituencies that you got to balance. You've got society and you've got law enforcement. Law enforcement is not particularly happy with how society has been treating them lately. We have officers who are just not, they don't want to be officers anymore. We're talking about these shortages all over the country. And so what Cahill did is kind of split it. And the, the police know, okay, 22 and a half, what does he do? Two thirds of that. So what 15. Okay. So you know, that suddenly doesn't seem as bad as the 22 and a half, but the rest of society doesn't really know. It's a two thirds rural. So they look at it. And since it's a , it's a, it's a big, serious sentence. So everybody's happy. So it's a nice way to split the verdict. All right . So let's go into the order. Now, this is the memo that judge Cahill was mentioning. It's 22 pages. We're not going to read through all of it. It was filed this afternoon, out of Minnesota sentencing order and memo. Let's go through it quickly. As for sentence one, we already heard this 270 months, we've got 199 days already served credit surcharge , 78 bucks. He's got to pay no firearms rights. He's been convicted of a felony. So you don't, you lose your right to possess a firearm, got to provide a DNA sample registered as a predatory offender. And then this memo explains everything. Sign here by judge Cahill. He says, for a defendant like Shovan , he's got zero criminal history points. So the guidelines give us that presumptive range, right? They go in the box, they pick out the presumptive, they start right in the middle. They say, okay, Shovan was found guilty. That means we can go anywhere in , in the range. And we can come up with 150 months. That's the starting line. That's where we all start. So what he's going to do, he's going to say, well, on the first age, the jury must make a factual finding that there were more aggravating factors in the case. Then the district court has to explain it. So he's going to show us that , that he did this. He says that the first age, while we got the verdict, the verdict agreed to submit issues of Agra, aggravating factors. And the court came out and they found the same thing. And remember this, we talked about this here on the channel. And I linked the older video over in locals. But if you'd search on our current channel, you'll see where we did a deep dive on the aggravation memorandum that judge Cahill drafted. But for a quick recap, he said in a prior motion, their prior order, that Shovan abused a position of trust and authority, right? That's him being a police officer that he treated George with particular cruelty. He also said that children were present and that Shovan committed a crime as a group with other individuals, right? Those were the other officers, thous Thomas Lane and Alexander Kung. And so he's saying, okay, we got to identify the factors that are aggravators. And then I'm going to sort of weigh them in terms of increasing the sentence. So we started to presumptive the 150 months, and we're going to work our way up. So what factors

Speaker 2:

Jurors , why did judge Cahill give him 22

Speaker 1:

And a half years? Let's go through it. So he says, first of all, the dispositional and durational departures that Shovan is requesting are not appropriate. He says, there's a show up and wants probation. Are you , what are you nuts? That is not going to happen? He says, neither one of those is appropriate in this case. So we're just going to get that right out of the way. So at the starting line, we know that the prosecution is asking for the max, well, Eric Nelson, the defense is asking for the minimum. So he comes out, says probation, he's already been punished enough. He didn't do anything wrong. Give him probation, let him out of custody. Make sure he doesn't break the law again. That's the end of it. Judge says, no, we're going to get rid of that right away. So that's gone. Don't even need to spend much time on that. Mr. Chauvin's abuse of a position of trust. Remember that second aggravating factor here and authority, he says it's substantial and it's compelling to increase the severity. He says he was a licensed police officer for Minneapolis. He held a position of trust. The trust in placed in the defendant included a trust that anyone arrested would be treated with respect. It says the court has already found that he abused his position of authority. He was putting him in an unreal. He was using unreasonable force to keep him handcuffed prone. And on the street, he said, positional asphyxia for more than nine minutes and 40 seconds was an inordinate amount of time also says, why was it an abuse? Why was it so compelling? He was placing his knee on the back of his neck. It was an egregious abuse of authority. It was prolonged . It was a maneuver that was employed after Floyd was already handcuffed and continued for more than four and a half minutes after he had stopped talking and become

Speaker 2:

Unresponsive. This is judge Cahill.

Speaker 1:

Shovan says , uh , Mr. Shovan , he says abused his position by not rendering aid. He declined two suggestions from his fellow officers to put Floyd on his side. He prevented bystanders, including an off duty Minneapolis firefighter from assisting, which, you know, I know the prosecution made a big deal about that. And I think that was Genevieve Hanson , who also made a big deal about that. But I'm not so sure that I actually agree with that one because you know, she was a stranger. She wasn't in any uniform. So if somebody is running up to you at the side of a crime scene and is actually trying to interfere with your work, that is I think , uh , problematic, but I'm not going to go through point by point. We'll be here for two months. Okay. So enough of that, sorry, Rob, sorry, Rob. Get back to it. Okay. Number four, the failure to render aid became particularly abusive after Floyd had passed out. So he didn't help him. He also says that Chauvin's treating George Floyd with particular cruelty is a good reason to make it more severe, to increase the severity of the penalty. What is he talking about? He says against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, Shovan argues that his conduct was not particularly cruel. He says because the assault of Floyd occurred in the course of a very short time. He says it , and he also says it didn't involve any threats or taunting,

Speaker 2:

But kale notes

Speaker 1:

That this court has already concluded. The assault occurred over an inordinate amount of time. Previously fellow officers, he said

Speaker 2:

They were watching him sort

Speaker 1:

Of die slowly. And that the prolonged nature of the asphyxiation was particularly cruel. Mr. Shovan says, doesn't identify any reason why this requires threats or to , so he's going through some legal analysis here. Now, judge was not happy about this. So I want to point this out. He says the video evidence presented at trial captures Mr. Shovan, dismissively responding.

Speaker 2:

Uh huh .

Speaker 1:

At least a couple times in response to Mr. Floyd's please . And also commenting in response to his please. I can't breathe. That takes a heck of a lot of oxygen to say things judges did not like those little remarks at all. Put those in there. He said he continues the presence of children at the scene though, because that's not going to be used as a substantial and compelling reason to increase the severity. He said, well, the first two aggravating factors, yeah . We found that they exist. But here under all the circumstances, this is not a reason for an upward durational part departure. So when we're in the box, the fact that there were children there and the fact that the city, the government actually called them in there, I think there was a 12 year old, 14 year old and maybe some others, but they called them in their court said, well, you know, yeah, that's true. But that does not by itself as an aggravating factor, justify an increased more severe penalty. Same story here. He says the actions being part of a group of other officers is also not being

Speaker 2:

When used as a reason for the

Speaker 1:

Increase in severity. So we've got sort of the two factors that were , and the two factors that were not in summation, we have here from Cahill that he did not plead guilty, but he cannot be punished by exercising his right to a, but he must be held accountable for the death. He did. So in a manner that was particularly cruel and an abuse of his authority in consideration of all the facts presented at the trial and the court and this experience over the last 10 years, they find the appropriate prison. Time is 270 months. There it is in conclusion. Part of the mission at the Minneapolis PD is to give a voice and is to give citizens voice and respect here. Shovan rather than pursuing the MPD mission, treated Floyd without respect and denied him, the dignity owed to all human beings and which he certainly would have extended to a neighbor or friend in the court's view, 270 months with which amounts to an additional 10 years over the presumptive. One 50 months

Speaker 2:

[inaudible] is appropriate sentence

Speaker 1:

Sign here, P a C, which I believe is Peter a K hill.

Speaker 2:

And so that's the sentencing memo from judge Cahill . A lot of time, not much

Speaker 1:

Mitigation in there. Didn't see, you know, didn't see any sort of working it down the other direction,

Speaker 2:

But that's

Speaker 1:

Prerogative. Now there was another emotion that came out before the sentencing took place. And a lot of people had questions about this. Well, what about a new trial? What about prosecutorial misconduct? What about, you know, these, some of these jurors who were doing some ridiculous things like the juror number 52, I believe it was who actually had a , get your knee off my neck shirt on attending a George Floyd rally. He said it wasn't a George Floyd rally, but it was a civil rights rally. So you can mince words about that. But then when he was called in front of the, the, the, the attorneys during [inaudible] during jury selection, and they asked him , have you been to any rally at all? And he said, no, I have not there's pictures. And he's on a podcast talking about this stuff. So well, doesn't that deserve a new trial? Shouldn't we do this all over again because how can anybody possibly conclude that Derek Shovan got a fair and impartial trial that he walked in on day one and had the presumption of innocence. When I think during jury selection, if my timeline's not mistaken, they even settled the civil claim for $27 million, right? In the middle of the case, Maxine waters was ranting and raving about, you know, they better come to a certain verdict she parachuted in from California. So the whole thing is what sort of a mess does that justify a new trial? And we saw some motions were submitted by the defense. We saw some, a response was filed by the prosecution. What did judge Cahill say about any of that? Well, very simple denied us to all of them, the denying of the motion for the new trial and for the Schwartz hearing . So this came out and you'll notice same motion. It says the matter came before the court, we got Eric Nelson, Matthew Frank, and the whole litany of people here based on the records the court makes and finds the following. It says here, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion or committed error, that the defendant was deprived, his constitutional right to a fair trial. So, Nope, no abuse of discretion here, no new trial. Also the defendant failed to demonstrate that the state engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, such that he was deprived of a constitutional right in that he gets a new trial note denied on that one too. And I think that was about some of the leaks that were taking place. Remember early on, there was some allegation

Speaker 2:

That there was

Speaker 1:

A story that was leaked to the press about a plea deal involving Derek Shovan and attorney general bill BARR back when Trump was still in office. And the , the allegation

Speaker 2:

There was that if there

Speaker 1:

Is a public disclosure, that the defendant is , is contemplating a plea deal, then that might make it seem that though that person is already accepting their guilt. And if jurors see that, well, then they're going to say, well , he was going to take a plea deal anyway , so he must be guilty. So I have no problem finding him guilty because he was gonna plead guilty anyways. So , uh,

Speaker 2:

Was that a problem? No, the judge

Speaker 1:

Said no, that wasn't a problem also says here that the defendant failed to establish a prima fascia case of germ misconduct. Okay. So on its face,

Speaker 2:

They're saying that the defendant Shovan was not able to do

Speaker 1:

Show us just kind of flatly and plainly that there was German misconduct or that a juror gave false testimony during voice deer to warrant an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Schwartz , which

Speaker 2:

Minnesota case that that is, you know , I guess what would remedy that problem? So now what we've got is three.

Speaker 1:

He attempts to sort of do this over again, or reopen the case. Judge Cahill is coming out and said, now they are all denied. So the defendant's motion for a new trial denied. We have defendant's motion for a Schwartz hearing denied. And if you want to take a look at any of this stuff, you can get a copy of the proceeding here in exhibit a signed off on again,

Speaker 2:

Judge Cahill . And so it's mostly over four ,

Speaker 1:

The Derrick Shovan case out of Minneapolis. Now there'll be appeals. There'll be post-conviction relief motions. This whole thing is going to be kicked around there for a long time.

Speaker 2:

We'll continue to follow it. But for the bulk of the underlying case sentencing, was

Speaker 1:

It Derek Chauvin's been remanded 270

Speaker 2:

Months, long time in custody. Let's see what you think about the sentencing.

Speaker 1:

Let's start off here by going to watching the watchers.locals.com. First up in the house is, want to know, says welcome to hot and sunny Portland hotter than Scottsdale Arizona. A few snowflakes should melt. So how come Shovan has to register as a predatory predator? I , I know snow thinks

Speaker 2:

They are. So I heard

Speaker 1:

About that in Portland. Like it's crazy hot up there. Maybe the heat dome that we had here that was melting. Arizona just sort of moved up there to Portland.

