Florida Tower Collapse Criminal Probe, NSA Responds to Tucker Carlson, Allison Mack & Bill Cosby

Florida officials consider criminal charges in the Champlain Towers South building collapse as more questions are being asked. Allison Mack is sentenced to prison for her role in the NXIVM cult while Bill Cosby is released in a shocking ruling. Tucker Carlson confirms his claims that the NSA is monitoring his communications and the NSA responds. ​

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

🔵 Florida state attorney Fernandez Rundle releases statement indicating her office is considering a criminal probe.​
🔵 Government audit finds boor building conditions have been found in many other Florida residences in the Miami-Dade area.​
🔵 A pool technician captured photographs of the pool pump area in the Miami condo building that showed serious problems.​
🔵 Allison Mack, one of the leaders behind the NXIVM cult, was sentenced today in Court for her role in the organization.​
🔵 The former “Smallville” actress faces years in prison, and we review the final sentence handed down in Court.​
🔵 Bill Cosby is free and set to be released from prison early after a shocking ruling.​
🔵 Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses Cosby’s case, finding that he was denied a fair trial – we review what happened.​
🔵 Tucker Carlson doubles down on the claims that the NSA is monitoring and spying on his emails.​
🔵 On Tucker’s show, he details a phone call and a FOIA request sent by his team to the National Security Agency.​
🔵 The press gaggle asked Jenn Psaki about the Biden Administration’s knowledge of the spying and she deferred to the intelligence community.​
🔵 The National Security Agency, via Twitter, released a written response denying Tucker’s allegations and we review.​
🔵 Your questions after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

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

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

Channel List:​

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

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

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

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

Connect with us:​

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #Miami #TowerCollapse #CriminalProbe #TuckerCarlson #AllisonMack #BillCosby #PoolBoy #NSA #DomesticSpying #CivilLiberties

