Watching the Watchers with Robert Gouveia Esq.

Psaki Reallocates #DefundThePolice, Jan 6 Cases: Barnett and Chansley, Tucker Reveals NSA Spying​

June 30, 2021
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gouveia Esq.
Psaki Reallocates #DefundThePolice, Jan 6 Cases: Barnett and Chansley, Tucker Reveals NSA Spying​
Show Notes Transcript

Mainstream democrats dump #DefundThePolice while the left-wing doubles down. Meanwhile, republicans are to blame for the crime wave. We check in on two January 6th cases: Richard Barnett and Jacob Chansley for the current status. Tucker Carlson reveals he is being surveilled by the NSA, indicating they illegally accessed his private texts and emails.​

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

🔵 The White House and Jenn Psaki respond to growing concerns from voters over surging crime.​
🔵 Psaki tell the press Republicans are the people who defunded the police!​
🔵 Review of public sentiment over public law enforcement policies from 2020 and 2021.​
🔵 How “Defund the Police” became “Fund the Police” with clever rebranding by the democratic party.​
🔵 Psaki doubles down, confirming republicans defunded the police by failing to support the American Rescue plan.​
🔵 Reps. AOC and Jamaal Bowman confirm they both support actually defunding the police.​
🔵 Checking in on the Capitol Hill January 6th criminal cases, still pending in D.C. Circuit Court.​
🔵 Richard Barnett, infamous for taking a photo sitting at Nancy Pelosi’s desk, alleges multiple constitutional violations in his case.​
🔵 Defense lawyer for Jacob Anthony Chansley files motions to dismiss certain counts of the indictment and requests a bill of particulars. ​
🔵 According to court documents, Jacob Chansley is being assessed for competency by various officials.​
🔵 Review of the Motion to Dismiss in United States vs. Jacob Chansley, 1:21-cr-00003 in the D.C. Circuit District Court.​
🔵 Tucker Carlson reveals source claims he is being monitored by the National Security Agency.​
🔵 On Fox News, Tucker made the claim that NSA surveillances has captured personal information from his text and email accounts.​
🔵 Review of PRISM and U.S. Government’s secret surveillance program, revealed by Edward Snowden.​
🔵 What is the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance and how to FYEY continue to operate?​
🔵 Your questions after each segment at!​





Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE -​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. -​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto -​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group -​


📌 Saturday, July 24th at 7 p.m. eastern – Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to community supporters – learn more at ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals!​
🟢 Podcast (audio):​
🟢 Facebook:​
🟢 Robert Gruler Instagram:​
🟢 Miss Faith Instagram​
🟢 Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
🟢 Twitch:​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts:​


Or visit to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more!​



Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. We're going to start off by talking about what's going on with the white house, where if you were called back during the election, we were hearing a lot of talk about defunding the police. In fact, a lot of the Democrats were saying that this was something that they were behind, they were supporting because of racist America or something. And now it's looking like the white house is sort of pivoting a little bit. They're sort of reallocating the, defend the police into a different movement that sort of feels like funding the police. And so we're going to break that down. We've got Jen Saki . Now who's doubling down sort of blaming the Republicans for the defund , the police movement. And so based on that, we're going to learn what the word gaslighting means again. And we're going to poke around and see what's going on with that. Then we're going to change gears and sort of revisit a couple of the January six cases that we've spoken about previously on this channel specifically, we're going to check in on the Richard Barnett case, as well as Jacob chancellery . Remember Jacob, Tansley both, these were sort of high profile cases because both of these individuals were inside the Capitol building and there were some pretty obvious photographs taken of them that sort of resonated with the community with America. And so both of their cases are still working themselves through the court system. And we're going to check in with them because there are some interesting motions that have been filed. Jacob chancellery is moving to dismiss one count of the indictment. They want a bill of particulars and actually he's being sort of assessed for competencies . So I want to show you what's going on with that. And then we'll get some updates on some of the other January six cases. And then lastly, we're going to check in with Tucker Carlson, cause there's this clip going around yesterday on his show, he was talking about potentially being spied upon by the NSA saying specifically that they had infiltrated his text messages, his email . And so somehow it all sort of worked itself back to him, him. He knows about it now, and he's suspecting that the NSA is investigating him. So we're going to break down that story. We're going to do sort of a historical look back on some, the other surveillance tools that our intelligence community has used against us Americans. Like this are us, not north Koreans, not China, American citizens. So we'll talk about prism. We'll talk about the five eyes intelligence Alliance. So we'll take a look at sort of how that all worked back in the , in the early two thousands, when the internet was just getting started. Now we've got a lot more technology, so who knows what they've got. But my point here is we've got a lot to get to. If you want to be a part of the show, I'd invite you to go over to watching the , which is our community where we're able to connect sort of outside of YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and , and get to know one another. For example, we just had a monthly meetup last Saturday, where we had about 35 40 people on there , all sort of talking about some of these issues about freedom and a lot of the same concepts about transparency, accountability, but also how we are sort of structuring our lives in the wake of some pretty big societal changes that are taking place in our country. And that's what it's all about. It's about community. It's about real real conversations. And so if you want to be a part of that, it's over watching the and a quick note on this, my goodness, I didn't think this was going to be available until the end of the year, but I just got an email from the , uh, the, the, the boss And they are telling us that live streaming is in beta for our community over there. So we're going to have live streaming. We're probably going to try to work it into the show tomorrow, which is going to be a game changer , which means we may have some, you know , private live streams over there just for locals , just locals live streaming. And we may be able to be that show that just turns off YouTube. You know, those, those shows, you know, those shows on YouTube where you watch them and they go, oh yeah, we're turning off the YouTube now punks, we're going over to our private chat and everybody goes, oh, you jerks. How, who do you think you are? How dare you. And , uh, you know, a lot, a lot of them do that. And so we're going to be able to do that, which is going to be a lot of fun. So I'm looking forward to that. So go check that all and I'd invite you to take a look at some of the other links down in the description. Of course, if you know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs any help with a criminal case, our law firm, the R and R law group is ready and available to help all of the information is down in the description below. So let's get started with the news of the day, the Biden crime wave. This has been something that Biden's been through before. Remember in the eighties, nineties, and two thousands, when he was sort of passing all of those crime bills, he has been around the block as it relates to justice reform, whatever his definition of that happens to be. And so we're sort of going through that again right now. We've been trying to decipher what the Biden administration is doing related to their criminal justice policy, trying to figure this out. We're still brand new in this administration. We're about five months in coming up on six months. And so we're hearing what their framework looks like. We heard a lot about this last year during the campaign in the aftermath of George Floyd and Brianna Taylor and Ray shard Brooks and Ahmad Arbery. And a lot of those horrendous cases that we talked about Biden and Kamala Harris had a response to that. And so now that they've actually been elected and they are in positions of power where they actually have to do some governing, we're trying to figure out, did the rhetoric that came out of their mouth during the election. Is that going to match what we see in terms of governance? And we're trying to figure this out, right? I think they are too . They're sort of bumbling their way through this, but they're getting their feet under them a little bit. And they're doing some clever things. One of the first things that they're doing is sort of blaming this whole defund , the police movement on the Republicans. And it's pretty brilliant. Uh, you know, it's one of those things you go up got to hand it to them. That's a pretty good maneuver there. Uh, the exact thing that we're doing, we're just going to blame the other side for doing that. And they've got a pretty good history, a good track record of this type of , uh , sort of, you know, flipping the script around a little bit. And so it's not, it's not unfamiliar to us. So we're going to see exactly how this is playing out. We've got some clips from Jen Sakhi , and then we're going to check in with, you know , another contingent of the democratic party, of course, AOC and Jamaal Bowman. We talked about them a little bit yesterday on their show, but I've synthesize the clips because what we're going to see here is a little bit of a schism. I think between, between the, within the democratic party, you're going to see the mainstream Democrats recognizing that, Hey, this is, this is a toxic issue. If we are in a position where we have to go out to the American people during the midterms , or in 2024, and explain that we have this massive sort of crime wave, that's working its way through the country. And where are the people? Where are the party? Where are the city councils, the governors, the mayors, and all of the elected officials that were sitting screaming from the rooftops we got to defund the police, the, the American citizens are not going to be particularly happy with that. And we are also seeing the polls sort of hinting that direction, showing us that people are sort of are starting to make crime their top priority. And I've been saying this for months now, I sort of feel like a broken record here talking about the pendulum swinging either direction. And this was my biggest concern. When we started to see the justice reform movement, vis-a-vis BLM and some of, you know, Antifa, and some of that summer of unrest, my concern was it was going to get so out of control that Americans would start waking up and starts and demanding action from their city council and their mayors, which would of course, caused the pendulum to swing entirely the other direction. Right? And then we're going to see as a reaction, massive demands for more law enforcement, more spending, more draconian rules, more strict, sentencing, less deviations. And , and here we are, we're actually right here because we have said this previously, that back in the 1990s, 94, and so on that Joe Biden was responsible for Burke exploding, the criminal justice system. And we've historically talked about when Joe was responding to George W. Bush, I'm sorry, George H w Bush. He was giving a state of the union and he said that they needed to address the crime wave problem. Well, Joe Biden comes out and he says, yeah , that's , that's nice there , Georgia , but we need to triple that. In fact, we want to take your budget and add and multiply it by three. That's how inconsequential your stinking plan was. Ours is going to be much better. So for the last 35 years, Joe Biden has been in favor of funding. The police I've been saying this for a long time, and it's never something that, that even was a question to me, right? He's he's pro big government pro law enforcement. He's been incarcerating people of color for four decades. Now, is that going to, do you think that's going to change now? The guy, you know, the guy can't even remember what Rumi's in. Do you think he's going to change old habits? No, those are going to die hard. So here we are now seeing the administration sort of really, really ramping up and doubling down on, on more funding for law enforcement, and they're going to blame the Republicans for the defunding. All right . So enough of the introduction, let me show you this clip here from Jen Saki , and there's kind of two parts here, cause she's mixing these things together. So here she is. And she's of course the white house press secretary. And she's going to tell us that you know, that there are other causes, right? So the Democrats have been doing a lot of this lately that are the root causes of everything. So Kamala is going to go down there and solve the border crisis by tackling global warming and Guatemala. I don't know, maybe that's going to fix the problem in 25 years or so. Good. Thanks . Thank you. And apparently here now we're also sort of talking about, you know, alternatives to police funding, and we're going to be hearing the word sort of reallocation here in a bit, but here's Dan Saki talking about two parts, number one saying that, you know, summer job or something like that might actually preclude people from committing crimes. And then, you know, there , there actually was a lot of funding for law enforcement until those stinking Republicans didn't support the American jobs plan and that would have funded the police. The Republicans are now not funding the police because they don't support the American jobs plan. So if you're going to come ask the byte administration about the crime wave, Hey, it's not our fault. That's the Republican's fault. They're not funding the Americans jobs plan and that's going to result in high crime. So now here is Jen Saki and let's take a listen to her. As she gets asked the question here by the white house, press Corps.