Speaker 2:

It's crazy what's happening here, but a predatory predator. So I don't , I'm not sure what the particular rule is. You know, there are certain offenses where

Speaker 1:

You have to sort of register on a list somewhere. So think the most obvious one here would be sex crimes. You have to register as a sexual offender. But if you're somebody who maybe is a domestic violence person, you may even have a domestic violence designation on your record. You may have a, a weapons designation or something like that. So I can't speak specifically to what's happening in Minneapolis or in Minnesota, but , uh, probably something like that. If you're involved

Speaker 2:

With a murder, you get labeled as a, as a predator,

Speaker 1:

Right? Because you're somebody who took somebody else's life is what I would guess justice first is here, says, Shovan said, quote, other information in the future, give you some peace of mind. It can't bring George Floyd back. The Floyd family already got money

Speaker 2:

In harsh retribution for

Speaker 1:

The accused. So do you think other information could be strong evidence that Shovan did not mean ill will towards George Floyd or that this ordeal resulted in some great, good, like maybe prevented deadly drugs from reaching others , teens. It's a cliffhanger, but spell some hope for Shovan. Yeah, it's a good, it's a good ,

Speaker 2:

Um , it's a good inquiry.

Speaker 1:

I , I don't, I don't really know. I didn't catch that. So other information

Speaker 2:

In the future give you some

Speaker 1:

Peace of mind. Yeah, that's a good, that's a good question. I don't really know what he's talking about. I'll have to go ,

Speaker 2:

Uh , watch that again. I, you know, I mean off the, off the top, it doesn't sound particularly like it was worth it. If you're Derek Shovan to,

Speaker 1:

Through that in order to prevent some drugs from hitting the streets, maybe it is, you know, I don't , I mean maybe if those drugs were fentinol or something and they wiped out , uh ,

Speaker 2:

You know, busload of people, well, that would be

Speaker 1:

For the greater good, but that seems awfully speculative. I'm not sure what that is about. It's a great, it's a great catch though. Not sure what he was getting at. He says justice first says, I recall the predicted judge Cahill might split the difference between 40 and zero, which he did. Did you have insider information or was this your own genius? That's a good point. So you're actually giving me more credit than I should

Speaker 2:

Was , uh, than I was giving myself. But , uh, but yeah, I mean, so

Speaker 1:

I just took a stab at it, but it's more about, it's more about politics, you know, it's not necessarily in this case, it's more about politics. Sometimes it's about legal, legal maneuvering, but in this case, you know, there was a whole different, different ball game. So I'm not sure that

Speaker 2:

That was any legal , uh, you know , expertise

Speaker 1:

More than it was sort of just sort of knowing that the judge has this political posture and that he's got to sort of make, make a ruling that sort of makes both sides equally unhappy. And I think he did a great job with that. So thank you for noticing that though justice Solidad Viking says, Hey Rob, so all this accountability today was Shovan, but they still never mentioned that a late arrival of the EMS, their choice of going off site for treatment for an extended period of time, about an hour before going to the ER, no administration by EMS of Narcan, when indicated dispatch, having made an error in sending fire to the wrong address. So those are great questions. Yeah, those are all great questions. One of them, I think I can answer. So during the trial EMS, when they did show up, they were saying specifically that they were a little bit concerned about the crowd, right? The crowd was very unruly at that point in time. And that was part of the, the actual defense for Shovan. If you're in a position in my, my, my sort of argument, there was,

Speaker 2:

How do you explain Shovan not administered

Speaker 1:

During aid ? Well , you have to, you have to sort of default to something that the police say is legitimate. And so let's what , what would you sink your teeth into? How about something like securing the crime scene, right? How about officer safety? How about making sure that a situation doesn't devolve into chaos or more people can get injured and hurt? And so what you do is you maintain your perimeter. You establish force, you show your force, you make sure that everybody out there knows that you're in control until backup arrives. And so what you do then at that moment in time is sort of preserve status quo, make sure Floyd doesn't move crowd, doesn't get involved. You've got four officers making sure, kind of securing the perimeter, waiting for EMS to get there. And when EMS did get there that at that moment, they said, at least in trial, there was , uh , one of, one of the people testifying . One of the witnesses said something to that effect. It was very unruly. We , we, we knew that we couldn't render aid right there because of the volatility of the situation. So we loaded them up, went around the corner and started administering CPR at that moment. So I think that was one of them ,

Speaker 2:

The , um , answers to one of your questions, but the others are great. And yeah ,

Speaker 1:

I think your point is well taken that there are a lot of other potentially contributory factors that may have significantly contributed to George Floyd's death beyond just the neat we've talked about it. The methamphetamine use the, the active , the active amount of fentanyl that was in his system. The last minute ingestion theory that we heard a lot about the heart problems, which were 90% closed. According to the government's own witness, a lot of problems here, not to mention maybe some, some contributed contributory negligence or something from EMS, or, you know, there's all sorts of different ways you could split this, but the jury didn't buy any of it. We've got Todd trout says, we wonder what the backlash will be. Well , many officers leave Minneapolis because they are led by poor leaders. Probably. Yeah. I mean, I would guess I would think that you'll see , you'll see the same trend that you're seeing elsewhere. I think I saw in Portland or Seattle up there that they're down. I think Seattle's down a few hundred. We just covered a story this week. If I'm not mistaken, it's out of Baltimore, they're down a few hundred officers. They're just, you know , they're tired of it. If they don't, if they don't get appreciated, why would they continue to do the work? I don't think anybody should do that. I mean, if you're, if you're capable

Speaker 2:

Of moving

Speaker 1:

Into a position where you are appreciated, I think everybody should strive for that. I know it's not possible for everybody, but that should be a goal, you know , work with a group of people that appreciate the work you do. And that also applies to police. I think that's just good sense. Generally, Sharon Quintin , he says, Shovan, didn't get a fair trial. He was a scapegoat pure and simple, same thing is happening to the people involved in January 6th . I believe the police just arrested some folks who were actually invited in by the police. That's going to be great. They are going to track down everybody involved, however peripherally. Now they're all branding, all Magda supporters, white supremacists , Toto. I don't think we're in Kansas anymore. Yeah. Yeah. And we're going to get to the January six stuff because

Speaker 2:

Nancy Pelosi just announced

Speaker 1:

A new commission is coming up. That's for our last segment of the day. So we'll get there. We've got Jeremy says, I understand that many people think the citizens in Minneapolis are crazy or being ridiculous about how they think and feel about police. Unfortunately , they may actually believe they're being targeted, my opinion, the false perception and the willingness to believe something. So blatantly ridiculous is the real issue. This is coming over from Jeremy. [inaudible] good to see you, Jeremy. Yeah. You know, there, there is a lot of that and , and I've,

Speaker 2:

I've criticized that as well. You know, I typically

Speaker 1:

We'll, we'll cover stories, you know, about bad Popo and things like that. And , um , I'm a defense lawyer. That's the part of the , that's the point of this channel watching the Watchers. But I also recognize that the pendulum is swinging to the point where it's becoming a little

Speaker 2:

Bit, a little bit, you know, sort of,

Speaker 1:

I would say out there where, where I'm hearing from people that

Speaker 2:

Say , well, walking around is like as dangerous,

Speaker 1:

Like , like police are going to murder you walking down the street or something like that. Like , like what , like what happened to George Floyd is like a common thing. That's happening all over America. And I'm going, that's not really the , the situation. Yes. There are deaths and killings. And there are situations where somebody is no longer with us who , who should still be with us. Absolutely. But if you're walking down the street, you don't see cops just, you know, randomly mowing down black people or anything,

Speaker 2:

Buddy T to the degree that some people are making it out to be right there,

Speaker 1:

There it's happening. I'm not denying that it's happening. We cover a lot of them. We cover most of them on this channel. I get very irritated about it, but you also have to be reasonable when you're sort of characterizing anything that's happening in our country. And unfortunately, there's just not much of that going on. Everybody's saying everything's a nightmare. Either all the cops or our white supremacists or all the cops are, you know , absolute heroes that don't deserve any oversight or accountability. And both of those things are not right. So we have to find something in the middle. And I know that's complicated because everything is so politically volatile. These days, hack consulting is here, says the whole Shovan thing is BS. Just a bunch of political people trying to look at it

Speaker 2:

Political yet they get that apolitical crap is exactly what is highly political at this very moment. The whole trial is a Fest that people

Speaker 1:

Well, who are cruel are the Floyd family that testified not Shovan kangaroo court, trying to look legit. I've said, I've also made that point. You know what we're going to see here

Speaker 2:

Is a lot of people, but a lot of people

Speaker 1:

Ran their mouse for 18 months about George Floyd and Derek Shovan mayors and politicians. And you can make the argument that even Joe Biden and Kamala Harris made me got elected on the back of stuff. We're going to come out there and demand justice. We're going to out there and we're fighting for true reform, meaning full reform blah-blah-blah chauvinist sentence . This whole thing is going to be swept under the rug. It's already is. We're already talking about new crime bills , a new crime enforcement stuff, Joe Biden just unleashed unlocked $350 billion of , of money that was already allocated for COVID for law enforcement. Now, oh, here you go here. Just take that. Just take that to get to the Pria pandemic capacities. I've said this consistency consistently, Joe Biden is very pro police. He's somebody that wants more law enforcement officials out there. Not less. He's got a long history of this. I played a video from 19 85, 19 89, yesterday, where he was talking about tripling, what George Bush wanted. So, you know, they're, they don't , they don't do anything is my point. They all come out there. They all get on, you know, somebody gets killed, they all milk it. I think it's shameful. What they do to the people who die. I think it's tarnishing their names. It's disrespectful to them and they , they milk it for political gain. This

Speaker 2:

Whole thing caused a lot

Speaker 1:

Of division and animosity. And they're just going to sort of just move onto the next topic they're actually talking about, you know, sort of refunding the police and, and, and actually integrating federal law enforcement agencies now on a local level. And you might think, oh, well, they're coming for the guns in the white supremacists . Cause it's Joe Biden and Merrick Garland. That's not the case. My friends, they come after everybody.