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

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. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that 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 in with us today because we've got a lot to get to a lot of news going on today. We're going to start off by talking about what's going on over in Florida about this tower that collapsed. Now, obviously this has been in the news for some time and we have not talked about it yet on this channel, largely because what they've been doing is sort of dealing with the crisis, dealing with the chaos and the aftermath. But now that we're getting a little bit more far further removed from the actual incident, we're starting to look at what the law has to say about this. And in fact, the state attorney from Florida came out and said that they are going to be opening up some different types of probes. One of which may be a criminal pro because you have to sort of ask yourself, how does something like this happen? Right? We've got government regulations all over the place, inspectors and auditors and licenses and read and all this stuff all over the place. And, uh, you know, this building was up for a long time and it fell. So the obvious question is who is responsible for this? Is there going to be any recriminations that are due and warranted? And it looks like now that we're sort of, you know, working our way out, the other end of this horrific tragedy, that maybe there are actual attorneys, city attorneys in Florida who are asking the very same questions. So we're going to get into that. There's a lot there. Then we're going to change gears and talk about what's going on with Tucker Carlson. We ended the show yesterday talking about that. Tucker came out and claimed that the NSA was monitoring his emails and his text messages. And so he was sort of getting laughed at, by many other people in the media yesterday. Then he doubled down on it again. And in fact, the NSA released a statement that we're going to read through here that may have been drafted by an intern or somebody over there. I'm not real sure, but I, it sort of lends credibility to Tucker's claims that they are in fact monitoring him. And that this may actually be something that is open and obvious. We already all know that they're doing this, but now, now it's actually obvious. So we're going to break down. What's going on there. We've got a couple clips, one from Tucker show yesterday, and then another one of Jen Psaki who was on air force one or some airplane somewhere, and a press person asked her about this. Hey, what does the Biden administration say about this? And she's like, well, I got to defer you to the intelligence agency. So we'll see what's going on there. Then we have a couple of high profile cases we've got to talk about here today. I'm talking about bill Cosby is free. What? All right. So that happens at eight. The Supreme court out of Pennsylvania came out and said that Cosby was subject of, of malicious prosecution, of prosecutors who were violating their ethical obligations. So, uh, we're definitely going to talk about that story. And then of course, Alison Mack, the, the former Smallville actress was sentenced today. She's going to be going to prison for her role in the Nexium cults thing that took place there. A lot of, a lot of activities were going on in that little organization. So we're going to see what the federal judge had to say about her sentence. And we've had a lot to get to, as you can tell. So want to invite you to be a part of the show. You can do that by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com a lot of great stuff happening over there. We just had a monthly zoom meetup that we had last weekend. A lot of fun. We've got another one coming up in July. So we've got dates for that when you share links throughout the day. But the real reason to go over there during these live streams is so that you can participate in the show itself. And a quick little, uh, you know, oh, I tried, it didn't work, but live stream is, is apparently available now over at locals. And so I tried to get this show going on there today. You may see that if you're over there, I was sort of in there poking around the chat and I'm looking like I'm going to have a little bit of a technical problem, integrating it with my current recording setup right now I use Streamlabs OBS, which I pour into a restream, which is my multistream software. And that sends it everywhere. But that uses RTMP which of course locals does not have yet. It's still in beta. And so we're going to give them some time to iron out some of these little features, but the good news is other creators over there are using it. They are just using it with a different setup than I have right now. What happens when my computer, when I try to live stream, just so you're aware, I are, I'm already using the camera to broadcast to you right now. So if I want to open it up simultaneously in locals, it says, Hey, your camera's already a new, so you can't use that. So I tried to create an output projector and it didn't pick that up. So I have to maneuver out a Crump. So it's a lot, I've got a lot of technical finagling to do, but we're going to get there. And we want you to be a part of this journey, this technical struggle as we go through it together, over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. So if you're over there watching right now, Ms. Faith actually did post as regular. So the live chat is taking place. All technical hurdles aside it's it's fixed or it's as it was yesterday. So we'll be able to, uh, take your questions there as we go through all of the different segments that I just outlined. So a little bit of a locals update there. Thank you for bearing with us as we all sort of our, our beta in our way through this, but I'm telling you what, I'm excited, excited that locals has live stream coming. So check it out, watching the watchers.locals.com. All right. So let's get into the news of the day. The Florida collapsed the tower that came down that was a horrific tragedy. Many, many lives are now presumed loss. I want to go through this case because we haven't talked much about this on this channel, but now we're getting to the point where we're sort of coming out. The other end of this, we're sort of looking back and saying, how did something like this happen? We've got government officials up the wazoo, every everywhere you turn investigating and inspecting and auditing. And I used to be a swimming pool, a construction person. I started off as a swimming pool, repair, a cleaning guy. Then I turned into repairs and I started actually designing, bidding, permitting them. And then actually being the superintendent back when I was in high school and college, and my father was dragging me around before then, uh, you know, cleaning pools and things like that. So, uh, so I have a lot of experience with permitting and inspections and getting things through the city. And I know what a, what a big kind of mess it is with all this red tape and inspections, every which way you go. And so how does something like this happen, right? Who's responsible for this? Who were these inspectors that just kind of went to this building and said, yeah, it looks good to me. Come on, we'll come back next year. And who was responsible for actually running the building, right? Who are the business owners or the building owners? There's a lot of negligence going on. And the question is, does this sort of cross the line where it becomes just a tragic accident to something that was really criminal people who knew that this thing was, it was not in good shape, but they just kind of, you know, look the other way, because they were making money. It was going to cost millions of dollars to repair this building. Of course they didn't want to come out of pocket. So we're going to be asking ourselves a lot of questions. And I want to go through this with a little bit of a background, because of course we have not talked about it here on this channel quite yet. So an update comes over from the New York times. You can see here, the known death toll of last week of the collapse of the condominium rose by four. So the total death count is now up to 16. Now this is on Wednesday. Authorities said more bodies were recovered from the rebel. Now they are telling us at a news conference at 147 people remain missing nearly a week after the desperate search for survivors began. And you know, I am somebody who likes to keep a lot of hope, right? I want to, I'm very hopeful. They find more people alive, but I think we've also recognized that it is a week later. The entire building has collapsed. I'm not sure that we're going to see many more of those 147 people, unfortunately, and I'm not trying to be, you know, doom and gloom with this here, but it's well, we're gonna look at some pictures here. Shortly chief Alan Kaminski said, it's an extremely, extremely difficult situation. We're looking for signs of life. Even as days pass with little hopeful news, they're going to continue to remain focused. As there's an overwhelming amount of grief said, Ron DeSantis, inclement weather weather has continued to hamper their abilities. Florida's division of emergency management. Kevin Guthrie says we have done this before. We've responded to multiple emergencies in the state at the same time as the search and surf side has dragged on volunteers and rescue teams have, uh, gathered local leaders are also warning of trying to take advantage of this disaster, creating fraudulent online fundraising and stuff like that. People are just the worst. So there will be of course, people who want to, you know, uh, you know, I lost my brother in there and raise some money. Search team said on Tuesday, they had removed than 3 million pounds of debris. Miami Dade officials have declined to release the names of nearly 150 people who remain unaccounted for many of their families gathered in south Florida. So we're going to go through this a little bit. We have a statement from the attorney, the city, the state attorney, uh, her name is Fernandez Rundle. We're going to see, we're gonna hear from her in a minute, but I want to show you sort of what the New York times was showing us today. This is the aftermath of the tower collapse. You can see the size and the scale of this thing is just as massive, right? Those are huge concrete barriers. They're using cranes to take those pillars that are concrete loaded with rebar. Uh, and they're just, you know, clear that 3 million pounds has already been taken away. And they're still just going through this thing. And it actually looks like, yeah, so you get the picture. It's hard to imagine that anybody would, would act would survive that, right? It's it's it is like a building exploded it, the whole thing collapse anyways, horrible tragedy. We're all trying to figure out what happened here so that it does not happen again. And what is really sort of shocking about these cases is it sounds like there were many people who knew this was a problem, but everybody's sort of pointing their fingers around at each other, right? This is the problem with bureaucracy. This is the problem with sort of, uh, relieving people of personal responsibility for managing things. If you can always point to somebody else who's responsible for that. Oh, the government said that was fine. Oh no, there's a safety warning there. Oh no, it was inspected. Oh no. You know, and you just go, I don't have to think about anything because somebody else did the thinking for me. And you know, the question is, did some of that happen here, right? And we're still in the middle of a tragedy. So it's hard to get out here and start, you know, pointing fingers every which way. But we, we are at a moment now where I think it's appropriate to start at least asking those questions, right? What happened here and what we know now from the New York times that there was some hint, there was an indication that this was an ongoing problem, less than three months before the collapse, the president of the condominium association warned in a letter that the damage to the building had gotten significantly worse since it was highlighted in a 2018 inspection. So they knew about it. He says, dear neighbors, many of the questions coming to the office ahead of next week, special meeting to discuss the proposed special assessment of 15 million bucks are not related to the assessment. We've got engineer fees, 20% contingency, financial oversight, all the presentations and meeting men, okay. This is happening three weeks ago before the collapse took place. So he says the purpose of next Meek's next week's meeting is only to discuss the proposed special assessment. It seems like a good moment to give a summary of our progress so that we can focus on this meeting. It's called the state of the building meeting, right? Kind of like state of the union, but state of the here, it says the 40 year building inspection is required by law and engineer. Frank came over, he was hired in 2018 and he was going to do an inspection for the 40 year inspection deadline comes due later this year, he says among multiple things, the estimate included concrete damage observed that would begin to multiply exponentially over the years. Indeed observable damage such as in the garage has gotten significantly worse. When you can see visually the concrete spalling or cracking, that means the rebar holding it together is rusting and deteriorating beneath the surface. Right? And so w w if you're not familiar with construction, I did a lot of this type of work. When you build a swimming pool, it's sort of the same shell that you'll see in a lot of other constructions. It's essentially concrete and steel. It's concrete filled with rebar. So what you'll do is you'll dig the hole. Then you put in the electrical work, you put in the plumbing, then you'll go and you'll actually steal it, right? So you put rebar in there and you make this little grid that sort of, you know, sort of looks, it looks like a cage within the pool. Then you come in and you shotcrete. And so you would actually, you take this sort of hose that shoots concrete out of it like a fire hose. And you have these, these guys typically when I was working, uh, you know, uh, want to be very inclusive here, but it was typically men who would take this hose and they would sort of roll it over their shoulder and it would shoot concrete out at extremely high PSI. So they would just blast it into the wall called shotcrete. And it's shooting shotcrete into the one you built. These walls are, you basically shoot the entire shell of the wall. Now, oftentimes what would happen is the concrete would be a little bit, uh, thin when it would be covering the rebar or what you would have would be a sort of problems with the rebar where it would be kind of leaking through the concrete. And now what we're talking about, a swimming pool, you're not worried about stuff falling down on your head, but those were still big problems. We would actually have to drain pools if this would happen, drain pools and have somebody come in, cut out with a, with a saw, cut out that portion of the pool and then re you know, steal and pin rebar it, and then re concrete it back up in a pool just to stop the pool from having structural problems. So now you can imagine something similar happening, right? Bigger scale. We're talking about, you know, huge piece of steel and concrete that are creating these massive pillars and these massive walls. And then they're actually seeing the rebar come through the concrete and you're, and you're. And if you're, if you've ever worked in construction and you know what I'm talking about, you're going, oh my goodness. And wait until you see these pictures, it's actually insane. Please note the original scope of the work in 2018 report has expanded other projects. Okay? They're looking at$9.1 million cited in the report. A committee has been formed to evaluate supervising engineers to oversee this. We've got a manager with 40 years of experience, also getting involved in starting the work. So they say the above work was accomplished over two year periods, several different boards. Let's see what else. We have more Beto carried out a much more detailed survey of the property. He said, here's what we should do in stages. So on initial exploration of the concrete and the driveway soffit, this was a bid out done last year. Then they got to repair the roof. So they're to, you know, the concrete in the driveway. They got OSHA, anchor replacements, AC exhaust fans, all, you know, scaffolding window washers we'll have about this. Uh, moisture survey was also done to evaluate the roof last year, showing the need for extensive repairs, right? Moisture. The roof is, is it's on the beach. There's a lot of moisture there. It's it's Florida. Have you ever been to Florida? It is extremely humid. There's, it's almost like walking through the ocean on a daily basis. So you can imagine that there's going to be a lot of water damage and a lot of moisture damage that will need to be addressed on a regular basis. And they've identified that the main project involving concrete and waterproofing is by far the largest phase. So they say they've identified a lender to accomplish this multi-year project, got to get some funding. We've now arrived at the special assessment to pay for this$15.5 million is what is needed in order to repair this building. So the president of the board of directors, Jean wold, Nikki says, look for those who wanted a bender, a better understanding of the projects. I hope this help helps. I acknowledge we're talking about a huge project and a very large assessment. Your board of directors were working very hard to bring this forward. We're going to do everything we can. There are many moving parts, a lot to discuss. I've attached copies. We've got, you know, different things we have to discuss look forward to seeing you all next week. So the question, you know, what happened with that? Sure. There's going to be some meeting minute entries that may have been, you know, oh no, we don't need any 15 million a week. We can do that next year. Right now, 160 people or so are dead. So, you know, this is where now people start asking themselves, was there a malfeasance? Was there negligence that rises to the point of criminality? You know, was this people, did they just made a mistake? Was this just an accident? Or were these people who go$15 billion? I don't want to pay for that garbage, are you nuts? So we're not going to do that. Right. We're going to sort of, you know, patch that up here. Well, go down to home Depot and get some, you know, get some concrete, you just patch that wall up, cover that rebar up. Nobody will tell the difference, right. Is there any of that type of stuff going on now? The state attorney Fernandez, Rundle, she is going to be taking a deeper dive, a deeper look into this. So she came out, she released the statement here, uh, June 29th, a statement from the Miami Dade state attorney, Katherine Fernandez, Rundle. Okay. And so I want to sort of flesh this out a little bit here. You know, when we talk about different governmental attorneys, there's so many different names that you hear about. And, and oftentimes on this show, we talk about prosecutors, right? These people who are in charge of bringing criminal offenses against one particular person. And in running that throughout the court system, they only work on criminal cases. They only do criminal law. So those are typically what we call prosecutors. Sometimes you'll refer to them as county attorneys. Sometimes you'll refer to them as district attorneys or us attorneys. If you're talking about federal cases, we also have though, what are called state attorneys or city attorneys that are sort of a separate entity from the prosecuting attorney. And typically these people are sort of the government's lawyer, right? So they'll, you know, if a prosecutor says, Hey, you know, I've got this criminal lawyer like me, somebody who's given me a real difficult time, there may be a kind of a little pain in my rear end over here. And there may be at making allegations that I was ethically improper. Right. I was doing something inappropriate or I was, uh, maybe on the margin of something like that. And so I'm a little bit concerned about this. So maybe I, as a city prosecutor, I need to go to the city attorney and get some legal advice on how to deal with this stuff. So it's somebody who's sort of representing the city or the state for all sorts of legal claims that might come through. And so, yeah, I'm not, I'm not a practicing attorney in Florida, don't know Miami Dade, uh, with any specificity. But this is what it sort of is, is feeling like to me, right? She's a state attorney, not necessarily a prosecutor. And so what she put out here as a statement saying, few words can describe the shock and the horror of this morning that the tragic event occurred. I deployed senior prosecutors to the disaster site to collaborate with the engineers and other investigators to assist as needed. Okay. She also says I sent victim specialists to the site in order to be available around the clock, help a family and friends. Since that time I visited the scene multiple times, each time I've gone, I'm overwhelmed by the heroics of everybody who is responding. I know personally from speaking with the engineers, that