Speaker 2:

The thought there, basically that somebody , some criminal who has been committing crimes with limited interruption or interference from police for the last couple of weeks or months is going to stop this easy life of crime if they have a summer job. Yeah , well

Speaker 3:

I think the president believes that we shouldn't and we shouldn't allow access to guns, do to those criminals who are currently illegally violin numb from some dealers across the country. And part of his announcement is taking steps to do exactly that. But part of his announcement is also ensuring their specific guidance to , uh , communities across the country to ensure that they have funding to get more community police around the country. Something that was supported by the American jobs plan , uh , that was supported . That was voted into law by Democrats just a couple of months ago. Some might say that the other party was for defunding the police. I'll let others say that, but that's piece . Go ahead.

Speaker 1:

Hey, Hey, that's a Trump move. Okay. You can't, you can't take that move. Jen . That's a Trump move. Trump came down to the don't . Well , a lot of people say that I did that thing and say, well, who said that? He goes, I don't, a lot of people said that a lot of people said that I'm a handsome man who said that? Well , nobody's saying that, who said that? I don't know a lot of people go find them there. Brian Stelter go find them there. Jake Tapper , uh, you know, a lot of people say that the economy is the best it's ever been in the history of the world. Well , who said that, that anybody said that, well, somebody said it. And so you just kind of go that route. And so here's Jen Saki now saying, well, somebody said that the Republicans , uh , are , you know, Mike defund the police, but I'm going to let them take that narrative. No, it's your narrative. You're the white house. We all know that you're setting the tone here. And you're sort of communicating out to the rest of the media , uh , along with Chris Wallace, Chris Wallace on this past Sunday was also doing the same thing. Hey there , congressmen , isn't it, isn't it. You that actually defunded the police. So they're all just sort of, you know, circling the wagons. They're recognizing that Americans are seeing numbers like this that are , are , are sort of causing them some concern right here. We see that these are incredible stats, Tom Elliott posted this. So over on Fox business, we have a couple new numbers in Portland. Homicides are up 800%, 800% up from 2020 Minneapolis up 56%. Of course, you know, that's in the aftermath of George Floyd. Uh, you know, that that city has just been ransacked for the last year. Portland, you know, they, they were throwing Molotov cocktails at courthouses and stuff that's been going on for a year. Also just total incompetent governance. We have Philadelphia, same, same thing, 40% murders there , DC of course, where our elected officials are. They can't even secure their own office building and they've got 35% increase in murders, LA LA Los Angeles. We're going to check in with Oakland because Oakland is defunding their police, which is right outside of LA of course, New York city, up 22% in murders and Chicago, 22%. I think there were like 70 shooting , something like that , uh , this weekend. And so, you know, there's kind of a, kind of a trend there. I would say like sort of big blue cities that are all talking about defunding the police Minneapolis, in fact did defund the police right after George Floyd. I think they sort of took away 8 million. They gave back another 6 million. So they defunded and then a refund it and all this crap is going on, but we have all of these different cities, which are all, you know, bluish cities. Uh , and so they're saying that no, it's , it's, it's, it's in fact, you know, the Republicans who were responsible for defunding the police. So we'll, we'll see, let's, let's dig into that. We've got a new Yahoo news poll. I mentioned this yesterday, briefly on the show, but I just wanted to point this out because it's still relevant and you've got to recall. So, you know, there's, there's been a trend that we're going to go through here, back in 2020 in the aftermath of George Floyd , uh , defund , the police was somewhat popular. In fact, we've got some numbers on that, but it has slowly been trending down because the pendulum that I've talked about, his swing in the other direction, people going actually, you know what, we kind of don't want our a Wendy's restaurants to be burned to the ground and our used car dealerships to be, you know , lit on fire night after night. So how about no to that? And we'll go back to the old way of things where we actually have law enforcement and, you know, semi competent governance. So , uh , the , the trend is , is changing as the pendulum swings. And now we check in new recent numbers, June 26 survey hundred people. It says that 55% now describe violent crime as a very big problem, far more than anybody else who checked anything else. So 55% say crime, only 36% say COVID 39% say race relations, 41% say the economy and 39% say political correctness. So violent crime is a bigger problem in the eyes of most Americans, according to this poll out of 1600 people, more than race relations, the economy, political correctness or the pandemic. So this is a big problem and not , not, not, you know, for, for, of course the people who were the victims of this crime for the, for , for the people , we'll have to go through the justice system as a result of the environment that's been created by these politicians. But of course, it's really bad for the Democrats. They are not going to be happy with this because this was their cause this was their movement. In fact, they were saying that, you know , this was kind of the beginning of, of all of the racism stuff, right? BLM sort of emerged largely in response to these, these killings in interactions with law enforcement. And then it sort of morphed into, into this thing where now it's all just anti-Trump essentially, cause we've gone through the list of demands. They have seven of them have them on their website. Only one of them has anything to do with justice. The others have everything to do with their political rivals. So the whole thing has been commandeered. It's kind of turned, turned into a , a joke a bit, but I want to show you sort sort of where it came from. Okay, right now we know that defund the police, everybody's trying to run away from it because everybody is sort of seeing how toxic it is. But back in June 12th, 2020 , remember George Floyd died late may. So from Washington DC on Ipsos poll back from about a year ago, just over a year ago today, it says most people oppose the defund, the police movement, but there are significant differences. So just one in three 30, 4% supported the movement. This was back in 2020 to defund the police slightly more, 39% wanted to reduce the budget. But, but who is this? Who are the people that want to defund the police? Because it sounds like now they're making this public an issue. Not according to this poll, a majority already have Democrats 55% support the movement. Well, there it is just one in 10 Republicans, 9% agree. Black Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to support and support is also higher among Americans under age 50. So you've got some data down here, right? Most people, 34% oppose defunding the police or 34% or in support of it . Everybody else opposes, but it's 55% of the Democrats, right? They, this was their policy and it's their cities that are also defunding the police. And so they're going to try to smear the Republicans with this. I'll show you exactly why it's pretty intelligent, pretty smart stuff, but we'll see if it works. I doubt that it will because stuff like this is happening. Okay . This is the Oakland city city council diverts 17 million right away from the police budget. So a new budget was approved June 24th, 17.4 is going to go away. City council voted seven to two to adopt the plan. It's going to direct the funds to a violence prevention program. So I'll be very curious to see what those looks like. Look like now. And look I've said this before, right? I'm open to , uh, other interesting solutions in this space. I don't believe that I have all of the answers or the solutions nor do I believe the government does. I've been reading some very interesting things about more sort of, you know, 12 state step based programs that where you have mentorship and sponsors and all sorts of stuff open to those, those programs. And if we want to divert a little bit of money away from that, I would be in favor of experimenting with that, right? Because I think that there are opportunities for that young kids who are involved in nonviolent drug offenses, for example, or shoplifting or some things that are just sort of, you know, marginal offenses for young people on first offenses. I think we should make sure that they are, you know, focused on with , uh , we , we focus on rehabilitation with them, not retribution, not punishment. So I'm open to those things. We'll see. But the , you know, the, the, the question is why where's this going? And what's it going to look like? Nobody knows. So all we do know though, 17 million not going into the police budget anymore. So the funding diversion was approved amid, amid a violent surge in crimes, a surgeon, violent crimes in the area, okay. They just pass this folks. June 27th, it was approved on June 24th in the middle of a surge in violent crimes. So we'll see, there was a mass shooting there at lake merit a weekend before the vote city mayor, Libby, Schaff awarded , uh , sorry, opposed stripping funds from the department. She says, unfortunately it also cuts 50 police officers. They respond to 9 1, 1 calls, they enforce traffic safety. It also cuts a much needed future. Academy's going to significantly reduce police, staffing, delay response to Oaklanders and their time of crisis. It's going to force our officers to work even more overtime while , uh , which are expensive and unsafe for everybody. So we'll see, man, you know, we'll see if this works out for them . I don't think that it will. It doesn't make such a good idea . It wasn't, and I'm a defense lawyer. Okay. I come on this channel and you know, we , we sort of needle law enforcement on a daily basis, but in the middle of skyrocketing violent crime, it doesn't sound like a good idea. And that's exactly what they're going through. The Oakland police officer's association supported funding, the violence prevention programs, but not at the cost of cutting funds from the police as there are no, there are two no votes. And they're saying they're from districts that are most impacted by the violent crime. The message they're saying is we may support your programs, but we do. We do not want less public safety at a time of skyrocketing violent crime. So 17 million means 50 officers are gone defund the police moved activists allotted the move. So we have the anti-police terror project. We have , uh , they're saying that this historic budget ensures a comprehensive audit of Oakland PD and a thorough examination of positions that could be civilianized and moved out of OPD or combination of the two 17 million from the police department will go to the department of violence prevention, which is going to hire violence, interrupters, and community ambassadors with the intent of preventing violence. So we'll see how that works. You know, violence is one of those things that happens relatively in most situations. So once the violence has already started, it's kind of a well underway. And so that's why police will get physical when, when they come upon a scene. So I'll be curious what the , uh, interruption will look like, because I'm pretty sure the police already interrupted the silence. Don't know , uh , how they're gonna , uh , finagle that one, but , uh, bullhorns , I don't know, police already used and things. I don't know. Maybe they'll maybe they've got something I'm open to it. Let's see what Oakland does. Now. We've gone through the journey a little bit. We've seen that the support was pretty high at one point in time, at least amongst Democrats, 55% over there. Then we saw this year that the numbers have dropped dramatically and violent crime is sort of the top at the, of the list in terms of wanting to remedy the problem. The biggest problem in the country, people are identifying as violent crime. Now, a couple months ago, we also had another poll came out. This one came out from USA today, Ipsos they're saying here that support to redistribute police funding has decreased among Americans since August after a summer of protest, they say only 18% of respondents supported the movement known as defund the police 58% oppose it. This is March of this year, the white Americans were 67%. Republicans were 84%, only 28% of black Americans. And only 34% of Democrats were in favor of it. That's the problem. It went from 55% Democrats to 34% Democrats. That's a big problem. That's a lot of security moms. That's a lot of, you know, the , the, the people who are concerned about their businesses and their families and things like that, getting ransacked and traumatized by violent crime. They're all saying no, that's, that's, we're not, we're not okay with that. Right. What we saw that happened to George Floyd was reprehensible. We're we're for justice reform. We're for justice , uh, you know, addressing some of the current problems, but we're not for defunding the police. What kind of insane ideas that as I've been saying for a long time, never, ever once have been in support of that. Cause it's kind of an insane idea, but now it sounds like some Democrats are waking up a little bit, which is good. They're realizing that it's not, it's not good policy, even though they themselves were sort of exploited, right? So maybe they'll wake up and recognize that they were taken for a ride on this thing because the policies certainly are not going to be going into in favor of defund the police. In fact, it's going the opposite. I'm going to show you why. So let's understand this from sort of a psychological perspective or a persuasion perspective and what did the Democrats need to do right now? We have a 55%. Uh , we had, we had an original 55% in favor of defund . The police now that has shifted down to like 34% is the latest number. Okay. So almost 21%. I believe if I remember those numbers right about 20% of Democrats are now saying that is a big problem. And you combine that you juxtapose that with the fact that this is the biggest issue for most people it's ahead of COVID it's ahead of economics it's ahead of racial problems and all of those other issues that we've talked about, it's a big deal. And so the Democrats, they are recognizing that their party, their policy per se position was sort of on this side of the spectrum. Okay. So if we're talking about law enforcement and funding, well , on the left side over here, we've got deep fun . The police and the Democrats have really sort of anchored themselves in here, in my opinion, for a long time , uh , now to be fair, Joe Biden himself has not been somebody who ever came out and sort of openly was supportive of that. Uh, and , and really Camila Harris wasn't so much either, but a lot of their language on the campaign was sort of, sort of like tacitly approving it, you know? So , uh , supporting BLM, which was in my opinion, raising a lot of funds for, for the Democrats. And there was sort of this, this , uh, this white , uh , whitewashing coverup of Joe Biden's record. Cause he's been incarcerating African-Americans for 30 years. So they didn't really want to talk about that. He comes out, doesn't make a culpa on the 1994 crime bill. Yeah. I made some mistakes and uh, and then they were shifting blame, oh, the Republicans all voted for that too . And on and on and on. So to be, to be fair to him, he's never really been a defund the police person largely because , well, I'm not sure. I think they recognize how damaging this is to the party. It's not a good policy. So the point here is the Democrats are over here, right? A big, a big portion of the party is , is, is sort of in alignment with this eh , policy perspective. We're going to hear from AOC. We're going to hear from Jamaal Bowman here in a minute. And, and th and I'm going to grant you, this, that it is shifting, right? We're, we're, we're going, it we're going this direction because people are sort of bailing out of this back in 2020, it was certainly defund the police. And so now we're, we're sort of going this direction. As people are waking up a bit, and the Democrats have a problem on their hand because they were very pro defunded police. Now they've got to come up with, with a way , a free frame, the debates in a way that gives funding to law enforcement. But doesn't say that they're funding the police, they're sort of in a catch 22 so that they can't actually defund the police. They have to continue to say, oh, no, we want justice reform, but not necessarily defund the police. So they're going to come up with some interesting words. They're going to talk about like a reallocation of funds is we're going to hear from AOC and Jamaal Bowman. And we're going to hear that they're talking about increasing funding for certain things, which is very curious. So think, see if you recognize any of these concepts over here. So the Democrats are sort of reframing the fund, the , the defund, the police, they're going to turn it into essentially fund the police, but they're not going to call it, fund the police. They're going to call it something else. They're going to call it reallocation. Right? We're going to reallocate. Oh, no, we're not going to defund the police at all. We're just going to reallocate it a little bit of that money and go and fund the police. Oh no, we're not going to defund the police. Of course not. We're just going to allocate earmarks and funds to address gun violence, right? Because gun violence is a problem. And so, you know , you can see what's happening, essentially. They're going to , they're going to take big swaths of their constituency and they're going to put them in the fund, the police camp, but they're not going to call it the fund, the police camp. They're gonna call it. Oh, it's the reallocation camp . Oh, it's real . Oh, oh yeah. So, okay. So I was, I was opposed to defund the police. And so I had some problems with Democrats because the Democrats don't actually want to defund the police. They actually only want reallocation. Now I'll support, defund the police again. And so they're going to start to peel back some of those people that they lost on this issue, which is of course the most important issue in the country. What other ones do they have? Oh yeah, they're gonna , they're not gonna fund the police. My friends, they're going to just support, you know, additional money for domestic extremism. We're hearing a lot about that. Domestic violent extremism. We we've spent a lot of time talking about Merrick Garland and the entire history of sort of , or the entire shift towards gun violence. And now we're hearing things like jobs, right? Jobs and infrastructure. The Americans jobs plan now is responsible for funding law enforcement, but there it's not actually a crime bill or a funding bill. It's just jobs and infrastructure, which is very easy to sort of throw over people's eyeballs. People don't really know. They can't really recognize what they're seeing. And so they're taking these Democrats, you know, it's, which is just kind of , uh , you know, we , we all on this channel, we all know how this works, but you know, these people get taken for a ride. This is sad when politicians do this to people, but there was a lot of people in here who were thinking about, you know , defunding the police or meaningful justice reform. And they're going to just get taken for a ride and they're gonna fall into one of these new buckets, reallocation, gun violence, domestic violence, jobs, or infrastructure. And , uh , it's of course the Republican's fault on the back of the American jobs plan. So here is one more clip. This was, I think today or yesterday of Jen Saki , here she is. Now this clip got 1.3 million views over on Twitter. And Jen Saki is saying, well, the Republicans, you know , essentially defunded the police by not supporting the American rescue plan. They don't want this label at all. They know it's toxic. So there , even though they've been sort of fostering this, right, they've been raising this animal, this little beast, this little monster that, that they they've been keeping in a closet. They don't want it anymore. So they're just going to give it over to the Republicans. And they're gonna try to blame them for that. Even though they're the ones responsible for this thing, it's almost like they created a virus in a lab or something, and then they just sort of let it out on the world. And they say, oh, it's not my problem anymore. Here's Jen Saki,

