Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Cuba Protests Castro & Communism, FBI Recruits Spying Family & Friends, Kyle Rittenhouse Case Update

July 12, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Cuba Protests Castro & Communism, FBI Recruits Spying Family & Friends, Kyle Rittenhouse Case Update
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Cuba Protests Castro & Communism, FBI Recruits Spying Family & Friends, Kyle Rittenhouse Case Update
Jul 12, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Cubans assemble in the streets to protests years of communism and totalitarian misery while Rob shares lessons from his trip to Cuba. The FBI warns America to keep close eye on your family and friends and we review their spying guidelines. Prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s case file a motion to be able to admit evidence of “other acts” and we review the court filing.​

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

🔵 Cubans hit the streets in Havana to protest decades of dictatorship and communism.​
🔵 Twitter explains the #CubanProtests as being based on a lack of COVID-19 vaccines and other necessities.​
🔵 Miami Herald details the calls for “Freedom!” and the calls for liberty in Cuba as they should “Patria y Vida” which means “Homeland and Life.”​
🔵 Rob visited Cuba in 2016 and shares lessons and pictures from his trip.​
🔵 Images and videos from the #SOSCuba protests taking place across #Havana.​
🔵 Julie Chung, Acting Assistant Secretary for U.S. Department of State supports #Cuba and their “right to peaceful assembly.”​
🔵 Marco Rubio, Dan Crenshaw and others slam the mischaracterization of the environment while Jen Psaki and the White House support the statement.​
🔵 Cuban government official Bruno Rodriguez tells the White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to shut up.​
🔵 The FBI is now asking family members and peers to spy on you and report your suspicious activities to their offices.​
🔵 Review of the FBI’s 2019 Edition of “Homegrown Violent Extremist Mobilization Indicators” and a look inside.​
🔵 Three categories of mobilization indicators: do any of these apply to those in your life?​
🔵 John Brennan, former director of the CIA, analogizes racists, bigots, and libertarians to terroristic threats.​
🔵 Prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse case seek to introduce “Other Acts” evidence about Kyle’s past.​
🔵 Review of the Rittenhouse case docket from May, June and early July.​
🔵 Review of State’s Motion to Admit “Other Acts” evidence filed on July 1, 2021 in Kenosha County Circuit Court.​
🔵 Prosecutor Thomas Binger, assistant district attorney, acts that evidence of Rittenhouse’s alleged affiliation with the “Proud Boys” be admitted into evidence.​
🔵 Live chat after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

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

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdVADCQs/​

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://watchingthewatch

Show Notes Transcript

Cubans assemble in the streets to protests years of communism and totalitarian misery while Rob shares lessons from his trip to Cuba. The FBI warns America to keep close eye on your family and friends and we review their spying guidelines. Prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s case file a motion to be able to admit evidence of “other acts” and we review the court filing.​

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

🔵 Cubans hit the streets in Havana to protest decades of dictatorship and communism.​
🔵 Twitter explains the #CubanProtests as being based on a lack of COVID-19 vaccines and other necessities.​
🔵 Miami Herald details the calls for “Freedom!” and the calls for liberty in Cuba as they should “Patria y Vida” which means “Homeland and Life.”​
🔵 Rob visited Cuba in 2016 and shares lessons and pictures from his trip.​
🔵 Images and videos from the #SOSCuba protests taking place across #Havana.​
🔵 Julie Chung, Acting Assistant Secretary for U.S. Department of State supports #Cuba and their “right to peaceful assembly.”​
🔵 Marco Rubio, Dan Crenshaw and others slam the mischaracterization of the environment while Jen Psaki and the White House support the statement.​
🔵 Cuban government official Bruno Rodriguez tells the White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to shut up.​
🔵 The FBI is now asking family members and peers to spy on you and report your suspicious activities to their offices.​
🔵 Review of the FBI’s 2019 Edition of “Homegrown Violent Extremist Mobilization Indicators” and a look inside.​
🔵 Three categories of mobilization indicators: do any of these apply to those in your life?​
🔵 John Brennan, former director of the CIA, analogizes racists, bigots, and libertarians to terroristic threats.​
🔵 Prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse case seek to introduce “Other Acts” evidence about Kyle’s past.​
🔵 Review of the Rittenhouse case docket from May, June and early July.​
🔵 Review of State’s Motion to Admit “Other Acts” evidence filed on July 1, 2021 in Kenosha County Circuit Court.​
🔵 Prosecutor Thomas Binger, assistant district attorney, acts that evidence of Rittenhouse’s alleged affiliation with the “Proud Boys” be admitted into evidence.​
🔵 Live chat after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

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

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdVADCQs/​

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://watchingthewatch

Speaker 1:

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 politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the watcher so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into. I want to start off by talking about what's happening there in Cuba. Cuba is one of these places that I happened to go to back in 2016. And so when I'm watching some of these imageries about these protestors , sort of rising up against the communism totalitarian misery that is happening down in Cuba, it sort of resonates with me because I was down there and I got to experience some of it. So we're going to take a look at what's going on in Cuba, in particular, looking at some of the protests and some of the reaction to the protest, because it's sort of being framed in different ways, depending on what political side of the aisle you're on. And so we're going to take a look at that. And I've also got some pictures that I took when I was down there actually in Cuba in 2016, myself and my business partner. So I want to show you what we did and what we went down and sort of explored because there's some very interesting people that we met and there were some lessons that I extracted out of that trip. And so I'd like to share those with you. So we're going to be talking about Cuba and Liberty and freedom and about democracy and sort of the pushback against totalitarianism that we see unfortunately, still lingering on in the world. So we'll talk about that. And then we're going to transition a little bit over the weekend. The FBI came out and they said that you probably should be spying on your family and friends. If you're not doing that already. Well, we want to educate you as to why you should do that because FBI needs your help if we're going to save America. And so they came out, they posted on Twitter that they actually have a guideline and a manual, essentially, that is useful for you. If you do want to spy on your friends and family, it's a big, long manual, 32 pages, and we're going to go through it. I actually got some clippings about what they are advising you to do and really what you should be looking out for. So as you are spying on your friends and family, you can identify problematic behavior . So we're going to take a look at that. And then lastly, we're going to talk about what's happening with Kyle Rittenhouse. The Kyle Rittenhouse case, of course, is still in the news is not scheduled for trial until later on in the year. But Kyle Rittenhouse, there was a motion that was filed early in July that we haven't talked about yet. And this was filed by the prosecutor. His name is Thomas binger, and he actually submitted a motion saying that he wants to talk about some other things that may or may not be relevant. He's asking the court to say, I think this is pretty important. Things like , uh , you know, maybe Kyle Rittenhouse has some affiliation with some unsavory groups and maybe there were some other violent activities in his past alleges the prosecutor, Thomas being her. So we have a copy of the motion. We're going to go through that today at length, but I want to invite you to be a part of the show. I want to give a quick shout out to everybody out there who is in our locals community, big shout out to three girlies . We've got farmer's daughter, we've got thunder seven, we've got justice obsessed. They're all in the house sold Viking tos forever [email protected] , which is where really the party is. And so I want to invite you to go check that out. It's also a great way to support the show as we are going through the show. Quick reminder that because we are not monetized on YouTube, we have a form that we use for our locals community, where you can ask questions. And so that is linked in the description just for the local community. There's a form that looks like this. And so if you want to ask a question, just go on over there and submit that quick reminder , uh, you know, I may not be able to get to all the questions of course, and it is something that it's helpful if you sort of ask them in sequence, that would be useful as well. So ex you know, ask a question based on the topic that we're talking about, but I'm going to try to get to all of those. And so if you're [email protected] , then head on over there, click the forum and ask a question. As we get into the news of the day, couple other quick plugs, check out some of the links down in the description below wherever you're watching this, because we have some other links. I just started making these short little concise videos that we're posting elsewhere. And so I have a link down to the tick talk . If you happen to be on Tik TOK, you can go check that out. If you want to , uh, uh, patronize our Chinese , uh , comrades over there, feel free to download that up. It's actually a very addicting app. Be very careful with that app. Okay. So let's get into the news of the day. Cuba is right in the middle of some very serious protests, something that is sort of capturing the world, because this has not happened for quite some time. Now, every time I talk about Cuba, you know , I tend to sort of , uh , irritate certain people out there. And I understand I'm probably gonna do that again. The interesting thing with Cuba is they really don't like it when you get it wrong. And I think this is such a beautiful thing about their culture and sort of about my experience. Now, I went down to Cuba, which is why I'm sort of going to be talking about it free from that framework. But what I want to do is share my experience, right? I am not Cuban. I am, you know , I am somebody who just went down there for a very short while, but I learned a lot about the country. And I learned a lot about the culture. And I learned a lot about, I think some of the, the, the interface between Cuba, which is not far from the United States and the United States and sort of how our two countries interfaced. And so as I've been watching this, this protest sort of this, this kind of, you know, this spontaneous sort of demonstration taking place throughout Cuba and following it closely and remembering back to my trip down there, and this was right in 2016, sort of when I had a lot of other things going on in my life, but I want to share with you some of that before we get there, though, here is how the current media is framing a lot of this. So let's start off by going to Twitter. And we'll notice that on Twitter, if you're not a Twitter user, you know, it's kind of a big place where a lot of people will aggregate their news. And so I reference it a lot because a lot of the polo political conversations are happening here. But if you were on Twitter earlier today, then you would notice that in their trending section, which happens to be on the right side, that they said, protests take place across Cuba as the country faces shortages of COVID vaccines. And so you go, oh, well, that's what they're upset about. COVID vaccines. That's, that's, that's what these protests are about. They they're sort of missing some, some of the jabs. Okay. So that's one way to frame it, right? That's on Twitter. They also say in basic necessity , sort of as an afterthought. And so, you know , this stuff is being generated by the Twitter overlords. So they posted, of course at the protests are taking place because they're facing shortages of the COVID-19 vaccines. And they say thousands took to the streets and Havana and other cities to demand vaccines and food on Sunday as the country faces a period of economic crisis brought on by the global COVID pandemic. So, you know, it's just sort of, what do you lead with in a situation like this? Do you lead with , uh , well, you know, there's protests, there's sort of, you know, uprising, there's a lot of social unrest. People are angry , uh, about a lot of different things. We got multiple variables, which one do we start off with? It could be, I don't know, people are upset that they don't have freedom or Liberty or democracy that they've been oppressed under a totalitarian communist dictator for the last 40, 60 years, whatever it is , uh, it could be that, or it could just be COVID vaccines, right. It could be one or the other. And we're already in, in, I would say probably max hyperventilation mode when it comes to vaccines now in America. And so, you know, it's easy for the Twitter bots and the overlords over there to just suddenly just like they're spring loaded, it's vaccines, you know, everything that is our problem now. Oh, they don't have the vaccine. Oh , uh , my Uber's like , well, they probably are getting vaccinated. So we're going to excuse that. Oh , uh , my , my food's terrible. Well , the cook probably didn't get vaccinated. Right. So he prepped . So go ask him, send Kamala Harris back into the kitchen, knock on the door and see if maybe she can get him a shot. So it's always about the vaccine. Everything's about the vaccine. And so Twitter of course, is saying that, you know, the poor Cuban people, they just don't have enough , uh , shots, nevermind. Those little things like freedom and Liberty and democracy and some, you know, basic human rights, none of that stuff. So we saw a lot of that out there. And we're going to get back to that because we have an official white house person who is , uh , corroborating that confirming that sort of lineage of , uh , characterization or mis-characterization. But think about this from a different perspective. And so we , we can go and when we're not sort of living in Silicon valley with Twitter, we can go over to the Miami Herald, which is a little bit closer to the activity and we can see how they're framing it. So now they're telling us that they're fed up, right? Cubans are fed up these videos, show protesters demanding change. Now you'll notice that it says this was written here by Adriana arrow says dozens of videos posted on social media capture demonstrations across Cuba on Sunday , protesters demanded freedom. There you go. And they called for an end of the communist dictatorship on the island, right? So a little bit different than the COVID vaccine. Now the Twitter people were saying, it's all the COVID vaccine and they're saying, oh, we're demanding freedom. Okay. We're demanding an end of the communist dictatorship on the island. If we get vaccines, that's a part of democracy. We'll take them. But, you know , uh, first and foremost, we want to prioritize the things that actually matter protestors they're chanted, freedom and Patriot and Vita , which means Homeland in life in a reference to the revolutionary slogan Patria or [inaudible] , which means Homeland or death, it has become the battle cry during the protests that have gained steam since last year when the sun is Seadrill movement, a collective of artists protesting against political repression on the island began to publicly call for increased freedoms. Right. And we're talking about increased freedoms. And so at the beginning of this segment, you know, I was sort of