Speaker 2:

Fortunately, we're all going to be left, holding,

Speaker 1:

Paying the bill. All right . Boxy punk chick is here, says, what I do not understand is why they didn't bring up more than the fact that Shovan knew Floyd was on something. He asked him if he was on anything. Of course, someone will lie about it. But when he said he couldn't breathe and already had the speculation that he was on something, he should have been a little bit quicker

Speaker 2:

Getting aid. That's a good point. Yeah. And you know, it was, I, there , there was a moment when George Floyd was also coming

Speaker 1:

Planning about not being able to breathe before anybody was even on his back. Right. I played that clip. I put that clip up on Twitter. And so, you know, you sort of have to balance a couple of different factors. On the one hand, as a police officer, you've got to enforce the law. You've got to make sure you can conduct your arrest and get somebody under your control

Speaker 2:

And,

Speaker 1:

And not injure themselves or injure you or escape or any of those things. On the other side, though, you also have to sort of, you know , recognize that you can't do that with an evaporation of your humanity. There's at some point where you can't treat people anymore with aggression, you have to treat them with a little bit more humanity and more empathy once you've already gotten control of the situation. So

Speaker 2:

Sort of like, you know, in, in, in

Speaker 1:

It's martial arts, when you have somebody in a submission hold, you don't actually break their elbow. You don't actually rip their shoulder out of the socket or strangle them to death or knock them unconscious. You actually, you just gotcha . Hey, you're good now, all right . A little tap goes on. Or if you're somebody with, you know , a little bit more experience, sometimes you'll let that person fight a little bit. Right. It was okay, I've got total control of the situation. They can scroll around whatever they want. They're not getting anywhere because I've got training. They don't, I know where they're going before. They're going. And so if you're somebody with that training, which is often what we ascribed to police officers, as we should, they do have training. They go through a lot of it. They get paid for it, a lot of powers and responsibilities because of it. So in that situation, you want to make sure that that officer is not crossing that line. And of course the jury and the judge found that Shovan did alright , Matree does here says everything about them . This case is so disgusting and infuriating. These people are clearly nuts and they claim to see something that did not happen. People are entitled to their own opinion, but not entitled to change the facts. That's a good point, Jeremy. Good to see you. Last one in the house is from Joe. Snow says Shovan and a 22 month sentence. Oh, well how many people's lives has been had been ruined by? I am . It's a good question, right? It's a good question. Who knows those? Certainly George Floyd's certainly George Floyd's family, certainly everything that's sort of trickled out and emanated from that you could make. The argument is all attributable back to Chauvin. At least the jury did, sounds like the judge may have done. So as well. Now I've been consistent here that I've said that. I think that there were a lot of problems with this trial through and through. I've gone through the , the list of all of the reasonable doubt there . I'm not gonna do that again, but this was , uh , this was a case. My friends, this was something that we spent a lot of time in on, and I appreciate you joining me as we've got through it. I know I've learned a lot hope you did as well. Hopefully you also never need to find yourself in a situation like Derek Shovan never or any, anything, not even nearly as serious. It could be something much minor, but if you do well, our law firm can help. I want to show you the RNR law group. We can help with all sorts of criminal violations, things like felony, drug charges, traffic violations, DUIs. We can help clear up old criminal histories, older records. We can remove a mugshot off the internet or a handful of them . If you've got that going on, restore your right to vote, help you get your ability to possess a firearm back. If that's possible, there's a lot we can do to help nudge things back on the right track. You know, you're , you have rights in this country. Many people just kind of give them up. We don't want to do that. So if you need help, or if you know somebody in the state of Arizona that needs help, we offer free case evaluations, we would love the opportunity to speak with your referrals. If you don't know anybody that has a criminal charge, that's okay. Maybe we want to keep it that way by shoring that you don't incriminate yourself. The way to do that is by taking the law enforcement interaction training, which you can see down here, it's available on my gun gum road page it's gumroad.com/robert ruler. Law enforcement interaction training is available now for your purchase, you can click or take a picture of this QR code. If you want to take a link over there. Also, if you're an attorney or a legal professional, be sure to check out our legal mastermind, which is a ton of fun, great questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you so much for your support. Really do appreciate all the love over there. All right . So we're going to move on into the next story of the day.

Speaker 2:

Kamala Harris actually went down to the border high about that. Pretty good there. Now I ,

Speaker 1:

I have for a long time on this channel said, you know, it's kind of one of these political things that, you know, everybody just likes to beat each other up about. And as soon as the Republicans saw that she was in the kind of not going down to the border, they just lit latched onto it. And then at that moment, it becomes very fun to sort of, you know, kind of watch how this political , um , ball of meatballs is just slowly spilling all over yourself. Very slowly. It's a lot of fun and we're going to continue to talk about it. So we're going to be spending some time here today, talking about the trip to El Paso. First, let's take a look at Kamala Harris's itinerary. So we know that, you know , this has been going on for some time that

Speaker 2:

She kind of, kind of

Speaker 1:

The pointed to solve the border problem by Joe Biden some months ago in March, didn't really take much action on that because I think that after it happened, she realized that this was not a good thing, right? She was being made the scapegoat and Joe Biden and his administration was taking this unsolvable problem. And just kind of slide in that bill right over to come on, you got this, here you go. And pay that one. All right , thanks. And she decided I'm not going to do that. So she didn't want to go down to the border. Then eventually she said , well, all right, I'll address the root causes. So I'll go down to Guatemala and talk to them about , uh , oppression and climate change or whatever. She went down there for and wag their finger at them and said, don't you come to our border going? All right . So then you know , that didn't work because a couple of days later we have U halls working their way across the Southern border, near Texas. And so she's booked , we'll try that again, go over to Mexico. She meets with them. And that president says, oh, well the root cause, it's your policies. It's what you said. So you're going to do anything about that. She said, Nope, not going to do anything about that either. But she did get asked about going and visiting the border. Univision said, when are you going to go to the border lump ? And she said, I'm not finished Univision. So she's just wagging her finger at everybody down there. And finally Haile . Gosh, you know, and part of this is like, I don't even really care whether she goes to the border or not, because it's not going to matter one Whit one either way. I mean, I'm a practical person and I live in Arizona and I've known that nobody has been able to solve the border. Kamala Harris is certainly not going to do it. So come to the border or don't whatever nobody cares. I mean, actually a lot of people care because it's kind of political sport at this time, but she finally made her way down to El Paso and we're , uh , we're excited about it. Let's take a look at her itinerary. So daily guidance for the vice-president Friday, June 25th, that is today. She got up bright and early 6:00 AM traveled to El Paso to the departure from joint base Andrews. And the arrival to the international airport is going to be covered by the pool. Yeah. Cause she's going, got you got it . If she's going to go, you got to make sure there's like a million cameras everywhere. Cause this is only going to happen one time. This is it. Get it over with, take your pictures, buddy. Boy, cause I am not coming back. All right . At 8 35, then she's going to tour the El Paso border patrol station. There will be travel pool coverage of this tour. So that's great. Of course, there's going to be coverage 10 30, 10 25. Vice-presidents going to meet with some advocates from some faith-based NGOs and shelter and legal service providers going to travel pool spray at the top of this meeting at the El Paso international airport nine . So I think we're going to see that. And then at 1135, now she delivers remarks to the press. She takes questions. So you're going to also travel with the travel pool and they're going to make remarks back at the airport and by about noon she's already out of Texas. Okay. So she's going to tour about 8:00 AM by 1230. She's out of there. She's making a , uh, her final destination is really in LA. So the departure once again from El Paso is also going to be covered by the travel pool and the arrival is then closed press, right? So when she lands in LA, we don't want the press anymore. So the press can follow us from the morning, all the way to the border patrol all the way to the meeting with the service providers and the shelters. And then you can watch us leave El Paso, but then it's closed press when we get in land in LA. So you kind of know what's happening. She'd be there for a couple hours, you know, half of a morning, go out there and speak with a few people already getting criticized, which is just excellent. So now we can see that , uh , this is over from the daily mail. They're showing us that she went to El Paso, which is over here, if you're not familiar with the border. Uh, whereas most of the crossings are actually taking place down here. 230% more crossings are over in the Rio Grande valley area. But here in El Paso, that's where she went. So people were sort of, you know, mad , they're saying, Hey, you're 800 miles away from the problem. There's 230% more stuff going on down here. But as we all know, like it's not like comma is not going to go out there. And like, maybe she will, maybe if we put her at the border and she said, dog , come , Hey you, I told you maybe they'll maybe that maybe that'll stop the problem. We don't need a wall after all. It's just Kamala going down there. All right. So she got off the airplane and she was, she was bombarded by , uh, by reporters. Take a look at this one. So she's, you kind of catch this face. And the reason why I took this picture is because we're going to hear from her in a minute and she kind of stumbling all over her , her words here. Cause she doesn't really know what to say. And this is just par for the course, which is why it's so beautiful now. So you can see her just kind of , uh, all right , so let's take a look at the daily mail. She snaps at a reporter. She blames Trump. She faces down protestors . She slammed for lending 800 miles away. The real crisis is further her first trip of the border. And this is all happening. 93 days after she was named the immigrations are so she's not, she's not having a good time with the and look it's, it's honestly folks like this is partially her fault because she's a terrible politician, but it's also the border. Like nobody can fix it. The whole infrastructure is a mess. And I've been saying this it's it's it's absolutely because both parties want that. The Democrats want the cheap votes. The Republicans want the cheap labor, both neither. One of them particularly cares about the poor migrants who were coming across. They're just exploiting a sort of a , a subclass of , of people that they , they , they just want to use for whatever their political ends are. Not particularly caring about people who are cramming themselves in a hundred, six degree U halls or stacking themselves in the back of flatbed so that they can get people across into the country. Of course, because of the policies and the incentives created by the Biden administration. But that's a separate issue. At least she's going down to the border and making that sort of token appearance down there. Good for her. So criticized for being too slow for visiting the border. Now, 93 days later, Texas Democrat, Veronica Escobar was there talking about the city as the new Ellis island. Co Camila said that. Now, listen, this is not my first trip. Snap back at a reporter, insisted her plans were not new. And you're going to hear this twice case we're going to , we've got a clip from her coming up. She says, listen, oh, we've planned to be down here in the first place. So you can tell that this Trump sort of race to get to the border is really under her skin because she mentions it a few times. She said, listen, we planned this back in March. And if that's true, well then why didn't she tell that to any of the reporters who asked her about this? Because the gal from Univision and the journalist there said specifically , uh , when are you going to the border? When? And she said, I'll get back to you. So if this was, if this was really planned in March, why didn't she have a date picked? Hmm , curious, we're going to hear her say, no, this has already been planned. It's not new. I've already been here before. Not as vice-president , but before as a Senator and now she's coming back, she said, she promised to visit it back in March, comes less than a week before big Donny tea is going to go down there with governor Greg Abbott. Trump claimed that he shamed her into making the trip. Harris has been criticized for going to El Paso over other areas, border agents in the Rio Grande valley, for example, apprehended 271,000 people compared to half in El Paso, more than more went way, way less than that actually , uh , way more than half. Okay. You get it. She also is avoiding Fort bliss. Kids watched B being watched for self harm and panic attacks. So it's just a PR you know , BS thing on Thursday Biden insisted that VP had done a great job at the border so far, despite , uh , not visiting. So, so Joe has literally no idea what's going on. You know, she's doing great. Like Joe , she hasn't been down. I know, but whatever she's doing down there, the root causes here is CommonWell . Uh , getting off the , uh, the airplane and listen, listen to how she sort of answers these questions already been there. She says that a couple of this was already planned a few times.