they're working hard, they're working with the NIS T national Institute of standards and technology figure out exactly how and why the building collapsed will take a while time. She says, right? So a lot of information, a lot of investigations going to be taking place here. It is painstaking and complicated work. I will not do anything to jeopardize their investigative findings, which will hopefully prevent future tragedies like this from happening. So you can see here, we've got senior prosecutors and we also have victim specialists. So those of course are sort of two sides of, uh, of criminal law. Prosecutors are people who typically prosecute crimes. As I just explained, we also have victim specialists. Now, typically we see these people, let's say, uh, we call them victims advocates here in Arizona. But you know, if there's a domestic violence case, let's say for example, and let's say the, the, the male it's a male female situation. The male of course is 99 times out of a hundred, the one who's arrested. So they get taken into custody and they're now going to be prosecuted. So the person with whom they were in the altercation, that individual is going to be labeled the victim, regardless of what the facts say. That's just how it typically works. That person, one person gets labeled the defendant. The other is the victim, even though we have the presumption of innocence in this country, and that person has not been convicted or taken a plea deal or anything quite like that, yet we just use those labels because that's what we do now. So that is also something that exists in criminal law. And it sounds like the city attorney was sort of sending some of those people that would be assigned a victim specialist, somebody who works with the victims of a crime to go out there and be available. Okay. And then not necessarily that this is their particular line of work, but this attorney is just sort of calling everybody go out and help. Right. So I can certainly appreciate that because it's sort of all hands on deck. When, when stuff like this happens, now she continues on. She says, however, this is a matter of extreme public importance. And as the state attorney elected to keep this community safe, I will not wait. My office has a long tradition of presenting more than just criminal cases to the grand jury. Our grand juries have served a cross section of the community to talk about all sorts of issues like health and public safety. So for example, after hurricane Andrew, a grand jury issued a report that helped lead to better building codes. Also a grand jury made recommendations about the environmental integrity of the Biscayne bay, the financial survival of Jackson Memorial hospital, safety of public housing community, etc. To that end, I plan to request our grand jury to look at what steps we can take to stay safeguard our residents without jeopardizing any scientific public safety or potential criminal investigations. Okay. So see that word right there, criminal investigation. So first priority safeguarding, the residents certainly don't want to jeopardize anything else, but then turning their eye over to criminal investigations and prosecutors were there right. Sent, sent them right out there. So they're going to be looking around now, are those Peter is up to speed on charging, correct. When, when situations like this happened, probably not. Cause they don't happen all that often, but I think the underlying point and, you know, hats off to this attorney for just like, we're going to go help. Right? Everybody goes, goes and helps. Whatever we need. Go help. I, I certainly appreciate, uh, anybody trying to just be helpful, always appreciate that. So she finishes off says, as your attorney, I assure you, my attorneys and staff were dedicated to ensuring that those who were lost will never be forgotten. So we'll see where that goes. You know? Um, I, I really, I really have a big issue when, you know, I have a lot of issues with the government in general, as you may know, but one of the things that they're supposed to do, one of the things that they tell us about all the time is that, well, what regulations, you know, we need regulations and what happens if you just, you know, you, you wacky libertarians out there. What happens if we don't have regulations, all these buildings will just start falling down, right? You'll have all these people who just need to build shoddy work and all of that stuff. And then stuff like this happens. And you say, well, we have a ton of regulations. How did this possibly happen? It's because of that deferment of responsibility, everybody just points the finger at somebody else down the line. Then we have buildings and it's not just one building folks, right? This is like the whole stinking shoreline over there. Over from the epoch times, it says a government audit. Now this was written by Jack Phillips, a government audit finds 24, Miami Dade buildings have unsafe structural violations after the condo collapses. So here's one picture and you know, now everybody's going, uh, sweetie, should we check our building? You know, there was, there was a there's water down in that basement and what's going, should we go look? And the answer of course is yes. Right. Everybody should look. You sort of have an obligation to make sure that, uh, you're, you're responsible for your own life. And probably a good idea to make sure that everything's okay, at least for the foreseeable future, because we know how much these building codes, uh, mean really. So 24 Miami Dade apartment complex is including two owned by the county were found to have unsafe structural violations. Two dozen buildings appeared on a list released late Monday, that was reported by the Miami Dade government. According to the list, two buildings owned by the county, uh, let's see, were constructed around the time of 1970. It's an 86 unit public housing complex. The audit found that little river Plaza. It was cited in 2015 needed lighting improvements. Other details were not provided, but they've commented or epic times has commented Miami-Dade for more information. So let's see what the findings say. Local government claimed that the building codes have cropped up due to a lack of federal funding. She's loved that. Ugh. Oh my gosh. These people are just local government. We need more money. Yeah, we need more money. There you go. Michael Lou, the housing director for the county told the newspaper that the area is about$10 million short forcing his agency to make difficult choices based on the severity and threats of health and safety more money. Okay. The findings were revealed after Miami Dade county mayor Daniel, Daniella Levine ordered an audit of the building. 11 people are now dead. They say the, the building was flagged in 2018 for having major structural damage. The county requires buildings to undergo recertification every 10 years starting, uh, built in 1981 in a statement over the weekend, the government announced that they're going to conduct an audit of residential properties that are five stories or higher 40 years or older that have not completed the process. So they're going to go audit everybody and let you know, Monday night officials announced the death toll now stands at 11, 1 50 remain unaccounted for. So for any buildings located within municipalities, the mayor urges cities to swiftly conduct their own similar audits. The county will work closely with municipalities and provide any technical assistance, necessary. Family members of those inside the buildings have been coping. And yeah, we, our prayers are with them because, oh my goodness, you just, you just your family, the building just collapses. What do you mean? The building collapse? It just felt they were all inside. Yeah, they were all inside. Can't even imagine that. All right. So let's take a look now at what was going on inside the building. This is a very interesting couple of photographs. We've got so a pool contractor, as I mentioned at the start of this segment, I used to be a pool contractor. Okay. Before law school, this is what I did. And I, uh, I built a lot of swimming pools. I got a lot of familiarity with this, and I know you're here for legal analysis, but indulge me my old pool boy days, pool contractor, photograph damage 36 hours before the Florida condo fell troubling, photographs were taken. The contractor says that there was standing water all over the parking garage and the commercial pool contractor snapped startling images. The contractor does not want to be named, obviously visited the building last week to prepare a bid for a cosmetic work on the pool, right. To provide a cost of new equipment as part of a multimillion restoration. So, uh, he said he had gone into quote some scary places during his decades of work, but was particularly struck by the lack of maintenance in the basement and the amount of water that was there. It was so unusual. He mentioned it to a building worker named Jose, according to the Herald. And so what Jose do well with that information and what's Jose expected to do, and he sends it to the building owner and he says, that's fine. It's been fine for 40 years. Stop calling me Jose. Okay, just look it it's cosmetic. I hired you to just patch it up. Don't tell me about the problems. Just fix it. Okay. And now people are dead as a result of that. And so if we had an actual functioning government, you'd think that there would be some people responsible for this. Like some people that are like, this is their job to make sure this stuff doesn't happen because that's why we here. We need the government all the time. Regulations regular. Well, well you don't, you know, you don't want to just drive a car that the government doesn't regulate well, that we need warning labels on everything. And we got to bubble wrap ourselves and everything. And then when this stuff happens, everybody points their finger at all the different agencies. And we'll see if anything comes of it. I doubt it. We'll see them now in, uh, the rest of this article, we're going to take a deep dive into these images here in a minute. He says, he thought it was waterproofing issues. I thought to myself, that's not normal. He said, Jose told him they pumped the pool equipment rooms. So often that the pump motors had to be replaced every two years. And I can show you this. I'm going to show you this in the actual image that we're going to take a look at. The man never mentioned any structural damage. The contractor told Harold that the deepest puddle was near the parking spot, 78 and an area right under the pool where Frank Morabito in a Dami 2008, private study flag, multiple major structural damage caused by a leaky pool above the parking garage. Right? And this goes back full circle. When I was telling you about how pools get built and you have that rebar concrete problem, you might have a leak or you might have back pressure coming in the other direction that that has a lot of negative consequences for a pool. So the pool is leaking down into the, into the, the, the basement into the parking structure been going on for a long time. The old building collapses, okay. Pool contractor said he didn't photograph the standing water in that section because he was in the building to check the pool and what was under it. Meanwhile, contractor saw another problem in the pool equipment room on the south side, exposed corroding rebar above the concrete up here. We're going to take a look at this up here in a minute. He says he took some photographs, sent them to a supervisor along with a note expressing concern that the job might become more complicated and require the removal of pool pipe pipes to allow axes access to concrete restoration experts. Two days later, building partially collapsed. I wonder if this was going on in other parts of the building and caused this collapse, they said, so let's take a look at these photos here. Let's see what else is in here. All right. So w we have a couple of photos, rescue personnel work at the scene of the partially collapsed chaplain towers here. 150 people are still unaccounted for we've. We see here Maxwell represents the tower condo association. He declined to comment whether he was aware of the issues, right? So these people are all lawyering up. Certainly don't, don't say a thing, because if they, if they, if they knew about this, right, they're going to be just, oh yeah, no, we, we were going to fix it and everything. We were working on it that would open them up to liability. So I'm sure they've all lawyered up. Now, Mohamed us, assigning an engineer and concrete experts. As you can see, extensive corrosion, corrosion of the rebars that is very serious. He invented the quake wrap technology to reinforce old concrete columns said the images showed the worst damages. He had seen documented in the building. So far equipment room runs along the south tower. He says if the, if the conditions of the beam and the pool guys. Okay. Yeah. Very, very concerning. Obviously he says very severe a knee. Paul Rodriguez told the network, he received his call, a call from his grandmother the night before the collapse. She complained of creaking noises from the building. Ah, grandmother calls you. Hey, grandson. My building's creaking right now. Oh, it's okay. That's okay. Grandma's it's probably just the wind. It's, you know, it's just nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep. I'll call you in the morning. Check on you. Okay. Building collapses. This just confirms that maintenance was not done over the many years, said Pablo Rodriguez. Right? And if that's the case, that's that's borderline. Yeah. Criminal, if not outright criminal, depending on the context, the board collects over a million dollars in maintenance fees from the unit owners every single year, where was the money going? But it was going, it was not going to maintenance. Right? So that would be certainly criminal, right? If you're sort of taking money and not, oh my gosh, you see these pictures. All right. So let's go to the photographs. This one we saw. So the building was essentially here, right? It's not here anymore. And this is inside side, the, the pool building. And so want to show, oh, you a couple quick things. As we sink into these photographs, his photographs are, they cause me like low grade anxiety, just looking at them. Okay. I've done a lot of swimming pool equipment. I've worked in a lot of commercial buildings. We've built, I've built commercial swimming pools when I was in college. And we would typically have rooms that look like this that are all concrete, right? Not, not anything particularly visually appealing, but what you see here is very, very interesting. So a couple of things I want to just point out, first of all, you can obviously tell this is all underground, right? So we've got all of these different pipes running from, from the floor to ceiling. I'm not seeing anything that looked like check valves anywhere. So there may be some check valves further down the line, but what the check valves do, maybe, maybe that is one. I can't see it there, but you know, what they do is they stop the water from working its way back down. If you pump water up up, you've got to stop it from coming back down. So you'd have some valves that would prevent that from happening, which may have, because they, I don't see them anywhere that may have caused the standing water to be down there very regularly. Right? So you pump the water up the way a check valve works. You pump the pump, the water up, and the valve will open. And if the water tries to come back down, the valve will close so that the water can't come back down. Now, if you have a situation, maybe the pumps are running full time. I don't know what they're doing, but you can also that there has been what we call some surgery going on major surgery happening here. So if you notice between all these different pipes, like over here on this side of this image, you'll see all these different couplings here. So this is one piece of pipe that's connected between two oh, this looks, this looks like a check valve right here. So this is a check valve. So that's happening. And it looks like somebody installed that. And so what you see all these different splices, all these different couplings here, coupling here, coupling here, coupling here. I've got coupling here. We've got another coupling over here. I've got many, many couplings. You've got just gallons of glue that are just being dumped into these different joints. And you obviously have people that really are just not that great plumbers that are just sort of reconnecting everything. And so when I'm talking about couplings, it's sort of like Legos. You know, you need something to kind of connect two pieces together to make the magic dinosaur or whatever. And what they're doing here is they're sort of cutting the pipe, removing old equipment, and then splicing it back together again. And as that, as Jose told us, they were replacing the pumps every two years. And you can see that down here, right? His, his actual he's, he's confirming that for us because you can see down here that this we've got two different. So this is a pool pump and motor on this side, we can see this white pump housing part of the, of the actual device that this is where the water comes in. It's got the basket and this captures all the debris. This is the filter pump. It's taking the water and shoving it down into this pool pump over here. But you'll notice the end is black, right? The front end is white. The back end is black because this is the motor. This is the electrical component that actually pumps the water through it. So they've replaced this probably many, many times. They're not replacing the pump, the pump itself. They are replacing the motor because the motor keeps giving out. The rest of this just looks absolutely horrendous. You know, I can't imagine that any of this is to code at all. You see all of these different electrical boxes here, all these different sort of actuators and different things that are all just sort of, you know, strapped onto the wall with wires, every which way, not sure that that would ever pass code in Arizona, all sorts of major problems just with the pool plumbing. And the, the reason why the plumbing is problematic is because if there's water, that's going to trickle back down into the, the, you know, the basement. That's going to bleed through the rebar, as you can see up here. So this is actually rebar. That is just bleeding its way through the concrete right here. And you can see these massive gaps, these massive cracks up here. So, I mean, I've been in a lot of bad pool rooms and I've built a lot of pools, low grade anxiety, just looking at that and walking in there you'd go. I don't know that I'd want to be in there. That building, you can see right here, you can actually see the building sort of just like bursting apart at the seams. I mean, it's like actually like bursting, like coming out that's, rebarb working its way out of the concrete. It's, it's insane that this was allowed to carry on like this. And you've got a bunch of people pointing their fingers, no maintenance and directors and all this stuff. The question becomes, did something cross the line? Is this an accident? Is this regular negligence? Or is this something that is criminal? That, that warrants a much deeper investigation. We're certainly going to find out Biden's going to visit down there on Thursday. So he's going to go down there tomorrow. I'm going to leave the white house and a C F we're going to see if he visits the site, but he's got no plans to go down there. Told the reporters of his plans to visits as hopefully as early as Thursday, press secretary, Jen Sakhi told reporters on Tuesday that Biden wants to thank first responders. He spoke to Ronda Santas and he approved emergency declarations in Florida. Saki also told Biden that did not have any plans to visit the building. We don't know. It says we don't want to draw resources that are needed in the ongoing search and rescue operations will remain in close contact with officials on the ground. I mean, I know that, you know, presidents typically don't like to go into disaster zones, right? George Bush didn't go land in Katrina. Right? He was flew over. It looked out the window when everybody was really mad about that for some time. Uh, but he didn't want to go down there because it was, it was madness, right? It was attic. And it, when the president rolls into town, you bring a lot, you bring the whole entourage air force one, everything. And so it turns into this sort of a big, uh, it's a big logistical nightmare, which is why presidents typically don't go those places. So, you know, by not going there, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Now, the other reason is because typically people like when presidents show up, they want to come in, you know, be there and support them. I'm not sure that Joe Biden draws a crowd. We saw that during the campaign, but political wraps up says on Tuesday, Saki emphasized the previous day's point that the administration will not disrupt local operations in visiting the site. The visit is of course, being done closely with officials on the ground to ensure that does not draw any critical local resources away. As of Monday, 11 people confirmed dead hundred and 50 are still unaccounted for. We've got a lot of people who are of course working on that over there, but it is