Speaker 2:

Something. One of the advisers said this weekend, Cedric Richmond. He said, Republicans defunded the police by not supporting the American rescue plan. But how is it that that is an argument to be made when the president never mentioned needing money for police to stop a crime wave when he was selling the American rescue? Well,

Speaker 3:

The president did mention that the American rescue plan, the state and local funding, something that was supported by the president, a lot of Democrats who supported and voted for the bill could help ensure , uh , local cops were kept on the beat and communities across the country. As you know, didn't receive a single Republican vote. That funding has been used to keep cops on the beat

Speaker 2:

That was sold as these local police departments might have a pandemic related budget. Shortfall, not, we need to keep cops on the beat because there's crime wave . I

Speaker 3:

Think that any local , uh , department would argue that keeping cops on the beat to keep communities safe when they had to, because of budget shortfalls, fire police is , is something that helped them address crime in their local communities,

Speaker 2:

Local communities, the white house, his argument was the American rescue plan is going to be $1,400 checks. It's going to be vaccines vaccinators , uh , where it's going to put us on the path to beating the virus. Not

Speaker 3:

It did those things as well. It was a pretty good bill and piece of legislation.

Speaker 1:

Oh my God, these people are something else, my friend . So, so she's saying, you know, oh, the American rescue plan, you know, this is all stuff that we pass . There was $350 billion in there that weren't specifically earmarked for anything. And so they're basically saying, well, we're just going to open those up for law enforcement funds. So they didn't actually make, they didn't pass a bill that specifically goes and funds the police, but they're just making $350 billion that was previously not available to the police available. So they are certainly funding funding, the police. And she sort of went when he starts to question her on that, say, Hey, you know, you, you sort of were saying that this money was going to be earmarked and allocated for something else. And now, you know, that was checks and that was all these things. And we needed that for the American economy. At the same time, you were talking about defunding the police and, you know , justice reform and all of those things. Now the crime wave is coming. And so you can't really about face. You really can't backtrack on this cause you'll look like a bunch of morons more so than already, and that won't work out well for you. So instead of passing or addressing crime, the crime wave and, you know, passing a new bill to support law enforcement and saying, you're right, we gotta do, you know , we , we gotta pass George Floyd and earmark some more funds and all of these things to actually address the problem. You can't do that. So you're trying to save face. You're just going to open up the 350 that was already there that was passed under a different premise was passed for a different purpose. And so you're being dishonest it's so it's a total bait and switch. And then when that re journalist asks her about it, she starts to sort of, you know, respond back like she's like offended that , that this could even be something that he would ask about. Is she saying, well, I think that a lot of the police officers that had their budgets reduced would certainly appreciate the money that we're sending over there. Wouldn't they? And you go, yeah, they would. That's why they didn't want you to do fund them in the first place you were saying for four months that this was sort of a , a reasonable feasible option. And you were sort of tacitly approving all of these city council people, and you were not opposing that. And now you're sort of going, oh shoot, we're in the middle of a massive crime wave. We don't, we don't know what to do with this monster. So we're just going to hand it on over to the Republicans. Yeah. I agree with you. The police certainly would be okay with some of that money. They didn't want to take it away in the first place and your party. You've been trying to sort of have it both ways saying, oh no, we support law enforcement, but we also don't want to alienate the lefty wing of our party. Like these people that have massive audiences that have no problem. This was done on Friday night, defunding the police, right? This is they're trying to have it both ways. They , they don't want to alienate the crime conscience . People who don't want their buildings in , in , in businesses and families destroyed, but they also really, really can't alienate the defund, the police wing of their party, because they're very loud and very volatile here. For example, we've got AOC, we've got Jamaal, Bowman, both reaffirming that they want to defund the police short clips here. We're just gonna fly through them. Here is Mr. Uh , representative Bowman.

