Tucker Putin Interview NSA Spying Scandal, Avenatti’s Prison Sentence, Hunter’s Art Ethical Problems

New scoop form Axios offers deeper analysis in the Tucker/NSA spying allegations scandal. Former media superstar Michael Avenatti is sentenced to prison in Nike extortion scheme. President Biden’s White House grapples with Hunter Biden’s art deals and we review the artwork.​

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

🔵 Jonathan Swan from Axios reveals new details surrounding Tucker Carlson’s allegations the NSA is spying on him.​
🔵 According to Swan, Tucker was attempted to secure an interview with Vladimir Putin and the NSA scooped up conversations with foreign intermediaries. ​
🔵 Review of Tucker’s original claim and the NSA’s response in a carefully worded press release.​
🔵 Media figureheads in both parties spring into action to politicize the illegal spying.​
🔵 Johnathan Swan responds to Keith Olbermann on twitter, correcting his interpretation of the story.​
🔵 Former Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Avenatti is sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for extortion in the Nike case.​
🔵 Federal Judge Paul G. Gardephe issued the low sentence after prosecutors asked for a much longer 8-year term.​
🔵 Devlin Barett @DevlinBarrett provides the play-by-play of the sentencing proceeding form today’s hearing.​
🔵 Avenatti is schedule for trial in California Federal District Court on July 13th, 2021 and we review the state’s trial memorandum.​
🔵 White House grapples with Hunter Biden’s pricey art paintings hosted for sale.​
🔵 Review of the Georges Berges Gallery which lists Hunter Biden as an artist – how does he compare to artists Laddie John Dill and Ford Crull?​
🔵 A closer look at some of Hunter Biden’s artwork, including his COVID recreation.​
🔵 White House deputy press secretary says the ultra-secret confidential buying arrangements will make sure the process is ethical.​
🔵 Live chat 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​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 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 #Tucker #NSA #Spying #Unmasking #Avenatti #Hunter #Biden #Art #MoneyLaundering #Nike #Extortion #TuckerCarlson #BidenAdministration

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller. 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 politics, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to pick up on the Tucker Carlson NSA story, never been a big fan of the government coming in and sort of spying all over your private data and information. And when Tucker Carlson came out sometime ago and said that they suspected that the NSA was doing this, he got up, got pilloried out there in the media and from some of his media colleagues. But now there's a new story out from Axios from Jonathan Swan. That gives us a little bit more detail about what was happening here in particular. There's some idea that Tucker Carlson was trying to get an interview with Putin, and that is what triggered the NSA to gobble gobble up. So some of those conversations and then unmatched ask the other end of the phone call, which of course happens to be Tucker Carlson. So we're going to show you what's going on with there, with that story. Lot of unanswered questions, a lot of sort of speculation still floating around out there, but we're going to see if we can make some sense of it. Then we're going to talk about a big, pretty big news of the day, saw this all over the place, but Michael Avin naughty the former savior of the democratic party, the man who was going to bring down Donald Trump himself is now going to prison for two and a half years. And so we've got, uh, a brief overview of what happened today during the sentencing proceeding. Of course, this happened in federal court. And so we're not going to see video or anything like that, but we've got some, uh, uh, transcript of what, one of the reporters who was listening in heard at that time. And so we're going to go through and tell you what happened at Abinadi sentencing, because he was apparently pretty upset. And we're also going to take a look at his next case because he's not done yet. He's going to prison for two and a half years in New York, but they're going to fly him over to California because he's scheduled for a trial. I think it starting next week. And we've got a copy of the prosecution, the government's trial memorandum. And so we can sort of see what they're going to be alleging in that next case. And so we're going to talk about that. We've got some of those documents as well. And then lastly, we're going to talk about hunter Biden kind of been a while since we've talked about that guy, but he's back in the news because the white house is now expressing a little bit of concern about these art deals that he's got coming down the pike. He is a part of this sort of prestigious gallery in New York and the white house has some concerns. Now that that maybe there might be some ethical concerns here or some conflicts of interest if hunter Biden, who, to my knowledge really hasn't been, you know, uh, somebody who was an artist as per training, somebody who was the president's son for a long period of time, was flying all over the world. Lot of a lot of, you know, uh, extracurricular activities that are a part of his background, but artistry was never really one of them. And so now the allegation is that there are people that want to buy his artwork for something like half a million dollars,$500,000 or$75,000, which many people who know a little bit more about the Bidens who know sort of how these deals have been working with hunter Biden, being on Barisma and some of these other foreign country boards just being funneled tens of thousands of dollars every month, just to kind of be in close proximity to Joe Biden, who was the vice-president at the time. So now people are saying, well, maybe this is money laundering. Maybe this is some sort of a scheme where they can just funnel money over to hunter Biden. They'll call it artwork, and then they will just go about their business as usual. So we're going to talk about that and a lot more, we've got a lot to get into. If you want to be a part of the show, then we are, I'm going to invite you to head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com. I'm looking at the chat right now. It's why I pause there a little bit, but there's a lot of awesome people over here. We've got ZZ the boxing cat. He's got a friend across the pond wanting to know if they could sing onto the Trump, uh, sign onto the Trump big tech class action. Uh, you know about that? I don't know, right? I don't practice class action law, but we've got Joe snow's here sharing Courtney's here. Tos forever is over here. We've got a miss lucky 21 thunder seven, three Gurley's are in the house over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And we're going to check in with the chat as we go throughout the show. Hello, freedom lies. Hello, Jeremy Machida and some of the others. So head on over there, watching the watchers.locals.com and be sure to check out some of the other links down in the description below, as well as subscribe and give us a thumbs up. If you're on YouTube or anywhere else, we do very much appreciate that. Okay. So let's get into the news of the day. Tucker Carlson has been making the allegation that the NSA spied on him, that they actually went into his emails and they got some information about a story that he was working on. And he made a pretty big claim a couple of weeks ago saying that they may be doing this to try to take him off of the air. And as soon as he aired this piece, all over of his colleagues in the media were sort of going, oh, that Tucker he's just being ridiculous. Again, that's just a crazy right-winger out there. And all he is doing is just making up a bunch of stuff. It's not even remotely related to reality. Well, if you have been a part of this channel, you know that what Tucker is saying here actually resembles the truth. We've talked about the government doing this previously, historically when the government was sort of wiretapping or gobbling up conversations that Michael Flynn was having with the Russian ambassador Visel yak some time ago. And so we we've understood this framework for some period of time. Can we frame this out just briefly here, ordinarily, if the U S government is going to get capture some conversations or interfere with your data, poke in your email address, you know, listen in on your phone calls or any of that other stuff, the general rule is they need a warrant. And so it, Tucker Carlson is a us citizen. And so all of those protections apply to him. Now, the tricky part comes in when we're talking about conversations with foreign people, foreign intermediaries, foreign adversaries, foreign citizens, any of those things, because our us constitution doesn't apply to them, right? Their constitution applies to them. So our intelligence communities, they will gobble up all those conversations, a U S citizen, having a conversation with a foreigner, they'd say, well, gobble all of those up and just listen in because that sort of gives us license to do that because it's outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, then what ends up happening is because they want to make sure they're protecting us citizens. They will do what's called masking, right? So they'll mask one side of the phone call and just listen in on the other side of the phone call. That's how they sort of get around the rules. Oh, well, we're not, we're not actually spying on any Americans at all. And we're just going to just mask the Americans. And that way we can get around the fourth amendment. So they've been doing that for some time. What happened in Michael Flynn's case of course, is that the unmasking procedure. So Michael Flynn had been previously mass, but the unmasking procedure is sort of like a joke. You just kind of, I guess, you know, press a button, send an email, you know, fill out a form, something like that happens, but they just go, yeah, unmasked, unmasked, unmasked, you, you get another mask, you get an unmask. Everybody's unmasked. Oh, it's Oprah. And everybody goes hog-wild and that's exactly what was happening during the Obama administration. So they create these protections like, oh, we're going to mass people up and make sure their identities are protected. And then practically on the backend, there's really no checks or balances whatsoever at all. And that's how Michael Flynn was sort of unmasked and then spread around. And that turned into a whole can of worms that were still sort of, not really sure what happened there. And it is it's highly politicized. And it, what looked like to be an entirely political prosecution, which of course is highly, highly problematic. So we know that there's precedence for this. We know that in Tucker Carlson's case, something like this could easily have happened. And I want to show you what he said previously. Okay. So this is a couple of weeks ago. This, this is his original allegation. He says that they absolutely are spying on him specifically,

Speaker 2: 8:27

But it's not just political protesters. The government is spying on yesterday. We heard from a whistleblower within the U S government who reached out to warn us at the NSA. The national security agency is monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take the show off the air. Now that's a shocking claim and ordinarily we'd be skeptical of it is illegal for the NSA to spy on American citizens. It's a crime, it's not a third world country. Things like that should not happen in America, but unfortunately they do happen. And in this case they did happen. The whistleblower, who was in a position to know repeated back to us information about a story that we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails. There's no other possible source for that information period.