Speaker 4:

How did you decide that right now was the right time to make your first, well, it's not my first trip. So the important aspects of this visit is leading this visit after the work that we did in Guatemala and Mexico, as I've long said, I said , back in March, I was going to come to the border. So this is not a new plan, but the reality of it is that we have to deal with causes and we have to deal with the effects. So being in Guatemala, being in Mexico, talking with Mexico as a partner, frankly on the issue was about addressing the causes and then coming to the border at the, at the advice and the, and actually the invitation of the Congresswoman is about looking at the effects of what we have seen happening in central America. And , um , some glad to be here was always the plan to come here. And I think we're going to have a good and productive day [inaudible]

Speaker 1:

She literally says nothing, nothing, nothing, no causes. I, we went down to Guatemala to address the causes and , and Mexico. And by the way, I was also, I said in March, I was going to come here anyways there , buddy. So don't, you know, watch your, watch your tone with me. And , um, also , uh, the, the effects are also now going to be talked about because I was in Mexico to deal with the causes. Now I'm here to deal with the effects and I'm happy to be here. Uh , the Congresswoman invited me and , uh, don't know what else to say. So I'm just going to turn around and walk on outta here. That's our vice-president . And it's just, it's just hilarious because she's been dealing with this for like, I don't know, four months now. I mean, every time she gets in front of the cameras on the border, she doesn't know what she's talking about. It's a sterile , it has almost nothing to do with the issue, which is, which is reprehensible. I just got done a repre ranting about what a disgusting travesty and humanitarian crisis this is, but she can't even give it the time of the day to come out there and just give a 32nd soundbite that has some pop to it. She just go cause and effects and then walks away. Thanks. All right. So that's our vice-president now daily mail says she snapped at a reporter. We just heard that, you know, okay, she's being criticized, saying it's a pit stop on her way to her California home waiting 93 days. So she's just popping into the border before she gets home. After arriving at the airport, she says, it's not my first trip. I've come many times. I said, back in March, I was going to come. So this is not a new plant , but the date is though, but the timing is a new plan. Isn't it. If you were going to come in March and you knew what was going to happen on Friday, June 25th, and why? Uh , by the way, that's a whole separate issue. You know, people kind of do things I got. Uh , so I just had an epiphany. So, and I, I just did literally. So, so it it's, this is happening on a Friday, right? And she got there right about Friday at noon Eastern time. And so by the time sort of this works its way through the new cycle. It's Friday afternoon, nobody cares about the news on Friday. So it all just gets swept under the rug. Everybody knows that the , the government, when they do things that they don't want anybody to find out about, they release the news on Friday. Kamala Harris does not want to be associated or connected with the border at all. She doesn't want to be, I'm going to guess we're going to start to see some pretty big pullbacks from common law and the Biden administration, because she knows that she's being scapegoated for a lot of these issues. And so she doesn't want her face near it, which is why they scheduled it on a Friday in the middle of the summer, when it's hot. When we already know that the, the, the, the numbers are going to be coming down and it's going to be on a Friday and she's got to squeeze it in before Trump gets there next week. So it does kind of sound like it is a new plan. They're calm all about, you know, we'll take your word for it. I guess, Harris , his trip to El Paso was announced on Wednesday, appear to be hastily put together days before a visit by president Trump. She denied that it was a consideration. Okay. So Harris 56 first blame Trump during the situation for the situation on the border saying that progress would mean removing the rhetoric and the finger pointing from the debate. Then she left joint Andrews base , uh, for the trip this morning when she got there, this is sort of some of what she saw. So this one was something that I clipped earlier today, 212,000 views. And you just got to take a look at these signs. I mean, these are just, these are just great. So we're going to watch this. Now. You can, you can clearly tell right that , um, this is, this is a video that was sort of, you know, made for the internets, right. And I'm sure it's, I'm sure it's a properly , uh , appropriate protest . I'm not sure where they're at, what they're in front of, but I saw this over from , uh , Robbie Starbuck , uh, over on Twitter, who is running for Congress. And so you're going to notice, right? That they, they sort of finish with a Hispanic woman at the end. Who's going to tell us that she's not happy with Kamala Harris. So it was very good. Um, uh , uh, let, let you'll, you'll see the signs and you'll see what I'm talking about. So here we go very well produced is the word I'm looking for.

Speaker 4:

Um ,

Speaker 1:

All right . So something frozen on that. Let's try

Speaker 4:

That again.

Speaker 1:

So I don't know why it's freezing. It's not playing the video, but when you get to the end of the line, then there's a , there's a Hispanic woman who just started scolding comma line says, Hey, you don't know what you're talking about about the border. Get out of here. And so it's, it's well produced and there were some pretty good signs on there . Kay .

Speaker 4:

It's pretty good.

Speaker 1:

That's pretty clever. Like what I'm seeing. I like when I see clever iterations like that, alliterations like that. So that's what she sort of saw that was making its rounds around the internet. So very interesting. We have her first stop . It was a processing center. So she met with migrant girls age nine to 15, who drew pictures for her and described their hopes for the future. That's oh , that's very nice. She also spoke to border guards. They've been dealing with a record breaking surge , says , uh , we've inherited a tough situation, said Gloria Chavez, the chief patrol agent of El

Speaker 2:

Paso. We've inherited

Speaker 1:

A tough situation. We looked at a system where we've housed in inhumane conditions over the last many years in five months, we've made progress. Oh my gosh. So they're blaming Trump for the fact that they have like significantly more kids in cages,

Speaker 2:

Way more kids like tons, more kids

Speaker 1:

Cages than Trump ever had. And they're blaming Trump. Then she made an unannounced visit to the border crossing before meeting faith groups. At the end of her visits , she reflected on a conversation with the girls saying they reminded her to take the politics out of the crisis. Yeah. We're talking about children. We're talking about families. We're talking about suffering. Our approach has to be thoughtful and effective again, like literally nothing. And we can take these perspectives into account and have meaningful, good public policy. If we stop the rhetoric and the finger pointing and do what we need to do the answer, she added lay in Congress, coming together to pass immigration reform. Okay. So you can , can you see what she's doing? She's not saying she's literally not saying anything. And this is by design. She doesn't want to offer any policy solutions. And when they ask her about it, she says, it's Congress kick it off to Congress. Congress has to come together to pass immigration reform because certainly she can't do it. Right. She is the, the, the figurehead for this debacle. And she's actually to her credit doing , uh , I think a fairly decent job of not answering anything. It looks terrible, but you know, of course this will be over soon, right? The , the border thing we'll get over it we'll, we'll, we'll make fun of her and the administration. It will continue to be a problem. They're not going to change anything because it's not about that. It's about politics. And so we'll forget about the border. And then, you know, comma has got, you know , two and a half, three and a half years before she really needs to start. Well, let's say two and a half years before she needs to start , uh , her makeover to rebrand herself as somebody in distance herself from some of these politically volatile issues. She's already doing that. We saw the picture of her yesterday, where she was hiding behind the pillar, because she didn't want anything to do with , uh, with the infrastructure photo photo op, all right . Now, Joe Biden also weighed in, on some of the border stuff, but he did it. And then a little bit of a different context. He's talking about it in regard to COVID vaccines. How does this work? So here's Joe Biden, two things it's talking about, you know , uh, I guess let's Latinex people who are

Speaker 2:

Afraid of being deported

Speaker 1:

If they go get the vaccine. So like , so two things there. Number one, is that, is that like official now? Is it let, let Latinex, is that the thing? Cause I, I think that,

Speaker 2:

Like in other language it sort of has it baked in there that you've got, you know, the, the, the, the

Speaker 1:

Gendered letters and stuff. So I'm not sure how that works, but , uh , I'm not sure if that has been officially adopted by the Hispanic people. I don't know. Maybe we'll get a memorandum on that one day. The other thing that's happening here is I'm pretty sure that there are Latinas or Latinos or Latinex is

Speaker 2:

That are citizens in this. I ,

Speaker 1:

I thought I could have been, but he's the president. So maybe he's right. That my point here is if , if you're a citizen and you're a Latina or Latino or Latinex, well , how can you get deported if you're a citizen, but maybe we don't have any of those in this country. I don't know, Joe Biden, maybe, maybe he knows. Let's hear from Joe

Speaker 5:

People. There's a reason why it's been harder to get African-Americans initially to get vaccinated because they're used to be an experimented on the Tuskegee airmen and others, people have memories. People have long memories. It's awful hard as well to get Latinex vaccinated as well. Why they're worried that they'll be vaccinated and deported. So look from day one, something that governor Cooper has been totally focused on is making sure we get as many people vaccinated, particularly people who don't have access to healthcare , usually who don't have ordinary.

Speaker 1:

All right . So , uh, so there's Joe Biden, right? There's, there's a problem. Latinex people. They're not getting the vaccine because they're afraid when they go down, they're going to get deported, which is news to me. I had no idea. It's all, you know, but it actually is pretty consistent to Joe Biden's philosophy because the last time he said that we had problems, I think it was African-Americans in rural communities who couldn't even get on the internet because they just couldn't figure it out. I guess that was Joe Biden's statement. Not mine. They couldn't get on the internet. So we got to help them, whatever. And so we're, we're doing the same thing. Now. We're sort of, you know, there are certain demographics here in this country that are just too stupid to know better. And so, you know , we, as a , as a , as a government, as a sympathetic humanitarian presidency, as an administration that really cares about people, we're gonna go help those poor African-Americans that can't get online. We're going to go help those poor Latina Latinex. Oh my gosh. Sorry about that. Those poor Latino exes who are , uh, who want healthcare, but they're afraid that they're going to get deported because they also don't know any better, like, like that , like that citizens don't get deported. So , uh, but fortunately my friends, I am open to learning. I'm learning a lot from this president and it is going to go, I'm going to take it to heart and modify rectify my problematic behavior immediately. Here's Joe Biden. Now also talking about infrastructure. So this is your president, the people, many of you who said that the Trump was not my president hashtag not my president. Right? This is your president. This is America's president. This is somebody that we're all sort of dealing with now. And Joe Biden has, you know, he continues to amaze me. I'm , I'm sort of continually impressed that last clip, actually, he looked kind of, okay, this one, you know, I'm seeing people sort of write this off as a , uh , as a jokey thing is like, this is a funny thing. And you know, oh, you don't have a sense of humor, whatever. Right? The same people who , who said that Donald Trump was like, not are now saying like, this is comedic or something. All right . So , uh , we , uh , we got different senses of humor, I guess, but this is Joe Biden. Now he's talking about , uh, the, the infrastructure stuff, right? So here's the Kyron from CNN says bipartisanship is hard, but it's necessary and it can get done. So big new spending bill is now underway for infrastructure. Here's Joe Biden, doing something kind of weird with the press. Uh, yesterday

Speaker 5:

$1.9 trillion relief . So far, they're going to be getting checks in the mail that are consequential, wrote the bill on the environment. This is Corey's employees bargaining chip. Now what's happening. I got them.

Speaker 1:

All right . So this clip, this clip boiled my blood. I watched this last night, almost jumped out of bed in a manic rage because of this clip in this clip, right? This is sort of a piece from that last clip. He's talking about small business owners. He's talking about just increase their wages. If you're a small business owner in this country, you're your brace yourself for this condescension in this arrogance that you're about to hear from our president , uh, you know, small business. I think it dumped on all the time we get, we get closed and locked down and we have been sort of forgotten about for the last 18 months in this entire pandemic. Walmart's made a ton of money. Amazon target all of the big retailers, they get all of the , the, the benefits, small business owners just kind of get forgotten about. So now we're in a situation where our federal government has been paying people not to work. We've seen that we have a massive labor shortage. We've got, I think, 8 million people unemployed, or we're not in the labor force. Numbers are massive. I just finished a networking meeting. Uh , I I've been doing that for the last two days, essentially with a very, very, you know , uh, important group to me. And they're experiencing similar problems. Other small business owners, a lot of people that I meet and speak with are having difficulties, finding good people to work for them or work with them. And it is, it is a problem. And I , and I've , I've talked about it with several people. Now, this all may be corrected, right? Once the government stops paying people not to work, then maybe things will sort of equalize and get back to normal. But in the meantime, you may have noticed this, right? If you have gone to a restaurant, you may have noticed that they've said, and you'll help want it. We're sorry about the service. We can't find people to help. And the list kind of goes on and on. It's something that is everywhere and the government, they just, they have a very simple solution for you. If you're a small business owner, you're , you're probably, you're probably just so, so dumb that you just don't know any better, but fortunately , uh, Joe, Biden's going to give us some guidance on how to go get those employees. If you're missing somebody, if you're looking for, you know, a new addition to your team, and you're having difficulty getting anybody to respond to an ad, very simple, Joe Biden has the answer for us.

Speaker 5:

Guess what? Employers can't find workers. I said, yeah, this is an employees , employees bargaining chip. Now what's happening. They're going to have to compete. Guess what?