Speaker 2: 37:18

Going to be a long, long

Speaker 1: 37:20

Road. No doubt about it. All right. So we're going to take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. I am not seeing them in my slides. So I am going to hop on over to the chat and see if there's anything going on in there. So, uh, we've got a couple comments. I'm just gonna read through them briefly. We've got a speech unleashed in the house, as I think we will find out what happened and who is accountable to Santas. We'll need to use this as a chance to show how effective he is with handling a disaster, especially if he plans on running for the president in the future. So that is from speech unleased. Yeah. I think that the Santas is, uh, is doing something that is, uh, very aggressive, right? We're seeing him every single day. He's just constantly coming up with new new activities. And it's quite impressive. Now. I, I am hopeful, honestly. I, you know, I think that when, when, when the government sets the standard, when they set the floor, when they say, listen, you know, one of the things that we're going to do is make sure that we've got regulations, make sure that we, we are setting a baseline when they don't do that. There should be some pretty serious repercussions for that, right? Because we're relying on them. It's like when you would trust, I make the same point with the police all the time. When we, the police to exercise a higher standard of care, they have to abide by that, right? When they drop below that standard, there are pretty serious problems. Why? Because we give them extra power. Remember what Spiderman said with special powers come special responsibilities or something like that. We give the police a monopoly on the use of force. We have to follow their commands and all of this stuff. So we expect them to act with us little bit more obligation with a little bit more duty to provide a higher standard of care. Same with these government officials, right? If we're all going to just outsource our personal responsibility for our lives, to the federal government, to the local governments, and just expect them to make sure that everything operates perfectly for us then, and they fail it, that there should be really big consequences for them. Anytime the government fails at their job, all they do is they just point fingers every which way, right? Like exactly what's hap or what they do is they just blame you America. They blame Americans for it. Uh, not funding enough, not being patriotic enough, liking Trump too much, whatever, whatever it is, they just sort of, you know, throw it back your direction. So the Santas is sort of flipping, flipping the script on that a little bit. And so we've got some slides now let's see what's going on over here. Want to know, says the big problem is the condo owners vote down the improvements for money reasons. What happens if the condo owners can't afford to pay for upgrades always comes down to money. Well then I guess, I guess that happens. I mean, I don't know. I don't know what else, uh, what to say about, I think that, I think that there's, there's, there's probably a disconnect between, you know, responsibility. Everybody's saying that it's good enough. Why is it good enough? Well, because the government said so, and, and we just sort of, you know, believe in the regulations and buildings don't fall down. This is the United States. And so now a building falls down, we have, uh, who's up next. Let's see, we've got over here. We've got Jupa in the house, says buildings don't come down like that. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but doesn't seem right. Yeah, it does. So I, I understand that perspective. I sort of kind of thought that instinctually, so I like conspiracy theories. Okay. I am a criminal defense attorney. A lot of what I do is, is conspiracy theory, generally speaking, right. I'm always asking those kinds. So when, when, when I use it, I don't even like the word conspiracy theorist, right? It's always sort of about exploring alternative explanations and oftentimes they're accurate, right? Oftentimes it's not just what we see on the news. There are other explanations for this because when this stuff happens, of course everybody's covering their tails and nobody wants to do any deep dive and figure out who's actually responsible for this. Especially if it's the government, because we don't want anybody to lose faith in the government. So, you know, I, I did initially have some questions when the building came down, it was very curious that it was right in the middle of infrastructure conversation right there, Biden, and the Republicans are talking about infrastructure. Meanwhile, a building falls down, you're going, wow, that's a pretty, pretty nice coincidence there. Isn't it here you are talking about the crumbling infrastructure of America. Meanwhile, in Miami, you got buildings falling down. So, uh, yeah, it sort of makes you go, huh? That's weird. But at the same time, when I see pictures of what the pool boy was showing us, you go, oh, well, that's obvious why the building fell down and it just incompetence, but it could also be something that's layered on some criminality, some sort of gross negligence, and somebody should be responsible for that. And if the government, if, if it's their obligation to go and uphold this, you know, they're, they're accepting this responsibility. We expect them to do this. And if they're not doing a good job at that, well, they've got to be held responsible for it as do the building owners and the, you know, the investors or the people who are responsible for this stuff. They're there, there needs to be some action on this stuff. All right. Sharon says, this is the problem with bureaucratic government agencies, buck passing, no accountability. Wasn't there. Any inspections or oversight for safety? It's just incredible that something like this could happen. Let's bring on a humongous class action lawsuit. Yeah. Good point there, Sharon, we've got, wants to know, says attorneys are swarming on it. Money and criminal. I would say nothing. Call my attorney, sorry. That's the right way to handle situations nowadays. Too many attorneys involved money draws, draws themselves out. Yeah. That's what to know. And uh, yeah, you're gonna imagine lots of lawyers, lots of clacks at class actions going on all over the place LT 13 says, do you think at all, it was an explosion that was just crazy for a structural failure. So I, you know, I don't know, I couldn't really opine on it. I'm not an engineer by any stretch of the imagination. I have, I, I do have some construction background of course, but you know, going down into the ground and I built some stuff going up, cause we've done big waterfalls and all sorts of, you know, water features and uh, cascading things. And we've done some cool stuff, but it was in a different lifetime. And so I'm not,[inaudible], you know, uh, qualified, I think, to talk about an explosion or anything like that. I did see in the, in some, some videos that there were some sparks that kind of went off. So there was one video, I think it was security footage of the night that had actually collapsed. And there were a bunch of sparks going off inside the building and people were saying, well, there you go, right. It's just like nine 11. We saw those sparks and people are saying that those were, uh, incendiaries going off or something like that. I'm not so sure that I believe that at all, really. But I do think that those are probably just electrical sparks. You know, as the building was sort of falling, everything is, is disconnecting snapping. And you're going to see sparks when you have, you know, two 20 conduit ripping in half throughout the building. So, you know, I'm certainly pre pool boy photos. I was a little bit more skeptical pool, boy, photos, just say, oh my gosh, that's just absolute negligence. It's gross negligence. But I don't know that it's actual yeah. You know, intentional nuking of the building. I haven't seen any of that and hope. And I don't think that we will wants to know, says dims in Miami. We'll probably set up a two year investigation and task taskforce then say it needs more money and government regulation. That's exactly. What's going to happen. We need more regulation and we need more money. That's what all of these things are about. It's never about the idea that, Hey, you, you, American people are responsible for your own lives. If you want to live in a building, you have some to make sure that it's safe. Okay. Because you're an adult person in society. We are not going to be able to wrap you in bubble wrap everywhere you go. I'm sorry. Okay. We can't do that. It we're talking about parents and children. Can, we just had a whole meeting today about that at our firm. We talk a lot about communication and about, you know, adults acting like adults, not acting like we're in a situation where we have parents that are constantly needing to nurture the children. Right. And this is a, this is kind of what this, what are our current government is, is treating us like we're all just a bunch of children. Oh no. Put your mask on. Oh no, stay home. Oh no. It's safe. Cause we said, so I'll just do whatever we say and everything's going to be okay. Well they listened to you. They're in Florida. They okay. So our, our, our building looks pretty much like it's going to fall over. It's okay. You're you're fine. Grandma. Just go back to bed. Not even anything to worry about. And we'll see what happens. Of course the, the, the answer is never personal and I'm not, I'm not blaming the people for this, right? Anybody who is involved in this building or any one of these catastrophes, I don't blame the people who were killed at all. Not even at all. I, I feel terrible for them. It's a sad thing that the government is, you know, the people are going to be harmed. The government is trying to help according to themselves. Oh no, we're going to, you know, we, we deserve make things equal and make sure that everybody's cared and there's proper regulations and blah, blah, blah. Well, what ends up happening is people they give up their own, their own capability to judge them surroundings for them because they think somebody else is taking care of them. And then stuff like this happens and it's going to continue to happen. There's 24 other buildings. We know we're going to see more of this stuff. Folks. I just saw today that in New York governor or, uh, whatever the leadership is over there, they just sent out an email or a text message. Hey, turn off all your electricity. Because, because we're not going to be able to keep the energy on because of the heat wave that we're seeing, just infrastructure failure all across the country. And the solution currently is about more money, more, more, more spending. We'll see if that happens. You know, Texas couldn't keep their energy going. California is going to have rolling brownouts new. York's doing the same thing. And it's just, it's just a failure kind of everywhere you look, buildings are falling down in Florida. It's not, not a good situation. My friends now let's continue on. We've got a couple more. We've got Jeremy betrayed is in the house as clearly. The building was over 40 years old, built in 1980 on reclaimed wetlands. They probably should have evacuated the building. If it wasn't safe, depending on how much the owner can afford. I can imagine they were cutting corners and selfishly deciding they would repair the building before anything catastrophic would happen sometimes to understand the situation, we need to think like humans, not like building inspectors, a horrible situation, but understandable. Well, it's very, it's very reasonable there, Jeremy, you know, I, I tend to get angry with these things because I just feel bad for the people in there. You know, if in my, in my opinion, right? If you were to, if you would have communicated the same, the actual legitimate status of that building to all of these residents, if you had, if you, if you communicated the, the severity of the structural problems to people, I think people might've made been, been intelligent enough to make the decision that they don't want to live there anymore, but they'd never got that opportunity because they sort of deferred responsibility to other people who easily accept that. Oh no, don't worry about the building. It's fine. I'm the director of whatever I'll take control of this. Okay. So I'm gonna, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna worry about it. I'm not going to go down there. I'm not going to move. I'm not going to find a different place to go. I'm trusting you that you're going to take care of me. Well, guess what? They don't they're bureaucrats. They don't care about anybody except themselves and their own power. Most of them, not everybody is a bad government employee, but it's turning into a situation where everybody just passes the buck and the people that need to be in the know are they sort of alleviate relieve themselves of any of the thinking, any of the hard thinking that needs to go into this thing. And we see situations like this and it's not good. All right, we've got a few more, we've got due process complete and utter incompetence or worse, complete disregard for safety and human life. Agree with you there. And soul Viking says, this is a common problem across condos that are decades old, oftentimes new codes to keep people safe are not physically possible without demolishing the building. The buildings HOA was aware of a$15 million structural issue, but they were deferred from at least 2018 distressing. So very sad that there was a loss of life due to this. I, I couldn't agree more. It's I, you know, I just, I just can't imagine it. All right. Hack consulting. Last one says I propose critical Liberty theory. CLT is Liberty precedent would present would be the key issue. Also you are not supposing an assumption, but rather analyzing a situation or an event or a place for Liberty, which is either you can do what you ought to do to survive peacefully without being persecuted due to the lack of Liberty we're doing one OTT to do ends up getting you locked up, or the state is wielded against you. Robert ask yourself, is Liberty present. Can you speak your mind here, there, or over there? Or are you tyrannized if there is no Liberty, how do we spark it? Ooh, good question. Um, how do you spark Liberty, man? I think, you know, if I had to guess, I think it starts with speech, right? That's why it's the first amendment. We've all y'all got to just stand by our words. That's why I encourage people to start a YouTube channel or get out there and you'll run for something locally, but it's you gotta, you gotta use your words and your, your opinion right now, what they're trying to do is limit that. And we see that everywhere you go, unless you use the right language, you're, you're very cancelable now or demonetizing will we've suffered. We've been thrown off of different platforms. And so I, I still think it's, it starts with, with speaking. There are moments when it's dangerous to speak when it's an uncomfortable thing to do, but there are concepts once is for not speaking. You have to live with yourself, knowing that you had something to say, you, you, you wanted to see some change in the world and you didn't say anything, oh, you got to live with that stuff. But it's also tough to speak. There are consequences for it, as we all know here. So, all right. Uh, great questions. Let me make sure there was nothing else added. All right. So we're going to change gears now. Thank you for all of those questions. Of course, those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com very much appreciate your support over there. And we're going to get the live stream figured out soon enough. It's still in beta. So we can't really complain about it. We we're, we're pushing the limit here, you know, but we'll see, they'll get the kinks worked out and we'll be back there. Thank you for all of your love and support over there. All right. So we're going to change gears now. And we're going to talk about a story that we talked about yesterday. Tucker Carlson is still in the news. Of course he has a new show. So he's going to be in the news a lot. But today, yesterday, in fact, he was talking about the NSA spying on him, taking control, or at least accessing his email and his text messages. And apparently they were investigating or, or, or doing something to try to get him off the air. At least that was his allegation. And so yesterday, when we talked about this story, there were a lot of people on Twitter, sort of laughing at Tucker, oh, you know, NSA doesn't care about Tucker. He's just a crazy cable news, host, whatever. And we went through the history of surveillance of modern, recent history of surveillance in this country, talking about prism, talking about X key score, talking about the five eyes Alliance and all of these different surveillance tools and technologies that have been in place for a long time. So the question is, does anybody really think that they're not doing that anymore? Like if we're going to take a Tucker Carlson statement that the NSA is spying on him or the NSA statement saying, no, we're not spying on him. Is that even a competition? Like, is there anybody that doesn't know where to fall on that equation based on everything that we've lived through? Okay. So we know where this is going. Tucker is doubling down on it and we're going to get to some clips from him. He's, he's, he's telling us about a phone call conversation that he or his team had when they actually called the NSA to say, Hey, you spying on me. I want an answer. And they tried to get up to the head director. And of course the director says, oh, not, not available. So we're going to take a look here. The NSA also came out with a statement. They released a two paragraph statement that I think was written by like a new intern who maybe is on summer break or something like that. But it's pretty bad. We're going to show you what that looks like. We're going to learn about conjunctive and disjunctive words or sentences. So that's going to be a ton of fun. But before we get into any of that, what does the Biden administration have to say about this? Because of course, it's kind of a big deal. You know, we talk a lot about civil liberties here and making sure that the government is not overstepping their bounds just a little bit. And if you have the NSA and you have intelligence agencies, many of them, 18 of them, in fact that are a part of the DNI 19, maybe now with the, uh, space force, maybe that made it 18. I don't know a lot. There's a lot. We have a lot of intelligence agencies, uh, trying to do things I guess. And so they asked Biden and his team, Hey, are you in fact spying on Tucker? Tucker's a us citizen. There is no reason to spy on him unlawfully. You need a warrant. This is America still. So what's your position on this? Well, our reporter was on air force, one as a part of the press gaggle over there yesterday. And so they asked Jen Saki about this here is that exchange

Speaker 3: 53:24

Tucker Carlson said that the NSA is spying on him. Is the administration aware of any knowledge or listening to efforts on us citizens by the NSA and is Tucker Carlson, one of them? Uh, well, the NSA, as I think you're well aware, I'm sure everyone's aware of everyone on this plane is aware. I should say, uh, is an entity that focuses on foreign threats and individuals who are trying and attempting to do us harm on foreign soil. So, uh, that is the there, uh, purview. Um, but, uh, beyond that, I would point you to the intelligence community.