Speaker 4:

What about an amount? Um, but yes, I support the reallocation of resources from NYP V towards more social services. And I think it's phrasing it that way as an important, because you know, as we reimagine the redesign public safety , uh, there is a place for police. I just think we ask them to do way too much. And that's why we see some of the overzealous behaviors and outcomes that are just, that are just horrific.

Speaker 1:

Okay. This was a disaster. If you miss yesterday show, I was very angry at AOC for not getting into the nitty gritty on this thing. Right. These people come out there and they just take onto this . They , they run these town halls and they get on the internet and they start saying, well, defund the police defund, the police defund the police. Okay, got it. Yeah. Cause we need justice and we need, you know, a restoration of law or whatever. And then when it comes down to actual implementation, when it comes down to, well, we've got a , you know, 17 million that's being taken away from Oakland, or we have a 300 officer's shortfall in Seattle or whatever. They don't really want to get into the nitty-gritty . They just want to just kind of pop off on the internet and then let everybody else deal with the aftermath of that, which is very responsible. It's actually insulting. I would imagine to her constituents, but who knows what they're thinking? Here's AOC. She doesn't, she , she also supports reallocating the funds, but

Speaker 4:

I agree with representative Bowman , um, that , uh , I do believe that we need to reallocate resources away and that a big, you know , major causes , um, of this. And by the way, I also think it's

Speaker 1:

Nothing, she loses her train of thought. There here's another one.

Speaker 4:

Now that being said, I do agree that we do need to reallocate those resources into the, into the things like mental health supports , um, you know, and , uh, and programs ,

Speaker 1:

Uh, yeah. Programs, yeah. Programs. So , uh, just lots of programs coming out of , uh , you know , CS brilliant, bureaucratic mind. All right . So w w let's take some questions coming in from over at , uh , where am I watching the I know that address, but I have to make sure that the , the question is on the screen and here it is first up in the house is from want to know, says , uh , oh, now says there it is says , uh, please bring up, Biden's lie about the capital at the summit, bad policies, but lying is far more worse, almost criminal. So probably are you talking about the Capitol hill riots? I'm not sure what specific lie you're talking about, but it's hard to pick. We have Gert . John is in the house as a , we know justice has the laptops from Wiener and Biden. Is there any way that we can force them to make the content public? This would kick it up a gear as we have a long way to go yet? Well, no, there's no real way to force that to happen. I mean, I think the closest thing that you could get would be like a , uh, far removed FOIA requests that might show you that they have something or in possession of something like that. But any of that stuff is probably going to be redacted. It's probably going to be, you know , layered. So you can do a foyer request to freedom of information act, request, but you know, most of this stuff is probably going to be deemed national security risks or something that is confidential or classified, right? If it's, if it is compromising to hunter or to Wiener or to anybody sort of in the wheelhouse of government, you're not, we're not going to get that. Unfortunately, now that doesn't mean that later down the line, the Republicans don't get control of some committee and then use their subpoena power to go and get it. Who knows? We have soul Viking in the house. As Oakland has always been a disaster with very poor choices, including these new choices. Remember that Oakland was entertaining formerly recognizing Ebonics to be taught in schools. But back at the time, some sane minds prevailed, then California's , uh, it it's, it's something over there. Good to see you. Soul Viking. We've got Jeremy. The Trita says the Democrats are the biggest culprits of using doublespeak of secured language in an attempt to hide their true agenda. However, anyone with the Saurus can figure out what they are really planning to do. We have to keep reminding them of their own words used over the past year, right? This is exactly what I intend to do here. As I know you do too. Jeremy, thank you for that comment. I think you're spot on. And lastly, here on this segment, we've got no doubt says watching from rumble today. Oh, well right. Very good. We have liberal arts equals the art of lying. I need a dictionary of the words redefined in the last two years, and you probably need sort of an Almanac for the pro pronouns as well, because those are hard to keep track of. It's very confusing. All right. And those were great questions. Thank you to everybody who asks those Quick reminder that I am a criminal defense lawyer here at the RNR law group in Scottsdale Arizona. We're very passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. I want to show you some of the things that we can help out with. I'm talking about drug violations, traffic violations, felony charges, DUIs, anything, and everything in between. If you were somebody, you know, where love is facing one of those situations, we would love the opportunity to help. Our phone number is (480) 787-0394. And we'd love to speak with you . So check us out if you need any help there, if you don't, if you're interested in learning something a little bit new head on over to ruler, take a look at my law enforcement interaction training. This was a two and a half hour seminar that we did about two weekends ago. A lot of fun. I think there's some pretty valuable information in there. Learn the 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with law enforcement. The one rule, the two questions that law enforcement is allowed to ask you that you have to answer. And the three questions that I'm sorry, the three responses that you can use, if they don't ask one of the two allowable questions, it'll make more sense when you go check the course out at ruler. All right. And so we're going to change gears and we're going to talk about the January six Capitol hill cases are still working their way through the justice system. And some of it is sort of justice. And some of it probably isn't, we've been seeing a little bit of a different tier of justice for the Capitol hill defendants. If you've been a part of this channel for some time, you know, we've covered a lot of social societal unrest, and we've talked about certain stories where we take a look at some people who are in sort of the Antifa BLM bucket. And we look at their case dispositions and it seems like they get diversion deals. They don't go to jail. They get released out , uh , on , uh , own co owner, cognizance release with no problems at all. But then when we change gears and we sort of hear from some of these Capitol hill defendants, it's a bit of a different story. And the epic times today came out today. We're talking about this guy name is Richard Barnett and his case is still working the way through the court system. Of course, here he is in this infamous photo sitting in Nancy Pelosi's in her desk, on her chair. And he's a retired firefighter. He's from Arkansas. And , uh , let's see here, what's going on? So he is now accusing the feds of multiple constitutional violations . So this article written June 29th, 2021 by mark tap Scott, he's a retired firefighter. He was in this photo with pictures of his feet on Pelosi's desk. And then he later surrendered to the federal authorities. So given federal pretension law, as well as his explanation, let's see here, the, he could reasonably have expected at worse to be restricted to his home while awaiting trial. Right. Sort of given the nature of the charges. And that was initially what Barnett received from judge Eric Wydenmann of the us district court following his voluntary surrender on January 8th. Right? So he goes in, there's a lot of chaos. A couple of days later on January 8th, he goes into the FBI agents and voluntarily turns himself in, but in a unusual move, according to this article, the U S attorneys now successfully then petition the us district. Judge, judge Beryl Howell to reverse Whiteman and then jail Barnett in the district of Columbia pending trial on seven charges that if convicted could result in fines against him of nearly $400,000 and put them in prison for more than a decade. So as a result, Barnett was kept, locked up in a DC jail until late April, right? So from all the way from January 8th to April, so two months in custody, one of more than 500 individuals arrested by federal authorities in connection with January 6th , many of whom still remain in detention. So Joseph McBride, veteran public finally got some success, got him released. He's going back home, went back home in April. And so his trial has not yet been set to begin. So this was a motion . Let's take a , let's take a quick look here. It looks like this was filed back in April. So we've got the defendant now respectfully moves this court pursuant to the bail reform act to release him on his own recognizance . So this was filed. It looks like back in may alternatively the court, if they're not , uh, amenable to leasing him on his own recognizance, then they want third-party custody. The defendant states the following and support. All right. So that's just sort of a quick headline there says the law is clear only in a very certain limited set of circumstances is pretrial detention. Acceptable is their argument. At first glance, Barnett is charged what sounds like serious felonies, right? Tier one domestic terrorists, a ticking time bomb is what they said. But on closer examination, he says the charges don't really match the quote, the dangerous weapon that's. There was , uh , an inoperative stun gun. It was a walking stick, right? Federal property he's accused of stealing was a single on opened envelope. He took on Pelosi's desk, which is still, I'm not endorsing any of this behavior or not, but is this, you know, the crime of the century, or is this something less he is charged with illegally entering the Capitol Barnett claims. He was swept into the building by a crowd and only entered the quarters in search of a bathroom. He says he is enticed to pose for the desk photo by a news photographer . As McBride's second argument says that they treated him seriously didn't match any prior cases. Despite being charged with multiple crimes, they say that he was released on bail. Okay. So here here's the government now opposing the defendant's motion. So he said they , they, they open up their opposition to this motion filed a couple days later, they say , uh, Nat , Nancy, big Al was here. You be word. Right? So that's the language that they're sort of using to oppose his bail release, but it sounds like he's, he's, he's made bail anyway. So he is , uh , he is home that's, that's what we've got for him. His trial is not , uh , knots set yet, which is, which is curious. So we'll see where that is. Now we're going to change gears. Let's talk about Jacob chancellor. Remember Jacob chancellor, I didn't throw a picture on this slide, but Jacob chancellor was the guy with the bull horns who was sort of walking out with, I think one of his friends took the podium, which means you , you get to control America if you have that thing. And , uh, they , they took a bunch of those ridiculous photographs and , uh , his case is still working itself through. And I was a little bit agitated with his case because when the government asked for a 60 day continuance, remember this, they , they were not releasing these defendants out of custody, just in general. They up , you're an insurrectionist, you're a terrorist. You're going to destroy America. Therefore we cannot let you out. And I'm going, what to this person has no criminal record at all. Some of these people were not even there on the Capitol grounds that day. And the judges were still just acting like, you know , uh, I don't know. I can't, I, whatever [inaudible] in terms of their temper tantrums that they were throwing over these cases, because it was so far removed, I think from reality what, how they were categorizing the actions of these people relative to what actually happened. Right? So anyways, the point here is they would not let Jacob chancellor and many other similarly situated defendants out of custody because they were so dangerous. Then the government, because they're incompetent turns around and says, well, we can't actually prosecute all these cases in time. So we need continuance. We need extension. So we can actually do our job. And they were asking for like 60 days. And I think if I'm not mistaken, Jacob chancellor , his attorney actually sort of didn't oppose that, right. Just said, oh, okay. Yeah, no problem at all. If you need to continuance , no problem. And that irritated me because I'm thinking, well, if they're not going to let him out of custody, then he's just going to sit in there while the government just sits there, twiddling their thumbs for another 60 days, justice delayed is justice denied. They've got to make sure that they're moving this forward or let them out of custody. It's one of the other, get a continuance if you need it, but let him out. They didn't do that. All right . So let's check in now and see what's going on with Chan's case. We here, see here, here is the first a status update. And this is interesting. This was filed a couple of days ago on June 26. It says, Jacob lead the government now submits this status update pursuant to a previous filing since the last status update, the defendant has been housed at FCI Inglewood in Littleton. So he's still in custody, right? He's he's, he's there and he's going to undergo his competency evaluation and the parties have been providing appropriate information to the evaluator . You later . All right. So what is that ? Yeah , I mean, competency. Can we talk about this a lot? Right? You have to be competent to stand trial, loosely speaking. It's the idea that, you know, what's happening , uh , against you, right? You're aware of what's happening. Judges will often ask, you know , do you read and write English? How far did you go in school? Did anybody coerce you to appear here today? Did anybody promise you anything that , that is getting you to do what you're doing here today? Do you read and write English? Do you understand what's happening? Do you have any questions? They want to make sure that you're competent. And sometimes there are people who work their way through the justice system, or , you know , uh , have unfortunate interactions with the justice system that are not particularly competent, right? They may be , uh, you know, off, off of medication. They may have some psychological disorders. They may have , uh , been abused or traumatized as children or were kids. They might have some serious psychological conditions that need some help. And so it sounds like he's, he's going through that process right now. And the way that this works, at least here in Arizona is when we go through this, it's sort of, we bring in multiple experts to do a proper evaluation. So