Speaker 2:

Our full bike by sort of talking about , uh, about,

Speaker 1:

You know, me attempting to characterize

Speaker 2:

Cuba. Right. And , and I, and I don't, I certainly don't want to, you know, to botch my,

Speaker 1:

My historical understanding of the

Speaker 2:

Country, because I really don't know,

Speaker 1:

You know, intimately enough to sort of really comment intellectually, I would say, on the, under, on the underpinnings historically speaking. And so I'm not going to attempt to do that. I think it's a beautiful country. There are amazing people there. And I just want to share a little bit of my experience. I did go down there in 2016, and I want to just kind of take you through some pictures. And the reason I went down there as part of this organization, our law firm here at the RNR law group was very young. At the time we just founded this firm in 2014, and we joined this organization that was going to help us

Speaker 2:

Teach us, you know , how to run a business and be better business owners and entrepreneurs.

Speaker 1:

Of course, we went to law school. We didn't go to business school. One of the first things that I sort of recognize is

Speaker 2:

Little, I knew about, about business, about sort of , uh ,

Speaker 1:

An instinctual grasp and understanding because,

Speaker 2:

You know , cleaning pools with my dad , uh, turned into in , uh , uh ,

Speaker 1:

Constructing pools, work with my mom a lot. I started a lemonade stand when we went to , I could

Speaker 2:

Basically stand out on

Speaker 1:

The side of the street corner. And so I've always sort of had that little, you know , a little bit of a bug, but I've always known that coaching and, you know, sort of retreats and seminars and learning, learning, learning is kind of a super power . And it absolutely has been that in my case, knowing what I don't know, and then going out there and trying to seek that information has been extremely, extremely powerful. And , uh, you know, I wish more people would sort of recognize that. I try to tell people that all the time, but anyways, we were part of this organization. And one of the things that this organization did, they were very expensive. Uh , one of the things that they did was , uh , we went on these sort of adult field trips, right to court , sort of see the world a little bit and, and, and give ourselves experiences that maybe we wouldn't sort of voluntarily undertake. Like for example, going to Cuba right after Cuba is open, you know , opens up back during the Obama administration and it's kind of a mess, right? It's kind of a tumultuous down there a little bit. And so , uh , as part of this organization, my business partner and I, we packed up, went down to Cuba. We spent about, I think, eight or nine days down there. And the whole experience was, was really, really transformative for me. I have been to other parts of the world. I've been to China, I've been to Shanghai and Beijing. I've been to Germany. I've been to , uh, uh, you know, France, I've been to Italy. I've been very, extremely fortunate that I've been able to travel around the world because it's such an important thing. I think , uh, for, for me developing my worldview, but Cuba was a different experience. I mean, we went, this was a situation where I went to something that an environment that was just kind of outright communism, and they've been living that way for a long period of time. China's a little bit different in China. It was certainly, it's sort of a communist , uh, you know, hierarchy over, over a kind of an over arching umbrella. But there were a little pockets of capitalism, you know, there were Starbucks over there and things like that in, in , uh , Shanghai. So in Cuba it was a different experience. Let's get into the picture as enough of the background. So I want to show you this now. I'm not proud of this picture at all. All right. We're an actually a blue shirt that looks just like this, but I look a little bit different. All right, let's take a look at what's going on here. So this is where we landed in the airport. This airport though, Internacional Jose Mart , Marty LA Habana, which is in Havana. And we landed there and you can see me. One of the first things we did, this was back during my drinking days, little bit puffier in the face over there. You can see around the midsection, put on some , uh , had some extra lbs going on over there. And as soon as we got off the plane, you know, one of the first things that everybody did, we were part of this, this little tour here , uh , w we all got mojitos, right? And so it was something that was fun. Uh , here's my business partner. And I , I don't talk men sort of , uh , uh , you know, kind of a private guy he's , um , joined us on the, on the, on the trip. Of course he and I went, we are the RNR law group together. And so we're having a good time down there. Uh, you can see right, little, little bit of a puffiness over there, a little, a little , uh , a little extra pork a little bit, but we had a great time. It was a lot of fun. It was a very, very educational experience. And I just want to show you some pictures, because there's a couple of things I want to point out about, about Cuba. And this is a shot that we had when I first got to our hotel. And so it's a beautiful country, right? Lot of greenery, very hot, very humid. We were sort of, you know, during one of the hottest times of the year, of course, and you can see it's, some of it can be extremely beautiful, right? Like, look at the pristine painting here. Now, this is , I wanted to show you this picture because this , this sort of illustrates something that happens in Cuba, in Cuba. There are very interesting separations between sort of people taking care of certain things. So the, the analogy that I was thinking of when I was trying to think about how do I explain this is there are certain, there are certain people in your neighborhood, right? You have a lawn and your grass kind of goes over into the neighbor's yard, right. A little bit, but it kind of makes sense if you just cut that extra patch. So it goes up to their driveway. And that way you kind of, when you're cutting the grass, it doesn't look weird. Right? And then you have that one neighbor that just says, I'm not going to cut that extra, like two feet. I'm only going to cut my grass. And then you have this sort of weird, like, well , that's my side of the bed, and that's your side of the bed. And I'm only going to manage my side of the street and you can manage your side of the street. And so you have these kind of hard divisions, right? Where somebody just says, I'm going to do the work all the way up until this line right here. And then it's not my problem anymore. It's sort of, you know, the winner of the, not my problem award. And because in Cuba, basically everything is , is, is owned by the government, right? Everything is communism. You see this happen, you see these very strange divisions at very interesting points in places that you may not ordinarily see here in the United States. And we end to be fair. We do have different pockets of sort of , uh , places where we have, you know, nice newer , uh, you know, modern facilities. And then we have older areas and it's sort of been neglected and forgotten about, but in Cuba, it's almost like in the same house that will happen. Like one room will be because certain people are staying in that room. One room will be, will be great, right? They'll take very good care of it, but because the house was divided in communism, because they , they just gave the room to somebody the next room next door to somebody else. And maybe they didn't care about that room. You'll actually have pieces of property where people are taking care of one component of it, one side of it, and totally neglecting the other side of the property. So let's take a look at how this works in some pictures. And so I want to show you this, right? This looks very nice, very nicely manicured cured area. This grass is as pristine as heck. You can see very nicely mode, but, and you'll notice that in this building, this green building here paint looks great right on the inside of this perimeter. Now the outright outside this fence looks pretty terrible. Like everything has just been sort of neglected there. And here you have very pristine, nice sort of empty building, all white paints and green, green, green, very, very nicely painted. Now, you'll see this in certain areas, right? This whole pocket, this whole corridor looks very nice because this was sort of the nice kind of richer area. And you'll see that there are certain segments of the same property line that just get neglected. Okay. So somebody is taking care of the house, but the entire property is being neglected. Why? Well, because nobody really cares about that property because nobody really has an ownership interest. Now you'll see different parts of Cuba that looked like this, and you'll see different parts that kind of looked like this. Right, right. On the backend , right on the other side of something that might be pristine, you literally just have kind of segments of the buildings that just kind of just fall off, like fall off. Like, and I mean, literally they're just gone. Uh , and it's just because people sort of stopped caring about certain portions of the property. And when we were going, we were on a tour and we were sort of poking around in Cuba. And they essentially were saying that at one point in time, people did have some ownership rights, some property interests . And I talk a lot about property here. And at one point when there was the revolution, they just said, oh, okay, well, your house is not yours anymore. Right. It's now community property. And so you're sitting there, you're saying , uh , well, it's Rob. And, and you know, Rob's Cuban , uh, fiance at the time and we're down there and we own the property and we're going to have a , you know , have a nice family and we need five bedrooms. So we have a house that has five bedrooms, but it's just her. And I, and we're going to be planning for some little, you know , uh, children running around and all of that stuff. And there's a revolution. And then the government comes in and they just say, oh, well, it's just you two in here. There's only two of you. So what do you need? Five bedrooms for? That's ridiculous. That's insane. That's way too much room for you. We have other people out there who also need a place to live. And so guess what? Your house is not yours anymore. You get one room because only you two only need one. Right? You can use plenty, plenty of space. You don't need it. And we're just going to give the other rooms, the other four rooms in your house to everybody else who needs it. And so other people would come into that end of the property, or everybody goes, well, you know, you don't want people sort of out there just living on the streets, do it. We don't want a bunch of homeless people out there, like we've got in California. And so this is a humanitarian thing to do. We've got space and I guess that's fine. So you can just come on in and you can get that room and you get that room and you get that room. But what happens is now you've got communism, right? You've got, we've got one shared asset that kind of everybody's responsible for. So what happens then if you've got five people there and they've all got five rooms, but something in the kitchen breaks, who's responsible for that? Well, it's kind of everybody's and when it's kind of everybody's, it's kind of nobody's. And so nobody takes care of the communal property because people are not incentivized to do so, because we all know how this works. If you ever went to college and had roommates, you know, that nobody ever voluntarily does the dishes, right. Or actually goes and , and refills the, the beer or the milk or whatever you need, right. Everybody sort of, kind of takes what they need and puts a little bit back, but not the full extent of it. And so what ends up happening over the years is this same cycle where you have no property ownership. You literally see buildings just kind of start falling apart because people will take care of their room, but not the rest of the building. And you'll notice this in this image. I wanted to show you this one. I mean, this is a perfect example of it. So we were at a restaurant here. We were eating in this building and so on. So let me move myself up here. You can see here in literally the division line. Okay. It happens right here. So all of, all of this used to be one building that was all part of the same structure. And this part of the property on the left side was given to somebody who we had, who was , was essentially an entrepreneur. Okay. This was an entrepreneur over here in Cuba. And that's going to be the moral of this entire story is in Cuba. There are, it's a communist dictatorship, but there are a lot of entrepreneurs. There are a lot of capitalists. And when they get their hands on a little bit of assets, they turn it into something beautiful. And this is exactly what happened here. This person basically got this part of the building and she turned it into this beautiful thing. Right? Very well cared for it is painted. It's crisp. It's well-maintained it looks great. And we had a restaurant. We had, we had dinner in there. We had actually, I think it was lunch when we were in there, but the rest of the buildings , it was all built together has just fallen apart. Right? And as soon as the roof breaks, the family moves out and the rest of the building just falls apart. And if you were going to fix this up or do something with it, well, it's, you can't, it's not yours. It's not your property. And so the rest of it just dilapidated and buildings literally fall apart sort of at the seams and they will repair it and, and, and, you know, sort of reassemble it , it, you can see it almost building by building Casey , how this building is just sort of dilapidated and falling apart. Whereas you've got these buildings over here that are sort of nice and painted, and well-maintained, this one is painted and maintained. Whereas this one over here is just not, and you just see the same thing happening all throughout the country. And it's a very, very, it was a very interesting exchange

Speaker 3:

Because also in Cuba,

Speaker 1:

You just, can't kind of go to the store and buy some eggs and buy some milk. Everything is, is rationed. And there are quotas at , for , and there are all sorts of rules and regulations. So we were a part of this group and what we would do is go, and we would have dinner from time to time. And I want to show you how this works. So you don't go to a regular

Speaker 3:

Restaurant in Cuba. People

Speaker 1:

Have their homes that they will convert into these makeshift restaurants. And so I want to show you what one looks like. This is where we had dinner one night, and this was somebody who's essentially their home. And she had turned this, this was the woman here had turned this in, and this was somebody helping turn this into where

Speaker 3:

We were having dinner. And there were

Speaker 1:

Certain restrictions. She told us on how many seats you could have to serve dinner for. And so she could only have certain number of people at any given time. And so what this woman did, same woman who had the, the , uh, the balcony that I was showing you. She was, she was taking very good care of her property. She had seats outside there as well. And when government regulators would come in, they would stack the chairs and they would put them back in this closet because they couldn't have that many seats. Okay. They were not allowed to serve that many people, because that would have meant that they were over quota and they were getting more resources than they were entitled to somehow. And so the government wants to keep that, that strong of control over the markets. And so what these people were doing, I mean, I'm not joking you, and I'm not going to out this woman. That's why her face is not in here

Speaker 3:

Is , uh, essentially running bootleg capitalists

Speaker 1:

Organizations because she's running a restaurant, it's all being done, sort of on the black market. Okay. We're sort of paying in, in, you know, different, different monetary fees. Right. I didn't manage the tour, but she would tell us that, that the whole, the whole thing is there's was like sneaking us in and sneaking it . It was a , it was a weird experience. And she would tell us that because our group was so big that technically we were sort of, you know , violating certain things and she had different chairs, but they , they had to, you know, essentially she said at one point, throw the chairs over the balcony when the regulators came, because they had too many seats, they're not allowed to do that. And you're going, this is a crazy, what kind of world is this? And it's legitimate. So let me show you this. This is one of the cards that I took a picture of down there. It said control event . [inaudible] so this is the control for the purchase of products or food products, right. They have these little cards that they have where they've got these documents that they , you know , it's not an ID card, but when you open it up, it will literally give you your rations. Okay. And I took a picture of this. We were in a tour bus going somewhere. So I think this is a milk, you know , fresh milk. This is , uh , I think pasta or , uh , uh , bread and upon , right. For bread. And so you go there and you just go and you , uh, get your, get your food handed out in rations. And it was such an interesting experience. And so, you know, everybody's sort of transacting under the layer of government, right? There's a , there's this layer of government that they say, we have all these controls on , on top of everything that you do. Literally, if you want milk, if you want eggs, if you want bread, you got to come through us to get it. But then there's all of these people that are sort of living in this capitalist system more or less underneath, right. They're bartering and they're transacting, and they're , they're running their own little companies wild. Now, one of the big, interesting things that many people see often in Cuba are the cars, right? We talk a lot about the cars and we spend a lot of time kind of looking at these things and studying how this works. Right. A big lesson that I drew from this thing was just how fortunate we are here in America, that we don't have to deal with a lot of the same totalitarian tendencies, but here's a picture of my business partner. And I'm in one of these cars that is, you probably see sort of, you know , uh, bouncing around in Cuba. So , uh , this is us, right? We're, we're driving around on one of these classic cars. And I want to introduce you to this guy who actually would restore them, right? So we went to his shop, right ? This guy is an entrepreneur through and through both of them, they're both mechanics. They both have this shop. And what he does is he gets these old, beautiful, nice cars and fixes them up. Right. And what is so interesting about this is on the outside. It looks, it looks great. You're like, wow, that's beautiful. I'd love to ride in one of those. Right? How wild, how fun. But this is kind of essentially all they've got, right? This is like, this is it. They're not importing anything over there. So one of the most interesting things that I learned was when you look at the inside of these cars, they're totally Frankenstein's . So let's take a look here, total Frankenstein car, okay. This is what the inside of one of them looks like right there . They're just cobbling this together from all sorts of different stuff, right? This is a dashboard from Lord knows what steering wheel from like, you know, some Nissan , uh, the entire, you know, event, you know, this is not a 1950s 40 sixties car, right? This, this looks like you can plug an iPod into it with modern air conditioning. And Lord knows what else. And it was, it was just a weird experience. The way that they put these cars together is they literally smuggle these pieces in Accra , on airplanes. And so they were showing us pictures of them, bring in, you know, carburetors or something as checked luggage, you know, and they would wrap the , the sort of exhaust pipe and they would cut it in half and then have to re weld it when it got down in Cuba. And then they assemble all these cars and they would turn them into these little tourist things. And these guys would give rides to tourists from all over the world and they would generate revenue off of that. And so it was very, very interesting. Here's another picture from , uh , another one of these body shops okay . Where they would just take all of these different motorcycles and they would cannibalize them essentially, and then repurpose them. And they just can't, you know , they can't just order some parts in from America or from, or from anywhere because of a lot of the sanctions and embargoes here was a picture of some students out there. I think this was outside one of the universities. Yeah. The, the university of Havana is there. And so it'd be our beautiful, beautiful, beautiful place to sort of poke around at here is the , uh, from inside of an official cigar store, of course, we've got the , the Castro's sort of front and center loud and proud, very proud of everything. And then a couple more pictures before we get into it, right. This is another street that we were walking down. Right. Very beautiful architecture, kind of dark grid , some parts, not particularly lit, but just kind of dead, right? Dead, dead, dead, everywhere you go. No businesses, no capitalism. Nobody's selling anything. Right? Not many people on the streets doing much of anything right. In the middle of Havana and what would be, what would be, as I said, all of these things

Speaker 3:

Sort of kind of bootleg set setup .

Speaker 1:

So as we're walking down this street, then suddenly we, where the heck are we going before we get finally to our restaurant? Right? So somebody's just kind of off one of these corners just has this little secret, hidden restaurant, and you just kind of open the doors. You tuck right in there, they serve you food. They give you wine and you have a whole experience there. And it's all just done kind of secretly, right. And those people are paid in cash. And the whole thing is just a very interesting now it's, it's also a beautiful country. Okay. This is from , uh , part, part of the area where the protests are. And now we're going to get into the news. Now, I just wanted to frame that out, just to sort of show you what that experience was like. It's a beautiful country. The people were incredible. We had, we met so many amazing people. Everybody wanted to help and just learn a little bit more about what we did and about some of the freedoms that we have in our country. And they were, there were capitalists all over the place. The car guy was a capitalist. The restaurant tour was a capitalist, everybody, a Capitol . They all just wanted to get a piece of something and make it better. And I talk a lot about this on the channel about, you know, about people needing to feel useful and about us finding, creating value in the world, by finding something that is of lower utility, finding something that is a natural resources, mixing our labor with it, and then creating something of value. Right? And we call that property. We protect our property rights for good reason, because if we don't then what happens is people stop caring about stuff. If you give people just everything, then they just look at it and they say, well, this is very great, but why should I appreciate that? Because you just gave that to me out of thin air, it's not worthwhile. And Cuba for me was a prime example of that. People were given places to live and they neglected it. Other people that had to fight and earn it and work for it and are , are thriving as capitalists in a , in a communist country. It was one of the most inspiring things I've ever seen. I came back to United States with a lot of stinking energy, because as you know, as angry as I get with a lot of what we see going on in this country, we don't have it nearly as bad as they do and they're making do, and they're building businesses and they're providing for their kids. And so I got to just, you know, I just wanted to share that with you. It was a beautiful trip. We have a beautiful country and sometimes we lose sight of it. It makes me very happy to see that maybe Cuba is going to get a little bit more of that. And I certainly want to support them in their quest. So speaking of that, let's take a look and figure out what is going on there. So this was posted over on Twitter. He says, this is exciting. And so this is if you'll notice, right. Very, very close to where I was. And so this is a picture that I took when I was traveling in one of those cars, driving across the seaside. And now they're right there, right there , sort of filling this area up . Let's take a listen in and watch the crowd. Now this might be a little bit loud, so just be , be forewarned.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

Okay. So crowd, you know, looking a little thin there, but it starts to fill up as sort of the day went on. Now there are Twitter user posted this as how Havana explodes to the cry of freedom. He says, this is at Malecon at the moment, the story SOS Cuba, let's not stop years ago. Something like this, didn't look this exciting, right? And so he's talking about freedom. He's talking about safe Cuba. And he's saying, this is our moment. Don't see much vaccine talk there though, but let's see what's going on.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

I think they're saying LIBOR , Todd LIBOR , Todd. Right? And here's another image of them shouting Homeland and life Cubans turn the revolutionary slogan on their head. This says as they call for democracy. And so here are some more Cubans , uh, which sort of, you know, protesting right . Fighting for freedom. Love it.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

All right. So, you know, as is always the case, well, the government has to respond, so here's this next video, this one, they get a little bit rough, but I don't think this Nessus necessitates a full content warning, but the Cubans are responding and then we're going to break down what's happening because Joe Biden came out today and he gave us his perspective. And we have Jen Saki who gave us her perspective. We're going to hear from Marco Rubio and Dan Crenshaw as well. Let's take a look though. These are, Cuba's a special forces. So now they're going to be sort of, you know, exercising the big hand of government as is usually the case. They kind of, you know, these, these people are everywhere.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

So gear it up, right? We're going to see what the response looks like. And hopefully it is not a violence , hopefully it's not, but we know how these things tend to go in communist totalitarian dictatorship. So lots of prayers with the Cuban people tonight and , uh , for the foreseeable future, how has the Biden administration responded to this good question? We have Julie Chung over here. Julie Chung is the acting assistant secretary to the U S department of state. Now she is with the bureau of Western Hemisfair hemisphere affairs, which is perfect because that's exactly where Cuba is. And let's see what she has to say. She says peaceful protests are growing in Cuba. As the Cuban people exercise their right to peaceful assembly, to express concern about rising COVID cases and deaths and medicine shortages. Oh, we commend the numerous efforts of the Cuban people, mobilizing donations to help neighbors in need. All right. So let's, let's trash this statement for a minute, peaceful protests are growing in Cuba as they exercise their right to peaceful assembly. So you can read this in two ways, right? The first way is , uh, that this person is just very naive and doesn't know what they're talking about and is extending what they perceive to be, you know , American freedoms to other places in the world where those freedoms don't exist anymore. And we've seen this historically, which is why I tend to think this is probably the right answer, which is that , uh , she thinks that that sort of everybody just has everything that we have naturally and that therefore they should be comporting to our demands. And what I mean by that is seen this

Speaker 2:

With AOC. She did this very recently. She said that in Puerto Rico, I believe when she was talking about them saying that they just need to turn off their coal power, just turn it off. Just it's , uh , the planet is dying and you have to turn off your coal power plants. And if you don't, well, then you're going to be contributing to the death of the planet. And so now the Puerto Rican just say, Hey , uh, AOC, that's like our entire power grid. Okay. We don't have any other alternatives to that. That's all that we've got. So how about no? Right. We know that you grew up in a silver spoon, you know, America suburbs somewhere, but it's different down here. And so please don't project your, your presumptions of certain standards onto us. And so , uh , totally irresponsible. Totally. I think naive and kind of idiotic, really, if you're an elected official should be a little bit more educated than that. Same concept goes over to Julie chunk . They don't have a right to peaceful assembly in Cuba. Okay. That's that's the whole ,

Speaker 3:

The point . That's why this is a big deal because they don't have that. Right. We do. We used to ,

Speaker 2:

And , and it's slowly eroding away right in front of our eyes, but it is not something that is permitted in Cuba, which is why people are concerned about this. And I'll tell you, it's certainly not. I didn't hear a single person in any one of those videos that we played ever complaining about. COVID vaccines. Okay. Not a one, not one of them, but she wants to characterize it as that. Now the other way, if you want to be, I think a diplomatic about it, or let's say, put this in the light most favorable to her is saying it would be the presumption that all people have a right to peaceful assembly. Right? So sort of talking about this, not in actuality, but in idealic terms. So ideally everybody has the right to peaceful assembly. Or if you want to approach it from a humanitarian perspective, we all have the right to peaceful assembly. It's a God-given right. It's a fundamental human, right. That's why we say it's in the first amendment, right. Free exercise, free assembly, all of that. So it's very, very possible that