Speaker 1: 54:00

Okay. So I don't know, go ask the intelligence community. You are the press secretary. And so you interface, you know, the white house of course, interfaces with all of those intelligence agencies, but you know, something was interesting here, right? She talks a lot about foreign soil. She talks a lot about individuals trying to, uh, to do us harm on foreign soil, if they focus on foreign threats and foreign individuals. And so this sort of sounded a little bit familiar to me if you recall, right? We saw this, talked about this a lot here on the Michael Flynn saga. The idea being that Michael Flynn, soon as Donald Trump was elected during the transition recall this now Michael Flynn, you know, is, has gone a different direction since this all happened. But back then, right, Michael Flynn was a part of the transition team on Trump's team, working on getting, getting the new administration in place. And during that time, Flint was having conversations with the Russian ambassador named Kissel yak. What happened there? Well, the intelligence community, the same people that Jen Saki is telling us to go talk to. They were monitoring conversations about the foreign individual they're focused on foreign threats. Of course the Russian ambassador this'll yet cause a foreigner. So of course the NSA that is within their purview that is within their jurisdiction, just like Jen Saki said, so why is Michael Flynn, somebody who a us citizen and an ex military, you know, multi, whatever star, whatever, you know, somebody with a lot of credentials, a lot of history there who, you know, provided a great service to the country during that era of his life. And they're saying that they also have his conversation. So how can that happen? If the NSA and all of our intelligence communities are just supposed to be focused on the foreigners in the foreign soil, what are they doing? Listening to Mike Flynn and his phone calls that led to that entire case? What happened there? Well, because his, his conversation, even though the NSA was focused on the foreigners, he was talking to the foreigners. And so his conversations get swept up into that, right? It'd be call a masking and unmasking. And we have this whole thing where, when that happens, when a us citizen's information gets swept up in these dragnets that they get mass. So we protect them and all that stuff. While the Obama administration wasn't really following the rules there, they were unmasking people to find out their identities, just Willy nilly. Doesn't take list, kind of like sending an email. Hey, who is this? Oh, it's Michael Flynn. So we know that the rules here are all sort of a joke. They kind of use these things to do whatever they want politically. So now, you know, we're, we're hearing the Jen saying, well, foreigners foreign soil, it's all foreign harmed foreign individuals, foreign threats, blah, blah, blah. Is she, is she sort of acknowledging that? In fact, they, maybe they were listening to Tucker, but maybe Tucker was talking to a foreigner just like Michael Flynn was Flynn was talking to Visel yak, Russian ambassador, maybe Tucker Tucker's. People are talking to some foreigners they're journalists they're newspeople. And so the NSA then through the intelligence communities, all of their different, you know, extensions, they all just sort of come to the conclusion, oh, we can spy on foreigners. We just happened to also pick up Tucker on there. So when they come out there and they start making statements like this, it sounds pretty obvious that they're, they're not actually denying much of anything. This is a statement from the NSA K the national security agency. They posted this on Twitter, on their Twitter account. We're going to show you how terrible this statement is. It says on June 28th, Tucker Carlson, alleged that the NSA has been quote monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air. Okay. So when you do legal analysis or when you start to sort of analyze what people say, and you have conversations about it, talk about this a lot here. One of the first things you want to do is identify the issues, identify the claims. What are we talking about? You got to get very clear on that. People think that this is very easy. It's actually not. The example that I use is sort of the contract example, uh, and what we're trying to identify, where there was a breach of contract. So you, you might say, well, I entered into a contract with you, Rob, and you broke the contract. And so now we've got a problem. There's a breach of contract. And so we have to identify what the issues are. What was the exact breach of contract could be many things, right? It could be a while. You just didn't pay your bill. Or it could be that it's really a complicated transaction. I wanted X widgets and I need them delivered at this location. By this time they need to be packaged this way. They need to be on a truck, you know, in, in, in certain conditions with air conditioning, I need them to be transported through this route so that, you know, the airport, whatever, all sorts of different reasons. And so if there is a breach of contract, now we've got to be very clear of what we're talking about. What was it was it that I asked for which it's X, but you gave me widgets. Why was it that I needed them here by four o'clock because I needed to get them on another boat by 5:00 PM. And you've got them there at six. So it's not that we had the wrong widgets it's that we had the wrong time and my whole, my whole thing screwed up. So now I don't need those widgets anymore. So now my damages are going to be different than what they may have been if there was some sort of a different type of breach. And so the point here that, you know, this can get complicated, obviously, but we're trying to decipher what the issue is. What specifically did Tucker say that the NSA is responding to? Okay. And we have to match them up. It's the same thing that we did with the Shovan trial. Shovan had three different counts, count one, two, and three. So as we go through and present evidence, we present evidence for count one only for that count, right? Some of that evidence is not going to be applicable to counts two or three. You see how it works. So now that we have that framework, what is the NSA saying? First of all, they're saying that Tucker is making the claim and they're going to be responding to the claim. So the claim from Tucker is two-part right. Monitoring our electric, I'm sorry. Monitoring our electronic communications is part one. And then we see this word and here. So Tucker is making two claims. So you would expect them to make a response that addresses both claims. So, number one of course is monitoring. Number one is monitoring. And number two is an attempt to take the show off the air to claims being made. And there's an, and this is a conjunctive statement, meaning that the both claims are being made simultaneously. And what does the NSA say to that? It says the, the allegation is true. Okay. So that's fine. So they're responding to both pieces, one, no monitoring, and also no attempt to take the show off the air. Right? That's how you would read that. They're, they're lumping the two claims monitoring and attempt to take off the air into one claim. And they're saying the allegation is untrue. So they're responding to both claims. Then when they respond, you're going to see here, they're going to give us a conjunctive response. They're going to give us a, a sentence that is apparently addressing both of the underlying issues. But as we can see, it's not act, it's not, it's not even resembling. It's not even remotely responsive at all. So it says Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the agency. Okay. Well, he, he didn't say that, right. Did he say that in this quote at all? Did he say anywhere that I, uh, that I think that the NSA is making me a target of the NSA? No, he never said that one time. He's never been an intelligence target. That's great. It's good to know. But is he being monitored is a whole nother question. Right. And they didn't answer that. So they're trying to sort of respond. They're taking this sentence. He's never been in an intelligence target, and they're trying to make that responsive to the monitoring. He's saying, are you monitoring me? They're saying no, but you're not a target. Okay. Well that doesn't answer the question. It's non-responsive then you're going to see Tucker had two claims. So they're going to give us an and here, right. To, to mirror him. So claim denial, response to the claim. So this would sort of be a, like a, like a, like a legal format. However, this is not responsive at all. So the NSA has never had any plans to try to take his program off the air. So, okay. So do you have any, is there, is there anything else going on or do you have any other, it's not giving us any additional information and attempt to take this show off the air? This allegation is untrue. Tucker Carlson never been an intelligence target of the agency. NSA has never had any plans to try to take his program off the air. Okay. So what else? NSA has a foreign intelligence mission. Got it. We target foreign powers to generate insights on foreign activities that could harm the United States with limited exceptions, like an emergency. The NSA may not author. It may not target a us citizen without a court order that explicitly authorizes the targeting. So it's like, oh my gosh. So, so, so they acknowledge, right? This statement is just so terrible. I don't even really know where to start. We target foreign powers. Okay. Got that. We know that. The question also though, is, are you targeting other people in the United States? And as I mentioned with the visceral yak debacle, if you are targeting somebody else, are you also sweeping up Tucker's communications in the targeting of someone else? It's non-responsive okay. With limited exceptions, the next part then being, well, what exceptions are there any other exceptions? They say an emergency. So they're trying to give you a throw away. Well, if there's an emergency, then we can go and access that stuff. Okay. So how do you define an emergency then? What is that? Is it a national security threat? Is it something that maybe Tucker might fall into or not? And what are the other exceptions you gave us? One that we can all understand easily like emergency, but what about other things? Maybe they are in fact, investigating Tucker M a NSA may not target a us citizen without a court order that explicitly authorizes the target. So to me, folks, this sounds as clear as a non-denial as anything, right? They're not denying anything. They're just saying, um, they could have come out. Nope. We're not monitoring Tucker. Nope. We're not. Um, we have no involvement with that. We have no idea what he's talking about. They didn't say that. They said we had no plans to try to take a show off as they are off the air. And, uh, he's never been an intelligence target. They didn't say anything about actually monitoring, listening to anything. They're not, they're not denying anything that he claimed. Both of his statements have not been denied. All right. Here's Tucker explaining it

Speaker 4: 1:03:33

Last night. The last time on the show, we made a very straightforward claim. NSA has read my private emails without my permission period. That's what we said tonight. Statement from the NSA does not deny that. Instead it comes with this non-sequitur in part quote, Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the agency. Okay? Glad to know, but the question remains. Did the Biden administration read my personal emails? That's the question that we asked directly to NSA officials when we spoke to them about 20 minutes ago in a very heated conversation, did you read my emails? And again, they refuse to say again and again, and then they refused even to explain why they couldn't answer that simple question. Wow. We can't tell you. And we won't tell you why we can't tell you my emails and the message was clear. We can do whatever we want. We can read your personal texts. We can read your personal emails. We can send veil threats your way to brush you back. If we don't like your politics, we can do anything. We're our own country. And there's literally nothing you can do about it. We're in charge. You're not, or William does not begin to describe the experience was like living in China, but we should get used to it. Now that the byte administration has classified tens of millions of patriotic Americans, the kind who served in the military and fly flags in front of their homes as potential domestic terrorists, white supremacists, saboteurs. We're going to see a whole lot more of this kind of thing a whole lot more. Yeah. I, you know,