Speaker 1: 9:15

So it may very well be that, that, you know, having a conversation with somebody who's a foreign intermediary and essay gobbles that up, and somehow Tucker's unmasked, right? Somebody in the NSA gets a notice, Hey man, we're looking at your emails right here. We're looking at this story, you're working on, want to let you know about this? And so the question then becomes a why, how was that unmasking? How did that happen? If that was in fact how this was unveiled and, you know, look, I know that Tucker himself has gotten a lot. He's kind of been pilloried in the media about this Keith Olbermann. We've got a, a screenshot from him out there. And a lot of people on the left were making fun of him and a lot of people on the right work as well. And I just want to, you know, I think spying spying in general is a giant problem that we have here in the United States, right? I've said that a lot, I have called people like Edward Snowden and Julian assigns heroes and people who are foisting the flag of transparency and accountability, and sort of pulling the rug out from the government in certain areas where they should not be doing what they're doing, right. He's exposed, they're exposing this for what it is. And I don't approve of it in any way, shape or form. I think it's a huge, huge infringement on our own civil liberties, but it's sort of been something that we've all just sort of gotten used to, right? They just do this and we know that they had been doing it. We know that they've done it entirely confidentially. We've talked about this with the prism case. We've talked about the five eyes Alliance that is taking place between all of, you know, five different liberal democracies around the world. And the list goes on there's 18 intelligence communities plus space force, and the list goes on. They are listening and watching everything. So many Americans have just said, well, that's okay. We don't care. Oh, we're going to put that device over there. That listens to me in that one and this one too, and then walk around with our cell phones all day, but it's just life now. You really can't escape it. So that's just how it is. The problem has always become when sort of the government is doing it against certain ideologies or against certain people using it as a very specific tool, not as a shield to protect America, but almost as a sword to go after your political enemies and in Tucker's case, right? He's a member of the media and the media, we've all called the fourth estate, right? There's sort of this organization that is supposed to hold the government accountable. We've got the government and then we've got the, these are these watchdogs and these journalists that are supposed to be in there saying, Hey, we want to know what you're doing in there, sir, Madam, whatever congressperson we want answers on this. And largely our ineffective sort of emasculated media has very little, uh, fortitude. And so very little hard questions have been asked recently. Uh, uh, unfortunately, so that's a problem when the government now is going after the media in particular. And remember when this was happening, when Donald Trump said, well, we're going to close the white house, press briefing room. There was a meltdown in the media. Everybody was freaking out, oh, we've never seen this type of assault on journalism and journalists. And you know, this, this is dangerous and journalists are going to be getting, you know, hurt and killed around the country because of this language. And they all just hyperventilated astronomically, right? I mean the, the CO2 levels in the room went up about 10, 10 points. And then now it's all been kind of like, uh, kind of silent, right? We're hearing allegations from a journalist who says the NSA was spying on my stuff. And we've got some pretty concrete evidence about that because they're repeating stories back to us that they would never have access to. And then everybody just sort of laughed at that. Going after the media is, is, is sort of now I think just a common part of our politics, right? Trump did this and right. The media is, is I think highly problematic. But if you're inside the media, right, if you're a journalist, I got a problem with the media in general. But if you're a journalist, if you're somebody who's working for the New York times, and you say that what Trump was doing to the New York times was problematic, but you're not standing up here and saying, well, what the Biden administration through the NSA is doing to Tucker, well, then you've got a little bit of an inconsistency there. So you might want to address that. But you know, largely I think that the government spying on anybody, whether it's Tucker or MSNBC or anybody is a giant problem and the line needs to be drawn in the sand there when the government is investigating somebody who is also in the media, but is also on the opposition, like Tucker is directly opposed to Joe Biden and his administration that is highly problematic right now, you're talking about specifically breaching civil liberties in order to go after your political opponents. And Tucker happens to be one of the most powerful in the country, of course, because of the size of his audience and because of a show, it's great show. He does. He does actually, you know, I think very good investigative journalism, whereas many other journalists do not. So they're not going to rally to his side, of course, but we now know that maybe there's some more to the story previously. They were saying this whole, thing's a joke. Tucker's a joke. He's always been a joke. And now maybe there's a little bit more credibility here because we're going to go from the NSA coming out here and say, oh no, he wasn't a target of anything to now maybe, oh, well, well maybe we actually did get some of those communications. So we have this article from Jonathan Swan. He did a great piece over at Axios. And I want to show you a little bit more about him. So this is him. He is over on Twitter, almost a million followers. So he's got a big presence and you can find him here at Jonathan V Swan. So we'll check him out. He wrote this article over at Axios. He says, scoop Tucker Carlson, sot Putin interview at the time of the spine claim. Right. So, so, so it watch the story kind of shifts, right? I'm not, I'm not trying to be critical of Jonathan Swan. Here's a good article, but you can kind of watch the narrative, you know, shift from the NSA. Wasn't looking at anything that Tucker was doing to well. Yeah, well, I mean, they were, but he was talking to Putin. So like they had no choice because he was talking to America's enemy, number one, as they've been telling us for a long time. So you can just watch that kind of shift happening right in front of your eyes. He says Tucker Carlson was talking to the U S based Kremlin intermediaries about setting up an interview with Putin shortly before the Fox hosts accused the NSA of spying on him, says sources familiar with the conversations. He says, why it matters. Those sources said that U S officials learned about Carlson's efforts to secure the Putin interview. Carlson learned that the government was aware of his outreach and that's the basis of his extraordinary accusation followed by a rare public denial by the NSA that he had been targeted. Axios has not confirmed whether any communications from Carlson have been intercepted. And if so, why? Right? So we're still sort of lacking some proof here. This article is going to go through and we're going to speculate and sort of dissect some of the different possibilities that are happening here. But I want to just be clear here. We're going to, we're going to go through the article and we're going to sort of check in, cause Jonathan Swan, after this article, it is credit and he's, he's all over Twitter, sort of trying to defend as some of the misinterpretation of what he has written here. So you're going to see here that he's, he's sort of explaining what's happening and gaming out some possibilities, but also recognizing that there's a lot of information that we don't know here. And so people who are hopping on Twitter and saying, see, we told you so Tucker was right. Or Keith Olbermann saying, see, I told you, so he was talking to America's enemies. He was the swans out there on Twitter, sort of batting those down. Nope. That's not accurate. That's not accurate. That's not accurate. And I'm gonna show you that here in a minute. So just want to frame that out. Let's see what else is in his article. He says, let's take a look at the big picture. We talked about this previously. He said Carlson. When he made those charges, he instantly became a cause celeb on the right, which feasted on the allegation that one of American's most prominent conservatives might have been monitored by the us intelligence community. Right? And we talked about it here, right? I was a sort of roiled up about it. The backstory. So Carlson told his roughly 3 million viewers on June 28th, that clip that I already just played for. You said, they'd be heard from a whistleblower. They're monitoring our communications and they're planning to leak them and an attempt to take us off the air. So we played that Carlson said his source was in a position to know, and information came from his text and his emails said it's illegal for the NSA to spy on citizens. But we know they do happen. As we had talked about in the Michael Flynn case and others, the NSA said in a tweet the next night that his allegation is untrue. Here's what they wrote in their statement. We talked about this as well. They said that Tucker Carlson, alleged that they had been monitoring our electronic communications. They say, this allegation is untrue, but they refer to one allegation singular. And there may and he's making to right here, right monitoring. And then the attempt to take off his show. There's an and right here. So it's, it's facially nonresponsive. It's only responding to one combined allegation rather than addressing either of those. But I guess you can bunch them up together and say, neither are true. Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the agency, which is great. Which as, as we've mentioned here, he's not saying that he was the target. He said, we want to know where you monitoring the communications. That's a whole separate question that this paragraph does not answer. NSA has a foreign intelligence mission. K again, nonresponsive doesn't matter. We target foreign powers. Okay. So like Putin and the NSA may target a citizen with limited exceptions without a court order, but they have to have this certain exceptions if it's explicitly authorizing the targeting. So it's like, thank you for that information, NSA. That's very nice. Thank you for sending us the policy manual, I guess that you have over there. But how about the actual question? Are you monitoring? Did you intercept any of those conversations? It might be good to know. So that was a while back Fox news. Then today gave this response to Axios. They said we support any of our hosts pursuing interviews and stories free of government interference. So good for them. Tucker Carlson said, as I've said repeatedly, because it's true. The NSA read my emails and then leak their contents. That's an outrage as well as illegal. So it's unclear why Carlson or a source would think this outreach could be the basis of NSA surveillance or a motive to have his show canceled. So now you can see that this journalist is actually being responsive to the claim of Tucker Carlson and Tucker Carlson. Is he sort of breaking these up into two claims. Number one, of course, being that they're monitoring him. Number two, being that there is a motivation to take him off of the air. And so let's just keep those two separately. We can have a pin in each one of those one I think is absolutely pretty clear. The other, I think is a little bit more speculative. And I think that even Tucker Carlson might be saying that maybe there maybe his allegation, that they were trying to take him off the air is going to be more difficult to prove. And so maybe that was just sort of a little bit of an exaggeration. We'll see. It says, it's unclear why he made those claims. He says, journalists routinely reach out to world leaders, right? Including leaders of countries that are not allied with the U S to request interview. So the, the point here is if Tucker is doing that, then why would that get him off the air? He says, it's not unusual to reach out through unofficial intermediaries rather than through the official press offices. So if Tucker's just doing regular journalism things, then why would his attempt to reach out to Putin mean that he would be off the air? Right? Kind of no, that's just journalism. NSA. Doesn't care about that. Now he says numerous American journalists have also interviewed Putin. And Chris Wallace also just did so recently in 2018. So it's not even out of the ordinary. So the, the point being, why would the NSA care on Wednesday, yesterday Carlson told Maria Bartiromo on Fox news Fox business that his only his executive producer knew about the communications in question and that he didn't mention it to anybody else, including his wife. But of course the recipients of the texts and emails also knew about their content. And we don't know how widely they shared this information. Right? So it kind of goes both ways. So did somebody else leak that? And you're trying to connect the chain a little bit, right? If Tucker sends this to somebody else who is a producer and they're communicating back and forth, and then it goes to an NSA informant or somebody on the inside of the government who then is a whistleblower that communicates that back to Carlson. Well, th the, the question is how did the NSA person get that in the first place? How did it go from those emails to that person? What Swan is saying here, the recipient being of the text or the email themselves communicated that back to the NSA, which kind of seems like that might be far out there. Alright, enough, let's go back to the article. He goes, let's read between the lines, the NSA's public statement, didn't directly deny that any Carlson communications had been swept up by the agency, right? Not at all. They didn't say that. They just said he wasn't a target Axios then submitted a request for a comment to the NSA on Wednesday, asking whether they would be willing to categorically deny that the NSA intercepted any of Carlson's communications in the context of monitoring somebody, he was talking to in an effort to set up an interview with Putin on NSA spokesperson declined to comment and referred Axios back to the agency's earlier carefully worded statement that we just read that didn't say anything. In other words, the NSA is denying the targeting of Carlson, but is not denying that his communications were incidentally collected. Right. Incidentally, yet, incidentally, it's just Tucker Carlson's right. Happens to be Tucker Carlson. Uh, probably the biggest right-wing comments on the cable news today. Incidentally collected. Got it. All right. So what's next experts say there are several plausible scenarios, including legal scenarios that could be applied, uh, that could apply. So let's run through a couple of these the first and the least likely is that the U S government submitted a request to the fours, the Pfizer court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court to monitor Karl center, protect national security likelihood of that probably low, more plausible scenario is that one of the people Carlson was talking to as an intermediary was under surveillance as a foreign agent, right? So Tucker is talking to a foreigner that doesn't have the same protections against illegal spying that American citizens do. And so he got just kind of caught up in that and then somehow was unmasked and it leaked back over to him in that scenario, Carlson's emails or text messages could have been incidentally collected as part of monitoring, but his identity would have been massed in any intelligence reports. Okay. So once it gets drafted, it's all mapped. Well, we don't know who that person is in order to know that the texts and emails were Carlson's a U S government official would likely have to request his identity, be unmasked, something that's only permitted. If it's necessary to understand the intelligence. So they could be, you know, reading the transcripts and they could be listening or, or reading the conversation, they can gather what is happening. And they get actionable data from that. Then that's it, that's the end of it. But if they need to know what person a is and what, and who that is in order to get context about the conversation, then you have a good basis to, I asked that person because it's necessary in order to understand the intelligence. So what happens if Tucker Carlson, uh, you know who who's unknown right now, he's in an, uh, an anonymous mask person is having a conversation saying, Hey, we want to bring Putin to New York. We want to have him sit down and tell us what he thinks about the Biden administration. We have a, a, uh, NSA, you know, spook out there who saying, oh my God, goodness, we have a Fort. We have a us citizen. Who's inviting Russia over to our country to sit down here and talk badly about the Biden administration. Oh, that might be a threat to America's security because we know just how dangerous Russia is. They've been at the forefront of every single problem that the United States has been facing for the last hundred years, according to the Democrats. So now we know that this is like a category five hurricane. We got to brace for impact because, uh, Tucker Carlson or, or