Speaker 3:

She meant, but I doubt it because ,

Speaker 2:

Because she's also wrong on the COVID stuff, isn't she? So it's a , uh , an interesting way to frame this. You know, it's a peaceful assembly, which they don't have. And they're all very concerned about COVID cases and they're commending them and all this stuff. It's basically nonsense. As Marco Rubio says, he says, this is a ridiculous tweet from the state department. He says, people in Cuba are protesting 62 years of socialism lies, tyranny and misery. They're not expressing concern about rising COVID cases

Speaker 3:

And deaths. Why is it so

Speaker 2:

Hard for POTUS and the people in his administration to say that he's right about that he is totally right about it . And they can't just say it it's because it's too close to home that if they come out and say, if they look, if Jen Sakhi comes out and says, yeah, you're right. You know, communism is a terrible thing. You're going to have a big swath of the democratic party

Speaker 3:

Just goes , what did you say? We don't like that statement because

Speaker 2:

They're communists. That's why. Well, that's why Marco , why is it so hard for his administration to say that it's because they're communists Marco Rubio. That's why they don't want to, they don't want to dunk on themselves. That's why they're not going to say it. It's like when you do something stupid, you don't ever call attention to it. I tend to do that. But most normal people don't Dan cran , Dan Crenshaw over here also says, no, they're champions . They're chanting labor . Todd . They're not chanting a COVID-19 vaccines in my arm, please. They're chanting liver , Todd , stop playing cover for a communist and support the Cuban people. My God. Why is that so hard for you? It's true folks. That it's, it is true. They can't acknowledge it and they can't do it. Here's Jen Saki , here she is today. Press secretary. She defended Chung's tweet from the podium on Monday saying that the Cuban people could, well, they could be discontent about a number of things like economics , suppression , media, suppression, lack of access to health and medical supplies, including vaccines, which is just wild to me because they have socialized medicine down there. Don't they don't, they have communist medicine. Didn't Michael Moore go down there and do a whole frigging documentary about the whole thing. And now they're oh, medical. Oh, well, they don't have vaccines and medical supplies. That's weird. And I wonder why that is. I wonder why that could possibly be. And so Jen and Biden come out and it's all it's . This is the same thing that Camila did. Right? When she went down to Guatemala, don't come Guatemalans. Oh, these people it's. So it's so wild to me. All right. Enough of that Biden to his credit came out, read a statement that was, I think, the right way to read it. He came out. ABC news says that he backs Cuban protests as the Island's president blames, the imperialist provocation. So president Joe Biden on Monday, stood in solidarity with thousands of Cubans who protested good for him. He spoke to reporters at the white house and said that these are remarkable protests, demanding their freedom from an authoritarian regime. And I've seen, I've seen, I've seen people on Twitter already dunking on that. Like, oh, well, what about , uh, what about those January six protesters there , Joe ? How about them? Uh, uh , Viva, actually, I saw him throw that out there. He says, I don't think we've seen anything like this protest in a long, long time. If ever the United States stands firmly with the Cuban people. He says he wants them to assert their universal rights call on the government to refrain from violence and their attempts to silence the voice of the people of Cuba. So good for him. Right? Good statement. Cuba's communist leadership has already denounced the protest as systemic provocation by Cuban dissonance and the U S government. So they're taking , uh , a , uh, a note from the other communists around the world, like the Chinese, who they come over here and they say to our diplomats, at least, at least this administration's diplomats. We didn't hear much of this during the last administration, but they would come over here. Like the Chinese delegation did when they were meeting with Anthony Blinken Anthony Blinken. And uh , he said, well, we're very angry with what you're doing with the weavers up there in your country. And they said, how dare you, sir? And they wag their finger in his face. And he sort of scurried on out of there with his tail between his legs , because they used the woke language back against them. And they don't like when that happens. Right. Blinken and uh , and many people like to talk a lot about systemic, everything being problematic. And then the communists come back and they say, oh, how about systemic provocation? What about that? And now if you are a lefty and you hear somebody accusing you of systemic anything, I think you malfunction. I think there's something shorts short circuits up there. So it's , it's powerful. The Cubans are pretty intelligent. It says that they are encouraged their supporters to counter protest . They sent its armed forces into the streets to clash with demonstrators. And so , uh , our sort of emasculated national security advisor over here, Jake Sullivan says that the us supports freedom of expression and assembly, and would strongly condemn any violence or targeting of peaceful protesters who are exercising their universal rights. Right? So he is supporting Julie Chung over here. And he sort of picking up on her prior statements saying that this is now a universal, right? Whenever she said that it was sort of, you know , a right. He said, oh, it's universal. So he's helping to paper that one over for her a little bit. But nobody takes the administrations elected officials seriously at all. Here is a representative from the government of Cuba. You can see here, his name is Bruno Rodriguez. I think he's the chancellor maybe , uh , of Cuba. And he says, responding back to Jake Sullivan. He says, yeah, the white house, national security advisor has no political or moral authority to speak about Cuba. His government has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to promote subversion in our country. And he implements a genocidal blockade, which is the main cause of economic scarcities . So yet again, just throwing it right back and this administration's face every single one of them has done this. So it's not a surprise at all. All right. Let's take a [email protected]als.com. Let's see who is here first. Let's go in to some questions. I'm going to get this figured out over here. Yes. Oh, I think I got this figured out. Cool. We've got speech unleashed in the house as the current administration and the mainstream media doesn't value the freedom of the American people. So it isn't any surprise that they don't believe the lack of freedom is anything for the people of Cuba to be upset about. That comes over from speech unleashed. Good to see you there . Speech. We have another one from thunder. Seven says, Hey Rob, can we do a political prisoner? Swap the January six, mega prisoners sent to Cuba where they will be treated better and be free in exchange for the Cuban protesters who want to live in the U S I don't know. Yeah . I mean, it's, it's true, right? I mean, Jacob chancellor is sitting there in a , I think still , uh, isolation for the last six months. Probably fare better in Cuba. Good to see thunder seven. We've got soul Viking is in the house. As we know, it's not primarily about the vaccines. However, the mainstream media must have forgotten Michael Moore's proclamations at the time that Cuba has the gold standard of healthcare . That was a lie then, and probably not accurate now. Right. And I made that point soul it's like, I thought it was perfect. So where,

Speaker 3:

Where did we go wrong? Because we're supposed to have health care . That looks more like them. Like they're . Yeah .

Speaker 2:

Not like ours. Right? All right. We've got, let's see, Angie woe is in the house, says perhaps if Cubans are realizing that if the USA and the EU are trending towards socialism and communism leaving no place safe to escape to , then they will simply need to fight the evil in their own country. Because soon there may be no better place to go. Right? This is a great point, right? A great point from achy . Well , if, if you just pick up and

Speaker 3:

Leave , if everybody does that, then there may not be any place left to go, which is

Speaker 2:

The scary thought. We have be brave here who says this Cuba segment is a good preload prelude to the soon to be communist USA, evil prevails when good men do nothing. That is from a be brave. Good to see you be brave. I agree with you. It's why we all got to speak up. We all got to stand up and speak out up a little bit. Be brave, says very interesting Cuba segment. Thank you. Be brave. I know that was a little bit different, not our standard traditional political fare , but it , it, I learned a lot from that. You know, it's a really good dichotomy. You can see the difference between capitalism and communism. Right. Immediately. I learned a lot. It was impactful. We have be brave says, what's the curious thing about Cuba isn't sensor is that big tech isn't censoring the story. There has to be a reason they want everyone to believe this is about a lack of vaccines. Sure. So yeah. Why aren't they, I think is the point and let's see, Todd trout is here, says, do Cubans have the right to peaceful assembly? Do they have a bill of rights?

Speaker 3:

Not to my knowledge,

Speaker 2:

If they do. I don't think it has the same , uh, benefits that we have here in the United States. We have , uh, let's see, thunder seven says that hope there is no tenement square. Repeat just a reminder to wacky AOC, that the people who were lucky to flee Cami countries value American values of Liberty, more than any other group, the champagne socialists like her having a clue about totalitarian states. Yeah. They, they, they, I really don't think that they do, you know, there's a great Twitter profile called libs of tick-tock , which by the way, I'm on Tik TOK. Now check that out. Link is down in the description below,

Speaker 3:

But it is what was I , what was I talking about? Oh, libs of Tik TOK . One of them

Speaker 2:

As Twitter , uh , follows. You'll see. But there are a lot of people out there just sort of

Speaker 1:

Are endeared to communism, but I don't think they've actually ever really studied its practical application. They like the idea that I don't have to work and everything's going to be great. And I can go be an artist and write poetry and work on my screenplays,

Speaker 3:

But it's not reality.