Speaker 1:

So did you, did you see that one , watch this, watch this. He's actually mocking people who are making this argument, right? So , so he starts off with this little furrowed brow, watch that, see that. And he's going to start by going, guess what ? Ooh , phone employees. Then he catches himself. He realized, ah, I shouldn't have done that. And he starts talking like an actual president , not some sort of condescending, snotty, nose, little,

Speaker 5:

You know, whining,

Speaker 1:

Liberal person. Now here's Joe Biden. He's going to mock small business owners. And he's just going to tell him , Hey, it's an employees market. Just raise the rates. If the clip continues, I pulled this off Twitter. He says, you have to compete, right? Raise your, raise your prices. So you can go compete to get these employees, watch this.

Speaker 5:

Guess what? Employers can't find workers. I said, yeah, this is an employees , employees bargaining chip. Now what's happening. They're going to have to compete. Guess what?

Speaker 1:

So he , he wants us to compete. He's saying you just got to pay them more. It's the employees , markets. I listen, I love employees. I , we we'd have an awesome team of people here. We do everything we can to make them happy and make sure that they feel fulfilled. We have meetings and we do it. We do everything we can to make sure that they're living fulfilled lives and they've got a plan and a purpose. And that they're achieving that. We really spend a lot of time on doing that. And , uh, we , we, we think a lot about these issues. We think a lot about the taxes that we pay. We pay a lot of taxes everywhere. We turn, we are just paying taxes so much taxes that I could actually hire more people. If I didn't have to give that all to the federal government. So in addition to having to pay those taxes , uh , the government also sort of locked us down. So in Arizona, our courts were actually closed. So we couldn't actually do any work. People were still getting charged with crimes, but we couldn't go to court. We couldn't leave. We couldn't work. I couldn't even go get a haircut because my hairstylist was locked down. What is she supposed to do? I was getting bootleg, haircuts. Okay . Going down, sort of getting, you know, these behind the curtains and stuff because the city police were knocking on her door. What she supposed to do. If she can't earn a living to go make the money to go hire the employees with higher pay Joe Biden. In addition to that, you and your people in Congress have been passing bills, money, hand, over fist, paying people not to work. Where does that money come from? The taxes that we pay. So we're paying taxes to you that you're now using to supplement employees to not work. And then you're telling us that all we need to do is just raise our raises a rate, raise our wages when we're not allowed to work, to go and solve this problem, Joe, that's your solution. So I don't, you know, I'm not going to use the F-word here on this one, but a big T to Joe and those people out there who are making those arguments, they don't know what small business owners went through this last year. We , uh , my , my friends, I , I lost a lot of sleep, trying to make sure that the firm's stayed open. I went haywire with my productivity. I did a lot of other, this show came about as a result of COVID because I was freaked out. I thought that we were going to lose the firm and lose everything because I didn't know what was coming next. We bent over backwards to keep our firm in order to make sure that we could keep our employees happy a well and alive, and also maintain our , our duties to our clients and to justice. And so for somebody like this, after what we just went through to come out and tell us, just raise your prices. It's so insulting. It's so condescending. And it makes my blood boil to a degree. I can't even tell you, but that's that's okay, because I'm going to be highly energized dealing with this administration for the foreseeable future. And I'm hopeful that you tag along. Let's take a [email protected] . First one in the house is from farmer's daughter. What's up. Farmers says Kamala Harris went down to a border . Suppose if she'd actually shown up where it counted, she might have been eaten by a Gator or something. Plus she had to beat Trump.

Speaker 6:

Yeah, she, she did , man.

Speaker 1:

She's scrambling to get down there. And she got down there. Want to know, says the first thing she said it was hot. No gala . Sheriff has found 40 plus dead emic , dead immigrants. Since she has been in charge, Trump's scammed her to go yet. Can't get, she can't get rid of them. I like all the Trump signs one on her route. Do you think Trump's visit will help the situation? No. I mean, I don't think that anything. I mean, look, what , what I think helps the situation is the policy, the policy changes are it's the pull of the federal government. It's so strong. She can go down there and say, work up , you know, put some solar panels on your roof to deal with climate change a hundred years from now. Is that going to stop immigration? No, it's not right.

Speaker 6:

It , it, it, it , it

Speaker 1:

Has to be something with a consequential impact. Nothing that they have done has done anything, but create a consequential impact that is causing more people to try to come across the border. Trump's going to go down there. It will be a political thing for him too . That's what everybody does down there. Some people just do it better than others. And Kamala is terrible at it. Farmer's daughter says maybe if they set up a recording of her cackling on a 24 hour loop, it will deter millions. Yes. Sort of like those when they do those , um , uh , hostage negotiations, right? Put those speakers up and they play those , uh, those horrible songs. What, what was the song? You know, there's one of them that they play like a Dolly Parton song or something like that. And , uh, yeah, we just put cackling Camila down there at the border . We don't want to , we don't want to traumatize the migrants. Okay. Farmer's daughter. We just want to, you know, encourage them to come across the border. Legally, we don't want to , you know, sort of fry these people's brains indefinitely. That sounds like cruel and unusual punishment. Hack consulting says Camila doesn't matter. The solution is for the states to figure it out. The federal government is inept to really solve the issue. People need to address the factors that let gun crime run rampant in the south drugs, legalize them since we are no nannies, trafficking, shame that the public displays of affection, that is a private endeavor who knows, who cares? What is the VP really going to do with a single visit? Nothing, nothing. She's not going to do anything. She's not going to do anything anyways. She didn't have to go. She's washing her hands of the border. She just, she just said that , uh, Congress can deal with that. I've been down here. Yeah, it's terrible. So I'm going to go in and take leadership back to Congress because it's a congressional issue. Don't talk to me about it. Leafy bug is in the house as it wasn't El Paso, where Jim Acosta went and stood in front of a large border wall and said, there aren't any migrant crossings here. What border crisis? These people are joke . Yeah . I remember that leafy bug.

Speaker 2:

And wasn't that like, wasn't there something

Speaker 1:

Kind of funny about that. I remember didn't somebody else go down there and they like walked around the gate or something was like, ridiculous about that. I remember that. I can't put my finger on it though. We got Jeremy's in the house, as I'm surprised. She didn't . Didn't just say, when am I going to solve the issue? I've already solved the issue. Yeah. It's a good point. I've already been to the border. I've already solved this issue. K2 . It's been dealt with. There's no kids in cages anymore. And it's all, it's all taken care of. I'm going home. I got to get to LA by Solidad Vikings here says Camila had the nerve to state. The Donald was the root cause of the problem

Speaker 2:

With the unaccompanied minors child separation. The children are largely

Speaker 1:

Being used as props , a type of trial child trafficking. Of course the fake parents asserting the child is theirs. Don't get any consequences. Yeah. We've talked about that, right. That it's sort of like a , you know , an admission ticket

Speaker 2:

Into the country. Oh, you've got

Speaker 1:

A child they'll come on in here. Right. And now we've got, I think, I think the numbers were like 2000

Speaker 2:

And kids that are just without a parent sitting in government custody. Why

Speaker 1:

Guys that we've got Sharon Queenie's in the house as regarding a small business is an important part of the communist agenda to eliminate the middle class and to , especially to wipe out small businesses. Yeah. Because then, then you, you don't have sort of a safety net, right? People are not providing for themselves. It's either, you've got the booze wall or you've got the proletariat. When you have that, then the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeois because now you've got enough momentum. You , you sort of, you can't have a middle area because if you have a middle area, then people are going to sort of recognize that they can do things for themselves and they can, they can live lives based on the production that they create for themselves. And if you create massive division that causes enough of sort of accelerates the division in a way that will lead to a revolution that will overthrow the bougie Schwab and the proletariat will seize the means of, of , uh, uh, the means of production. Isn't it? So we've got, farmer's daughter says, I'm so sorry. You had to go through that. Well, it's, you know, we made it, we made it we're we're good. We made it. We got, we kept the whole team. We're good. Clients are happy. We didn't actually really, I mean, we skipped a beat for sure, but we , we kept it together, you know, and I'm super proud of our team. I'm super proud of what we were able to do. And I feel like we've, we've weathered a storm that only makes us stronger, honestly. Uh, and , and a lot of good came out of it. A lot of bad came out of it too. No question. But we, we, we did, we did have some good stuff that , that we're going to hang on to, as a result, we have RNA B [inaudible] says I Ms. Donald Trump. Yeah. I certainly, I certainly can empathize with that. I certainly sorta missed the , uh , the tweets as well. I know a lot of people didn't like the tweets, but I was a huge fan of the tweets. All right. We've got Solidad. Viking says the whispering is just a throwback to his hair. Sniffing sweet, nothing sick. Yeah.

Speaker 2:

It's a weird thing. Don't

Speaker 1:

Quite know what Joe's doing there. What that little shticks is all about, but it's not actually that funny. It's weird. Nobody was laughing. Okay. Reporters, weren't going like, oh,

Speaker 2:

It's just, it's just crazy, Joe. Nobody was laughing. Everybody's going again. What are you doing? Did you see the reporters there? There's like writing on their journals. Oh, okay. Right. Write that down.

Speaker 1:

All right. So great questions. All those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com , which is a great place to go and connect with our community. There's a lot of stuff going on there that is great to be a part of. And we thank you for your support. Also, if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona, that's facing a criminal charge, that's what we do on a daily basis. I know we kind of have fun here on the show, talking about common law and Biden, but on a daily basis, we really are passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges, get through the justice system and find some safety, clarity, and hope in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs some help like that, we would be honored if you sent a referral. Our way phone number is down here. (480) 787-0394 . Also, the QR code will take you to our website. If you're not in need of any legal services, definitely check out my gum road.com page at slash Robert gorilla . You'll see here, we have law enforcement interaction training. We have a personal productivity existence system. And of course we have the legal mastermind, which is for attorneys and other legal professionals. We meet twice a month and we talk about the law. So we'll have some fun on those. I'd invite you to check those out, as well as check out some of the description, some of the links in the description below for , for some of the other channels that we are working on. All right. And so our last segment of the day is we're going to be talking about

Speaker 2:

Nancy Pelosi. I know

Speaker 1:

January 6th , the Capitol hill commission is looking like it's underway. Nancy Pelosi has been trying for this for some period of time. But very recently when they tried to create a bipartisan commission, the Republicans said we don't want any part of that. We know where this is going. We've already seen that the Democrats and largely many people in the media, and even some Republicans are doing everything they can to milk the January six Capitol hill riots. Until the end of time, they're very excited about this. They want to make sure that they can get every single, every political ounce out of this thing so that they can do other things like, I don't know , you know, go take guns and go make sure that they can seize and investigate certain. Maybe they don't like so much. So when that didn't happen, when the bipartisan commission failed, Nancy Pelosi got a lot of pressure. Hey, wait , there's more life in that horse. We want to beat that some more. So we need you to go do something about this. Lo and behold, she did. Here's Nancy Pelosi. Now she said here, despite the GOP's cowardly failure to defend our constitution, the January six select committee, we're going to learn what a select committee is. We'll investigate the truth of the desecration of the Capitol that resulted in multiple deaths, which one was shot by the police. One officer died. Naturally one other officer died by suicide. And I think two people were , were involved in the actual assault. And they also died. I think naturally one person I think fell off of the side of a thing. And then the other person had a heart problem. So multiple deaths. Sure. But not like it's often characterized, right? Not like the Trump, like as Joe Biden said that the Trump people or the mega people or the, the undercover or whomever that they went in and they killed a bunch of people that's not accurate at all. Joe Biden said that officer Brian [inaudible] was killed by the mega people. And that's not accurate. We know that because even though they tried to sweep that under the rug, it came out eventually that he died by natural causes. Okay. So there were injuries to other law enforcement officers. There was terror among staff and , uh, AOC has PTSD workers and representatives, blah, blah, blah. So here is Nancy Pelosi. Now, now here is her dramatic statement, right? So she posted this on her Twitter. They put a nice little blue filter over this, and you're going to see, she is so concerned about this. She can't even remember what the hell she's talking about. Uh , we're here for the , uh , what , uh , the , uh, the select committee. Okay. Here she is