person a at this moment is talking to somebody who might be connected to Putin. So we have to unmask this person. Oh, oh, oh, it's Tucker Carlson. How about that? So, you know, everything is fine. It's all kosher. Hunky-dory because you're following the rules and you're just doing the unmasking just to understand the intelligence. And so maybe they say, oh, oh, it's Tucker car. Oh, it's just a Putin interview. That's all. They just want to talk about you as Fox news. And we don't like them anyways. But the point is they go through that whole thing. They unmask him and they, they, you know, they're, they're, they're essentially, if it's the same person seizures, more or less as it was happening with Michael Flynn, there really wasn't even much of a process at all to unmask somebody. It's just like, Hey, send an email. And it just happens. So we'll see if there's anything more there there's a third scenario that Swan lays out for us. He says that interceptions might not have involved Carlson's communications, the U S government routinely monitors the communications of people in Putin's or orbit who may have been discussing the details of Carlson's requests for an interview. Right? So it'd be like, yeah. If, if Tucker who was a U S citizen sends it to a foreign intermediary and the foreign intermediary, that conversation from Tucker to the foreigner is not being captured. But the foreigner then who's in Russia, presumably communicates that. Let's say to the Russian embassy, over to Russian, Russian scheduling person to the receptionist over there at Putin's residence. And then they get the whole thing scheduled, but maybe the U S intelligence services, the NSA are actually monitoring those conversations. And they say, oh, oh, they're passing around memos about getting Putin scheduled in Tucker studio. And so we're just monitoring that. And then the NSA person says, oh no, we were just, we weren't listening to you. They were talking about you. That's how your name came up. It had nothing to do. We weren't looking at your stuff. It was just somebody else who was talking about you. And that's what flagged it for me. So let's go back. It says, under this scenario, though, Carlson's identity would have been masked in reports as part of his protection as a citizen. And the unmasking would only be permitted if a us government official requested that his identity be unmasked. And it's not clear why that would be necessary here to sources familiar with Carlos, right? Because in that case, they're talking about an interview, right? They're not talking about, you know, hacking a pipeline again, they're talking about an interview. So why would they need to unmask Tucker Carlson if it's not necessary to understand the intelligence, because they're talking about an interview, which is obviously very Chris Wallace did one, and we've noticed that other people have interviewed Putin before. So what's the big deal. Why would they unmask him in that third scenario? Hmm. Maybe they wouldn't the intrigue, this article wraps up, says two sources familiar with Carlson's communication said that two Kremlin intermediaries live in the United States, but the sources could not confirm whether both are American citizens or whether both, both were on us soil at the time they talked to Carlson. So what if, what if now they were both us citizens, huh? That kind of changes the equation a little bit right now, obviously illegal. Let's let's see here. He says this is relevant because if one of them was a foreign national and on foreign soil, the U S government wouldn't necessarily have had to seek approval to monitor their communication. So if they were on, if they were on foreign soil, right. Not on us soil. Okay. So let's see what else Jonathan Swan has to say. So he mentioned previously, right? This is the author of the article he's leaking. He's sending this over there. He says NSA spokesman declined to comment, referring them back to the original story that they incidentally collected the material. Now, Jonathan Swan was out all over Twitter. This was today. And he's just kind of just bouncing around, defending the article, which I think is certainly to his credit. He's saying to Keith Olbermann, remember Keith Olbermann. I haven't seen him around in a long time, but I just followed him over on Twitter because he is just hysterical to watch. As we told you at the time, he says Tucker Carlson was communicating with a foreign based individual intent on harming the U S right? So that's key's claim saying that, well, that's what you get there. Old Tucky tuck. So that is something that is perfectly lawful because you were talking to Putin. And as, as Keith Olbermann has been screeching about for the last 25 years, Putin is wrong with is what's wrong with the entire world. And he's responsible for Trump and he ruined Hillary's life and all of this stuff, very, very dramatic about it. So when Donald, oh, I'm sorry. When Tucker Carlson is communicating with and he's saying, well, that's what you get. NSA should be spying on you because Putin has been wrecking America for a long time. Jonathan Swan, though, he says, well, what's Keith. He says, oh, that's not what the story says there, buddy. Boy, he says, I have tried to get four and interviews with adversaries and use back channels. When front door doesn't work right as journalist, Keith is a journalist, Keith was a journalist or pretend to be journalist, but he knows how this works. He says, I would not expect my name to be unmasked. If comes involving me or about me were intercepted. We don't know yet how the U S government learn info only that they did. Right? So we don't know how, how did they get it? Which is the big question. And that's where some of the impropriety really might be. And Jonathan Swan is reaching out to an adversary for an interview, perfectly legal, perfectly, no reason to unmask that, right. It's part of the fourth estate. It's just regular. Journalisming Keith Olbermann. Doesn't quite get that doesn't get much. But anyways, Jonathan Swan was out there also kind of clearing things up here with Shawn Davis as well. Sean Davis says the details. Aren't cloudy at all. The corrupt intelligence community spite on Tucker collected his communications, unmasked him, and then leaked his comms to reporters who are now refusing to quote, confirm what their own government sources admitted to them. Jonathan Swan says, pushing back on this, he says, listen, if I had specific info on Tucker's communication, I would publish it. If I had info on an Intel report or unmasking, I would publish it. I don't, I publish everything I could confirm. So far, this piece lays out different scenarios and raises questions that we are still chasing. Okay. So there's still a lot to get to there. I think that Sean Davis is probably right, right. If you had to speculate probably right. That they did. In fact spy on him, they did collect this communications. They did unmask him and they are now sort of using this to their advantage. Right. And that's not in evidence yet though. We don't have that yet. Jonathan Swan is, you know, push holding the line a little bit back from everybody who wants to sort of make this into something that it's not quite yet, but it might feel like it in fact is all right. So let's take a look@thequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Let's see what we've got going on here. We've got a couple questions now popping in here. Joe Snow says the government is never punished. Be brave is here in the house. Wants to know, says the government caught to sell a house and work somewhere else, such a hassle for them like the Catholic church we've got. Let's see who else is here? Want to know, says teachers are part of the government, uh, rights, Kenny, one B there's a question it says most likely is that the intermediary that Tucker is using is also trying to recruit intelligence assets within the U S for Russia. Okay. That's interesting. Okay. Yeah. Wow. Interesting. Joe Snow says if the entire federal government let's not read that one. Let's see what else thunder is here. So thunder seven is here. It says, Rob don't understand why Tucker is surprised that the NSA is spying on him, Obama and his crew spied on the Trump campaign. Five years ago, Trump was ridiculed by the fake news on a daily basis and called them the enemy of the people, Tucker experiencing just a tiny amount compared to what Trump has endured slings. And arrows says thunder nine. Yeah. That is a good point. Right? Donald look, Donald Trump was very adversarial with the press. And I think for good reason, I think that they were not, not fair to him, you know, but what can you expect that really? Probably not. You know, I, I have a big problem with the media. I think that they are completely one sided, at least some of the mainstream ones that I follow. Right. I, I, I, for this show, I do pop around to many of the mainstream sources just to sort of keep my bearing straight. But the New York times and the Washington post and the LA times, and some of the other ones that I follow, they're pretty consistently ideologically. One-sided right. It's, it's, it's pretty obvious if you read enough of them. So I don't know that that's going to necessarily, right. Every politician is going to complain about the media. They all do. I don't think that that is even really, you know, what I'm upset about at all. It's I don't really even care about that. It's the media you're in politics, deal with that. They're going to be one sided. We already know that that's just the playing field. The next, I guess question though, is when does that become sort of illegal, right? When does the gun romance pushing back against the media cross that line? And if you're going to be spying on journalists, that is clearly crossing the line in my humble opinion. All right. Let's see what else we've got. We've got Jeremy MITRE to here. He says, even though the government spying on us, citizens is the norm, but it doesn't make it any more legal. That's true. Right. And we shouldn't accept that. Right. It's just, it's just not something that I think we should just roll over on, which is why we're doing the show. Of course. Let's see. We've got Joe Snow says the NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, ATF, Congress, white house. What have any of these people done for anybody lately? It's a good question. I don't really know. We got Kareem 1 65 says, did you hear today that there will be a vaccine passport starting in September for Quebec? No, I did not hear that. I've been to Quebec. Hmm. Maybe not going back there though. Thunder set. Okay. We got to under seven already. Let's see what else we have here. We've got DK. Pour here says, Rob, do you think that Congress can sort of reverse this unacceptable, any illegal spying of us citizens? Uh, I that's a good question. You know, I would say technically they, they could write, they could unwind the jurisdiction of the Pfizer court. You know, they, they set a lot of these policies in place, but I don't think that they would ever do that. I mean, technically yeah, they could. Is that practically anything that's ever going to happen? I really don't think so. And even if they did, you know, based on what we've seen with prism and the five eyes and all of that sort of really, really undercover stuff that I think is built in at the root level, the backbone of the internet, I'm not real sure that there's really much of anything that can be done to put that genie back in the bottle. Unfortunately. So privacy is obviously a big issue and, you know, privacy can be one of those things that people can forfeit and that might lead them to being charged with crimes, which is a big, big reason why it's so important. And if you happen to know somebody who is facing criminal charges in the state of Arizona, we would love the opportunity to help. We have an amazing team of people here at our law firm, the RNR law group. We're quite good at what we do. We're very aggressive in court. We have fun here on the show, but when it's court time, it's score time and we need to go in there and help you achieve your goals and reach the outcome that you deserve. And so our office is ready and available to help. Our phone number is(480) 787-0394. The website is our, our law easy.com. And our mission here is to provide safety, clarity, and hope to good people facing criminal charges. And we'd love the opportunity to help if you don't need any criminal representation. Very good thing. You might want some informational offerings, including the law interaction training, which of course is over here available at gumroad.com/robert ruler. It's a two and a half hour course that you can get through pretty quickly. There's also a cheat sheet in there. So if you don't want to sit through two and a half hours, you don't need to, you can listen to about the first hour and a half, and you'll have a crash course on criminal law and you'll understand how to interface with the police. But there's also just, if you just want to skip all that, just go get it. There's a slide deck. Six slides explains the whole thing. You can read that in about 10 minutes. If you want to check that out. gumroad.com/robert ruler. All right, we're going to change gears now. Michael avant naughty. We've talked about him for some time. You're on the channel. Well, if for a while here he was America's savior. He was going to just protect us all from Donald Trump. Who of course was the megalomania maniacal maniac out there who was going to just wreck everything for everybody. And so Abinadi was sentenced today. Here's a picture of him walking into court. He arrives for a scheduled sentencing hearing over at the Manhattan federal court. He's still massed up. He's a California lawyer who publicly sparred with then president Donald Trump before the criminal fraud charges today, he was in court and he was sentenced. And so now he's going to be going to prison for two and a half years, which is actually quite a light sentence. And so we're going to go through this today. Want to explain what happened here? I'm a criminal defense attorney. Kay. I don't like it. Instinctually when somebody goes to prison, it is, it is a horrendous thing that often happens. Okay. Michael Abinadi is a special kind of, of bad person. No question about it. We're going to get into that, but I just want to remind ourselves that when this, when this happens, basically everybody breaks, okay, you, you, you sort of, I've watched this happen. I've watched grown men with big companies, just sort of crumble when you're in front of a judge and you're getting sentenced, it's a big deal, right? Everything changes your ego just sort of strips away from you. And it's a, it's a, it's a, it's, it's a humbling almost no sacred symbolic experience. Okay. You're taking somebody and I mean, sacred, not in a good way, but you know, in a, in a, it's a, it's a powerful thing that happens. Somebody who was once free is now going into custody. Okay. It's a big deal. And so we just want to pause and have a little bit of humanity for that. Now, you know, you can have a lot of disdain for Michael Abinadi. I don't find him to be somebody who is an esteemable a steamable person. And we're going to talk about that. And I also have a little bit of a, an increased lax have empathy for him, largely because of the fact that he's an attorney, right? And people hold attorneys and a little bit higher regard and attorneys have a little bit of an unfair advantage. We have some extra training, some schooling, some years in court. And so when you are engaging with non-lawyers as a lawyer, it's kind of like, especially when you're talking about legal issues, it's kind of, you know, wrestling with your younger brother, somebody who's younger than you, that you can easily be. You can easily take advantage of if you know that. And so you, you can't do that, right? You, you sort of have to hold yourself to a higher standard to make sure that that doesn't happen. This is the same reason why I get so irritated when cops do bad things based because it's like, Hey, we give you total power, a total monopoly to do whatever you want. You got a badge and a gun. You went through special training, you got a total, you know, you've got all the money in the world. You have a ton of backup anywhere you want. So you've got special privileges that other people don't. So when you breach the law, when you violate the same law that you were sworn to uphold, I got a huge problem with that. It is sort of, uh, somebody in a position of power dumping all over somebody that doesn't, I don't like bullies. And I don't like being in a situation where, you know, people are taking advantage of other people. It drives me bananas. That's why I'm a defense attorney because our us government, our federal state governments do that all day long every day. But Michael Abinadi did it as well. So he has a special level of disdain coming from me. So I don't, I don't appreciate, you know, anything that he's done. I don't appreciate his political perspectives or the spectacle that we saw from him. I'd also, don't like how the media treated him. But there also is a little bit of humanity left. When somebody goes to prison for two and a half years, when somebody goes into custody, it's a thing that happens and people will break. So we've got to have a little bit of humanity there as we go through this. Now, that being said, there's a brilliant philosopher who once said true. Happiness is seeing your neighbor fall off their roof. Michael Abinadi just fell off the roof. And a lot of people in the media also fell off the roof. Remember this one? He's Donald