Speaker 1:

All right. We have Nadar buzz here says the clip you showed of the Cuban police hopping over that vehicle. Can you imagine our police trying to hop they're out of shape, selves over something that tall , uh, and he's laughing in a , in Cuba Cuban right there . Ha ha with the JIA . Right? So that's,

Speaker 3:

That's good to see you in the dark.

Speaker 1:

Uh, next up we got, want to know, says sounds just like the Portland protests ,

Speaker 3:

Freedom running commercials .

Speaker 1:

Well , to share your place with someone else telling how many people can shop at the stores and the cafes, et cetera. And then lastly, on this segment we've got from , uh , from a note anonymous, we've got, I don't get it. If Cuba has been living like this for 62 years and people have learned to live in this situation, then why now what actually happened to trigger this protest? That's a good question. I don't know. Going to probably be more information about that. Does it have anything to do with,

Speaker 3:

With , uh , Haiti or anything else? I don't know.

Speaker 1:

We're seeing things happening in the world these days. All of those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com very much appreciate all of your love and support

Speaker 3:

Over there. All right, so we're gonna change gears.

Speaker 1:

We're going to move into the next segment. My friends let's take a quick look at the chat, make sure that we're still coming through loud and clear on the broadcast. It looks like things are happening alive and well, we got sold Jeremy's now in the house. Do you remember ? Trita we've got random grams in here. Says a thought it was a brilliant segment, more impactful. You're the first person to see I've seen who've been there and can share a firsthand experience. Cool. Awesome. Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. Good to see you guys. All right, so let's move on into the next segment

Speaker 3:

Of the day . The FBI,

Speaker 1:

We've been a little bit critical about some of their investigations here on this channel for some time, but now they want you to sort of be kind of helping them spy on your family members and your colleagues and your peers and everybody else. Anybody else who may be raising one of those red flags that we all have to be ultra concerned about? And I'm not even kidding about this. My friends over the weekend, they post it on Twitter. They said specifically, family members and peers are often best positioned to witness signs of mobilization to violence, help prevent homegrown, violent extremism, visit go.usa.gov to learn how to spot suspicious behaviors and report them to the FBI. Hashtag Nash national security. Alright , now I want to , I want to spend a little bit of time on this statement. Okay.

Speaker 3:

Is a finely tuned, highly engineered precision post. Okay. This is the FBI.

Speaker 1:

And I know we sort of needle them a little bit from time to time. Don't know what they were doing on January 6th, but we'll get there .

Speaker 3:

But it is basically the most recognized intelligence agency in the world, right? Big budgets, lot of manpower, a lot of skills, very, very serious people there. If you've ever dealt with the FBI on a formal level , uh , it's a , it's a different ball game, or you're dealing with you as attorneys. You're dealing with the justice department. It's a different sort of scale. When they post something like this, there is something that goes into this that is deeper than just a tweet. And I want to spend some time breaking this, this one tweet apart. So I know this might be obnoxious, but let's go through it. It says family members and peers are often best positioned to witness signs of mobilization to violence. So let's take this first sentence. It's a three sentence tweet. Let's take the first one. What they're doing here is they're being very sneaky. They're making this language passive. Okay. We have active language versus passive language. We talk about Johnny hit Billy active Johnny hit Billy that's Johnny going and doing something passive is Billy was hit by Johnny. Okay. We're talking about Billy. Now, Billy wasn't doing much of anything, but he was hit by Johnny versus Johnny being the hitter, right? Active versus passive language. So in the first sentence, we've got some pretty strong passive language, family members and peers they're best positioned. Okay? They're not doing anything actively. They're just positioned. And they happened to be best positioned. And are they going to be doing anything actively like hitting Johnny? No, they're just going to be there . Things are going to be happening to them. Right? They're receiving this as passive actors, which is very important because when we're talking about what are you going to do actively, if we're saying, Hey, Rob, you got to go spy on your mom. You've got to go spy on your brother. You got to go spy on your friend, your business partner, your colleague, you've got to go take an affirmative act and go do that. You think it triggers something in your mind? You say, huh? Should I be doing that thing? Should I do I have an affirmative duty to go out and do that? Should I sort of raise myself up and take action? And many people that will flag something for them? Nope . That's not appropriate. That raises that trust alarm bell saying, I'm not going to go. That's ridiculous. I'm not going to go look and sort of investigate anything. It's active language. And when you start talking that way people will get defensive because you're, you're sort of asking them to do something. This is where we talk about calls to action in marketing. And when we make closing arguments in law, you wanna primacy and recency, right? We talk about some, some very important language techniques. This is one of them. Something is being asked , family members and peers. They're being acted upon. They're not doing anything. You

Speaker 2:

Can use the same technique. If you're talking about a defendant's rights , our client didn't actively do something. Something happened to them.

Speaker 3:

That's what's happening

Speaker 2:

Here. So the first sentence, family members, their best position, they just happened to be there. They're very, they're very happy, well positioned . And what are they going to do? They're not going to do anything proactive. They're just going to witness things, just witness things like what ? Well , just signs, just very minor signs of mobilization to violence, right? So we really don't know what that means. We're going to go through the document that they linked to here in a minute. First sentence though. Very powerful passively.

Speaker 3:

Okay. Now. Okay .

Speaker 2:

Once you're in that passive state, the next sentence, isn't going to trigger you into active mode. So as, as a packed passive observer here, you're going to be best positioned to do what actively help prevent homegrown, violent extremism.

Speaker 3:

Great. And

Speaker 2:

So now we're sort of transitioning from signs of mobilization of violence. Now we're not talking about signs, we're talking about preventing actual, homegrown, violent extremism, right? And it's going from a passive statement where you are being acted upon to just be positioned in witness to now using that passive position in a call to action. And so it's, it's sort of, it's sort of bypassing, short-circuiting your alert antitrust mechanisms.

Speaker 3:

Oh, I'm just passively

Speaker 2:

Helping prevent homegrown extremism. How am I doing that by actively monitoring other people for what signs of mobilization to violence. But when they frame it this way, you're not an active participant. You're just somebody who is actively participating, but in a passive manner, right? And this stuff

Speaker 3:

Matters. This is why this

Speaker 2:

Was engineered this way. This isn't some intern, just go up the F flying tweets out. They know what they're doing and they know how powerful this is. So they have that second statement, passive sentence with a very active sentence. And they're changing terms right in front of our eyes. So you're witnessing signs of mobilization, but then the terms change. And now it becomes pre preventing, homegrown, violent extremism to two totally different things, but they're wrapping it in together. Now you'll also notice that they say, visit this web address. Now I might be making too much of this, but I think this is very good subliminal. Whoever organized . This is brilliant. Go USA government. Right there you go. Visit, go USA government. There you go. Guys, go USA government. Hey, Hey guys, look as family members and peers, you are best positioned to help prevent violence. All you gotta do is prevent home low, homegrown, violent extremism by reporting your peers, go USA government. All you got to do is click there, go USA. And then we're going to show you how you can spot suspicious behaviors and report them to

Speaker 3:

The FBI. Right? It

Speaker 2:

Is very masterful. This whole thing. We've got some nice graphics here. We're going to go through these briefly. Okay. They are giving us some something to look at. They assembled this for us. So this graphic was generated for this tweet. Doesn't come from anything in the manual that we're going to look at. But when you do click this tweet, which has been shared all over the place , uh you're you , you click this link and it's going to take you to this document.

Speaker 3:

It's called the homegrown

Speaker 2:

Violent extremists mobilization indicators, the 2019 edition. Right? And so I'm curious to know how many people actually click the link. I certainly did. And it is a big document. Looks pretty nefarious, right? We have the pulse , uh, nightclubs sign right here. Got a heart over here. We've got, it looks like the Boston marathon or something explosion going on right there. We've got a blown up truck. I'm not sure what that one is from a , this is a building. It looks like it got blown up. Uh, and so , uh , we see this,

Speaker 3:

The bullets back end of a bullet. And this also looks like just sort of what is poking through this at the front cover is just a, it looks like an egg

Speaker 2:

Exit blast of a bullet or some sort of projectile, you know, bursting its way through something. So you can see a lot of imagery there. I mean, they're talking about mobilization indicators, right? And this is homegrown violent extremists . This looks a little bit different than family members and peers, right? It looks like we're talking about

Speaker 3:

Something pretty serious here, right? This isn't, this isn't something like , uh , I'm going to ,

Speaker 2:

You know , hold up a convenience store, right? This is something that is much more serious, violent extremists and homegrown violent extremists. Okay. So let's go into the document. It's 32 pages and we're not going to go through it all. It goes by very quickly, as you can see 32 pages, let's go through it. What are they doing? They're going to give us these things called mobilization indicators .

Speaker 3:

Okay. So they're going to tell us how to classify somebody . Whether

Speaker 2:

There they are, in fact, a violent extremist , they're going to go through different behaviors and we're going to put them into different buckets. We have bucket a, which says if you're in bucket a

Speaker 3:

You're highly problematic. Okay .