Speaker 7:

With great solemnity and sadness. Uh , I'm announcing that the household be establishing an , uh, self select committee on the January 6th insurrection. Again, January 6th was one of the darkest days in our nation's history. I've said it now three times, it is imperative that we establish the truth of that day, but it is clear that the Republicans are afraid of the truth. Overall

Speaker 1:

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house dumped , done , done . You see that? Right? She's dropped the mic and she wanted Twitter to know about that. So she put that together and she's got these facial expressions too . You know , she's very excited about this select committee. What is a select committee you might ask? Well, it's a committee that's established by the Senate for eight . This is from the Senate from a limited period to perform a particular study or investigation. So Wikipedia also says that it is a congressional committee that's appointed to perform a special function. Typically it's beyond the authority or the capacity of a regular standing committee. And so we have some standing committees that you may know of. We've got the oversight committee, you know, when you hear about these, these different committees that are doing things right, did you, does Sherry committee call somebody in and, you know, ask them a bunch of useless questions, the armed services committee, we've got the budgetary committee, all these different committees. So they exist naturally. I think there's something like 200 of them. What Nancy Pelosi has done is created a select committee. So something a little more temporary that is usually created by a resolution. It outlines duties and powers and procedures for appointing the members. They're investigative rather than legislative. So in nature, some have authority to draft though in some, some have the ability to draft and report legislation. So it's kind of just another useless government entity. That's gonna , you know , investigate a bunch of stuff and probably waste a lot of time and money and not come up with anything meaningful. I mean, we've done this before already. We got Mueller. We've gone through that. Durham was supposed to be doing something. Nobody knows what that was about. We've gotten, you know, nine 11 reports, Watergate. We've had the JFK blah-blah-blah, we've had all of these commissions. Now, this is not anything that is at that level, right? This is even smaller than that. This is like a select committee that really can't do much of anything. It's investigative. It can make some recommendations. That's about all. So , uh , okay. First of all, I would love an actual real investigation into this. I've said that consistently. I would love to really know what happened here, because it's sort of mind boggling to me that we have 18 different intelligence community agencies that are all responsible for the security of our country and the place that is kind of the pinnacle. The number one symbol of that is Washington DC, all the buildings there. And Congress is the Congress building is kind of the epicenter of DC in many ways, right? A lot of the, a lot of the, the layout of the entire city itself is sort of built around that building. So we, we would imagine that something that is that important, that is that critical to the infrastructure of this United States would be protected by all of these billions and trillions of dollars that we've spent over the years to make sure that we're safe and secure. So how do something like 800 people actually make their way into the building when they're not supposed to be there? Something like a thousand people made their way towards there ? I think 800 actually made it in. And we're looking at like 300 people, 400 people who actually been charged. So kind of a catastrophic failure when you guess, well, if we got a real investigation, I'd be very much interested in how that happened. Who was responsible for that? Where does the buck stop? Do we know? No. Cause everybody's pointing their fingers at each other, which is typical when you've got 18 bureaucracies that don't do much of anything and they all are going to be pointing their fingers. We've seen this Metro PD. No it's Capitol hill PD. No, it's a, it's a S a Sergeant of arms. No, it's a national guard. No, it's mayor Bowzer. No, it's the FBI. No, it's Trump. It's all , everybody's pointing their fingers. Nothing's going to come of it. The only thing that really matters is that one side gets to use this as a political bludgeon to beat the hell out of the , their opponents, and then make sure that anybody who sort of sympathizes with that ideology is now thinking twice about it, because maybe it has a chilling effect. Maybe if you start to see that a certain version of justice doesn't apply to people who , uh , let's say are Trumpers. They get the book thrown at them. They get held in custody without any bond or bail. They're non bondable. We're just gonna hold them in custody. And in fact, we're going to ask for continuances so that they can just sit there and rot. Meanwhile, we're going to give a bunch of the Antifa people over in Portland and elsewhere. A bunch of diversion deals where basically they're not even going to get a conviction. All they have to do is remain law abiding for a certain period of time. We're going to review their file down the road, turn around as long as there's no more blemishes, we're going to dismiss those charges. So it would kind of have to two entirely tiers of justice. Don't we? Commonwealth and Biden were talking a lot about this during the administration, these two tiers of justice, little did we know we'd be experiencing it all. So clearly black and white right in front of us here in , in, in America so soon, but we're , we're already there. So Pelosi, now we've got some background here on how this works. I want to spend a little time on this because we , we learn a little bit here. So it is a select committee. It's going to investigate the, the attack on the Capitol. One month after the Senate, Republicans blocked the bipartisan commission. So she says this morning, it's the , we already read that, heard that from her, the panel is going to investigate the facts and the causes of the insurrection. And they're going to provide recommendations to help prevent similar attacks in the future. So , uh , I can already tell you it's going to be, you know , racism, white supremacy. Trump's a huge problem. And guns are probably a problem. And we probably need to make sure that a lot of the dangerous people who are dangerous are not speaking as, as, as you know, most [inaudible] out there on the internet and probably need to monitor some of that stuff. So there you go. I already did. I that's the commission. That's the conclusion. Those are the recommendations.

Speaker 2:

You can take those right

Speaker 1:

Toes down. I can almost guarantee that's what we're going to see because the entire administration is moving that way. Everything is sort of reoriented in that direction. We've seen this with guns, with Merrick Garland, the DOJ talked a lot about it this week, Senate Republicans, last month, they blocked blocked the creation of the commission. 10,000 people gathered at the Capitol on January six , nearly 800 of them actually broke into the Capitol building. The event resulted in five deaths, 140 officers. Wouldn't polls , bats, all of that stuff on Wednesday, we have a 49 year old Indiana woman. She became the first person who was sentenced. Her name is Anna Morgan Lloyd. She pled guilty to a misdemeanor. Okay. And that's obviously not a felony,

Speaker 2:

Which is good news for her.

Speaker 1:

She was sentenced to three years of probation. Okay? So she's not going to jail. Probation is a good thing, and she must perform 40 hours of community service,

Speaker 2:

$500 in restitution. So it's not a big penalty, candidly,

Speaker 1:

A little bit different than a diversion deal, which we have seen other protestors and rioters and other people

Speaker 2:

Will get. This is, this is , um, of , you know, kind of a , a minimal type of an offense. It's 40 hours

Speaker 1:

Community service, which is not as minimal, but based on what she was charged with, based on what she was facing, this is a significant reduction, I would guess, right? I haven't spent a lot of time on her case, but it's a $500 . Restitution. Probation probably has no criminal history, probably not likely to break the law at all. I'd be curious if it's supervised probation or unsupervised probation, meaning that she just doesn't. If you're on a supervise type of probation, you've got to report to people. Whereas if it's unsupervised, you just have to remain law abiding. So you don't know the details there, but we're going to start to see more, more of these defendants take plea deals. And we're going to start to see if we can identify a pattern and you better believe we're going to be comparing that pattern against some of the prior histories that we have from the last summer of a unrest that we just went through. All right , carrying on. It says in a recent weeks there were house and Senate panels. They've been looking into the events. They published a comprehensive report on why authorities were unable to

Speaker 2:

The crowd or the select committee, which will require

Speaker 1:

Are a majority vote in the house is a signal that she wants to centralize. Those investigations into one body. That's going to be equipped with subpoena power, but a select committee is all, but guaranteed to be more partisan than an independent commission would have been. Meaning the parties may come no closer to a consensus about why January six happened and who is to blame for it than they are right now, which is obvious, right? We know that we're not going to get any answers. That's not the point of this.

Speaker 2:

It's not clear how large the plan panel will be

Speaker 1:

Or how the seats will be distributed. Not clear when she will demand, they publish their findings. But she said on Thursday, as long as it takes, they're going to need to do this investigation of the causes

Speaker 2:

Of this. So no end date,

Speaker 1:

As long as it takes, we got to go root out the root causes of this thing. What is it? It's whatever you want it to be really right? You can pick a cause and just blame it. And we know it's going to be white supremacy and racism and Trumpers, and probably anti-government officials and probably gun owners. And the list goes on and on. So she says there are two paths. One is the root cause. Oh, here it is. She already said it for us. White supremacy. Well, that's , that's weird. But you know, there are two actual paths. You said one is about the root causes of it. The white supremacy, the anti-Semitism and the Islamophobia, all the rest of that was so evident. So if it's so evident, did why the hell do we need to a commission for it? Why do we need to talk about it? You've already figured it out. It's the white supremacists, the antisemites Semites and the Islamophobes. You've

Speaker 2:

Got it all figured out. The other is the security

Speaker 1:

Of the capital and what it means to be ready for such an intense ,

Speaker 2:

Well, that's kind of a separate, it's kind of a separate issue then isn't it. One is

Speaker 1:

It's about causes. One is about preparation. You've already identified the causes. So why do you need to go investigate that for it's the it's it's we know who it is. She said the authorities could have been better prepared or they could have actually

Speaker 2:

Done

Speaker 1:

Their job. Right. I don't think anybody would have been, would have foreseen an insurrection incited by the president of the United States, which is, which is strange because there were arrests taking place. There were warnings taking place. The FBI was, you know , shouting from the rooftops about all of this stuff. And suddenly it's, nobody could predict it weird, or maybe they kind of wanted it to happen. I don't know. Maybe Tucker's onto something. Isn't he Republican lawmakers voted against it. Unclear how many witnesses they're going to allow to be deposed. So we're going to have another hearing, right? So another useless hearing, the Democrats are pretty bad at these, right? They're over two on the impeachment. Not any good. They're going to try this again. See if it goes anywhere, they hoped an independent commission would do something as Thursday, whether they might seek to compel Kevin McCarthy to testify, Pelosi declined to say, I'm not going to get into what the committee is going to do. If he testified Mo McCarthy is going to be asked about his phone call on the sixth with Trump conversation, he has described to others as distressing. Trump seemed uninterested according to others. Okay? So this commission is now starting. Now, I'll be curious, right? Because we know that there are a lot of questions about this that just kind of really haven't been answered. And as I mentioned previously, a lot of people are pointing their fingers around at each other. Tucker Carlson came out and sort of hinted that there may be some malfeasance from our own intelligence community that , that maybe there were people who were infiltrating their way into some of these organizations that may be exacerbated the riots to take place in the first place. And we did a video earlier this week, about a prior situation back in the 1960s where J Edgar Hoover and that FBI was responsible for literally framing for men like innocent people in the murder of the Teddy Deegan case. And this was something that a federal court actually came out and said, yeah, the FBI was totally corrupt. And they , they lied in foreignness and people went to prison for that. Two of them are dead. Two L's , two of them got out and the judge ordered a hundred million dollars be paid for that misconduct. And it is something that's on the record. I mean, it actually happened in America, not that long ago. And Robert Mueller was, was somebody who was apparently at least , uh , aware of some of the underlying information about that. So in the 1960s might sound like, you know, a long time ago, not, not quite right, it's the same institution. So people have been questioning what the feds had to do with any of this. And there's a lot of unreleased videos, a lot of unreleased information, many people don't, we don't even know who actually shot Ashley Babbitt and her family. As far as I know, have not been a prize about who that officer was or at what the , the depth of that investigation looks like. So there's a lot of questions about this is my point gateway pundit over here from Jim Hoff. He posted this video and I saw this also from Jack [inaudible] on Twitter. It says that far left activists infiltrated the January six protests dressed as conservatives. They had an Owen microphone. And if you're a member, I believe that Jack was Sobek was actually over at Owen . They breached the Capitol grounds. They gave the FBI tips on how to infiltrate Trump's rallies. We've got two men, Walter Masterson, we've got Peter scan Teenie . They appear on the young Turks program. They routinely disguise themselves as Trump supporters. Right? And so people were saying this, you know, we actually saw video footage of this people who were there saying things like , uh, they're actors, right? These, these are, these are actors. These are people who are instigating things. There were a lot of claims that there was fake pepper spray being sprayed around there's video of people getting hit in the face with pepper spray and going like, ah , jerk. What'd you spray me with that for right. And like, not even reacting, like it's pepper spray. So a lot of questions about this, and we've got, we've got some actual people now who were there doing some of this underlying sort of well, call it what you will. Let's take a look at this and see what we've got here.