Speaker 3: 40:20

Shrubs. Worst nightmare. Mike

Speaker 2: 40:22

Joining us once again is Michael avenue audience bringing Michael Abinadi. Michael Abinadi, Michael Abinadi. Thank you very much. He's out there saving the country. Jim says he may be the savior of the Republic. If you are something of a folk hero. Now I owe Michael. Abinadi an apology. I've been saying enough for writing Michael. I've seen you everywhere. What do you have left to say? I was wrong, brother. You have a lot to say, I am just dying to hear what you think. I'm the only person right here. Donald Trump fears more than Robert Miller. We think

Speaker 4: 40:52

You guys are the tip of the spear. This is going to take down Donald Trump,

Speaker 5: 40:56

Michael, he's a beast.

Speaker 1: 40:59

We're gonna, we're gonna continue on with this clip. But I forgot to mention, listen to the very last couple seconds of this clip. I've played this clip before, but not in its entirety. We're going to pause. Just listen to the last thing that he says. So we're going to go through the clip. He's going to finish. And then we're going to see this splash frame. I think it's from free beacon. Then there's one final clip from Mr. Abinadi. Let's listen. See what that is.

Speaker 2: 41:21

Okay. That's true. And he's a beast. He's a beast. He has a bigger calling here. That being the lawyer is minimal compared to what he's doing. No one has talked tougher directly to Donald Trump on TV, but Michael Abinadi and Donald Trump is afraid to mention his name. That's fascinating. Donald Trump is terrified of Michael Lebanon, Trump, a run for his money, more than anybody else. Michael Abinadi is existential threats to the Trump presidency. The Democrats could learn something for you. You are messing with Trump a lot more than they are. He has no doubt created sheer panic and Donald Trump's very fragile mind. Michael Abinadi is laying down the law as guest cohost, really thinking about running for president. Uh, one reason why I'm taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news. You look at the field of Democrats right now, and Abinadi is the one who stands out. They decide they value a fighter. Most yes, people would be foolish to underestimate Michael Abinadi. I have always said that they need a fighter. Look. I mean, we're going to continue to use the media.

Speaker 4: 42:25

I think we've used just do it with great success.

Speaker 1: 42:27

Wait for it. Here it comes here. It comes all

Speaker 2: 42:30

Sexual fantasies involve handcuffs.

Speaker 6: 42:36

[inaudible]