the way that this works is there's typically a list of court approved who can weigh in and determine whether a person is competent or not competent. And what they will do is they'll sort of do a clinical evaluation, right? That defendant will come and meet with that one doctor. And that doctor will say, well, okay, competent or not competent. Sometimes people will say that I'm not competent in order to sort of think that they can escape out of a criminal charge. And so these people are pretty well-trained to sort of identify actual incompetencies versus fo incompetencies. And so they'll go through that analysis and typically the way that it works, at least here is they'll see two different providers. If the two providers agree on a conclusion, they say, okay, Hey, I met with Rob. He's a loony . I met with Rob also. Yeah. I agree with you. He's not competent. So what we'll say is, okay, they're in agreement. And so we don't need further inquiry. They will then submit their sort of their , their perspective to the courts and something else will happen. We'll move that person kind of out of the criminal legal track and into a restoration track where they can go get treatment and medical care , uh, be restored to competency. And then we can decide what to do moving forward with the criminal case. If that should be something that still moves forward. We know we don't know yet, but there are other situations where if you go see one specialist, one expert and they say perfectly competent, you might see another one. He says, no, totally not competent. Now what you have to do is get a third person to break the tie. And so these things can be actually pretty involved. You go to a third doctor, he says , you know, whichever way he goes, that's where the , uh, the court will tend to find and, you know , have a hearing and present all of your arguments and all of that stuff. So it can turn into actually a big, long drawn out process. And it sounds like they're still , still sort of in the middle of that right now. So when we go in now, there was another motion that was being submitted. They do want to see if they can dismiss one count, which is count two of the indictment. So this was a little bit interesting too , essentially what they're doing here and frame this out just a quick minute is they're taking a look at the indictment, right? And indictment is something that the government presents to a grand jury. They say, Hey, we've got these facts here and we have the list of the laws. So we say this happened, there was an insert, there was an insurrection that happened on January six . And we also have these laws. And what we want you to do grand jury is sort of compare the two and tell us if you think a crime was committed, say the law says you can't do this here . Something happened. Do you think that that was violated? Yes or no? Great. Yes. So the jury of course came back on all these indicted, all of these Capitol hill defendants, and then once the attorneys now, because of course all this happens behind closed doors where, you know , we , we don't get to see any of that. Client gets charged. They hire an attorney. We take a look at the indictment and we say, huh, that's what they presented. Okay. Well, we don't really even know what that means. You know, the defendant is that the, the indictment is saying, well , uh, you know, you interfered with a congressional, you interfered with governmental operations and you're going well, there's a lot of governmental operations that are going on at any given time. Which one are you talking about? Because we're defendants. And I need to know specifically which one you're talking now. You know, we all know they're talking about the counting of the Toral votes on January 6th , but it's still sort of this missing gap. And what the defense attorney here is saying is, look, there is not enough information in the indictment. It's facially insufficient for this to be brought against our clients. And until there's more information, we can't even prepare our defense. I mean, really, we don't even know what they're talking about. And so what he's doing is he's sort of drawing out some of this, some of these differences and it, and it is a little bit interesting. It's gonna , I feel very , uh, like we're running through minutia , talking about little, little different things that really kind of don't matter, but I want to show you how this works. One second. All right. So we now let's take a look that the, the actual motion. Yeah. So this has been filed by Jacob chancellor lawyers in the us district court for the district of Columbia filed today. Uh , June 29th, page one of two, two quick motions are two quick pages. It's comes now Jacob Tansley. And just, just remember, this is not a motion to dismiss the entire case. Just count to write just one count of the other counts. So here they're saying Jacob [inaudible] , the defendant is now moving to dismiss these, this one particular charge based on the constitution rules of criminal procedure, fifth amendment, sixth, amendment, us constitution, et cetera . Why, why are they saying this is appropriate? Here's why count two of the indictment says that on January 6th , quote, he attempted to and did corruptly obstruct influence or impede unofficial proceeding. And that is a proceeding before Congress, by entering and remaining in the U S Capitol without authority and committing an act of civil disorder and threatening congressional officials and unlawfully remaining in a restricted building without lawful authority and engaging in disorderly and disruptive conduct in violation of us code. Okay. So you see how that, how that works, right? So if you're a defense lawyer, you take that sentence and you just start separating it out, right? Just take these words, you say, okay. A proceeding before Congress. Okay. Well, they've got to prove that they're saying that he violated the law here and that he did something wrong in front of a proceeding before Congress. So they got to the fi they've got to prove that what is a proceeding before Congress, and they're going to say also another element of the offense is entering and remaining inside the U S Capitol without any authority. All right . Well, so what does without authority mean? Right? Does that they say that he was refused entry because we saw a lot of videos of people just have the , the cops were laid , come on in. I , I disagree with you. All right. I disagree with you, but I support you. Something like that. Right? Some weird statements going on. So what does without authority mean? And so you can see here, there's a lot of , uh , a lot of gray area that a defense attorney is just going to latch into and say, well, what I need to know what you mean there specifically, because I'm looking at this indictment, my client's denying all of this stuff. I don't even know what you're talking about. I need to know the specifics so that I can refute those things. All right , carrying on it says, count two must be dismissed. So now we know what the problem is. We know what the law says. Now we're seeing why he wants it gone. He says, count two, must be dismissed. This allegation fails to state an offense. Also fails to provide chancellor with adequate notice of what he's even being charged with does not ensure that a grand jury had found sufficient evidence of necessary elements of the offense under the constitution. Right? So he's saying that when this was presented to the grand jury, they're looking at it and they're going, I don't , I don't know why I can't even possibly come to a conclusion because it is so vague. We don't know what you're talking about. Carrying on. He says more specifically, the indictment fails to state specifically what an official proceeding is. And even more specifically, what quote proceeding before Congress, Mr. Chancellor , allegedly obstructed. So the critical issue in this case, because S 18 , uh, only prohibits obstruction of an official proceeding related to the administration of justice before a tribunal and not any, and all governmental functions like legislative action. See how that becomes quite important. There, we need to know what people seeding before Congress was obstructed because the law that you referenced that you charged him under, doesn't say anything about it . Interfering with the congressional government hearing as problematic. In fact, it's for something else. It's an official proceeding related to the administration of justice before a tribunal, right. Which would be more analogous to a criminal proceeding. Something that was the administration of justice, not the election of the next president. Right? So maybe outlaw just doesn't apply at all. Moving forward. We can see here, we've got a member random in support of this. We'll just take a look . I just want to show you what this looks like comes now introduction and background, right? So they're going to go through, here are the different counts. Count six, count five, count four. The only one he wants gun gone is count two obstruction of unofficial proceeding . So that one we'll see, I'm going to guess the judge says, oh no, no, this is too serious for, for , uh , due process. You a try again. We've got, let's take a look Jump into some questions before we move on to the next segment. Let's see. Who's first up in the house. We've got Tim Flynn . Good to see you. Tim says with so many police resigning and retiring early, there must be many openings. What a campaign to hire more black officers to work in predominantly non white areas, help with racial issues and distrust of the police. I saw a department hosting a basketball tournament along with a career. Fair, no joke, maybe a good idea. I uh , so I campaign to hire more black officers to work in predominantly non white areas. So it looks, and I'm open to any and all ideas. If that is , is really, you know, something that would move the needle in a positive direction. I think I'm totally open to exploring those ideas. Now, look, you know , I know that I know this typically doesn't win me many, many, many friends here, but I've seen law enforcement not necessarily be I've seen. Look, look, okay, let me be careful here. I've seen law enforcement officials in my career be overtly racist, right? Be overtly, you know, a white guy against the black. I absolutely seen that. I've seen it the other way. Right? I've seen what I, in my opinion, to be black officers that are sort of, you know , overly harsh towards white defendants, I've seen that. Do you know why that is? Because I've seen it every wish, which way? Every cross-examination every permutation of garbage law enforcement interactions with society. I've seen black cops on Asian people. I've seen black cops on black cops. I've seen black cops on white people. I've seen white cops on black cops . Uh , I've seen it all. I've seen every single one of them. And so, you know, my perspective has always been that it's about a cultural problem with law enforcement to some degree, right? To some extent, not saying that the entire thing is , is problematic. And we got to defund the police and throw them out. I've never said that, but I do think that there is sort of a culture where there, there are, there are a lot of officers that are predispositioned there . They have a predisposition to sort of, you know , treat certain interactions in an aggressive manner that , that, that doesn't justify that response. It's the situation doesn't warrant the type of response. But I've seen , we have, there's a video here of an African-American officer with an African-American defendant here in Mesa, Arizona. And the guy has been told that the defendant is totally surrendering, right? He's , he's totally, he's got his back up against the wall and he's not fighting in any way, shape or form at all. And so what this officer does is when he sort of , uh , refuses to comply, he just starts beating him in the head. Right. Just beating him right in the head. I think I'm not sure what happened with that situation, but you know , it , it, my point here is it can, it can go , it can, it can cross boundaries. It can cross demographics, ethnicities, races, everything. And so I'm not sure that that would solve the problem. Right. I don't know if that's going to be meaningful, but I'm open to it. We've got Tim Flynn says, what do you think about community police oversight committees who review complaints against officers and use of force incidents? Are they effective in keeping departments and officers under control without crucifying them for reasonable actions? So community police oversight committees, you know, I don't , uh, I can't, I can't speak to that. Right. I can speak to certain attempts at creating these things. I mean, I don't have enough experience with them. I'm not sure that there is, there is truly that much oversight going on that I've got experience with. Right? Most of the time, what ends up happening here is it's sort of the law enforcement agencies investigating themselves. So you could , you know, in Arizona, for example, we've got all of these different law enforcement , uh , departments, right? Different city agencies. We've got Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, PV, all of them, they've all got their own enforcement agencies. And so they've all got their own little, you know, mechanisms for how they regulate. Some of them