Speaker 8:

So the pushing the cops back , they're pushing the cops back , uh , because they're outnumbered a hundred to one or maybe more. That's why we going to get a close look at it and we're going to leave. Okay. Um, and so here we go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The scene is we are closer and closer to the Capitol . Got more and more chaotic. It felt like something out of a scripted movie, rubber ball, or like something out of the script, that movie movies you hear that people yelling and screaming about OAM people, singing patriotic songs, and God bless America. Amanda's a tin foil hat came up to us and asked us if we wanted to talk about five G. So , so I got, I got a message about the 5g remote input . I'm talking about what's going on right now. It wouldn't be until about an hour later when the address

Speaker 1:

Stop it there. Cause I don't want to play too much of the footage because YouTube doesn't like that, but you can see what's happening, right? The, the allegation here is that there were more, there was more of this going on. There were , there were more people who were sort of, you know, kind of instigating the situation. Then many people are letting onto . And this video just came out back. Jack Passover posted this earlier this week, says, this is an imposter. He says, I can personally confirm that OEN OANN had no reporter or crew embedded within the Capitol riot. Anyone can go back and watch the footage. I was live from constitutional avenue all that afternoon. So the covered face is also a dead giveaway. Right? You might want to read this one. Why, why would you be reporting with your, with your , your, your face mask on, well , maybe you would, I don't know . Uh, you know, not , not that the , the anyways, so, you know, there's, there's a lot of this going on. People have a lot of questions about it. My point here being, I would love a real investigation. Are we going to get that? Unfortunately, I doubt it. So what is happening instead? Well, we've got the FBI now that is just sort of investigating whatever they want. We see them post on Twitter and sometimes unfortunately, very innocent people get caught up in lumped into the entire debacle. Here's one story guy named Joseph Bolanos. He is the pillar of his community. President upper west side block association. Last three years, looked out for his neighbors during the pandemic dropped off mask , kept extra heaters, rent controlled apartments, raise morale every week. The red cross volunteer after nine 11 and so on. Unmarried cares for his 94 year old mother. But now his neighbors think he is a domestic terrorist. Isn't that nice? Yup . Well, why? Well he attended Donald Trump's rally in DC on January 6th, but he never entered the Capitol. He was in a friend's room at the JW Marriott 30 minute walk away when the Capitol breach occurred. Okay. And this is not abnormal. This is something that is common. We've caught . We've covered the cases. We've read through the indictments on some of these that somebody was got there, you know, 9:00 PM. The , the , the night afterwards went right to their hotel, got into a fight with somebody. Somebody got into a fight with somebody out on the street the next morning. And he's arrested. He's a Capitol hill writer and you're going, no, he wasn't. He wasn't anywhere near there. He wasn't even in the state, but because he was texting with people and because he, you know, got into a , uh, an argument with somebody outside of a hotel room. Now he's a Capitol hill writer . Same with this guy. Never even entered the building 30 minutes away ,

Speaker 2:

Away from the Capitol when all of this happened. But because he was there, he gets

Speaker 1:

It's the FBI knocking on his door and ruining his life. The FBI then rated in, rated him in February, the FBI anti-terrorism task force, handcuff paraded him, detained him for three hours while his apartment was ransacked. And all his devices were confiscated. Came in there, took all of his materials. Four months later, they probably had a war for it. Probably all perfectly legal , probably some judge that out there in the DC circuit court on oh, oh, oh Capitol hill. Sure. Whatever you need, go get whatever you want. Nobody cares. Just probable cause. Sounds good enough because we know on the backend that they, they gave the same benefits or lack thereof to the Capitol hill defendants. They just don't. Nope , no bond, no bail. You stay in there and just right away in there. So do you think that they were going through a real rigorous analysis before they granted a probable cause warrant on any of these investigations? This guy didn't even go in the building. All of his devices gone. So he says it destroyed. My reputation says I'm not a violent invader. I do not condone criminality and violence whatsoever. The FBI told Bolanos

Speaker 2:

That he was rated because of a tip from a January

Speaker 1:

Six hotline from a neighbor who said that she overheard him boasting about being at the Capitol. Your neighbor calls the FBI on you. And you see what kind of version of America we're living in. Somebody says I was at the Capitol and somebody hears through the doors. Neighbor calls them on you. FBI's there with a SWAT team. Anti-terrorism task force . They raid your apartment, take everything. Okay. FBI agent phone bull , lot Bolanos on the Sunday after the right and left a message. He returned the call the next day, but never heard back at the time he was staying at his mother's apartment in Washington because she had been moved to rehab. He was facing a difficult decision of whether to move her into permanent care. February 4th, four agents arrived, unannounced, interviewed him for 25 minutes. They asked if he was part of BLM, Antifa or proud. He said, no. So right. That's what happens. And we're going to be seeing a lot more of this. My friends, we're going to be seeing more of this because we have now a new gun initiative, Merrick Garland with the Joe Biden administration is going to be creating these taskforces now that are really going to go out there and get to the bottom of all the gun violence that's happening out there. You know, because we have to worry about domestic terrorism now and domestic extremism now. So now we're going to have the ATF, the FBI, and all of the other alphabet agencies working in close partnerships with your local law enforcement agencies. Do you feel safer? Well, you should because Joe Biden's in charge and he's going to solve everything. Okay. So that is it for the Capitol hill riot. In that part of the story, we're going to see where that goes. Now, speaking of other , uh, interesting cases. So this is not particularly connected to the Capitol cases, not at all actually, but it's Friday and you know what we like to do on Fridays. We like to have a little bit of , um , a little bit of fun. This is a kind of fun, kind of sad, but it is something that I wanted to highlight because, oh my goodness, this is a , this is a video. This is Ronnie O'Neil . This is a defendant represented himself. Okay. In a murder trial, this guy right here, he's representing himself in a murder trial, a murder trial, not a traffic ticket. This is a murder trial. And he's going to be giving us some closing arguments. And guess what happens in the closing arguments? Well, he confesses to the murder. So they say, maybe that's not recommended by his strategy now to be fair, right? He doesn't say that I murdered that person, but he does say that I killed that person. So there's a difference between a killing and a murder rights . But one thing that is not up for debate is you never want the defendant to get out in court and say, I killed that person. Okay. That's typically not a good strategy, Ronnie O'Neill if you have not watched this full video, we've got 13 seconds of it. Go watch the full thing. It's it's a wild scene. He goes off for about four minutes in this courtroom. And here is the scene. I want to just sort of show you what's happening here. We have the prosecutors , uh, three guys here sitting down here. We have the judge. She's not particularly happy either. You can watch your facial expressions. In fact, don't even need to watch it there. You can see it right there, right? She's not amused. So here is Ronnie . O'Neill now representing himself in a murder trial, making his closing argument to the jury

Speaker 8:

Because I want you to know the actual facts. I didn't kill y'all .

Speaker 1:

So there's a long pause right there. He , I did kill , uh , what's coming next. He goes on and he says, but not the way they say I did. Right. You go, okay. Not good. Not good. All right. So let's take some questions from wa oh, by the way, he was convicted and he's going to be going to prison. So that once slight tidbit don't rep yourself, represent yourself and trial. Not good things to do doesn't work out well. Ah , well, all right , so let's go to the questions we've got. Chairman of the board is in the house. What's up chairman. Good to see you. My friend says if they really investigate the truth surrounding January 6th, does that mean we find out what's on all the video? Yes. They won't release. And why the Capitol police were waving people in. Yes. And yes, I suspect there is way more to this than they want to get out. Right? So that's why it's going to be a partisan investigation, right? It's not gonna be a real investigation. It's a select committee. That's going to go on. As long as it wants, Nancy Pelosi has already identified the problems. We heard her it's white supremacy, antisemitism , and Islamophobia. So that's good. Now they have to figure out what to do about that. So now that they've identified the problem, they can start going and enacting whatever rules or regulations or laws, or even just like, you know , kind of extra enforcement. They don't have to really change much of anything in terms of laws or statutes or bills. All they have to do is just say, Hey , uh , ATF, we're just gonna move you over here now. And we're going to move you FBI over here now. And you just this way, a little bit, and all of that absolutely can be done just with the changing of the guard. As we're seeing, we went through many of the same documents that Merrick Garland put out, detailing his framework for the next three and a half years. We're still early in the Biden administration. So they're telling us what they're going to be doing for the remainder of the term, absent any big changes they're laying down, Hey , these are the pillars for criminal justice reform. We know what they are. They're going to be sort of funding law enforcement throughout the country, which is very consistent with Joe Biden's record. Want to know is here, says you need to print a democratic dictionary. Their bill and word meetings are different than the meetings I was taught. Kind of like the opposite meanings. Yes, yes. You're right, right on that one to now . So yes, they like the idea of liberalism, right? Liberalism or liberal thoughts kind of historically speaking, if you think of some of the traditional, you know , liberal thinkers back from the enlight in an era, you'd say, well, that , that sounds great. That sounds reasonable. We're talking about John Locke and life, Liberty and property and Edmund Burke. And some of these philosophers out there who many would put into the school of liberal thought. And now if you take a look at some of their ideas, like Edmund Burke and the concept of a social fabric and the idea that we're sort of weaving our cultures together and all of this stuff, that is not what liberalism means anymore, right? It means something entirely different, almost like the idea of a social fabric should be irrelevant or almost like we should tear that apart to some degree because it's , it's racist and white supremacist is built on a lie that is called systemic racism. And so, you know, now there's this, this school of people who identify themselves as liberal roles , but they're not really classical liberals in the terms of their philosophical underpinnings. It has been and changed into something that is essentially unrecognizable. In my opinion, hack consulting says at this point, Pelosi has to go full force in order to get out of life. She's like Kim Jong una at this point sucked into doing horrible things. So yeah, we'll see where this goes. I mean, I'm not, you know, I think it's just going to be a political bludgeon. I've said that we've got, want to know, says since Pelosi was in charge , why isn't she replaced for incompetence? Do all the time for police chiefs, border patrol supervisors, some CEOs , well, because she keeps winning and her constituency, the Democrats keep making her the speaker. So as long as she keeps winning , uh , she's got the legitimacy because people keep voting her in there. We've got, Jeremy says Pelosi Saurus needs to retire already. When she makes the claim that the mass trespassing was the worst thing to happen in the history of the country. She insults everyone who lost their lives on nine 11. I agree. I think it's, I think it's really sort of disrespectful. Now. I look, I get, it was a big deal and I get that. It was something that shouldn't be sort of laughed at. I , I really do think it was a big deal. I don't think that it was as big of a deal based on the, you know, the , the sort of the, the, the characterization of the Trumpers, right? We always hear like 10,000 people were storming the building and we saw some images that showed a lot of people were involved in something that looked bad, right? I don't like people going in there and causing damage or breaking the law in any capacity. But what I also really don't like is when the government takes something and turns it into something that it's not, and then uses that to push forward. I would say sort of assault on certain Liberty principles, like the presumption of innocence, like the ability to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to not be harassed. Like , like the guy we just talked about from New York who had the FBI show up and say, oh , we have really no evidence that you were anywhere near it near anything. In fact, we know that you were 30 minutes away based on the truth, but we got somehow a judge to sign off on a warrant that allowed us to come and ransack your entire apartment. Take all of your devices, not give them back charge. You not charge you, but sort of interrogate you and unrest arrest you under the anti-terrorism guys and no repercussions for them at all. Right. That's a bigger problem because that happens every day, all across the country, the amount of people who are under the thumb of an overly burdensome tyrannical justice department, justice system is mountains higher than anything that happened at the Capitol building on that day, every single month, week, year, whatever, the, the amount of damage that are happening to people's lives on a daily basis as a result of our law enforcement system is , is huge. And people just don't want to talk about that number. They don't realize because they think it's just criminal justice. It's , it's just enforcing the law. No, we're sending people who are addicts and addicted to drugs, to prison for a long period of time. It doesn't serve anything. It serves the people who make money off of the system. And it makes a bunch of, you know, a bunch of prosecutors and judges maybe feel good about themselves, but it doesn't ultimately serve society. And so we're just going to keep going through this thing