Speaker 5: 42:36

Well,

Speaker 1: 42:36

Mr. Abinadi well, unfortunately, uh, you're going to get to experience those who did today. In fact, two and a half years in prison for extortion, according to the AP. So Michael Abinadi the brash California lawyer who represented stormy Daniels and the lawsuit against president Trump's sentence two and a half years for trying to extort$25 million from Nike by threatening them with bad publicity. So he's 50 years old convicted last year, uh, of charges, including attempted extortion and honesty of on a services based on a representation of an LA youth basketball league, who was upset that Nike had ended its league sponsorship say, so an LA youth basketballs they're mad. They go to, uh, Abinadi. He calls Nike and then tries to extort them, us district, judge Paul G God guard, Deffie called everbody's conduct, outrageous saying quote, he hijacked his client's claims and use those claims to further his own agenda, which was to extort millions of dollars from Nike, for himself. And so in federal court, during the sentencing proceeding, you really, you can't have audio or video. So we can't, you know, check in on any of this stuff. But the, I did poke around Twitter and some people were doing the live tweeting things. So we're going to poke around and just want to show you some of the things that I saw here is Jerry Dunn levy, K. Now he is over there saying that Michael Abinadi is crying in the courtroom during his speech before sentencing. Right? He says the, and so of course, that, that caught a lot of attention and a lot of journalists were, were listening to that and they go, oh my gosh, he's, he's bawling his eyes out in there. What the heck's going on. So, you know, that was spreading around and a lot of people are saying, oh, well, Mr. Tough guy. Huh? Okay. Yeah. How about that? They're not so fun. Is it? You know? And so I understand wanting to spike the football. I get it. I know it's fun and oh yeah. You know, it kind of feels good from time to time. But as I said, this is a big thing, right? He's going to prison for two and a half years and you might think that's well worn. Maybe you do. Maybe it is that doesn't take away from the important of what happened. It's a, it's a big thing when that happens to anybody and we don't want to sort of skate over that. All right. So Jerry Don levy says, the judge is now calmly reading Ave bodies. F-word late in Nike extortion rants. These were secretly recorded by the FBI into the record before sentencing. So what does that mean? The judge, the judge was sort of skewered him a little bit, you know, the knife's kind of in there and just kind of twisting it a little bit. So Alhanati comes up there and he's like, judge bawling his eyes out. I'm sorry. And we're going to hear some of what he said. And then the judge says, huh, okay. Well, how about this? Pulls out the transcript and just says, oh, Alvin naughty said, gimme the F and F and F and F okay. Now next line judge. And in all, all in, on and on. So[inaudible] and they're gone. Yeah. I said that. Yep. So that too. Yep. Said that too. And so after his sentencing where he's, you know, probably doing this whole, you know, I'm really sorry routine. Then the judge comes back out and says, well, why did you do that? Then that doesn't make any sense. And so when that happens, you would tend to think that the judge would be coming down with a very harsh sentence. They're going to just say, well, I don't like this. And so we're going to make sure this slams hard. We'll see if the judge did that. In fact now, as I mentioned, Cernovich was out there and he got this, right? He says, listen, take no joy in[inaudible] breakdown in court, rejoicing in suffering is how demons enter you. Abinadi wasn't evil man. Printed, promoted by every major corporate media outlet they collaborated with. And they promoted disinformation. God is evening the ledger. Ooh. There's a reason people follow Cernovich. That's a powerful tweet right there. And I think he's, he's he's right, right. Alhanati we've seen the media do this. They just sort of use people they're disposable. They just bring them up. Oh, Abinadi, he's got a loud mouth and he's very aggressive. And we like what he says, we like to style. So they put them on every single show, just like I played in that montage earlier, where they're just milking this for everything. And you see them do this all over, all over the place. Right. It's the same routine. Abinadi is not useful to them anymore, just in the garbage gone. Right. And this happens, my friends with a lot of the stories we talk about here happens with Brianna Taylor. It just happened with George Floyd. Okay. Shelby was convicted all of that stuff. Right. Is there going to be any changes? Not that I've seen. We've seen the George Floyd bill still just kidding, kicked around over there and nothing's going to happen, Joe, Biden's set a deadline. I think it was May 25th gone and gone came and came and went gone. So everybody just jumps on it. Right. And regardless of what you think about George Floyd, there were a lot of people talking about that case and saying specifically that, oh, this is going to be the impetus for change. We're all going to defund the police and do all of this stuff. And then now we're just, we're seeing, well, there's a crime wave. And in fact, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the two biggest law enforcement advocates in the history of the country are out there saying, well, we got an extra$350 billion now for a local law enforcement. So George Floyd was just a convenient name. Somebody that didn't really matter much at all. It was just useful for the time. It was very useful during the election season, got a lot of people riled up and all vitriolic and amped up to go out there and vote against that evil, racist warmonger named Donald Trump. And now they can suddenly, uh, uh, kind of do the same thing here with Abinadi. Oh, well, he, he was, he was useful until he wasn't anymore. Right. In the garbage, which is just it's reprehensible that they do that to people. Uh, you'd imagine that there would be a little bit more, or I would say, I guess, I guess integrity, right? If you believe in something, if you're going to get on the internet and get on news and get on media all the time and sort of, you know, advocate for something. Michael Abinadi is the best in the world. We heard that from everybody. And now he's like, oh, w w sorry about that. So, uh, anyways, so, uh, Cernovich is out here. Yeah. Abinadi is, you know, a piece of garbage, but at the same time, if you sort of, I really take pleasure in somebody else's suffering or their downfall, what does that do? Which sort of invites that in, into your heart. And so we try to, you know, have humanity is specially when you're at the end of the line. Okay. Abinadi is at the end of the line, it's over for him. So at this moment, spiking, the football might feel good, but it really, I don't know how necessary it is. Okay. Let's go back to the article. Abinadi said that the judge added that he had become drunk on the power of his platform, just true, which the media gave him and they exploited it or what he perceived the power of his platform to be right, not so powerful. He had big become someone who operated as if the laws and the rules that applied to everyone else. Didn't apply to him. Criminal fraud charges on two coasts, disrupted Abinadi is rapid ascent to fame. He faces the start of a fraud trial next week in Los Angeles, which we're going to look at here shortly. This is a second California criminal trial. There was another one in California later this year, and a separate trial next year in Manhattan, where he's charged with cheating Daniels out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So when I say he's at the end of the line, I mean, I meant that, right? He's not just done. This happened in New York. He's going back to California, criminal trial next week, going back out next year for another one in California, then back out next year to another one in Manhattan. So there's going to keep stacking these charges on top of him. He has become no longer useful. And so he is now expendable. So Abinadi then is represented. As we all know, stormy Daniels in 2018 lawsuits against Donald Trump, he explored running against Trump in 2020 boasting that he would have no problem. Raising money. Daniels said that a tryst with Trump, we remember all of that. The political aspirations evaporated when prosecutors in California and New York charged Abinadi with fraud, March, 2019, California prosecutors said he was enjoying a$200,000 a month lifestyle a month, my friends a month while cheating clients out of millions of dollars and failing to pay of thousands to the IRS. So, uh, all of those are very disgusting things, cheating his own clients out of millions of dollars while living on a$200,000 a month lifestyle. That's a lot of money every month. Wow. So, yeah, that's a lot. Wow. What do you get for that anyways? Okay. I was going to make a stormy Daniels comment on that, but I'm going to hold myself back on that one. Okay. So what else happened in court today? Of course, here's dev Devlin Barrett, who is a Washington post reporter. He covers the FBI DOJ. He was there listening in. He said, look, uh, the, the judge w here's what Abinadi said. So of course we can't get recordings of this, but this is what he says that Abinadi said, he said, TV and Twitter, your honor mean nothing. He said Abinadi is crying, thanking his family for standing by him. He says, quote, I and I alone have destroyed my career, my relationships, my life. And there is no doubt that I deserve to pay half paid and will pay a further price for what I have done. Okay. So look at a moment like that. I take him for his word on that. I know mine, many people probably don't agree with that, but at that moment, it's at the end of the line. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. The judge has already said he calculates the sentencing guidelines for Abinadi at somewhere between nine and 11 years. Okay. So keep a pin in that one, nine and 11 years, the judge is now recounting the factual history of the Nike shakedown. Usually not a great sign for a defendant. When the judge keeps quoting him saying, I'm not effing around in quotes, right? He keeps saying it over. I'm not effing around. Give me the money. I'm not effing around Nike. I'm not messing around. We'll do it. Judges kept saying it over and over again. The judge said, Mr. Abinadi, his conduct was outrageous hijacked his clients. We already read that one. Mr. Abinadi said became drunk with power. So the rules didn't apply to him. The judge hammers, the lawyer, Mark Garrett goes and implicitly rebukes the justice department for not charging him a different lawyer. The judge says, why didn't mark Geragos get charged? Garrett goes, the judge said suffered no consequences as a result of his conduct. And he was a central figure in the court mental conduct. Right? Right. So the question then becomes, right, is this a political prosecution? Why is[inaudible] any prosecutor but not mark Geragos? Judge wants to know. I think it's a good question. Right? I don't support political prosecutions either way. Abinadi not a good, not a good man. A terrible lawyer does damage to the, to the reputation of the entire industry and any lawyer that does, that should be reprimanded and scolded and run right out of the profession. In my opinion, and still does not deserve a political prosecution because I keep saying this, when that happens, the pendulum swings the other way. If you're going to be doing cartwheels, because Abinadi got politically prosecuted, well, they're doing it right now to all the Capitol hill and the pendulum swings the other way. As we say here, wow says Devlin Barrett. He says the judge drastically departs downwardly and gives Alhanati three years on this case saying it's not justice for Mr. Ivan naughty to be sentenced to nine to 11 years when Mr. Gallegos was not even charged. Huh? So the judge is saying, your compatriot over there didn't get charged. So I can't give you nine to 11 when he gets zero. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to reduce yours down to two and a half down from nine years. So maybe, maybe you might say, well, maybe if this is a political prosecution, you got kind of a hell of a deal. Didn't he nine years down to the, or two 11 down to two and a half. That's a smoking deal. I wonder if some of the Capitol hill people would get that same benefit in a situation like this, or what if, what a Trumper get the same benefit? Okay. We know Michael Flynn sat in custody for a long time. Devlin Barrett, a potential nine year prison sentence for Abinadi was reduced to 2.5, that kind of sentencing break usually reserved for those who flip and provide evidence. The judge was greatly displeased that Garrett goes, walked away from the case. Scott free, big, big major break. And there's another attorney here on Twitter, who also is sort of concurring with that. Adriana Lawrence says, prosecutors ask the court to give Abinadi eight years or nine to 11. So a sentence of 30 months is rather light-handed particularly given that he's an attorney and was convicted of extortion, wire fraud and a related offense. And so the reason I clip that right, is to just hammer that point home. If you're an attorney, if you're somebody in a position of power, you take an extra oath to get sworn in. And you've got a big problem. If you commit a crime that is, is a dishonest crime, it is something thing that is looked upon more disfavorably because now we're questioning your morality, right? If you are somebody that gets a D you're a lawyer, you get a DUI, okay, well maybe you're an alcoholic, right? Maybe you're somebody that just has an addiction problem. Maybe this was just a mistake, but if you're actually extorting somebody and you're why you're frauding stuff, and you're trying to sort of in a dishonest manner, take things from other people. That's a crime time of, of, uh, dishonesty, which is very problematic because people need to trust you because you're a lawyer. You have, you have outsized power over their estates, for example, or their, the custody of their kids or in our case, their freedoms, whether they go to prison or not. So if they entrust us with that, it is a sacred thing that we have to protect to the end of the earth. And Michael[inaudible] didn't people trusted him and he just extorted them and committed wire. So, uh, you know, three years for that, it does feel light now to be fair, Lawrence says well, but his legal issues are far from over. He still face a host of tax and bank charges in California trial set to begin next week in federal court. And next year Abinadi returns to New York for another federal trial on charges that he embezzled money from stormy Daniels, right? So this guy is going to be bounced around the system for some period of time. And you know, he's, he's not somebody deserving of that. So I want to show you quickly, we've got three more slides in this segment from the case against Michael Abinadi, that is still taking place in California. So, you know, he's presumably getting ready to pack up and head over here. Cause trial starts on July 13th, unless there's any additional continuances Abinadi is scheduled for trial like literally next week. So let's take a look at the government's trial memorandum. I want to show you this fairly briefly. This was filed July 7th, 25 pages. We're not going to go through the entirety of it. This is the government's trial memorandum. Okay. So it's a memorandum on counts. One to 10 they're noting here that the trial starts July 13th at am courtroom of James Selma, honorable James seldom. Now United States vs Michael John Abinadi in the central district of California. So this is taking place over there. And what they're saying is they're giving us a trial memorandum and a memo is just sort of an, um, that's a memo, it's a memorandum. It is