Speaker 1: 1:05:06

You got to take him at his word on that, right? I'm going to presume that he called I'm going to presume that they did not take his call. So it sounds to me like he's pretty, uh, short of himself that he's got a he's on here now. Techno fog, big fan of techno fog. Of course, he's another lawyer out there writing under a pseudonym. And then he out, he came out here and he chimed in on this topic as well. He said, this is a carefully drafted denial by the NSA. As there are three separate allegation within Tucker's quotes, right? So he actually broke them up into three to this. We ask a key question, which allegation is untrue. If the NSA is denying these things, which is untrue, they said all of it's untrue in their statement, but they're not giving us any specific specificity here. It says, is it untrue that the NSA has been monitoring Tucker monitoring? Yes or no. Is it that the NSA is planning to leak Tucker's communications? Yes or no. Or is it the NSA will try to take Tucker's show off the air? Yes or no. Here, the NSA is using vague language to mislead the public. The press will run this as a denial, but it's not a denial. Those who look closely will see something else. The NSA while stating the Tucker has never been an intelligence target does not categorically deny having his electronic communication. So something is up according to techno fog. And I agree. I mean, it sounds like that to me, and this is typical government nonsense, right? You call and you say, Hey, I need some information while it's classified. We can't tell you about that. Well, why can't you tell me, well, it's classified. Well, I need to know why though it involves me. It's my tax, my emails. Yeah. But it's a, it's outside my purview, whatever. And Tucker's right. You know, they just sort of do, do whatever they want. We talked about this five eyes Alliance yesterday between five different countries and sort of, you know, there's been a lot of questions about that, but they just keep moving forward because they know the American people just kind of get bored with something and move on to the next thing. And they're just afraid to do whatever they want. Now, yesterday we talked about a, a program called X key score, which is kind of this backend a little, uh, terminal, essentially like a user interface where you can just go in there and everything that's been gobbled up throughout all of the pinch points that we talked about yesterday are all now sort of being dumped into this one user interface. So you can just like Google, right? You go into Google type, whatever you want. You find some information about it, kind of can do the same thing with national security, every text, phone call, email, video conference, everything you've ever done anywhere ever is now sort of being allegedly. If, if, if you think like I do then yeah. And it's all being gobbled up and it goes into a database somewhere now, you know, they don't tell us much about this at all. And they've got all these different ways that they manipulate the rules in the constitution by sending stuff overseas and coming with these different alliances and only focusing on foreign agents and not us citizens and blah, blah, blah. So let's take a look now at this article that came out yesterday, specifically talking about this program, right? This is a program that raises a lot of eyebrows because essentially what Edward Snowden was saying you could do is go in there, type in Robert ruler. And you can see everything everywhere I've ever lived. Every text messages I've ever sent, everything I've ever downloaded. Every website I've ever visited everything automatically because they are gathering the data. They're jacking into the skeleton of the internet. Everything that goes on the backbone, the pipeline of the internet, the NSA has inserted themselves at that base level. So everything goes through essentially, they're, they're able to sort of, wow. Everything is it's flowing through the internet and just gobble it up. So they're, they're organizing that into this program called ex key score. So an extensive surveillance program that was first announced by Edward Snowden in 2013, continues to operate with no judicial and limited congressional oversight. Where is my mouse? All right. So, so the article says here, it says that no judicial or limited congressional oversight despair, despite its potential to capture communications, according to a privacy watchdog agency. So this was written by Ellen Nakashima on June 29th. And it was coincidentally right after we were talking about this NSA X key score program was the subject of a five-year investigation by the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. According to documents leaked by Snowden, the program existed for more than a decade. It allows analysts to use a Google like search function across a vast database of internet traffic captured from sites worldwide to pluck out the emails, web browsing, history, social media activity of specific people. The program relies heavily on the autonomous collection of massive datasets and analysis driven by artificial intelligence. A democratic board member appointed by Trump said in a statement, he partly redacted a statement that was released after it went through the declassification process. Lovelock was among one of the five board members to vote against approving the classified report on X key score in December saying that the board failed to adequately investigate or evaluate the collection activities most, uh, what most concerned me was that we have very powerful surveillance program that eight years or so after exposure still has no judicial oversight. Can you believe that? And what I consider to be inadequate, legal analysis and serious compliance infraction said LeBlanc folks. This is by the Washington post. Okay. This is not by Fox news, right? That might have some backing for Tucker, no judicial oversight. According to this guy, no legal analysis, no compliance policy, NSA officials, though, they push back. They say that they conducted appropriate legal reviews of the use of X key score. They said that the agency has protections to safeguard American's privacy. They pointed to a document that they wrote that outlines the rules. Okay. So former board chairman, Adam Klein, Trump appointee stepped down from the board. He said, this board produce a detailed, comprehensive report and recommendations on the very complex program. The clarity of the description is going to enable Congress to ask hard questions about this program. So the program operates under a framework that was drafted by, uh, executive order 1233, which I think was signed in by Reagan. Which of course when collection activities take place under 1233, they are not to oversight by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. Can you believe that? So it's actually just super easy for anybody to go and monitor Tucker don't even need it. It's not even complicated. According to the Washington post X key score still out there, no judicial oversight. In fact, they're preparing a report to send over to Congress. They don't care. You know, Snowden was told us all about this. Like in 2013 and Congress has still done literally like nothing. So this guy comes out, I'm going to draft a report, give it to Congress. And they're just going to continue to kind of do whatever they want to do. Cause that's how it works now. All right. So let's get over to some questions. First one in the house is from sharing quit. And he says, Hey, you know the KGB, oops. I mean the NSA, FBI, CIA, et cetera, they aren't spying on Tucker is direct confirmation that they are, they are really trying to shut him down. And little Jenny's response is more confirmation. It's all propped to the sooner we understand that the better we'll be able to deal with it. Tucker is a Tucker's somebody with a lot of, uh, a lot of weight, right? He's he's, he's got a strong voice. So it would, it would serve their interests. Well, to make sure that he doesn't have that anymore. Jeremy Machita says I'm not an expert, but I'm a thinker. I would guess the Biden administration brought back jars of foreign soil from their last couple of trips. So they can dump a spoonful here and there as needed. All right. So yes. Thank you for that, Jeremy. Uh, you are a thinker and I appreciate you being here. Foreign soil from their last couple of trips. Yeah, I know. All right. LT 13 says, I bet. Tucker is spying is the, so I get it now, Jeremy, I get it. So I just, it just clicked. Right? You take the foreign soil that Biden and Camila brought and you go sprinkle some of that right on Tucker's driveway. And you say, oh, look, we're investigating foreign soil. Now I get it. Jeremy took me about 30 seconds longer than need be, but I got it. We have a next step. We've got LT. 13 says, I bet the Tucker spying is the two jump rule from Tony, Bobby Linsky and someone foreign shenanigans with hunter. Yeah. It's like that. It's like, we're all like three degrees of separation. Right? You go, uh, you go Osama bin Laden, Putin Tucker. There you go. Got it. Got it. So, uh, go tech tapped, uh, Tucker's stuff because he mentioned Putin on his show. Putin mentioned Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden took out the towers. So that's, uh, that's how we're going to investigate Tucker rights. Okay. And no, there's no oversight so they can do whatever they want. LT 13 says, Sebastian Gorka said an agent. He became friends with when he was in the Trump administration, told them that they were being spied on and the work around was routing the internet through another country and back, and then it's legal. So, so like a VPN for yeah. All sorts of stuff like that. Right. And you could, you could easily envision where it's not a government agent. So the way, the way that I, I suspect that some of this stuff happens, at least with this foreign intelligence stuff, is they, will you, okay. So let's say the five eyes agreement is, is something that happens. And they have somebody like Tucker Carlson that the U S government knows that they can't go and investigate, but they are part of the five eyes Alliance. And so the U S government is prohibited from investigating its own citizens. But what about another country? Or what about another entity or another foreign, uh, intelligence organization? Can they, are they also precluded because what do they care about our constitution for it? Right. They don't write the Chinese spy on our people all the time. We can't do anything about that. Right. We just say, okay, well, uh, it's, it's the, the game of espionage. And we have a hard line in the sand and we say, Nope, Nope. The Russians are the enemies. The Chinese are the enemies. And so we're going to make sure that our intelligence communities are robust and able to respond to their intelligence communities. And so you've got these two opposing forces that are adversarial and you create some pretty strong divisions in terms of a separation there, obviously. But what happens if, and so obviously you understand that relationship, right? The Russians, the Chinese, they can of course, spy on our people that would all be done illegally. And it would be done illegally because it's adversarial. Right. But we, we, we, we can't prosecute them because they're not citizens. They're not entities here. Right. The only way we could really address that would be through war or through sanctions or shoot through some of the same usual mechanisms that we see in place currently in the geopolitical arena. So now let's say, what if we had sort of a similar, let's say a relationship with another country, like one of the ones in the five eyes, but we, we use the same concept that we can't, we can't really do anything about foreign intelligence spying on our people, right? Like, like the Chinese, we can't, we can, we can sanction them. We can kind of, you know, talk tough about it, but we can't really do much about it because our constitution doesn't give us jurisdiction over their intelligence activities. Same argument could be made with some of these other foreign countries. Right. Well, we really can't tell you can't really dictate what the, the Australians do or the new Zealanders do. And if they want to investigate Tucker Carlson and they just happened to do so. And we happen to be in this five eyes Alliance and they happen to share some information with us that maybe they got that that would have been in a way that would have been illegal, but we didn't do it. We're just looking at this information. And so we're going to use that to maybe go look at these other things that maybe Tucker's doing, or just throw his name into X key score. Somebody does it. There's no oversight there. So you can see how these little things can, can work out. Right? We have this relationship. And so we're not breaching our we're not violating the U S constitutes the Australians are, but because there are friends, nobody really bats an eye about that. And there are other ways, like, let's say like Tucker was really doing something bad, right? Or let's say there's a terrorist or somebody that they want to identify. Well, then, then the Australians, they don't give the big crime, like the evidence that they have about the big crime to the U S authorities. They just say, oh, that terrorist is going to be over here at this date, time and location, probably doing something else illegal. So if you happen to be there and you catch them in the middle of that illegal act, well, then that's going to open the door. You can go get a warrant, you can go seize their cell phones. You can go do all of this other stuff that will then reveal the underlying offense. So it's sort of like opening the door just so they can get their foot in there. And then that's going to crack open the shell. And all of the other investigatory powers that you have domestically here in the United States are now available. Now you can say, now we got a warrant, probable cause arrest, impound, inventory, search, all of that stuff as a consequence, but you need a way to crack that shell first because the U S government can't come through and say, oh, well, we knew we were going to do that. You were going to do that crime. And we got that information from your emails or from your taxed or from whatever server that we were not allowed to access. If a defense attorney found that, and we found out that they got that information unlawfully. Well, then that all becomes fruit of the poisonous tree and everything after that has to be thrown out. The case gets dismissed. But if they were able to independently come and verify that stuff, sort of corroborate it and make the argument that they would have independently found that information anyways, and defense attorneys don't know any better, because that did happen. They found the guy who was at the quarter doing the thing, you know, got into a fight, doing something stupid. And then they will use that as, as a mechanism to get into everything else that is lawful now, because it's on the basis of something that happened in the United States. And they can use domestic tools to carry that forward. So it's, I know it's complicated and it's sort of a convoluted thing that I just described there, but I, I wouldn't doubt that that's happening regularly with the five eyes. So we'll see. But I don't know. That's all speculation. I'm not gas as Tucker. The NSA is spying on me, the NSA. Well, well, um, you know, w we aren't, we aren't spying on him, even if we were, we would be allowed to, and someone could be spying on him. Maybe some of their spying landed on our laps, but I can't control what my friends give me. So forget about it is what he says. Yeah. And that's exactly right, right. That's exactly. No, I it's. It's here. It's it came from the Australians. Uh, we have wants to know, says didn't Tucker lose some packages a year ago, too. I don't know. Did he likes like an Amazon package or, oh, no. He did lose that's right. Didn't uh, didn't Tucker was that Tucker somebody lost. So yes, that was Tucker. Tucker was I think sending, um, uh, that might've been election related stuff. If I recall something was stolen or something like that. I, your honor, I can't remember what that is exactly. But you're onto something there. All right. We've got, uh, let's see. Oh my gosh. We've got a lot of questions. Okay. So we have want to know, says the Tucker have any packages. We have, Todd says, I guess Todd trout is here. What's up, Todd. Haven't seen you in awhile. It says, I guess Edward Snowden was right. The NSA knows more about you than you know about you. I, I think that's probably accurate, but I think that's probably accurate, you know, I noticed this on Twitter the other day I was on Twitter and Twitter has this feature where they want you to follow topics. Right. And so I never really used that function, but I said, okay, well, I'd like a little bit more stuff in my timeline. Let's see what topics it thinks I'm interested in. And I got to tell you, man, it was exactly right. Like every topic was like, yeah, I'm interested. Yup. Yup. Economics. Yep. Got that justice. Yep. Got that. Yes. Uh, you know, crypto got that. All of the topics, every one of them, there was like a few of them that you could tell. They just like threw in there. Uh, just to see if, you know, if you like it. Right. And you know, I don't know what environment or something like that. Right. Okay. So that, that was a, an interesting experience. I was like, Twitter knows me extremely well, scarily. Well, and I kind of didn't like that feeling, but that's just how it is now we have, oh, socks says I did a four year request with the NSA and they did the same thing to me. I asked a very clear question and their answer. Wasn't even close to what I asked. Like, this is how they do business. Yeah. It's sort of a, you know, the mind games make you think that you're not living in the same reality that they are, uh, it's a scary stuff. Soul Viking says, once it comes out that one of the agencies was in fact monitoring surveilling, Tucker, it will go back to the discussion of verbiage like Donald Trump and his assertion, that there was wiretapping, which is in fact w w is synonymous with what they're doing. Yeah. So we'll play that word game. Right. Tucker Carlson said that they were monitoring him. And so they'll come out and say, oh no, we weren't monitoring. But you know, the NSA collects a bunch of data. And so it's all metadata. And so, yeah, there was some sort of slight acknowledgement, but ultimately making the blanket denial that they think serves them better. All right. We've got, Jeremy says logic would dictate that if Tucker wasn't the target, the other guy must be the target. Yeah. You're right. Right. So if he's, but that doesn't, but again, Tucker's not asking that question, right. We're not talking about targets. So you see what they did. They changed it to about being a target. Tucker never said he was a target. That's not what he's asking. He's saying, are you monitoring my stuff? And they say, no, you're not a target. That's not what he asked. He wanted to know, are you monitoring it? And they didn't answer that, but they, they get us all now then tart talking about the targeting. It's clever, right? Oh, well, is he going to say targeting Tucker? Well, no, they're not talking target nobody. We're not talking about that. They are, they want us to, but, uh, we're not gonna allow that. We've got, Jupa says the NSA and the rest of the government is very capable and is spied on us citizens. After what we saw these past years with the Pfizer courts, I have no doubt that the government has been weaponized against those that don't follow a certain ideology. I think you're, I think you're right on that. Right. I mean, we S we're seeing this, I think, directly in our faces, it's kind of a wild thing that's happening. Uh, let's see, what else we've got Jack Elia is back in the house as does no one. Remember when Robin Williams referred to Facebook as a CIA front for data collection and one of his jokes, comedy, the unheard truth. I think there's a lot of, sort of a lot to that, right? Cause we, we were talking yesterday about prism and about the pinch points, sort of the choke points that the government would install on the back end of many of these companies, Google, Facebook, YouTube, all of them and Facebook was right there at the start, right? One of the first ones out there, uh, everything that the government wants, you just get direct access to it. So, uh, yeah, I mean, I would say that the CIA and FBI are certainly involved in all of those different things. Of course, uh, Jack Elia says when many of these surveillance rules were put in under Poindexter rein Reagan era, the intelligence agencies were compartmentalized in such a manner that they did not know what each other was doing. I think the Patriot act changed that and certainly the creation of Homeland security did. Yeah. And now we have the director of national intelligence, which has sort of, I think the clearing house for a lot of these different agencies, it's kind of this, the hub and spoke model, the ODI and I, the director of national intelligence is a, is a, is the hub. All of the different agencies are the spokes. We have many of them and they're not really even good at what they do because they can't even protect the congressional building apparently. So, uh, we've got a couple more questions, Kareem, 1 65 says any chance you could help with this. I am wondering if Canadians can work remotely for their Canadian employer, a Canadian employer while on vacation in Miami. Well, uh, uh, Kareem, you know, that's a great question. You know, if you're asking me if I can help with this, you must be looking for encouragement. And I encourage that Canadians work remotely for their Canadian employer while on vacation in Miami. Yeah, I think so. I don't know why you wouldn't be able to do that. Sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to me last I heard up in Canada, things were a little bit dicey up there. Are you still on lockdown over there? Can you get out of your house? You know, Veeva, Viva fray over here was doing his Viva on the street videos. And they were talking about, I was talking about like curfews and lockdowns, all three Canada. And then I think they arrested one of their politicians for something. Yeah. Miami sounds way better than that. Except just, you know, low buildings, single stories for the foreseeable future over there. All right. Gert, Sean Decker is in the house. He's chairman and from the Czech Republic, if I'm not mistaken, it says, when will we stop using the word conspiracy theory and move to the accurate fact-based theory? I mean, it's true. It's like everything that used to be a conspiracy conspiracy theory is like been proven, right? And it's like, oh, oh, the Wu Han lab theory, escape theory was always a big conspiracy theory for a long time. And in fact, people were thrown off the internet. Now it kind of looks like that's the truth. So I'm with you Gertrude. And I don't think there's anything wrong with actually thinking through some of the things we need to, to analyze. So there's a lot more to discuss there before we move on to the next segment. Quick reminder, I am a criminal defense lawyer over here at the RNR law group. As you can see, we can help with all of these different types of criminal charges, things like felonies, traffic violations, drug charges, DUI offenses, and everything, and anything in between. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs help with a criminal case, we would love the opportunity to help. We offer all sorts of payment solutions, free case evaluations. We've got an amazing team of people here. We would just love the opportunity to help. So check that out if you know anybody that needs some help. And then if you don't, if you're looking for just some education, some information, I would invite you to go check out my law enforcement interaction training, which is available here at gumroad.com/robert ruler. This is a two and a half hour course where we talk about the 1, 2, 3 of dealing with law enforcement. How do you deal with them? There's there's one rule. It's the 1, 2, 3 rule. And we also have two questions that the police are allowed to ask you. And then three responses that you can use if they don't ask you unallowable question. So it's the 1, 2, 3 rule, a lot of information on that over at gumroad.com/robert ruler. And I appreciate all of your support over there. Okay. So we've got one more segment left on the show. So let's take a look, see what we've got. All right. So for some reason that has not transferred over. So we're going to take a look at this. So my slides are not sinking today. Okay. So, all right, so we're gonna, we're gonna, uh, I don't know what's going on in my friends. I apologize. Let me, uh, we're gonna, we're gonna change gears. Now. We have some high profile cases that we need to talk about today. Talking specifically about Alison Mack, the woman, the former actress, who was a Smallville actress involved in the Nexium sex cult. So that was an interesting case. She got sentenced today, go into prison for some time. So we're going to talk about that. Then we've got to check in on bill Cosby. Can you believe this? He is out of custody. The Pennsylvania Supreme court just came out today and said that he is, uh, he's getting out of custody. There's a lot of issues with the underlying prosecution that took place. And so we're going to check in on that. We're going to take a look at the court order and see what happened there. Cause it was kind of a big surprise. Many people were not expecting this. And bill Cosby is already out on Twitter. So we're going to take a look at what he had to say. So let's get into it first. We're going to start off with Alison Mack. Here's Alison Mack. Remember her. We saw a lot about her a couple of years ago, but she's a former Smallville actress. She sentenced to three years in prison. Three Mack is required to have three years of supervised release after serving her prison term, got to pay a$20,000 fine. So in her letter, which was submitted as part of the sentencing, she apologized, she says, I'm sorry to those of you that I brought to Nexium, sorry, ever exposed you to the nefarious and emotionally abusive schemes of a twisted man. So if you're not familiar with this case, Nexium was this cult. There was this guy called Keith Ranieri. There's a Netflix series about this. Apparently what happened, you know, long story short is Keith Ranieri with somebody who is sort of as a, a cult, like a cult-like figure, right? I mean, somebody who is extremely intelligent, allegedly, apparently he was like the highest IQ in the world. Something like this, there's a whole Netflix series about it. And a lot of people were following him. They were sort of bleeding in his message of giving them a better life and all of that stuff. Then it turned into this thing where he kind of had this upper echelon is kind of, of, of, uh, followers really. And it, it turned into this kind of weird sex cult thing, where at the top, everybody needs to sleep with Keith Ranieri. He's like a God-like figure. He's going to bring you enlightenment and blah, blah, blah. And then it turns into this like branding thing where they would actually go and like, you know, brand these women on the inside of their thighs turns out that this like little neat little symbol that was supposed to be some, you know, deep, uh, you know, symbolic, whatever what's Keith Raniere, his initials. He just kind of mashed the letters together to make this. Oh, oh, oh. So he branded women with, uh, with his initials on the inside of their thigh. Great. All right. So, so now the allegations of course, were that Alison Mac, this actress was somebody who was really helping facilitate all of this. So she's arrested in 2018, along with several other Nexium leaders who is Keith Raniere. He was sentenced last year to 120 years in prison. She pled guilty to racketeering also conspiracy charges before Renier. His trial was scheduled to start judge, I'm sorry. The sentencing guidelines recommended a range of 14 to 17 and a half years in prison. But prosecutors said they wanted a recommendation below the range because of substantial assistance. She gave the government. Her attorneys asked for no prison time. They called Mac and essential accomplice, willing and practical ally, but also said, I doubt that you were manipulated. And also I don't doubt that you were manipulated and also felt captive. So prosecutor requested a lesser sentence. CNN reached out to Mac that they didn't respond. Nexium was a company in Albany. They had self-help classes. Prosecutors said that within the organization, there was this weird sort of sex ring that was going on. There was a group known as dos that involves several women. They were first-line masters. They reported directly to Ranieri. They recruited other women as their slaves, unbeknownst to many of the women. Ranieri was the head of the group. Women were at times directed to have sex with him and then send him nude photographs. So Mack has been under house arrest at her parents' home for the past three years. Attorneys said that she's got her associates degree community college bachelor's degree program worked as a caterer. And so one week before she pled guilty, she began to cooperate with the government. She shared details about the crimes and evidence prosecutors said in their sentencing memo, one piece of evidence served as crucial during Renier his trial, a recording of a conversation between Mack and Ranieri, in which the, to discuss the quote branding ceremony, the person should ask branded Raniere. He said, they should probably say that before they're held down. So it doesn't seem like they're being coerced. Hmm. Another high ranking member of DAS, somebody named Lauren Salzman pled guilty to racketeering also, uh, Washington, another woman writhing pain during the, the branding ceremony saying that she was squealing and screaming. Prosecutor prosecutor said that if Mack had not cooperated, they would have not been able to present their recording against Ranieri, where they discussed the brand. Another actress, you know, several people were sort of involved with the case and what happened here. It sounds like, sort of like a free talk, right? The government flipped her. So they said, look, we can give you 14, 17 years in prison. Otherwise, uh, you can help us. You can start giving us information that we're going to use to go and go after the real big guy, which is Keith Ranieri. And that's a pretty common thing that happens in criminal cases. They do this all the time. Often in cases involving let's say, you know, these cases can be very, very, uh, explosive, but if you have a, let's say a family and there's some child abuse going on, so you have a father, mother, daughter, there's some sort of child abuse happening. Oftentimes you can really sort of tie liability to both parents, right? You can sort of tie it to the father, tie it to the mother. Uh, and sometimes this could be just, you know, sort of physical abuse. Sometimes it could be sexual abuse. And what the government often does is they'll, they'll try to pit one parent against the other parent, right? And this can be very, very destructive, but also kind of a smart play for the government. Right? If the father is the primary culprits, they may need the mom to incriminate the father, right? Because there's typically no other witnesses. You might have a young child that really can't testify all that much. So now what you have is the government trying to sort of turn the mother against the father or vice versa. And it can be very, very destructive to the family, but of course, so is the child abuse, right? So you sort of are playing with a lot of very complicated moving parts. Same thing happened here essentially. Now of course, uh, Alison Mack, I'm going to guess doesn't have much love for Keith Ranieri. So it probably, wasn't a hard sell probably just saying, we need you to, we're going to give you 15 years or three, depending on what you do here she goes, oh, here's my phone. Here you go. It's all here. Now her attorneys of course are going to be the people who facilitate this, right? She's not going to do a free talk without her attorneys. They're going to be the ones negotiating all of this because if they didn't do it appropriately, maybe the government just says, thanks for your information. You're also getting 15 years. We're still mad at you. So you, you wanna, you wanna sort of negotiate those reductions. It sounds like her attorneys did something to that effect. And so that case is now coming to a close, Alison max is going to cut into custody for three years. We have another high profile case. Of course, bill Cosby is now out of custody. First thing he did post on Twitter, got to correct. The record, saw this today. He says bill Cosby, w who has not been banned. Trump is still not allowed, but, uh, Cosby back, I have never changed my stance or my story. I've always maintained my innocence. Thank you to all my fans, supporters and friends who stood by me through this ordeal special thanks to the Pennsylvania Supreme court for upholding the rule of law. Right? And so he's got his fist raised over there and he posted this picture and this right on Twitter, first thing this afternoon. So we've, we've, we've seen that. It says from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Supreme court of Pennsylvania overturned the sexual assault conviction. So Cosby released from prison gone he's out, right? He's already on Twitter justices in the court, they ruled 83 year old comedian. Who's only served three of his 10 year sentence had been denied a fair trial setting, an agreement that was struck by a previous prosecutor. The justice has said barred, Cosby from ever being charged again. So it sounds like what happened here was there was a, there was a sort of a non-prosecution agreement. If you plead guilty to this, or you give us information about this or you're cooperative in some way, we will not prosecute you. So there was some sort of agreement that took place there. Let's see what this says. Justice David Wecht writing for the majority said Montgomery county district attorney was legally bound by that decade old promise. So this happened sometime ago should have never brought the charges when the new evidence surface, okay. Had an agreement not to prosecute. You decided to do that. 10 years later court went back said, no, that old agreement is still binding. You're not allowed to do that. So Cosby's conviction is now vacated. White said the only remedy that comports with society's reasonable expectations of its elective prosecutors and our criminal justice system. The decision resulted in Cosby's release from the state two 30. He had been released today, news, photographers, TV and camera people. They gathered in front of Cosby's estate in Elkins park. He returned home an hour later in a Subaru Subaru that was driven by an aide. The car stopped briefly spokesman. Andrew Wyatt came to the front gate, reaching across shaking hands saying we did it. We did it and described the prosecution as ludicrous and racially motivated. It says we pulled the sheets off and America got the truth. A couple more slides here from the article. Before we get into the opinion from the judge, it says the case had been a complicated history that began in 2005 first reported the alleged assault and the current district attorney Bruce caster declined to file charges. Bruce, at the time said he was not confident. Her allegations would hold up, but he maintained. He struck the non-prosecution deal with Cosby to compel him to testify in a civil suit that she filed against him. Okay. So what happened is the old prosecutor. So we have this, this woman, she comes and complains to the county attorney there in Montgomery county. Bruce caster is the county attorney, the district attorney there and says, I don't think we can, we can make a criminal case here. Okay. We can't actually convict him in a court of law because it's a, it's an old case. It's 10 years or however old it is. And we're not going to be able to hit that beyond a reasonable doubt standard. So in lieu of that, I know you're the victim of a crime. So here's what here. Here's what I propose rather than prosecuting, prosecuting him criminally, where I think as, as a prosecutor, he's going to actually beat those charges. How, how about this? How about I negotiate with his lawyer and what happens is w we agree that we're not going to bring criminal charges against him, but he's going to agree that he's going to testify. He's going to give a deposition. He's going to, he's going to talk to you in a civil suit. Okay? So now you can Sue him for money, which is probably a prime motivator anyways, right? It's bill Cosby. He's got a lot of, so now what we have is Cosby sank. No problem at all. I'll, um, I'll happily talk to you in that this deposition provided that you don't bring charges against me because he doesn't care about paying money. He just doesn't want to go to prison. So this agreement then gets signed the victim, the, the, the, the, you know, the, the woman who was allegedly involved in all of this says, that sounds fine to me. Don't bring charges, Bruce caster signs off on it. Cosby's attorneys deal's done. He goes and testifies now, or it gives his deposition. And then that opens up this whole can of worms at the time. Right? So, so no evidence has been presented that this agreement was ever memorialized in writing, but caster had previously cited, a news release. He issued on the decision in 2005 is binding on all prosecutors who succeeded him, right? So they didn't actually enter into it, but he made, he made it public castor, then reopened the case, his successors and charge Cosby in 2015 days before the 12 year statute of limitations expired. Right? So, uh, so there's a, there's a thing called the statute of limitations in the law. You are encouraged to bring your claims earlier, rather than later, right? You don't want to be, you don't want to sort of leave the window open forever so that somebody can come 20 years later and say, you know, that time you punched me in the face. Well, I'm having some medical problems as a result of that. I think that I'm going to Sue you for that and collect damages. Cause you punched me in the face 20 years ago in college, you go, okay, that's fine. Sue me if you want to, but it's too old. There's nothing to Sue for. You should have brought that claim years ago, long, long time ago, because we want to incentivize people to resolve their legal issues sooner, rather than later, we don't want to, to, to let people wait around forever. So apparently here there was a 12 year statute of limitations. If they waited one more day, they couldn't bring those charges against Cosby. So they didn't. So the government just said, okay, well, we're, we're running out of time here. So we know we had this sort of prior preceding agreement, but we are now going to just bring those charges and see what happens. Excerpts. Then from Cosby's deposition in the civil lawsuit, they were then used against Cosby at the trial. Okay? So we have that original deal. We say, we're not going to try you, but you got to go testify in civil. He goes and testifies in the civil case, says something that incriminates him. Years later, they take those same statements and they come back and they charge him and they say, well, we don't, we don't care about that prior deal that we had. We heard what you said in there. We're going to charge you with this stuff and Cosby and his attorney say, but you just said that you wouldn't actually, you put it up, they're in public, that you wouldn't do that. So that's, it seems a little bit unethical. It seems a little bit, uh, dishonest. Doesn't it? When a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right, not to testify our criminal justice system demands that promise enforced says the judge castor testified as a defense witness in the hearings said that he felt vindicated Supreme court has spoken. I don't feel any regret he got out. I don't feel any satisfaction that he got out. Others were not so neutral. We have Janice Baker Kinney. One of the five women to testify against Cosby said that she was shocked by the Supreme court ruling. I think along with everybody else and Stewart Ryan, one of the lead prosecutors who has since left said that the ruling does not change, that Cosby was found guilty. And he says, he's going to stand by that. All right. So let's take a quick look here at what is happening in the court documents. Here's the opinion written here by justice. Wecht Wecht in the Supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania middle district. The appeal from the order of the lower level court decided the day, June 30th, 2021 in 2005 district, the county district attorney Bruce caster learned that constant reported the salt in 2004 can. We've talked about that. Deputy prosecutor and other detectives, they investigated her claims in evaluating the likelihood of success against Cosby. District attorney saw difficulties with her credibility as a witness, based on her part on her decision, not to file promptly, right? She filed this long time ago, uh, or, or 2004 and then 2005. So she's delayed in the filing. So caster then determined a prosecution would probably not be, we'll probably not win said that certain claimants would be inadmissible under governing governing laws of evidence. The collective weight of these considerations led the district attorney to conclude that unless Cosby confessed quote, there was insufficient, credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge against Crosby, the Cosby related to the incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Okay? So they put that in writing and he's referencing there that they're in footnote. Number one, seeking some measure of justice. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would not prosecute Cosby for the incident. As long as he testified under penalty of perjury without invoking the privilege against self-incrimination okay, we're not going to charge you criminally, but you can invoke the fifth. He got to go talk. He did that unable to invoke his right. He relied upon there, the, the, uh, the declination to charge him. And then he went and gave four sworn depositions. During that time he made incriminating statements. Obviously we listened to those, right? Not on this channel, but we all heard those Castro. Successors did not feel bound by his decision, decided to prosecute Cosby. Anyways, the fruits of Cosby's reliance on castor, the Prior's decision was then you used in his criminal trial. So the court on appeal and here's what they are concluding. We do not question whether prosecutors have discretion, but the discretion that we do give prosecutors does not mean that it can do whatever it wants without the constraints of due process. When unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action, okay. They came out in, in this city and told everybody we're not going to prosecute him because here's what we're doing. He's going to go testify. And then he did it when an unconditional charging decision is made publicly. And then the defendant does this, something to his detriment, right? Going and actually admitting things, then denying him. The benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in criminal prosecution. Okay. It was foregone for more than a decade gait. They didn't prosecute for a decade, no mere changing of the guard. Switching prosecutors changes that equation. The contrary result would be patently untenable would violate lawn chairs, principles of fundamental fairness, be antithetical to corrosive of integrity and the functionality of a justice system here. We all. So, uh, let's see here. We've got for these reasons convictions and judgment are vacated and discharged. They don't address any of the other issues. All right. So he is a free man. Wow. All right. So let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. If you want to support the show, we appreciate you doing so over there, we've got wants to know, says, so ADA has to tell the truth, like they're officers of the court, but cops are totally allowed to lie to you. Did they release Cosby today? Cause Trump at the border USA has the best court system in the world. Money can buy good lawyers are quite helpful sometimes. Yes, it's true. It's true. Goodwill. So Cosby hired some good lawyers, got a lot of money he can do that was going to serve a 10 year sentence because he had good attorneys fighting for him, fighting, fighting, fighting, fighting, adding. It's going to save him seven years of that time. Right. And for the right reason, cause these prosecutors, I don't, I'm not, I'm not commenting on Cosby and what he did to these women, or, you know, whether he's, uh, an Admiral bull guy or not, that's not even part of the question. The question is, did the prosecutors do what happened? The Supreme court said they did and what they did was unethical and totally inappropriate. And they should be sanctioned and reprimanded for that. Will they? No, of course not. Is, is Cosby gonna going to be able to go and recover any damages or money? Is he going to get three years of his life back for that? No, of course he won't, but at least he's out. Fortunately he had some good attorneys that were able to get him through this. A lot of people don't have that. And a lot of the same garbage that you see here on a high profile case, like this happens every day with people all over the country every day, all over country. Fortunately Cosby had some resources, most people don't sad. State of affairs. Kareem says yes, Canada was under lockdown, but it was not enforced Ford asked the police to do random checks to see why people were outside, but the police refused to do that nonsense. I was wondering if you knew whether it was legal, according to U S laws to work remotely while being in Miami. Oh, I see. I see. So you were actually being serious. I thought you were joking. Um, I don't know. That's uh, candidly, if you're looking for sort of a legal answer on that, I just don't know what the answer is. I am not an international lawyer. I don't know what CA what Canadian laws say about that. Right? There's probably tax implications that if you're going to be living in Miami and sort of re you know, living as a U S citizen, I don't know what they say about you, you know, remitting money back. You'd probably need a visa or some sort of temporary, you know, work permit, program, something in order to even be allowed to, to work here and be, and, uh, U S laws. But I guess you'd be working for a Canadian company. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. That is certainly outside of my wheelhouse, but whatever your answer is, I would certainly encourage you to come down here to Miami. I'm not in Miami, but I said, come down here. Cause I wish I was in Miami, not in that building though. Now Gert, John says, so I guess, uh, Golin Maxwell has nothing to worry about. Say, sorry, pay some money a little jail time. What is your opinion? Should we just let it go? No, I don't think so. Uh, Glen Maxwell, um, we're due up for an update on her case. I've been getting a lot of activity notifications in her case. So we're going to have to do an update on her, but there's just so much going on there that it's hard to really figure out what's worth talking about. But, uh, no, I certainly don't think that we should just let it go. I think that Glenn Maxwell is somebody who is part of that, uh, that, uh, that sort of upper echelon power structure that exists, you know, her and Epstein got away with all sorts of debauchery and criminality for a long period of time. They were hanging around with some of the most powerful people in the world gates and, and, uh, the, the prince over in England and all sorts of stuff. And she's right in the middle of it. I want to know what's going on there and I would love to really see what she knows. And so I think the pressure here is, uh, is certainly justified. We also have, Sharon says, Sharon Whitney says, this story is really sad. People who get involved with these calls are emotionally and physically abused and become subject to a type of hypnosis or Stockholm syndrome type of reaction. Yeah. You know, I hear that a lot, Sharon, I don't really know. I really don't think I have a, have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. I mean, I know people can be manipulated. I know that people can be abused. You know, people, people have sort of, people can be very quick to S you know, sort of disowned people or, or, or be very judgy with people. They say, Hey, you know that, you know, Alison Mack is evil or these women were stupid, or they were some, you know, they should have known better. Or how could anybody sort of allow themselves to get worked into a position like this? And, you know, I think that's a little bit unkind. You know, I think that, that people oftentimes find themselves in very difficult situations. We often find ourselves in difficult situations just on a day-to-day basis, right. Whether it's in a relationship or a work environment, or whether you've got, you know, something, you know, in your personal life that you're working through, we sort of oftentimes kind of find ourselves like, how did we get here? Huh. This is a little bit weird. I don't know how that happened. You know, I, I should have seen the writing on the walls on this thing a long time ago, but for some reason I didn't make the right decision. And so, you know, you can easily see how people who are already vulnerable, maybe abused, or maybe been traumatized, or maybe, you know, their parents were in cults or something like this. They go there, they've got a hole to, and you have people who are charlatans, who will fill that hole for them. Right. Th this is happening in, in, in a bizarre sort of sex cult environment. But we just went through this on a national scale. I mean, there are people night, late, late night hosts and, you know, choirs and things that are doing cartwheels and stuff, and singing glory odes to a Fowchee. Right. Very cultish behavior. So you can see how people sort of just get lumped into this stuff. If you create an environment where there's a lot of pressure and there's a lot of stressors and people feel like they're, they're sort of, you know, cornered people will do things that maybe they wouldn't ordinarily do. And I just like to have a little bit of, of sort of empathy for people in those positions. And there will always be a charlatan, some bureaucrat, somebody somewhere who says, listen, I know you're hurting right now, but I've got a solution for you. Here's what it is. All you gotta do is just stay home for two weeks, just two weeks. That's it. I know it's hard, but just two weeks, if you can just lock it up 15 days to slow the spread, we're all going to be through this thing together. You sit and you go, okay, fine. 15 days. That's no problem. We can do that. We can do 15 days. Okay. I'll do 15 days, three weeks, four weeks, five weeks, six months, one year. And we're still sort of dealing with the consequences of this. So we've all been through it. I, you know, and, and I said this on the zoom meeting, watching the watchers.locals.com 18 months ago, I would have never thought that our government would lock us down in our own homes and mandate certain things for us. Never, never once would have thought that. And if I would've said that people would go, you're a cuspy, you're nuts. You're, you're, you're out of your mind, are you nuts? This is America. That would never happen. And here we are, the question is, how did we, you know, do we, how do, how are we allowing ourselves to continue to be that frog in the hot water that is slowly reaching a boil? It's easy for us to look back on Alison Mack and say, wow, this is insane. What a lunatic? How could she possibly do this? And meanwhile, we're letting our own government do it to us on a daily basis.