Speaker 2:

Around and around. We go where people are ,

Speaker 1:

We're going to politicize stuff that shouldn't be politicized. And it , and it bugs me. We've got air Arnie . [inaudible] says the house Sergeant in arms reports to the house speaker Pelosi Sergeant at arms at the reports to the Senate majority leader, which was Mitch McConnell. Neither are very supportive of Donald Trump and both have motives to seed an escalation of the first unarmed insurrection in history. Totally agree with you on that. RNAV five . And I don't think that Mitch McConnell is necessary out of the woods on this one. Right? I think that Mitch McConnell, he is that, you know , Nancy, Pelosi's just loud and kind of , um , aggressive right. Gets up there. She's always talking and doing things,

Speaker 2:

But McConnell's a plotter, right? He's a plotter.

Speaker 1:

And he is somebody who I could easily just sort of see back in, in a bunker somewhere with Mitt Romney and Chris Christie. And you've got all of these people who are conspiring against Donald Trump, drawing the lines on the chalkboard back there , connecting all the wires together and just orchestrating this whole thing out. And I know Mitch McConnell has been very, I read somewhere. I forget. I actually, I think there was, this was all upon it [email protected] said something at some point that he had heard, or he got a tip from somebody or somebody was, you know, this was, this was spreading around Capitol

Speaker 2:

Hill. That McConnell was

Speaker 1:

Asking other congresspeople or other senators as a personal favor to not support the night , the a one six commission. Right. So sort of saying, Hey, I really don't want you to look into this thing. And so that could either be for politics that could be for , uh , you know, just, just for political expediency or it's because, you know, maybe there's something else going on there. And when, when I sort of, you know, it's like Ockham's razor, right? The simplest explanation is probably the right one. And you start thinking, we've got all of these intelligence aid , 18 of them, FBI, Sergeant army , all of these people, blazers of security, layers of law enforcement. And

Speaker 2:

They all failed all of them, like every

Speaker 1:

Single one of them. And we had 800 people according to the Washington post, they were able to break into the congressional building where our S our vice-president was as well as the majority of Congress that day, because they were certifying the election. They were able to get in there and wreck the whole thing. Like, how

Speaker 2:

Does that happen? Or is it just

Speaker 1:

That maybe some people kind of were okay if something

Speaker 2:

Thing like that happened, because they really did not like Donald Trump, they , they would have been

Speaker 1:

Well served . The election was already over at this point, but that would have been well-served by making sure he never comes back again ever. Right. And something like this

Speaker 2:

Would do that. Now there's no

Speaker 1:

Evidence to support that claim. I haven't seen anything that documents that, but, you know, I love, I love gaming out these theories. It's, it's , uh, something I think is worth considering, rather than just taking whatever the government tells you at face value. Oh, Nancy said that it's, it's white supremacy and Islamophobia. Okay. There we go. I guess that's the end of that story, right? There, there are other explanations here, and these people are all, you know, these are all schemers. Maybe that happened. I don't know, ZZ the boxing cats says Robert was the guy who represented himself under oath. Yeah. I mean , well, so that's a closing argument. So, you know, he wouldn't have taken the stand and like sworn in under oath as a witness. It's a closing argument.

Speaker 2:

He's not, he's not , um, yeah, he's under oath, right? He can't get up there and say a bunch of , uh, unlawful untruthful things ,

Speaker 1:

But it's not good. Yeah. It's not, not, not a good strategy. You know, they say something like a person who represents himself has

Speaker 2:

As a fool for a client and a moron for a lawyer, something like that. Right.

Speaker 1:

And who represents himself has a fool for a client in a moron for a lawyer. Yeah . It's pretty true. We have Kareem 1 65 says the question of whether or not Americans want Kamala as their president was already answered with an overwhelming, no , during the primaries, it somehow Biden chooses her as his VP seems suspicious to me. Well , she sort of fit the check boxes . Right. And they do that a lot. Well , he needed to actually Biden wanted a , uh , an African-American woman. He said that explicitly and the Latino law Latinex community. Whew . They , uh, they were not happy about this. They said, well, wait a minute. We're Latinex here. And we, we , uh, we think that we are pretty deserving of consideration to be a vice-president . Why are you just ignoring

Speaker 2:

Us? We make up this

Speaker 1:

Percentage of the population. We contribute this to these jobs. We've got these people in these different sectors. And there was an actual ad that was put out by the democratic w you know, a Hispanic

Speaker 2:

Committee, whatever that was kind of scolding Joe for that. So I don't know why we'll see how that works.

Speaker 1:

I don't think it's going to work out. Well, we have in the dark says, Nick ricotta covered my boy, Ronnie, on his live show, he did make some good points about contradicting evidence and missing evidence. He might've been able to get a different charge with a competent lawyer and maybe a haircut. I know. So I'm not saying, look, he , he, he had some energy out there. I mean, he had , he had the ability

Speaker 2:

To , uh , you know, to, to S to S to sell

Speaker 1:

A little bit, but you certainly still need

Speaker 2:

A lawyer definitely

Speaker 1:

To do that because you want the lawyer to go make those claims, right? You want the lawyer to go out there and say he didn't kill that. Or , or he may have actually caused that person's death, but here's why it's not murder. Anytime a jury hears you say, I did kill that person. They go, oh, well , there you go. So what do you want me to do about that? All right. Last up in the house we've got hacked. Consulting says simpler to think McConnell had no clue. And now he's trying to protect Pelosi, not because he had anything to do with it, but rather like a father grandfatherly way of looking after someone that has already screwed. Also, why have the commission when it will be drawn out for years? Well, that's the point of the commission is to draw it out for years. It's just, it's just to have this hanging over. Everybody's head all the time as a constant reminder that it happened. The last thing that anybody wants, if you're a Democrat is for the country to forget about one six, that would be catastrophic. We've got midterms coming up, we've got 20, 24 coming up. You're going to see clearly that as these things come back around again, we're going to start to see a lot more footage of this, a lot more, you know, [inaudible] plays of everything that took place there, and they're going to try to tie every single Republican back to this event. And so now once, you know, if this goes on for years, because you know, the , the Durham investigation took years, the Mueller investigation took years. They're going to milk this thing for as long as possible. And they're going to bring it back up in , uh, in the midterms in 2022. And if it continues on to 2024, you're probably going to bring it up back then too, because it is useful a lot of very bad imagery that came out of that. And they're going to make sure they get their money's worth. All right . So those were all great questions that came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . And thank you for all of your support over there. You know, we are de monetized on YouTube, those punks, but it's okay. We're going to continue on. And the , the, the sort of the beautiful thing that resulted here is we've gotten to connect with some amazing [email protected] I want to welcome a couple of new people who just joined up. We've got seller Zeller SM welcome Zeller . We have bah Loha welcome bile. Loha . We have Anne Gert . John Decker is in the house. So Gert John Gert, Jan Deckers in the house. And I want to welcome you to the show, everybody. Thank you so much for being a part of our watching the Watchers community, which is having our second monthly meetup tomorrow. So make sure you go over there and register for that. Also some great questions today. Thank you to everybody who chimed in to make the show interesting. And, and it keeps things on track. Appreciate all of you. If you're not over on our [email protected] , yet you can go over there. You're going to get all this great stuff. When you sign up a copy of my book, it's called beginning to winning free download available for you. You can get a copy of the slides that we just went through today. You can download my impeachment party template. If you want to impeach a Congress person , very easy to do that. I've got a template available, just download them and impeach away. Kamala. We already did Kamala Harris so that one's easy. We have an existence system template that's available there as well. We share links throughout the day, and we have great people and good conversations . So I would invite you to go check all of that out. One more reminder, sign up for the monthly meetup, taking place via zoom tomorrow night, seven to 8:00 PM, Eastern time, one hour sharp. And it's at watching the watchers.locals.com . You can register there. We're going to have fun. Camera's on, camera's off, up to you. And if you want to change your avatar to match what you use on locals, and we can kind of put names to faces, and we'll just take some questions, super informal, not going to prepare anything, just kind of raise hands. We'll get to know each other. It'll be fun. We

Speaker 2:

Did one already and night was a lot of fun. So we're going to keep

Speaker 1:

Doing it. So we'll see you there tomorrow. Hope that you can make

Speaker 2:

It. Also,

Speaker 1:

If you are interested in any other offerings that I have, I have some nice programs and courses available at gumroad.com/robert ruler . If you're not interested in anything here, I've got other ones in the works . So just drop your email here and you'll stay up to speed. And then of course, lastly, before we get out of here, I am a criminal defense lawyer at the RNR law group. Our phone number is (480) 787-0394. This QR code down here will take you right to our website. And the reason why I want to share this with you is because we can help anybody in the state of Arizona who is facing criminal charges. Or if you have an old criminal case that you need some help clearing up, we can help with all of that. We have an amazing team of people here in Scottsdale, Arizona. We're all dedicated to helping good people facing criminal charges to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and beyond that in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs some help, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our direction so that we just had the opportunity to help. We just want to make sure that they're taken care of that they have , uh, some idea of what the next action items are. And then hopefully they can leave feeling a little bit better about their situation, knowing that they're in good hands. So that's all that we have for today. My friends, I want to thank you so much for joining us this week was a little bit of a roller coaster . I was super busy. And so thanks for accommodating on some of the pre prerecorded premiers . We're back in business though, and we're going to be back alive, same time, same place on Monday. So I want to make sure that you do not miss it. We're going to be back here at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody have a tremendous weekend rest, well unplugged from politics and the law a little bit.

Speaker 2:

Cause we got a lot to get back into on Monday.

Speaker 1:

I'll see you. Then everybody be well, have a great weekend.