debate these bigger oversight committees. Like the city of Phoenix had that conversation for some time. They always create these councils and these committees and all of these different things. And I, you know, what ends up happening in my experience is they sort of investigate themselves and they finally did nothing wrong. And then we have this sort of loosely overarching statewide organization called the Arizona post , uh , uh , police officer's safety and training board, whatever. Right. So they're supposed to be the group that certifies the police. And the whole thing is largely, you know , lacking transparency, almost no accountability. It's sort of like , uh , like a , uh , like a political arm of law enforcement and that's about what we've got. Right. So I don't have much experience with actual oversight committees. And I really don't know much about what that would look like here. I am open to the idea, but at the same time, right. It's sort of one of these concepts where you go, eh , I'm not so sure that that, that is a real good solution either because a lot of bureaucrats in general don't know much about anything. I mean, candidly, you know, they come out there and they think they do. But if you put one of them in charge of one of these boards, yes, maybe you get a different perspective on it, but you know, you certainly don't want to turn it into a situation either where it's all a bunch of defund polices on there , right. Where every single solution is just the defund, the police. Cause that wouldn't work either a good question. They're very heavy questions there, Tim Flynn, thank you for those. Right . I could , I could talk about these topics all day. I appreciate that. And I'll just, I'll uh, we'll, we'll save some for later though. We've got ZZ. The boxing cat says the people from January 6th are denied 14th amendment rights. How is that even possible? Where are the Republicans? Not nowhere. The Republicans have just been asleep at the wheel with all the Capitol hill stuff. Same thing that the Democrats are doing with defund , the police, they're just running the other direction. So are the Republicans with the Capitol hill stuff, same, same with a lot of attorneys, actually. It's been an embarrassing sight to see that you have defense lawyers and you have certain people who are all about free speech and due process and civil liberties and all of this stuff just say, oh, unless they're Trump supporters, unless they were there on the Capitol building on that day, then they're a little bit too toxic for us. We don't want anything to do with them anymore. We have LT 13 now says, did you see the 60 year old something woman who just got arrested this week and had a picture of the police, literally holding the door open for her. She had toured the Capitol five days earlier. No , I didn't see that one. Uh , no , no, but it is. It's the 60 year old grandmas that the FBI is, you know , hyperventilating about every day. We've got E add-on test says , I've said this before, but as egregious as the behavior was on January six , this, there was not a threat to our Republic, obviously. Yeah, you're right. Uh , but they , uh , you know, but they did take the podium, which is, I think the center of power here, this specific set of politicians are not the essential to the continuation of the Republic. If all these reps and senators completely disappeared peacefully, it would take about four weeks for the deputies next in line. And the new elections to restaff the government, we would be up and running. Yeah. And I totally agree with you. I mean, I don't, would we even skip a beat? I mean, we sort of have ineffective leadership and gridlock all over the place. Could we, could we, could we just replace all of Congress and also have incompetence? Sure. Could do that. No problem. Easily. Thunder seven says, Rob, I looked at page at the 65 page list of people arrested, but not convicted. There are over 500 with over 400 charges with curfew violation. That's it? What is that? They were trespassing. That's it? No violence were invited in. How can this be legal in America? Is it, can they Sue for political persecution? No. And how many of those arrested for violence were Antifa? It's all great questions there . Thunder seven, all great questions. I'm not laughing at the questions. I'm laughing at the sort of the accuracy of it. Right? How can this be illegal in America? I asked myself that question all the time. Uh , it is right, because we've got a lot of people in the, in control with the levers of power that are able to do these things. It is, it is a wild scene. Isn't it? I share your frustration. I don't have a very good answer for you. The curfew violations. Yeah. I mean, we look, we've talked about them here. We talked about it right after it happened. There were two cases. I think two of the defendants showed up. One of them showed up the night after, or the day after it wasn't even there got charged, got rounded up in the media Capitol hill, protestors pictures all over the place and no bond. Yeah . It wasn't even there absolutely a political, I think politically oriented prosecution, but because they have a legitimate basis in it because they can tie them to some actual criminality, you know, unless they do something a little bit more agregious things like prosecutorial misconduct. They require a little bit of a higher bar there. We've got last one on this segment says, no doubt from no doubt says, how do the riots in Portland relate to that law does insurrection not apply because they only rioted and tried to burn down the building after hours. It seems like if they were successful, it would interfere with the next day's tribunals. Yeah. You know, they're kind of making this up as they go along on this one. And I mean that candidly, because during attorney general Merrick Garland, remember when he was getting confirmed, I think they brought him in front of the judiciary committee in front of the Senate. And they asked him about that, you know, oh, you know, you keep using this word insurrection. W what does that mean to you? Attorney general, since you're going to be the head of the department of justice, you're going to be somebody who's enacting policies throughout our country. How do you define insurrection? And he specifically said something about the timing, right. That it needed to be like in the middle of government operations interfere with something that was happening, which of course would apply to January six , but maybe not apply to much of the Antifa or the BLM people. Right. Sort of creating a line that protects one particular ideology at the expense of another, because the Trumpers went in during the daytime, when it was open and everybody else was doing things at night when things were closed. So he can distinguish the cases, which is clever, but disingenuous blast up, we've got hack consulting says would political persecution fall under hate crime law. So, so typically , uh, so I'm not sure about, I'm not sure that there's any criminal statute for political persecution, the more common way that you see it would be like a militia . So rather than political persecution, we would be talking about prosecutorial misconduct, right? Prosecutorial misconduct would be the , it would be the different way to frame that. So it's prosecutors then who are pursuing criminal charges with no probable cause or for an ill motive. They've got an illegitimate basis for bringing charges against somebody they're doing it maliciously. And you know, it's hard to prove that here, because you have to have a pretty high standard for that here. The judges agree with the prosecutors, they're all DC, swamp people, right? They're all just sort of in this big bucket of gross. And all they do is just sort of, you know, support one , oh, I'm a prosecutor for the us attorney's office. This was a agregious your honor. This is such a reprehensible democracy of America. Ooh , PTSD, AOC judges go, oh my you're right. I'm really sorry, Mr. Prosecutor. You're right. This was a tragedy travesty worst event ever in America, forget nine 11 Pearl Harbor or anything else. And so it's , and then the defense attorney's going, what world are we living in here? Folks, can you grow up a little bit here? Okay. It was like a , it was like a two hour trespass problem, right? For, for this client, not everybody, but individually speaking, you can separate them out. Not everybody is a , you know , uh , an insurrectionist that's responsible for ruining America. Now, if somebody is facing middle charges that resemble those are law firm can help our in our law group, we're located in Scottsdale Arizona. We have an amazing team of people that can help with any of these types of criminal violations that you see here on the slide. Things like felonies, traffic violations, drug charges, DUI charges. We can help remove old mugshots off the internet. We can help you clear up a criminal case record so that, and , uh, you can restore your rights to vote and possess a firearm again, and sort of get things back on track a little bit. We would love the opportunity to help. We're very passionate about this work. We offer free case evaluations at 4 8 0 7 8 7 0 3 9 4, or click this QR code, take a screenshot, take a picture of that. QR code will take you right on over to our website. If you're not interested, or you don't need a criminal lawyer, that's good, but you may want to learn something and you can do so by going over to griller , where you can pick up a copy of law enforcement interaction training a two and a half hour program, where I teach you the 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with the police. Very easy. We can condense and consolidate all of the , the , the complexities of criminal law into a simple rule. 1, 2, 3, go check that out. It is some good stuff over there as always. Thank you for your continued support here and watching the Thank you for those great questions. We're going to move on to the next one. All right . So last segment of the day, Tucker Carlson, always in the news, probably because he has a new show, but he also had a very interesting revelation for us on last night show talking about the NSA, the national security agency, seizing data from him, text messages, emails, going into his room , private accounts, and scraping some data off of them right now in this segment, I'm going to play the two minute clip of his show in this segment. It's, there's not a lot of specifics there, right? He gives us a little hint about what's happening saying, we're talking about this story that we're about to unveil to the American people. And they knew about it. We didn't tell anybody about it. They knew about it. That's how we know that they are monitoring us. They are actually watching what we're doing. And I, for a long time have suspected. This has been going on anyways, had been following Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. And we've heard a lot about prism and X key score and the five eyes Alliance and all of these different things, which of course, we're going to talk about here in this segment. But the big thing as it relates to Tucker, and a lot of people are sort of like laughing at this saying, Hey, oh, he's being ridiculous. He's being absurd. This is so over the top, even for Tucker, the NSA doesn't care about Tucker, right? This couldn't be possible. Well , and , and, you know, I used to sort of think that maybe even a year ago, when you would say, oh, there's no way that the government would actually lock you down, right? There's no way that they would sort of mandate that you do all of these things. X, Y, and Z. Absolutely ridiculous. That would never happen. Here we are. And the government we know has a history of sort of spying on us. And we're going to dig into that here today. And we've got a lot of other, you know, other questionable, I think, relationship broken trust problems with the current government. We know that they have, whether you want to acknowledge it or not spied on the Trump campaign. And then the sort of the transition in when he was moving into the white house, we know that there was some pretty serious , uh , problems with the IRS investigating conservative groups. The list goes on and on, right? The government will oftentimes use itself as a tool to go out and eliminate their opponents. So there's plenty of precedent for it. All of the people out there that are sort of making fun of Tucker, not that he needs any defense for me, by any stretch of the imagination, but give me a break, right? If, if, if anything is more directionally accurate that the government is not spying on you or the government is absolutely spying on you, which one, which camp are you going to fall in on that? I think that's pretty obvious. And Tucker Carlson is somebody that's got a big voice, a big audience, and he is a thorn in many sides. And so it wouldn't surprise me if in fact the NSA was doing something like this, but I want to share with you the two minute clips. So here is Tucker. He's going to describe exactly what's going on. And then we're going to go down history lane. We're going to do a quick visit and run through prism and X key score in the five eyes Alliance and exactly what the government was doing decades ago. Right? And it's 20, 21. How far have they come now? Let's see. Let's see what Tucker has to say about the