Speaker 2:

You should be on with the FBI, like yesterday to talk about that person groupie.

Speaker 3:

He says that that's pretty concerning probably should call the FBI, but not as

Speaker 2:

Learning as group grouping in that bucket. And then we have group C, which is really like, well, I mean, of course you , you should still call the FBI, but we're less concerned about these things, right? So kind of everything is kind of a problematic characterization of behavior. And the question is, what category do you fall in? And then based on that category, what do you do with that information? So we're going to go through it. And I want to just point out, right? I live in the same society that you do most of you here in the United States. And I certainly want to live in a safe society. I'm not somebody that wants nuclear warheads proliferating throughout the country. Right? I don't want that at all,

Speaker 3:

But I also value freedom. And I also value personal

Speaker 2:

Liberties and the right to privacy and the right to free assembly and the right to free thought and the right to free access to certain information and the right to speak and write and share things and concepts. And so when we start to put all of these different concerns on a scale, we've got to balance them out a little bit. And so let's give this a fair shake. Let's go through this document,

Speaker 3:

See what makes sense and what doesn't.

Speaker 2:

So, first and foremost, back to the table of contents, we're going to go through groups a, which are high indicators of problems, group B, which are moderate diagnostic indicators, and then group C, which are minimally diagnostic and require several other indicators to gain diagnosticity okay. So if you're in group C,

Speaker 3:

You need more than one.

Speaker 2:

We're also going to look at risk factors, frequently asked questions and an index. So at the start of the document, we have the introduction homegrown, violent extremist mobilization indicators. Now let's go through this. I'm not going to read this all verbatim, but it says that indicators of violent extremist mobilization that are described here in , uh , we're gonna look at the factors that are gonna help identify them. They're going to be grouped by diagnosticity the national counterterrorism counterterrorism center, the FBI and DHS. They emphasize that many of the indicators described here in, they may actually involve constitutionally protected activities and they might be insignificant on

Speaker 3:

Their own. Okay. We know

Speaker 2:

That a lot of this stuff is constitutionally protected by itself. That's probably fine, nothing, nothing we can even

Speaker 3:

Do about that. But they say,

Speaker 2:

When in combination with other behaviors, it may raise suspicion. And they're talking about this under a reasonable person standard that constitutes a basis for reporting. So we talk about the reasonable person standard as this,

Speaker 3:

This idea that it's an objective standard, meaning I shouldn't have said objective. I actually mean objective saying

Speaker 2:

That if any, like person were in , in, in that person's similarly S similarly situated position, would they act the same way or not? So it's not whether you would act that way. It's whether a reasonable person would. And so when we played these hypothetical kind of logic games, the idea is that you're sort of just picking a random, reasonable person. You're putting them in that position would a reasonable person. If they saw little Johnny in his room, you know, sending instant messages to Al-Qaeda, would that prompt a reasonable person to take action and report that that's the standard that they're asking us to apply law enforcement actions should not be taken solely on the basis of constitutional rights or on any combination of other factors they're encouraged to call law enforcement. So why was this booklet created? Well , they know that us and other nations are facing heightened threats from homegrown, violent extremists, heeding the call to violence. They're talking about groups like the state of Iraq, like ISIS and Al Qaeda . They're talking about mitigating future attacks, and this is why this is needed, right? Published in 2015, there was an updated version in 2017. And then they released an unclassified version in 2017, December, 2017. So this was originally classified or a version of this as classified. So I'm sure I'm curious to see what else is in there , uh, that , that maybe is not in the public version. Now, not much information there in that introduction about what is actually happening in this, in this booklet. So we're going to skip back to the frequently asked questions. We're going to scroll all the way back to page 22, and it defines for us what is a violent extremist? Well, a homegrown, violent extremist is a person of any citizenship. So it could be , uh , here in the United States who lives primarily in the United States who advocates, preps engages or supports terrorist activities in furtherance of a foreign terrorist organization's objectives, but who is acting independently of foreign terrorist direction, because HVS are acting to further the goals of a foreign terrorist organization. They are considered foreign intelligence threats under the authorities of the intelligence community. So what they're saying here is , uh , you know, you could even be a, a citizen here in the United States. And if you are somebody who is , uh, doing something in further furtherance of a foreign terrorist organizations, objectives, not their direction . Okay. So let's say for example, that you are somebody who does not like the United States, you want to see the end of the , uh , formal government. Let's say you're not a part of Al Qaeda , but you also agree with them that the United States should be eliminated. And so you act to further that goal, just like Al Qaeda does, and that causes you to fall under the jurisdiction of the entire intelligence community. You're not an official agent of Al Qaeda, but you believe in the same goals as them. You're a us citizen living here, not following their direction, but just kind of would be okay if the same outcome that they achieved was, or that they want was achieved. You are now subject to the jurisdiction of the FBI candies indicators be applied to individuals

Speaker 5:

Other, other

Speaker 2:

Than homegrown violent extremists. So certainly, certainly, certainly , uh, uh, behaviors exist. They're noted in this booklet, they may warrant contacting law enforcement. However, this booklet is focused on other individuals inspired or enabled by foreign terrorists. Why can't law enforcement do all this by itself? Why involve the general public? We're all in this together. We continue to see the members of the community , uh , all detect hints that they may be considering violent action, right? So we've got we're all in this together. So again, let's frame this out in terms of timeline, 2019, this document is, is a title . The addition is , is now titled. So Donald Trump's in office,

Speaker 1:

We're talking about a homegrown, violent extremists. They're talking about this in the context of ISIS, Al Qaeda and so on. Then what ends up happening is a Donald Trump loses. Of course we have January six and now all of those activities, all of those protests and criminalities are all being relabeled as domestic violent extremism, right. Which is very similar to homegrown, violent extremism. It's sort of, this one word is different and they're basically synonyms homegrown and domestic. Okay. And so we also know that Nancy Pelosi in her January six select committee, which she is formulating now, which McCarthy is going to be , uh , participating in, they're calling it domestic terrorism. So you can see now how the expansive sort of the , the more limited definition from 2019 is now being expanded quite a bit. And if you doubt that while we can just check in with John Brennan, remember John Brennan on January 20th, the day that Joe Biden was being sworn in, he is the former CIA director, and he's a former Obama white house official. He said that the Biden Intel community on January 20th, he says, they're moving and laser like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about pro-Trump insurgency that harbors religious extremists, authoritarians fascist bigots, or racists nativists. And even libertarians here is John Brennan. Now taking that definition and sort of expanding it even further, right? From insurgence , from a domestic violent extremism now into everybody else, racist , bigots nativists anybody who's anti-government even libertarians Syria's .

Speaker 6:

So I know looking forward that the members of the, the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we've seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength. And it brings together an unholy Alliance frequently of religious religious extremists. So authoritarians fascist , bigots racists nativists even libertarians. And unfortunately, I think there has been this momentum that has been generated as a result of unfortunately, the demagogic rhetoric of people. That's just the part of government, but also those who continue in the halls of Congress. And so I really do think that the law enforcement Homeland security intelligence, and even the defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very, very serious and insidious threat to our democracy and our Republic.

Speaker 1:

Yup . Folks gotta take him at his word on that. Right? Former CIA director. He is absolutely. We're seeing it all over the place. They are rooting this out. They're going to be latching on to January 6th is that insidious terrorist threat. And they're going to be asking the FBI post these things and make sure that you're aware that you too can report your mom to ,

Speaker 2:

For violating whatever protocols are in this manual. So enough of that let's get into the actual document.

Speaker 1:

Let's see what they are categorizing this stuff as. So we have the preparatory offenses, we have the motivation concerns. We have the concealment concerns. We have the three groups, a, B, and C highly, moderately, and minimally. And these are the observable people. So people who can see this stuff, and then we have imminent concern near term concern and longterm concern. Okay. So you shouldn't just be reporting the imminent stuff

Speaker 2:

Either. Like if you see

Speaker 1:

Little Johnny in there saying, well, you know, he's connecting the wires for the, a bomb . He's like, oh , what's going on here? And Hey, Johnny, FBI, Johnny's going to new his, you know, whatever. So not , not, not good. Right. That's an imminent concern. So you would certainly want to call that. But if Johnny is a longer term concern,

Speaker 2:

Like let's say he voted for Donald Trump or something like that. Well, that's a long-term , uh , monitor play. You're going to have to watch that for some time. Okay. So category obviously, right.

Speaker 1:

Stuff that we want to make sure the FBI wants to make sure you're reporting, preparing and disseminating a martyrdom video or statement, and last will . Okay. A final statement . So indicators that are highly diagnostic on their own. So we see here a Jihadi making a last will and a video statement here .

Speaker 2:

I don't see anybody being beheaded in this video, but certainly

Speaker 1:

Right. Time sensitivity, immediate concern. Okay. So I'm not , uh , I like to, you know, I like to kind of poke fun at the FBI, but I agree with this one. How do you even argue with that? Right. If you walk in a little Johnny,

Speaker 2:

He's making a last will and Testament for martyrdom. Got it.