a, uh, sort of a briefing about what's taking place in the trial. The judge doesn't really know what's going on. The judge says, okay, prosecutors, I need you to tell us about what happened here. What are the facts? What do you intend to prove? Do you have any problems that we need to address? Did they not disclose anything? Are you missing anything? Who are your witnesses? How much time do you need, who you call in and who you might call and whatever. All the mechanics, all the technicalities. We, I spend a lot of time on this channel talking about that during the Derrick Shovan trial, all the motions, eliminate what can the officer say and not say? And so kind of the list goes on and on now the government in this memo is saying here, judge, this is what we've got for you. And let's take a look at the table of contents and see what's inside. So they tell us first and foremost, we got an introduction, which we just saw. They defined the embezzlement counts. And then we'll note that they have a statement of facts for four different victims. We have Michelle Fon, we have Gregory Barela. We have Alexis Gardner and we have Jeffrey Johnson. So they're saying that not only did he embezzle funds, he did it from four people. Okay. Four different times, four different occasions. They go through the elements of the offense. They go through the legal and evidentiary issues. So they talk about whether there were admissions made that were authorized or made by agencies, whether the government has identified for the defense business business records that it intends to introduce at trial. So this is an evidentiary airy issue. Can this business record ever come into court? Right? They might argue over that cross examination of the defendant is Michael. Abinadi going to be testifying, or is he going to be subject to cross examination? Are they going to redact anything from any of the trial exhibits so that it doesn't become part of what the jury sees? Are they going to be impeaching anybody? How about the defendant's other fraud charges? The government wants to address that they also want to address the lack of discovery or affirmative defenses saying that, Hey, you know, we're, we're the government we gave Abinadi and his team, a lot of information, but they're not reciprocating. They're not giving that data back to us. And then other privilege issues that the defendant may attempt to raise, of course, you know, like the right against self-incrimination and things like that. Maybe they're going to want to address that. So it's a 25 page memo and they go through and they just sort of lay all of that out there. We're not going to go through the entirety for the sake of time, but of course, I want to show you just a snippet from the introduction and then the statement of facts. So you can see what kind of conduct they're alleging occurred here. The memorandum of points and authorities, we have the introduction. So the jury trial on the severed client embezzlement counts, which means that they're just going forward on just the embezzlement counts. So there must be other charges. It starts July 13th. Jury selection begins at 8:00 AM. Opening statements followed by the government's case in chief are going to begin on July 20th at eight 30, the government says they need three weeks for its case, including jury selection. The government is going to call 30 witnesses. The defendant is currently on temporary release, pending trial, but probably not anymore, probably now in custody because he has been sentenced and, uh, they take into custody at that time. So now let's take a look at the facts. Trials coming up, jury selection is going to start, uh, the case in chief starts July 20th. So maybe we'll continue to follow this. We'll see what is going on in the case though, let's see what's happening here. So the statement of facts, the evidence at trial will prove the following. According to the government, this is what we're going to show. They say between January 15th, January, 2015 and March, 2019. So about four years, defendant was licensed in California. He defrauded five people. We talked about them, Jeffrey, Alexis, Gregory, Michelle Long, and he stole almost$10 million in settlement funds that belong to them. How do you do it? Well, it was pretty simple. First, he would negotiate on behalf of a client, a settlement that would require the payment of the funds to the client. Then he would misrepresent, conceal, falsely described to the client. The two true terms of the settlement or the disposition of the proceeds. Next he would cause the proceeds to be deposited into a bank account that the defendant controlled. He would then embezzle and misappropriate the proceeds to which he was not entitled. Then he would allow the client to prevent the client from discovering his embezzlement and misappropriation by other things, falsely denying that the settlement proceeds had been paid, sending funds to the client under the false pretense that such funds were advances on the purportedly yet to be received, settlement proceeds. And then falsely claimed that a payment of the settlement proceeds had been delayed for legitimate reasons and would occur at a later time. Oh my goodness. This guy is just the worst. So what he's doing is let's say he ran, he sues somebody. Okay. So he's a stormy Daniels attorney, right? He represents her and he sues Donald Trump and they settle the case. I think Trump paid 150 million,$150,000 to settle that claim. So if he didn't do this with stormy, but he did it with four other people in California. So he goes and he's negotiating with the Trump organization. Okay, well, we're going to settle it. Well, we want a quarter million up. We'll give you a 75. They settle on one 50. So then, but naughty goes back to his client and says, great news. We got an amazing settlement. You're going to be getting a a hundred thousand dollars client goes, well, that's great. You think that's as good as we can do? Well, you know, I I've been working hard. They wanted to give us 75, but I bumped it up to a hundred. And so now I think we're good. We should take this deal. Client goes, that's great. You're a great lawyer. A Brian Stelter loves you. Wow. This is amazing. And then[inaudible] slowly through this, uh, disbursement and advancing and all of that stuff. It's sort of irrelevant. He's sending money over there and you know, they start cashing these checks and then they start poking around and saying, yeah, but, uh huh. I, it, I, it might, might be us, but I think you settled that for 150,000 and you only gave us a hundred. So what happened to the remaining 50? Huh? And[inaudible] well, no, and he's moving money around and advancing them some other things and we didn't get it yet. And we didn't do this and all this stuff. Meanwhile, he's living on a$200,000 a month lifestyle. Where's that money going? Somebody found out about it. And now he is getting, uh, charged with new crimes in California. Probably gonna be convicted on those as well. Not a good thing. I know a lot of them attorneys that are very, very sloppy with their money and they sort, you know, it's not good and it's very dishonest. And so that should be addressed as it will be. Okay. Great stuff. Let's take a look at over, over@thechatatwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Let's see if we've got any questions in the house. We've got a good one here from Jack Elia says, uh, Robert, everyone, his Cape, his take is capable of taking advantage of their specialization to extort or swindle someone else. In my opinion, if a jury of peers as possible, then the sentencing for all persons must be equal without regard to occupation, race, sex, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, veteran status, or we are not a nation of peers. We are a cast nation or status may be legislated into segregated troops under the law by category. Yeah. Very interesting question. So, you know, this is, uh, this is a very good debate, Jack Elia. And I think that this is an astute point that you're making, right? This is something that we've been talking about in criminal law for all four for forever, essentially. Do you standardize justice or do you make it responsive to the defendant in front of you? There are pros and cons of both. If you make it standardized, then everybody gets the same penalty. The problem with that is that there are oftentimes, I would say most of the time exceptions to the rule. Okay. And quite frankly, our legislature, uh, legislators, the people who write the criminal laws are morons. So they don't really know what they're doing. And they will, right. These laws in different ways that have all these exceptions and all sorts of things. And so we get clients and they come in and they say, well, the mandatory sentence is this. And we say, I know it is, but that's not appropriate. And here's why, hi mother, two kids going to be deported or whatever. Right? The whole thing turns into a big thing. And if you impose that mandatory sentence that is equal to everybody, it really would not feel just for that one person. And believe me, when I tell you this, this is very common. And we have a lot of lunatic, uh, elected officials out there that the only thing they want to do every year is just make the criminal law harsher. That's it? That's the only thing, tough on crime. I'm a sheriff, whatever. And that's the only thing that they do. And so if you have just sort of a, uh, an equal penalty across the board, no matter what, then you're going to get a lot of people overly punished. That probably shouldn't be the opposite of that. Yeah, of course. On the other end of the spectrum is that you don't have mandatory sentencing. You don't have these three strikes rules. You don't have what Joe Biden did, where if you get a first offense, crack cocaine violation, it's five years prison. Right? You get that's what happens when that happens? I don't care what color you are. I don't care. Cracks a problem. Five years, everybody goes, yeah, great violence. We don't like drug violence. Okay. And so now you've got, you know, a lot of people whose lives are ruined over that thing and that's mandatory sentencing. Everybody gets that. So it can be a big problem. On the other side, though, then you have sort of a responsive type of sentencing where every defendant comes through you, you, you ideally want to say, well, we're going to give this person a fair shake, Rob grillers here. And here's what he's being charged with. And here's what he does. And here's why maybe we should work the penalty down. And the government comes and says, maybe this is why we should work the penalty up. And we're going to make it responsive to the unique individual. Well, what does that mean? Well, that op opens up a lot of room for variables to come into play and, and some subjective interpretation of the events. And so one judge might look at me, sitting there as a defendant and please show me mercy saying, you're right. I appreciate you Rob. I appreciate this. And I appreciate this. And thank you. You've shown yourself to be remorseful. And we're going to give you a low penalty. And another judge might say, oh no, that's you. You're the worst. And what I saw from you and what I heard from you, doesn't resonate with me. And therefore I'm going to give you the maximum one penalty. And if you take that same sort of dichotomy now, and then you introduce a racial element to that, then it becomes a huge problem. And legit Emily, right now, if you have, and this is historically happened in this country where you'll have a certain racial demographic that gets a more severe penalty than another racial demographic. And so that causes everybody to start to say, oh, well we need mandatory penalties then from everybody across the board. And so that's where we're at now. We've got the three strikes. We've got mandatory minimums. We've got Joe Biden's, you know, crime bill from 1994. That is still sort of inmeshed throughout our entire country. And people are having this debate left and right. It's a great question. I don't know that we're going to get an answer to it because there are, there are problems with both, both approaches. Great question though. Let's see what else we have here. We've got a couple other ones. Aziz in the house, Joe snow's here. We've got Jack Elias here. See if we've got any other questions? Oh, that one Florida man is here. Good to see you. That one Florida man says everyone should check out a YouTube of Joe Rogan and Alex Jones out of context. Edits are hilarious. So that's funny. Um, so Joe Rogan, I just saw was over on, oh no. I just read an article that the Spotify people are very angry with Joe Rogan. Norovirus here says, Hmm. Jack Elia says no mercy for Robert. He will be face palmed with a cream pie. Looking forward to that. That's going to be fun. We have the Braves says it stops. Okay. So great questions. All of those over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Looking forward to that cream bike, Crump cream pie, Jack Elia, that's going to be fun. Now, if you hit somebody in the face with a cream pie and they don't want to be hit in the face with a cream bike, that is probably going to be an assault charge. And so if you happen to know somebody like Jack Elia, who is cream pie and people in the face, well, you might need some criminal representation. Our law firm, the RNR law group can help with that. Our mission is to provide safety, clarity, and hope to good people facing criminal charges, including the pie throwers. We have a free consultation that is available. And our phone number is(480) 787-0394. Also online our, our law, easy.com. You can take a picture of this QR code, and it's going to take you right over to the website where you can schedule online. We have an awesome team of people. We look forward to helping you with any type of criminal charge that you're facing in the state of Arizona. Things like DUIs, drug offenses, misdemeanor, traffic violations, and everything, and anything in between. If you don't need any help, I'd invite you to go check out some of my offerings over at gum road.com/robert ruler in particular, the law enforcement interaction training, which is available now$19 and it's two and a half hours. It gives you the 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with law enforcement. It's the one rule you need. It's the two questions that you have to answer. And it's three powerful responses, kind of like a one, two combo that you can send back out towards their way, verbally verbal judo, not a physical that might help you escape criminal liability when the government is trying to make you a criminal. So check that out at gumroad.com/robert griller. All right, we're going to change gears and wrap up the final segment. The day hunter Biden is America's latest artist. He's going to be showing us really what's in it aside his heart and his soul. And we're going to take a look at some of these pictures from him very shortly. Now, this is not an art channel. This is not a hunter Biden channel. We have talked about hunter Biden previously here, but this is a bigger issue because the question is now coming up, whether or not this is an ethical problem because hunter Biden, who is this new found artist is selling his artwork for prices as high as half a million dollars, huh? Which is curious because we have some history with hunter Biden. We know that he was on different boards, different, different organizations around the country with very little experience about things like oil and sort of international relations. The allegations back during the election, that most of the people in the media never even talked about or covered. We talked about Tony, Bobby Alinsky and all of these things, and it was all just kind of swept under the rug. Nobody wanted to talk about that laptop with all of these bad things happening on there. Even though this was the president's son, this was somebody where there were some improprieties that were being alleged. That hunter Biden back when Joe Biden was