Speaker 5: 1:51:36

Oh, thank you. Oh yeah. You're right. Oh, well, you're right. That's why we're

Speaker 1: 1:51:40

Not, I guess, I guess we shouldn't be scared anymore. Thank you G for telling us what we should do. And then you've got late night hosts and you've got these choirs and everybody's very excited about it. Fowchee, Fowchee, right? Singing these oats, praising glory, be to the Fowchee and groan. This is insanity, but it happens very regularly. So it doesn't surprise me. All right. We've got, want to know, says, so Ken Cosby run for president now. Yeah. Maybe. Yeah. Maybe. Did he grab him by the whatever, you know, maybe it sounds like he did. I don't know, uh, three girls, he says, can Cosby now Sue for his prison time. So I would absolutely think that he should. Right. I think that absolutely that what happened was three years of his life were taken away from him based on a prosecutorial. Uh overzealousness let's say they made a deal with him and they backtracked on that deal. There should be serious repercussions for that. I would file the claim as malicious prosecutor, prosecution, or prosecutorial misconduct. I'm sure there's all sorts of ethical rules that have been violated. And I think that he should get monetary damages for their misconduct. Absolutely. No question about it. And the Supreme court seems like they concur with that. So we, uh, I'm not gas as I met Alison Mac when I was like 18. Oh, wow. I work under the assumption that anyone in Hollywood is either a victim, an abuser or both. That's probably a pretty good policy. And you know, sometimes you probably wear multiple hats, right? You might, you may be the victim who then turns into the abuser, which is sort of, I think what the evolutionary path was for some of these Nexia members, they were actually sort of working their way. Uh, you know, they would start at a lower tier and then sort of elevate themselves up. And then you became, Keith Raniere is right-hand person. And then you go in and recruited for him. And so it can be a very complicated, uh, undertaking there. Last up, we've got speech on Lee says I never put anything past the federal government when the Dems are in control. Yeah. It's kind of a scary little thing there. Isn't it. When you start to see he kind of unbridled power, limitless power, total monopoly, total control, and they can kind of just do whatever they want. So a lot of that conversation was happening today. I want to know we've got a couple more slides here before we end this segment. Quick reminder, our in our law group is our law firm. We're located in Scottsdale Arizona. If you or somebody, you know, or love needs help with a criminal case in the state of Arizona, we would love the opportunity to help. Our phone number is(480) 787-0394. Or if you take a picture with your camera of this QR code, it will take you right over to our website. We also have some informational offerings. If you want to learn anything, I invite you to come take a look at this law enforcement interaction training. Also, I have an existence systems program. And if you're an attorney or somebody who is a legal professional, we are meeting tomorrow for the illegal mastermind second call of the month. Oh, actually it is the second call of June, even though tomorrow is July. I apologize. I had to, I had to reschedule, but it's taking place tomorrow. If you're a lawyer or a legal professional, be sure to check that out. And that is it for me, my friends. I want to thank you for joining us today on the program, we had a little bit of interesting technical problems with the locals live stream. We're going to try to figure that out, trying to see how I can do that. If anybody has any suggestions, I'd be open to those, but I'm going to reach out to locals and we'll get that figured out. And, uh, we'll be back here at the same time, same place tomorrow. Hope to see you here. We're going to be back here at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everyone else enjoy your evening. Be very well rest. Well, sleep well eat well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.