Speaker 5:

Actual federal policy. The war on terror now ongoing for 20 years has pivoted in its aims. The war on terror is now being waged to get through that down. Just a little bit. American citizens, opponents of the regime. We saw this on display in January six . We told you a couple of weeks ago, based on language and publicly available indictments that the FBI clearly had for knowledge of the riot at the Capitol that day. And the agents we spoke to this weekend confirmed that as true quote, the FBI had sources in that crowd, confidential sources snitches that's 100% certain, but it's not just political protesters . The government is spying on yesterday. We heard from a whistleblower within the U S government who reached out to warn us at the NSA. The national security agency is monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take the show off the air. Whoa . Now that's a shocking claim and ordinarily we'd be skeptical of it is illegal for the NSA to spy on American citizens. It's a crime, it's not a third world country. Things like that should not happen in America, but unfortunately they do happen. And in this case they did happen. The whistleblower, who was in a position to know repeated back to us information about a story that we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails. There's no other possible source for that information period. The NSA captured that information without our knowledge and did it for political reasons. The Biden administration is spying on us. We have confirmed that this morning, we filed foyer request a freedom of information, act, request asking for all information that the NSA and other agencies have gathered about this show. We did it mostly as a formality. We also contacted the press office at both NSA and the FBI. We don't expect to hear much back. That's the way that usually goes. Only Congress can force transparency on the intelligence agencies and they should do that immediately. Spying on opposition. Journalists is incompatible with democracy. If they are doing it to us. And again, they are definitely doing it to us. They are almost certainly doing it to others. This is scary and we need to stop it right away.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So, yeah. Who knows what else he's got? That's a definitely a provocative claim and it's a big one, right? And if they've got some sort of confirmatory evidence one way or the other, that's going to be a big story. Now this is something that I have long suspected has always been the case. And I think so just based on the evidence that we have seen historically , uh , we've talked about this with Edward Snowden a long time, and I want to just run through briefly the, some of the documents that were leaked from Snowden. Now you may have missed this, right? This was years ago. Uh , you and I sort of missed a lot of this because I was younger and I was, I think I was in law school still, but very interesting things happening here. So Tucker Carlson comes out and says, well, look, the NSA is actually, you know, investigating my stuff. And , uh , everybody's laughing at him, right? All the people in the media, on Twitter, all of the Twitter, you know, snobs or , oh, you know, retweet, this is ridiculous. Ha ha to the end of the, okay, this there's actual historical record of this happening in this country. I'm not sure if they're aware of that or why they're laughing at this, but it's , it's been documented. It's in fact, it's on Wikipedia. Here's what it looks like. So this came over from a leaked document. It's available on Wikipedia. If you go just tech checkout , Edward Snowden, or look up prism, but I want to show you what's happening here. This document came back from the, I think those early two thousands about their Gert current efforts. This is our U S government documents, special source operations top secret, right? This was, it's now not top secret, but it was at the, at the time. And this is a slide from a presentation that they were giving. And they're talking about exactly how they're going to just sort of interface and skim data off of every single transaction that's happening through Google, right? Which is massive. So over here, they're telling us what we have the Google cloud. It has Gmail. It has Google docs. It has Google maps. We have traffic in clear text here, right? You're in Google's ecosystem. This is in Google's zone. Everything is just clear trap. It's just clear text. So you can just read everything nothing's encrypted at all, nothing. But then when it goes through the Google front end server, this is where they will add in the SSL certificates. This is when they'll secure it up. So it'll go through this GFE, this pinch point here, and it will then go out into the public internet, right? So it'll go from Google servers through it , through the GFE, into the public internet. And guess what? The NSA, the U S government, all they have to do is if they can just interface right here at this pinch point, well, then they don't have to decrypt anything. They don't have to worry about SSL certificates or anything. They get access to all the clear text data because they are layering in the ability to just siphon off data right here at this choke point right here at this pinch point. Okay? And this is an official top secret government document. All this stuff was being done under cover behind the scenes in real time . And they were building this out. In fact, they were doing this company by company. Here is the progression of this. So here are the dates when prism began for each collection provider. Okay . So Google was here in 2009, and then we get to Facebook also 2009 pal talk 2009. They're not around anymore. YouTube, 2010. They started with Microsoft in oh 7 0 8. Then we have 2011 over to Skype AOL. And then they added apple in October, 2012. And the program only costs 20 million per year. So they were building this up from 2007, all the way up to 2013, of course, until Edward Snowden started breaking the story. And so they were just going through and they would just create these little pinch points at each one of these companies. So that literally everything could just be gobbled up. So here we now have prison collection details. It says here, current providers, of course, all the big ones, Microsoft Yahoo, Google apples , down here at the list, YouTube and so on. What you will receive in collection surveillance and store stored communications. It varies by provider, but in general, you're going to get everything, whatever you want, email chat, video, voice videos, photos, store, data, VoIP , voiceover, IP. So phone calls, you can listen to whatever they're talking about. File transfers, all video conferencing notifications of target activity. Like log-ins online, social networking details, special requests , whatever you need, my friends, they are going to give it to you. It's going to be just a free for all. It's a nice buffet and the way that they actually, if you D if you go down this rabbit hole folks, it's a long one. But what you'll see is that they actually sort of were we're funneling all of this information into one central user interface called X key score. And it sounds like, you know, I never used the software, but you could just go in there and just type in a Robert Mueller Royce , what's he doing? And it will, all of those pinch points from every single provider everywhere. It just pulls up everything because it's skimming everything that goes through those pinch points, everything that goes through Google, everything through Yahoo, through YouTube, through Instagram, all of your search history, brow, anything that goes digital anywhere, including your cell phone providers, right. They all allegedly had the pinch point built in on the backbone of the internet. So you couldn't couldn't even encrypt it, right? You couldn't even put it under, you know , run it through SSL or any of that stuff, because right at the backend , they were getting that data. So Tucker Carlson's crazy. Are you kidding me? They were actually doing this now, whether they were doing it to him specifically. I don't know, but it sounds like he's, he's, he's certainly , uh , uh , of the belief that they are. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit because that's what our government does. It's very corrupt in certain areas. Now, Edward Snowden also talked about this , uh, this little oversight , uh , or lacking oversight organization called the five eyes intelligence Alliance. Ooh, that sounds ominous. Doesn't it? Well, it is here is the fact that it's a real thing. You can see, this is coming over from the national counter-intelligence and security agency office of the director of national intelligence. There's this thing called the five eyes organization. Here's a brief overview in 1946, the five eyes organization, us and UK, right, right. In the aftermath of world war II agreed to an unrestricted exchange of intelligence on communications of foreign nations, us and UK. We're going to, we're going to change everything about international foreign conversations. The U S is going be the lead lead agency through the NSA. We're going to coordinate with the government communications headquarters over from the UK, the GCHQ Canada is going to have the CSE , the communication security establishment. So they get added into it. Right? So now we have the five eyes we've got Canada, the UK, us Australia, they sign in and New Zealand now also signs in. So they've got the GCSB Australia has the ASD Canada joins the Alliance in 1948 Australia and New Zealand by 1956. So you have these five eyes, the five alliances, or the five eyes that are sharing information in this global Alliance. And they actually have an oversight committee. So they were created in the spirit of this . This was created in the original spirit, by all of these people, right? Officer of intelligence from Canada, New Zealand. Blah-blah-blah what do they do? Well, they exchanged views on subjects of mutual interests , whatever that is. So like, I guess, private citizen information who knows they compare best practices in review and oversight. They explore areas where cooperation and the sharing of results is permitted and where appropriate. Okay. They encourage transparency to the largest extent possible of course, to enhance public trust. They maintain contact with political offices and they review committees in a non five eyes countries. Okay. So they've got DACA , they got a charter, they've got this whole thing. So it's the U S gobbling up a bunch of data, sharing it with everybody else. They're doing the same things, sharing it back with the United States. Now what's happening here is we can see from five eyes, of course, this was originally sort of, you know , formulated back in 1943. And they're saying that this was this emanated from informal secret meetings during world war II, between British and us Codebreakers . So Churchill was involved in this. They have sort of wanted to get together to push back against the Soviet sphere of influence so that it didn't become a hot war. Right? And so they were saying that English democracies needed to work together. And so you can see sort of how this is broken out, right? Us UK, New Zealand, we have Australia and the U S and Canada, right? So that's all five there as the cold war deepened, the intelligence sharing arrangement, it became formalized. This was under the echelon surveillance system in the 1960s, which we learned a lot more about via Snowden. This was initially developed by the five eyes to monitor communications of the former Soviet union and the Eastern block. But it's now used to monitor communications worldwide, everything. So that same choke point, that same pinch point that might go into Google. Well, there's, there's even a layer that's deeper than that, right? It's sort of the, the infrastructure, the backbone of the internet, right. You can get on the internet and not go to Google. So how do they capture that data? I mean, what if, what if they want to spy on you and you don't use Gmail while they want to see what you're doing anywhere on the internet anywhere. So they need to , to actually Jack in, at a lower base level, which is the very backbone of the internet in the first place. And so, you know, now it's sort of, I would, this is all highly classified, confidential stuff, but I would guess that every single communication that's digitized anywhere in the world is being gobbled up by the five eyes or one of these organizations in the late 1990s, the echelon was disclosed to the public, triggering a debate elsewhere around the world. They further expanded their surveillance capabilities during the war on terror. Oh yeah. With much emphasis placed on monitoring the web, right? Former NSA contractor Snowden described the five eyes as a supra national intelligence organization that does not answer to the known laws of its own countries. Documents leaked by Snowden . In 2013, revealed that five, I had been spying on one another citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent their restrictive domestic regulations on surveillance of citizens. Oh, isn't that convenient? Right. So we've been seeing a lot more of this. The government just sort of outsourcing their illegalities. Okay. Right. We don't, we can't limit free speech in this country, but we can, Facebook can certainly Twitter can no problem at all. All of them can th th th the U S government can't , but we , we sort of know that that's all sort of, you know , one big, massive conglomerates and they all serve each other's interests at this point. So they don't actually have to go and assault free speech because Facebook will just do it for them. Twitter will do it for them. No problem at all. Same thing here, why they can't go and actually gobble up your data, put, put the, put the actions on that one, revealed it all to us. We're all very angry about it. And so now , uh, well, if we don't look at it, the U S doesn't look at it, but the Australians look at it. Well, the laws in the United States, they say that the U S can't look at it, but it doesn't say anything about the Australian . So maybe they can look at it and they can tell us something about what's in there. And then we can go independently corroborate that. So we can go and criminalize that person without actually observe . I'm sorry, by observing an independently corroborated crime that we got through corrupted information, but nobody can connect us to that corrupted information , uh , because we're through this, this, the pseudo supernational secret intelligence Alliance. So it's pretty powerful. You can really use it to do whatever you want to do. You can just go and just sort of , um, we'll say I hate rabbi . I think, you know, we're going to investigate you for this crime. Well, how do you know about it? Why don't, you know, they can just come up with anything. And the actual truth will be shielded behind these multi-layer confidential, pseudo surveillance systems that just capture everything that's happening. We were at a , uh , we had a company team building event, and we had to do the scavenger hunt where , uh, we have new people who joined the firm and we want them to go and sort of, you know, learn a little bit more about people. And so we all will answer, ask, or put like five facts about us or five , uh , five things that might be interesting. And then, you know, the, the new, the new team members we'll go around and they'll say, Hey, is this your , you know , did you break your foot in the fifth grade? No, I didn't. No, I did not do that. Uh, you know, do you , uh, can you do the split? One of them, somebody came up and asked me , uh, can you do the splits? They asked me that I , no , I can't. Right . But somebody got me good. They came up and they go, Hey, this one here says the government records, everything you do is this you? I said, yeah, that's me. You got it. Totally walked right up outta , you know who you are, came up. And he said, oh , soup. Yeah . That's what you got . Yeah . I figured that was you. So he knows the office knows, but in spite of the controversy, over the five eyes relations over its methods, the five eyes relationship remains one of the most comprehensive, known espionage alliances in history. And so this thing is still going on, right? It's still working. It's still happening right now. We still have this five I's relationship taking place. And it is , uh , it is very, very curious. I'm curious to see how , uh , this, this continues to work. So if you hear a dog barking in the background, I apologize , uh, that we have some activity going on in the front. Anyways. Let's take a Jeremy Matrine is in the house, says the NSA was just warning him. That they should start encrypting their communications. Yeah, no kidding. Yes . Yes. But at the same time, it's like, do they have a deeper rooted, you know, do they have some sort of way to , to see what those conversations are? They rooted deeper? I don't know. I don't know how that works. Anyways. Let's go. Let's continue on. We've got ZZ . The boxing cat says the Patriot act is the most unpatriotic act on the books. That's why they named it that way so that they could try to fool you , right? Oh, you're you don't want to , you don't want to just give up all your data and all your liberties and all your freedoms while you're not patriotic, you must be a communist and everybody goes, no, no. I love America. Patriot act right through. No problem. We got B Braves as serious question. What about confidential attorney, client communications. They are grabbing. So it's a great question, right? It would be , uh , in my opinion, absolutely illegal. Right? So they, they get around all of these rules by sort of escaping some of the, the technical procedural maneuverings, right? Either it's not a government actor, right? This is a third party provider. They're not actually reading the data. They're just reading the metadata. And so the courts are sort of they'll, they'll finagle ways where they're allowed to continue to do this stuff. And it just, it continues to move on without any oversight, because the government wants this power. They'll bring in these people. They'll put them in front of congressional committees and investigate all this stuff. And nothing happens because it's the government investigating itself. And finding out that we like this power, we like not really having to worry about any oversight on any of this stuff. And so they're going to continue it forward. Certainly we have random Graham said , what's up random. Graham says, I don't think Tucker would be that reckless to come out with this claim. If he didn't cross reference it with the source, or in this case, a whistleblower says this isn't surprising, but a target to target a journalist or reporter or TV host with such a big profile is a reminder that no one is safe. Yeah, that's a good point. I was joking about this on Twitter. I was saying, Tucker, he's got what? The NSA spying on him. I said, we had five undercover FBI agents or zoom meeting this last week. And somebody on Twitter said , uh , are you serious? It wasn't serious. But I , but I was joking. There was somebody with his camera off. And I said, that must be an FBI agent there. So I was joking about that. It's not a funny joke, but I thought it was funny, but the point is, yeah, it is. It's a scary thing. Right? So I just sort of act like they are always monitoring everything. Cause I think that truly they are, even if they say that they're not, how do we know that? Right. Even if, you know, honestly , Joe Biden comes out and says, no , uh, we're not doing anything like this. Do you believe that for a second? And if our own us intelligence agencies are not, how do we know that the UK isn't? How do we know that New Zealand isn't just so that they can sort of funnel this information out to them and then we can get access to it on the backend by, by outsourcing the data to a different country that we trust. Same thing that they're doing with Facebook. All right. Last question says as easy, the boxing cat says , I doubt Fox news. His attorney would allow Tucker's claims on air. If they weren't valid. Yeah. Look, it's a good point. And I think that , uh, there , there probably is something, something that is worth at least investigating there. You know, the first thing you want to certainly check is that it's not your intern or your, you know , assistant or somebody who sent that out. I'm sure they did all of that. And I think you're exactly right. That they probably have some corroborating evidence somewhere. Be very curious to see what that looks like. This is a big problem. And I don't think that this is without a precedence . We we've seen this. I just went through a history of this. They were doing this for millions of Americans. Do we think that they just gave all of that up? They said, oh, Edward Snowden came out. And he , he, he, he sort of unveiled the , uh, the , the monster here and that we're just going to give up all this unbridled power and control, no stinking way. They just maneuver the rules a little bit. So they don't get caught again. And if they do, it's perfectly legal and they actually talk about it. The five eyes Alliance is right there on the director of national intelligence website. So, all right, my friends, I got to wrap it up quickly here because we're out of time. I want to welcome a couple people over to locals. We got MN . Coconut is in the house welcome. And M and coconut. Good to see you. We've got random Graham in the house. Uh , I think random Graham . I think we connected on a , the zoom meetup . Yeah, that's right. We think we did. Uh , we have does , uh , Daisy CR 1991. What's up Daisy. Welcome to the community. And we have ready. Freddie's in the house. Welcome to you. Ready, Freddy. Glad, glad that you are all here. Very excited to get to know all of you. Thank you to those of you who ask great questions here today. You know who you are up on the screen. All of those questions came over from watching the , which is where you can grab some good stuff over there. Things like a copy of my book, free PDF, which is available to download. You can also download a copy of all the slides that we just went through today. A copy of my impeachment party documents, the existence systems , personal productivity template, along with links and great people throughout the entire community. We want to invite you to go check that out We have our next monthly meetup via zoom, which is going to be taking place on Saturday, July 24th at 7:00 PM. Eastern time register for that. Uh, the , the, the registration link is not up yet, but if you are a member at watching the Watchers,, then you will get it when it is available. And we have fun last time. Camera's on camera's off FBI agents, everything. It was a wild scene. We had a lot of , a lot of fun and it seriously a really meaningful conversation. It was great. So I want to , uh, also before we get out of here, one final reminder to check out some of my other offerings ruler. And if you are a lawyer or a legal professional, we are going to be meeting this week on Thursday for the gorilla , the legal masterminds. So we'll check that. So check that out as well. And then lastly, as always, I am a criminal defense attorney here at Scottsdale in Scottsdale at the RNR law group. And on the show, we talk a lot about, you know, some politics and some things that sometimes can be a little bit lighthearted and we have some fun, but every single day, we've got an entire team of amazing people who are fighting in court boots on the ground every day to help good people facing criminal charges, to truly find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases. And beyond that in their lives. We're very passionate about what we do. We love to help good people. We would love to speak with you or somebody, you know , or love if they are in this situation and need some help, the place where they can go to help with any of these types of charges is down here. Phone number (480) 787-0394. So check that out. And if you have a , a phone, you can take a camera, take a picture of this QR code. It will take you right to our website, free case evaluations. We would love the opportunity to help. And so my friends that is it from me. I want to thank all of you for being here today. And I fully intend to see you back here tomorrow. I expect it. I'll see you then my friend, thank you so much for being here. Before we wrap up a quick reminder , uh , to check out some of the other links in the description below, we've got an RNR law group, Arizona channel, as well as a crypto channel, which I got to get some new stuff out there on that one. But I would invite you to just check out some of the other links below and of course, head on over to watching the because we have live streaming. Now that we're going to be playing around with here very soon, and that's going to be a lot of fun. Okay. So that's enough for me, my friends. Thank you so much for tuning in with us here today. I will see you right back here tomorrow. Same time, same place at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central and 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man, everybody else. Thank you so much for being here. I'll see you right back here on the next one.