the vice president of this country was using his father's stature to influence a prosecution taking place in the Ukraine involving a company called barista. So a lot of improprieties are floating around. Everybody's been talking about it for some time. Everybody that really knows what's going on, knows how this thing works, but the Biden administration, because they are now in power. Well, they can't keep that grift up. So they've got to come up with something new, their solution. The white house is now going to get involved with setting up these art sales hunter Biden, selling his artwork for us prices as high as$500,000. And so we're going to take a look at some artwork here in this segment. I've actually got, I actually have some pieces of his that I like. I wouldn't pay$500,000 for them, probably not even$500 for them, but it is still, uh, something that I think is, is pretty good. Now he also has some artwork on here that kind of looks like, oh, wow. Uh, I don't know, sexually transmitted diseases. I don't know. We'll see, take a look at it. We'll we'll see what they are. You can tell me what you think they are. And let's get into the story. All right, first and foremost, some background from the Washington post. This is what they are writing it. They say the deal of the art. Isn't that clever? They're so clever over there. The white house grapples with the ethics of hunter Biden's pricey paintings. Yup. Updated that today. They say that specifically white house officials, they have helped craft an agreement under which purchases of the Hunter's artwork will be kept confidential. Let me just pause on that. The white house officials, they are involved in this game. They are helping to craft an agreement. So it's not like hunters just doing this. The white house is actively involved. Hunter Biden's artwork purchases, which could be listed as prices as high as 500 grand will be kept confidential from even the artist himself in an attempt to avoid ethical issues that could arise as the presidential family tries to sell a product with a highly subjective value. Right? You really can't. How do you price art? It's a complicated thing. So$500,000 kind of seems like a nice starting point. All right. Arrangement that was negotiated in recent months, a New York gallery owner is planning to set prices for the art. We're going to take a look at this guy, George Burns. Yes. He said that he's going to withhold all records. He's gonna also hide all potential bidders and the final buyers he's agreed to reject any offer that he thinks is suspicious. Anything that comes over the asking price, say people according to people familiar with the agreement. All right. So this guy, George, yes. Burgess, which is just perfect. George S. Burgess, which is, is that real? Did he make that up? Here's your, here is his a gallery. This is a screenshot from the George S. Burgess gallery, which is just fancy New York and Berlin. We can see those over here and they have a list of their artists up here. So this was established in 2015. GBG prides itself on introducing collectors to the art and artists that will come to defined tomorrow's art world. All right. So that sounds pretty nice. Let's see, who is over here as a part of this gallery? Oh, whoa. Look at that. We have hunter Biden, right, right there on top. And in fact, if you click the, our artists segment here, uh, you're going to see a lot of different names on here. And hunter Biden is right at the top of my friends. And at first I thought that maybe this was like an alphabetical thing, but I don't think so. We've got Laddie John dill over here. So I, you know, it's a D and an L and then we got Ford Kroll, which is a F and a C, and then we got a hunter Biden. So I think this is sort of like a, I don't know, maybe seniority or something. I don't, I don't know unless I'm missing something, but they put a hunter Biden right here at the front, right at top. And so my question was, man, like these other people look like artists, hunter, I got a black and white photo, I guess that's kind of artists. I don't, you know, I don't know, but he's a, he's also an artist now. So I said, wow, I wonder what it takes to be an artist that makes$500,000 for a painting. Maybe I'll pick a different career. Right? I can, I can paint pictures of STDs and hunter Biden is also, uh, is also somebody who does that. So let's see what's going on here. Now. Let's take a look at the other artist, right? The other artists we're gonna, we're going to pay attention to these people. We have Laddie John dill, who is kind of number one on this list. We have Ford Kroll who also looks like an artist and we also have hunter Biden. So let's do just a quick compare and contrast between these three people. Let's see what artists look like in terms of their resumes. First, we have Laddie John dill, and we're not gonna read this bio doesn't really matter, but he's got a lot of stuff here, right? He's born in 1943. And if you click this, you're going to see right here, you can download his CV, which is, which is very convenient. So you just click on his profile, download the CV. You can even just park purchase artwork. If you want. Now he's been with this organization for some time. And so if you, if you actually click his CV, here's what it looks like. This is only three of the five pages that he's got. So he's been a, you know, a sauna Ben gallery, 72 is when he first started in 1978. He's at the landfill press at, uh, 1981. He was at Thomas Belvoir gallery in LaJolla joy, California. We've got New York in, uh, in, uh, 1986 when I was born. He was over in San Jose. And then also in LA LA LA Joya, I think is how you say that. Then over here in 88, let's see Cypress college, not 2000. So he's, you know, 1972 up to 2000 he's over in the Euro gallery makes his way over to Minnesota, back to New York in 2013. And then he's been just going to select exhibits 2017, 2016, over here, different awards and honors. And he went to a, an actual art Institute over in LA. So he currently lives in Venice beach in California. Uh, you know, I mean, man, that's a, like, that feels like an artist to me. That's man, that's solid. Right. Solid resume. Okay. So if somebody, if I was a hiring an artist, I'd say, oh, I schedule him for an interview. Okay. That's that's a lot there. Let's see who else we've got. We've got Ford crawl over here. So, uh, you'll also notice that this guy, you know, he's got, he's standing in front of the painting here, probably his, and you can also see that Ford Kroll also, you can download his CV as well. So he's got a big bio over here, all this stuff. So if we want to click over on his CV, oh my gosh. Wow. Another great candidate. So this guy let's see, he goes back to 1991 and he's got an imagery series in New York. Then we fast forward to 2000. So about nine years later, he's been, been, been being an artist he's over in Idaho. Then in 2010, he's still in Idaho, but he's also in 2009 in Washington and done some other things. And then we have select group exhibits all the way from 2011 to 2015. And then he works from 1979 to 2004. So a long time over 30 or 30 something years, I think. And now we've got solo exhibitions over here as recently as 2015 and a big CV, big bio. So man, it's like, I don't know who to who to choose. If I'm hiring an artist, I don't know who to add. Cause this guy has got 1991, probably the other guy he's been doing it a lot longer in 1972, but you know, who knows? Very, very impressive resumes. Okay. So now we know sort of what the, the one and two people look like at the George S. Burgess, uh, gallery. And now we can see what hunter Biden's, uh, resume looks like. Oh, so here's hunter Biden over here and um, oh, well there's, there's nothing to click right here. Is there there's no CV here, huh? Well, that's kinda strange. So we can't actually see any of his experience, but let's just see what they're telling us. Biden has been a lifelong artist. Okay, great. So there you go. He has devoted his artistic career, which we don't see anywhere to both the written word got it. And the visual arts, which we have seen some visual arts from him. We saw a lot of these in photographic form with prostitutes and hookers from all around the world. Uh, you know, no, no disdain for them. I feel bad for them for having to deal with this guy, a lawyer by trade, who now devotes his life to the creative arts, which is nice. He brings a myriad of experiences, creating powerful and impactful pieces of art. His painting range from a photographic mix, which we've seen in the media to abstract works on canvas UFO, paper, wood metal. He incorporates oil acrylic and ink, and the written word of his work to create distinctively unique experiences that have become signature by hashtag that my friend's signature by now that's signature Biden, uh, terminate international pressure or signature Biden creeping on young gals, signature Biden. Money-laundering with artwork that is mostly garbage signature by and don't you just love that stuff. Now, if you do want to do a quick analysis on some of these, these, these art pieces, while of course you want to look at how you price these things, couple things you might want to look at first and foremost, the aesthetics of it. Okay. Now this is not a deep dive analysis, but we also want to look at the supply and demand mechanisms, right? So like, is the artist alive or dead? Because if they're dead, there is no more supply. The pedigree of the artists is another major factor in the artwork, right. That's why we went through and we saw the CV of those other articles. How about the reputation of the art dealer? Oh my goodness. Right. What about the art dealer? Think about these other artists that this, that this, that this gallery they're going, you just brought hunter Biden on here. Well, I've been painting for 35 years. He's been painting for 10 minutes. What are you talking about? So I would be sort of upset if I was one of them, I would guess, uh, the press, of course. So the press is going to make sure that hunter Biden gets a lot of press and a lot of money. Uh, art is done during a good or bad period, also the condition and the Providence and the context and the level of historical significance. So you kind of go through those eight different factors and you gotta, you know, do an analysis and see whether one of hunter Biden's paintings is actually worth$500,000. We're going to get to the paintings here soon. They're coming right up before we get there, let's take a look at what's happening here. So the art sale from Joe, uh, for a hunter is expected to take place this fall. It comes with potential challenges. Doesn't it? Not only has Biden previously been accused of trading in on his father's name, but his latest vocation is in a field where works do not have a tangible, fixed value and concerns have arisen about secretive buyers and[inaudible] disclosed sums, right? Because if somebody says, somebody goes and says, Hey, I want your painting for 500 grand. And you say, well, I've been only painting for a year and I really have no experience. It's actually a pretty ugly painting, but that sounds good. I'll take it. And then who's the argue with that because that person subjective, he says that the painting is worth that. Okay.[inaudible] close to president Biden who have helped to craft the agreement along with Hunter's attorney have attempted to do so in a way that allows the president's son to pursue a new career while also adhering to the elder Biden's pledge to reverse his predecessor ethical laxity, especially regarding family members, but the arrangement is drawing detractors, including ethics experts, as well as art critics who suggested hunter Biden's art would never be priced so high if he had a different last name. Yup. Berge. Yes. George Jesper. Jess said that the prices for the paintings would range$75,000 to 500,000 bucks. Woo. That's pretty good there for an artist with no CV from the George's merge. Yes. Gallery in New York, which is apparently just takes anybody now. So let me show you what Hunter's doing here. Here's a very, very, uh, uh, very close picture of him, just Arctic our artists thing it up. And here he is, you know, sort of seated in his studio, which of course, um, uh, is, is, is just very, just very humanizing, right? And he's out there just painting. Now the gallery in a brief online bio called him a lawyer. And didn't mention anything about his relationship to, I guess the president, as we just read, some critics have praised hunter Biden's art, several contacted the boast that the post found that the asking prices of 75 grand to 500 were hard to justify mark Strauss, who for the past decade has owned a gallery on the lower east side of Manhattan said that among high-end art dealers, nobody would ever start at these prices for someone who has no professional training and has never sold art on the commercial market. Obviously, obviously he says there has to be a resume that reasonably supports when you get that high to me, it's pure. How good is it? And what's this artist potential, what's the resume on that basis. It would be an entirely different price, but you give it a name like hunter Biden, maybe they'll get the price. All right. So let's take a look at some of the artwork. You know, I referenced maybe what I thought some of these paintings were, but some of them are actually like, not, not terrible. So let's take a look at this one, right? This one's not, not that terrible. I would never put this up anywhere near me, but it is something that's, you know, it's not, it's not awful to look at. Um, it's okay. It's I mean, it's something, we also have this one, this one's not bad. Right. I might actually put that up somewhere. I think this, this, this doesn't look, it doesn't look bad. I really don't have much to say about it. I kind of like it. I kind of like abstract art in general. And so this isn't bad. It kind of reminds me of a stained glass kind of painting or, uh, it's something it's not bad. I actually, I actually liked that one. Now there are a couple other styles that hunter is experimenting with. I think this one is so I, I th I think it's a painting, but I don't know if we're looking at a Petri dish either. This might be sort of looking down a microscope lens into some fun guy or something that are sort of growing in a Petri dish. I think I left some milk in a fridge one time, a little bit too long. And when I looked into it, it kind of looked like this. So I don't, you know, this came over from the New York post and they said, this is another painting from hunter Biden. And so he posted this on Instagram, which is his sort of fun guy. He, these could also, this could also be like, um, I don't know, maybe, maybe, uh, an HIV sort of snapshot, like these might be the white blood cells. And these might be the, uh, the, this might be the HIV virus that is sort of infecting the white blood cells that is then exploding and then infecting the other cells. So this is why I was referencing maybe the, the sort of the STD work. I don't know, it's either moldy milk or it's an eight it's painting. I don't know, but it's going to be sold for$500,000 out there. So if you like milk, fungus and fungi and, and, uh, STDs hunter, Biden's got one for you. Now, if you don't like that, there's another one here that I think this is a, uh, a stain or something that was spelt. I, oh, no. They're telling us that this is a painting of a flower here from hunter Biden. Um, a flower, which I've never, I've never seen a flower. It looks like quite like that, but they're telling us it's a flower. He posted that on Instagram. I, I think it's a stain. I don't know if it is, uh, it could be a Rorschach test. You know, some there's some psychology books that have things that look like this as well, but these could also be some of the, the, uh, the HIV aids, uh, white blood cells as well. I, I don't, I don't really know, uh, what this is either. I don't think it's a flower, but again, right. You know, we wanna, we wanna help hunter Biden out a little bit here. If that looks appetizing for you. If you want to put that up in your home, right. If right in front of your bed, so you walk home and before you lay down to sleep, you go, oh man, it's a beautiful flower, beautiful flower. Well then it's available now at the George S Berge. Yes. Gallery in New York, you can go check that out. And, uh, and lastly, if the first two kind of didn't do the STD thing for you. I, I think he really, it's hard to be an artist because you get better with time. Like, have you seen artists when they start working on a human face or like, they try to draw a human eyeball? It's hard, right? It's hard to get the details just right. So, you know, the first painting may have been, you know, sort of aids one. And then we had, uh, the, the spelt flour, whatever that was, but he's getting, he's getting better. You can see just day by day, this my friends is, uh, I think this is COVID. This is the masterpiece called COVID. And this art consultant, Martin Galindo agrees. He says, he thought this hunter pie, pie, Biden painting looks just like, COVID right here. He says that in the New York post. And I think he's right, it's, it's either COVID or like, this is the result of his trip to, you know, the brothels where he's got a little bit of everything. I got some, I think, I think this is how he does his HIV has gone. Maria is probably over here. We've got, uh, you know, chlamydia and some of the other ones just kind of just floating around hunter Biden's paintings. And it, you know, because of some of the imagery that we saw on the laptop, they're just all going in together, right. In one, right. In one painting there. So, I mean, 500 grand, my friends, that's a steal. You can get that right there. Just, just go, you go, go to the gallery. George S. Burgess they'll have it for you. So he says that through his attorney, let's see. Yes, let's see what else we have here, hunter. Then through his attorney, they did not respond to an interview request. Of course, when asked about the artwork, including the term of sale and the potential ethics concerns, Clark referred those questions to the white house. So his own, his lawyer says, Hey, don't talk to us, go talk to the white house. So then they go to the white house and Andrew Bates, the deputy white house press secretary suggested that buyers confidentiality would ensure the process is ethical, right? Because if you don't know that there is somebody who wants to launder money to you, if you don't know the name of that person, then it's suddenly ethical because you don't know who it is. So he says the president has established the highest ethical standards of any administration in American history. Wow. That's a, that's a nice statement. And his family's commitment to rigorous processes like this is a prime example. So they want to just hide everything essentially, right? The buyer's confidentiality would ensure ethical. Now Burgess the gallery owner. He also did not respond to several requests for comment, but the arrangement was described by two officials, familiar with it who spoke on the condition of anonymity. They were not authorized to disclose it publicly. A person, a person who initially said that she will be, she was calling on behalf of Burgess, but then said she couldn't be quoted by name confirmed that all sales would be kept secret and describe any agreement as nothing unusual. Now, some experts though are arguing that the best protection against influence seeking would be transparency, not secrecy. That way the public would know whether, say a lobbyists had paid an exorbitant price. Okay. What happens if hunter Biden's out doing one of his things that he does regularly, and somebody who's a lobbyist, somebody who has a, a little bit of want to get close to him, or to get close to the president, or to get close to any sort of policy change that might happen. And we all know that hunter Biden is the smartest person on the planet. According to Joe Biden. He said that he's smartest, man. I know he's brilliant. So if that wanted to happen, if hunter Biden's out at one of his extracurricular activities, he's out at a bar, he's out at a restaurant and somebody comes up and says, Hey, they're under a, you know, really love that Archie got over there. I'd like to buy a piece from you 500,000, no problem at all. Happy to do that. But while we're having this conversation also just want to let you know about this thing also as well. Okay. Just to hear back from you don't need to respond to anything. I just want to let you know that this policy is kind of important to me. And I really like your art, like a lot. So whatever you just put out there, you just let me know, send me an email. I'm going to buy it. But, but when we're talking, I just want to also let you know that I don't like that thing that is happening. Anything you can do about that. Oh, don't, don't, don't cross that line of course. And nobody knows. It's just some guy who just likes art and hunter. Biden's brilliant. Wow. Well, he's an artist. Okay. So the officials then helped craft an agreement. They said that if buyers were publicly disclosed, disclosed, it would restrict interest because the identities of most art pers purchasers are not automatically made to the public. So it's like, no, this is just standard. There was also a secondary market. So even a publicly identified buyer might not be the one who ultimately bought the art. So what they're telling you here, my friends is that this is basically built for money laundering. And so that's why they're just shoving hunter Biden into this thing. White house officials probably would be warned against giving that person any preferential treatment if the identity does become public. So probably so that's good. And they could be discouraged from working with them at all, according to a per person, familiar with the arrangement. So probably would be warned and could be discouraged from working with them, but not really. That's what's going on right there in the white house, hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the, the, uh, the most transparent and accountable administration in history. All right. What a stinking joke. Let's take a look over@somequestionsfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and see what's going on in here. We have, uh, Jack Elia says to be honest, I feel pity for hunter Biden. It can not be easy growing up in the pressure cooker of a political crime family. It's true. You know, it is true. I like to make fun of the guy, but he's a, he's an addict. Right. I empathize with that. I get it. But I also don't. I, I don't, you know, just because you're an addict, just because you're somebody that has struggled with some of that stuff doesn't mean you get to be a piece of garbage, right. That's not an excuse. And when people say that, oh, well, well, I was, I was an addict. Oh, okay. So you get to be a jerk for 20 years. You get to abuse women for 20 years and sort of, you know, run on the back of the, your father's political cult coattails for 20 years. Right. I'm tired of the addict. Excuse. Okay. I know a lot of addicts that are amazing people and they would never do any of that stuff. So this hunter bite, well, you know, the whole thing, it is hard that he is in a, you know, in a crime family. No doubt about that. And I think that any kid that kind of grows up in that environment is probably going to be severely damaged. But, uh, you know, but, but hunter Biden is not the white Knight that the media is trying to make him out to be thunder. Seven says, this is your brain on crack. Probably one of his paintings. Let's see what else we've got. Kareem says COVID does he mean SARS? Cov two? We have Josh SESCO says, I think I'd rather buy a Hitler painting. At least his didn't look like it was made by a crack head. Jack Elia says Monday money laundering is a little more class than Kim classic. It says Jack a lion. I think she was running right. She was running, I think in Baltimore. Uh, let's see what else we have Joe Snow says, Rob don't read mine. All right. Uh, ZZ the boxing cat says, Democrats always lift up the Grifters. We have three girlies is here. Good to see you. I'm not gases here says this naked corruption is expected from the Bidens, but where the hell are the Republicans? This is so blatantly obvious. More than Hillary or Obama's$500,000 speaking fees. Yes. The speaking fees. Yes. I forgot about those. Yeah. Those are also great. Right? Hillary Clinton flies in there talks for an hour, goes out in front of Goldman Sachs and says, whoa, boom, boom. The muddles off something about foreign policy and something 225,000 bucks right there. Right here you go. Here you go. And a whole bunch of other benefits for board and hotel and first-class and private, all this. All right. Now it's just now hunter, because he can't speak very well. As we know from his interview, he, uh, he's just going to just paint. It's even easier. You don't even have to go anywhere. You just draw your STDs on your canvas and somebody will pay 500 grand for them. Good to see you. I'm not gas. Great comment. We have, oh, hack consulting says LA Jolla for LaJolla. So I'll, I'll correct that. Thank you. Hack. We have some other questions. Let's see. Robert ruler says, uh, no, that's my name? Joe Snow says the local chat is spicy. Tell the YouTubers to get in here. It is spicy. That's why I have to be a little bit, uh, you know, I got, that'd be careful here we have. Who's next be brave says if Hunter's art is legit, can he wait until his dad is no longer president to sell the art? That's a great question. Yeah. That's a good question. Why wouldn't you wait? Right. Um, well, I don't know because he can sell it now. Uh, let's see. We've got, we've got, we've got some good questions, some spicy stuff going on over there. So we're going to wrap it up. My they're my friends. I want to say thank you to everybody. Uh, over@thewatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com chat, good stuff happening over there. YouTube and Facebook and Twitch and rumble over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Having some fun in there. And I'll hopefully this new formats working a little bit. I know, I know it's a little bit different, not seeing the chats on the screen, but it really sort of makes it a little bit more streamlined. I can sort of run the whole show myself. So hopefully that's okay. Before we wrap up this segment, quick reminder, I'm a criminal defense lawyer here at the RNR law group. We're located in Scottsdale, Arizona. We are extremely passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges. That's what we, that's what we do everyday. We get on this channel and I want to make sure that we are addressing things from the public facing perspective, but we also have to recognize that there are many people who are in the system that need our help. And then we've got a whole team of people that we wake up and that's it. Boom, grind it out every day to make sure that we are getting people the results they deserve, because we want to help them get their lives back on the right path. And the system is not set up to do that. So our mission is to help good people find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases. And beyond that in their lives. If you know anybody in the state of Arizona that is facing a criminal charge, we would love the opportunity to help the phone number here.(480) 787-0394. Also available online by taking a picture of that QR code or visiting our, our law ac.com. You can also schedule a free case evaluation online as well. We would love the opportunity to help if you don't need legal services. Very good news. You may want to make sure that you prevent the need for legal services by getting my law enforcement interaction training, which is a two and a half hour program that will teach you how to deal with the police during an interaction. It's the 1, 2, 3 rule. There's only one rule you need to rent. Remember it's this, there are two questions that the police can ask you. And there are three responses that you can fire back. If they're asking you an unapproved question. So go check that out at gumroad.com/robert griller. Quick reminder, we had some new members who signed up yesterday. I'm going to update this for tomorrow, but quick shout out to all of you who signed up yesterday, including that one, Florida man, and a realtor Patty who signed up over there for the year. So they're going to be with us for a while and welcome also to copper Lobo, justice, obsessed and shop. And there were others I'm going to update this list tomorrow, but if you'd like to join the place to do that, is it watching the watchers.locals.com five bucks a month or 50 bucks a year? And it really helps support the show as you know, we're demonetized on YouTube. And so, you know, that's sort of how we are building a separate community. There's a lot of good stuff that's taking place over there, including a live monthly meetup that takes place on zoom on Saturday, July 24th, 2021. If you're already registered, you're good to go, but I'm going to repost the registration form as the date nears it's available for free to anybody. Who's a member over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And it's a lot of fun. We had about 37 people on last time, about half the, the audience had the camera on about half people had their cameras off and, you know, maybe the, the FBI agents were in there. I don't know. But the point is we learned a lot. We got to hear from people from other parts of the world. We got to hear from people from other professions, get a variety of perspectives on some of the things that we talk about here. And it really is. It really is a lot of fun. It was powerful. It's sort of like a more intimate version of a clubhouse room, cause you can kind of see everybody. And it's just a lot of fun. So come check that out, watching the watchers.locals.com and I've got some other ideas and some things that I want to work on to build the community up a little bit like maybe a community directory where we can kind of support each other's projects. Like if you've got a YouTube channel and you, you know, maybe you're creating some content that might be sort of synergistic with some of the things that we're talking about here. I have no problem supporting the heck out of that because I think we need more people standing up and speaking out and if you're writing or speaking and you're doing something on behalf of freedom in this country, well, I want to support the hell out of you. So we're going to talk about all of that and more at this upcoming, uh, watching the Watchers, monthly zoom meetup, I'm looking forward to that. So please check that out and be sure to check out some of the links in the description below. I've got like three videos queued up for the crypto channel. I just haven't recorded them yet. You've been a, you know, a little bit, uh, let's say, ah, uh, dynamic here at the office this week. So we are adjusting on the fly, but we're, we're gonna make do, and I want to just invite you to come check us out on some of those other channels. We are going to get back in the routine of publishing. And I also, by the way, I also uploaded a video on Tik TOK. The link is down in the description. I tried this new format out where I can sort of do my slide switching also on the Tik TOK vertical format. So we're going to be playing around with those. We're we're trying some new things. My friends were trying to sort of, you know, expand a little bit. And of course I always appreciate all your help on this. We've got something special happening over here. And so I really am grateful for all of you. So that is it for me, my friends, we're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow, same location at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on that east coast. And for that one, Florida man out there, everybody else have a wonderful evening. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.