Speaker 1:

That one also on this one, seeking religious or political justification for a planned violent act, right? So if you're a family peers or religious leaders or online contexts , see this, that they're seeking political justification for a planned violent act, you might want to pay attention to that. Mobilizing others for violence, especially family members. Right? So if you're getting people together, we can see here organizing them to go commit violence. You know? So now we're sort of going down the scale

Speaker 2:

A little bit right now you start to ask yourself as we go down this well , huh. Well, what does violence mean? You know , what does mobilizing for violence mean ? You know, what, if we're just going to go down to visit the Capitol building, is that mobilizing for violence? Some people would say, absolutely. That is, and some people would say, what are you nuts? This is America. We can still walk around. Right?

Speaker 1:

Some people might say, if you're going to go protest masks or something, that that is violent . So you've gotta be, we started to getting into some, some gray areas. Uh, now it says seeking help from family or other authority figures to enable, enable people to travel, to join terrorist groups overseas.

Speaker 2:

Cause for concern, okay. Somebody buys a plane ticket on Al-Qaeda airlines. Yeah. It's a problem

Speaker 1:

Preparing to travel, to fight with or terrorist groups, another imminent concern. Right. Pretty obvious stuff here. And so if you , if you see something that obviously connects somebody to a terrorist group, probably worth a phone call or, or, you know , uh , at least an inquiry communicating with the intent to engage with a violent extremist activity, huh? A threat or justification for action. Uh , so , uh , how about this? A social media post, a tweet, a hashtag or a manifesto, violent extremist activity now. So, so now what we're talking about is not really violence . Okay. So other other, other statements here, we're talking about violence, mobilize others to actually commit violence. And number three, this is different in violent extremist activity. I don't, you know what ? That could be a number of different things. It could be going bowling with your violent extremist friends, a threat for justification. Okay. So those are the big

Speaker 3:

Group bucket, eight problems call the FBI.

Speaker 1:

If those things are happening. Now we get into the other little bit more grayer areas. See what you think about some of these. So this is in group B, these are indicators that are moderately diagnostic. So if you're observing little Johnny over there, your mother or your brother, and they're doing these things, maybe

Speaker 3:

Call the FBI, not sure yet use your judgment. So it says here, number seven. Yeah .

Speaker 1:

If they are suspiciously obtaining or attempting to obtain explosive precursors, they're going to be blowing something up. Yeah. It might be useful simulating an attack or an assault on a real-world targets near term concern, surveilling potential targets. Also a near term concern. You get arrested for that. Right ? We saw that with the governor Whitmer ,

Speaker 3:

Uh, allegations,

Speaker 1:

Number 10, inquiring about jobs that provide sensitive access to certain things in a suspicious manner.

Speaker 3:

Huh? So if you're like,

Speaker 1:

Well, I want to go work at the hydraulic , uh , power plant

Speaker 3:

Because I love water. Sure.

Speaker 1:

Come on in an interview. But if you're like, well, I want to go there because I'm interested in the rebar composition in the concrete

Speaker 3:

Little bit

Speaker 1:

Suspicious on that one. How about number 11, conducting research for a target or tactic selection. This is in the preparatory section. Now we also have suspicious sending of financial resources oh. Or electronic equipment or survivalist gear to people or groups overseas. So that's a problem. If you're going to be sending, you know, buckets of food or cryptocurrencies, that could be a problem. Number 13, receiving unexplained monies from third parties overseas. So again, overseas you're right. But we're talking about home grown and now domestic stuff. So that might change number 14, expressing acceptance of violence as a necessary means to achieve ideological goals. Oh, this one's tricky, right? Communicating a desire for revenge or promoting violent extremist narratives sharing in praising

Speaker 3:

Violent extremist videos. This is a

Speaker 1:

Long-term concern . So you should be watching for this for a long period of time. So promoting extremist narratives, you know, this is where you get kind of tricky with some of these things. Like, for example, if you were to say something like , uh , the tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with , uh , the blood of tyrants and , uh, uh, something like that,

Speaker 3:

That I think that goes on, right? The blood of tyrants and

Speaker 1:

Think of Patriots, it goes on. But the point is right. If you were to say something like that, is that a violent extremist narrative

Speaker 3:

Or not? I don't know, probably going

Speaker 1:

To find out after I get indicted, number 15, we have attempting to radicalize others, especially family members

Speaker 3:

In their peers. So , uh,

Speaker 1:

Anytime you go to a Thanksgiving dinner, probably doing that, creating or joining a group that promotes violence to address social political ideological grievances, never promote violence on this show, having acknowledged or an applied membership or an association with a violent extremist group . So like, like ISIS or those things, of course participating in online sites or groups that promote violent extremism. We've seen this before. Right? I've got we, our discord got labeled as a extremism, not violent, I don't think, but we got thrown off this court for something like that.

Speaker 3:

So who , who,

Speaker 1:

Who , you know, it's a , it's subject to interpretation. Number 19, communicating directly with violent extremists, online, number 20

Speaker 3:

Claiming relationships

Speaker 1:

With incarcerated or infamous violent extremists. So sort of reaching out and having that jailbird relationship 21 encouraging or advocating violence towards individuals, military or government officials or law enforcement or civilian targets, right? Don't ever advocate for violence group a group B. This is, this is motivation. Now we're going to go through this a little more quickly, outburst or behavior, including violent behavior that results in the exclusion or rejection by the family or your community. What? So if you get in a fight with your family, there you go. Call the FBI producing violent extremist videos, mini , uh, media or messaging , uh , okay. Expressing a desire to travel the conflict zones, group B suspicious travel activity. We have new use of concealment behavior. So this means counter surveillance techniques, encrypted media apps or software platforms platforms . So if you're on telegram or you're on a what's the other one signal or you're encrypting anything,

Speaker 3:

The thing that is concealment behavior now delete

Speaker 1:

Eating or manipulating social media accounts to misrepresent your location or to hide group membership. Near-term concern. Okay. Lot of people on Twitter who need the FBI at their doors, we've got a group. See the lowest tier, just a couple of these indicators that are minimally not

Speaker 2:

Diagnostic on their own. So we got the suspicious building or testing of explodes ,

Speaker 3:

Imminent concern. When I was about , uh , probably 12 years old, should I definitely should have got me at that time.

Speaker 2:

Number 29, suspicious or illegal acquisition of weapons or ammunition, near-term concern if you're a stocking up on ammo these days and unusual purchase of military style equipment, other than weapons. So body armor and those things, we also have a suspicious unexplained or unusual physical weapons or training.

Speaker 3:

So , uh ,

Speaker 2:

Multiple non recreational gun range visits, or attempts to seek technical expertise like flight, training, electronics, or chemical, probably not a CCW class. I would imagine conducting suspicious financial transactions. You crypto people out there disposing of personal assets or belongings in an unusual manner

Speaker 3:

And unusual

Speaker 2:

Goodbyes or post death instructions to family and peers. So unusual goodbyes. So if you give your mom a hug for just a little bit too long ,

Speaker 3:

You're like, oh, mom's like, oh, call the FBI number 35. Gosh, there's so many of them, it's hard to keep track. So if you look, you now have an obligation to save America, print this list out and just keep it by your bed. Check on everybody

Speaker 2:

Promoting violent extremist narratives. Like the west is waging war with Islam, it's us versus them. Violence is required to defend the identity groups . So all of that is a major trigger, engaging in outbursts or fights with families, peers, and authorities while advocating violent extremist ideology. So again, don't go to Thanksgiving, isolating oneself from families and peers. We also have adopting more than one violent extremist ideology. Well, yeah , yeah. Uh , John Brennan just gave us a whole laundry list

Speaker 3:

Of those. Uh, my gosh, it keeps going

Speaker 2:

Rejecting nonviolent voices and favor dehumanizing people who are not in the group praising past successful, attempted, or , uh, attacks, condemning behavior of family and peers based on a violent extremist doctrine. We have changing a vocabulary style of speech consuming or sharing violent extremist videos. And then these are just great. These are just perfect concealment, right? Number 45 researching or discussing ways to evade law enforcement.

Speaker 3:

So , uh , basically anybody who ever purchased my gum

Speaker 2:

Program for law enforcement interaction training and all, that's sorry about that. Also lying to law enforcement officers or obstructing investigations now obstruction means basically anything. Right. So , uh, yeah. And

Speaker 3:

Do you have any one of those little elements

Speaker 2:

You do about that? Well, got to call the FBI. Individuals are strongly encouraged to contact their local office

Speaker 1:

Or go online in case of emergency call 9 1 1 signed off on by the FBI, the national counterterrorism center and the U S department of Homeland security. My friends, those are all the various factors that are out there.

Speaker 3:

What do you think about those? Are those , uh , are those worth worthwhile? All right. Let's take one .

Speaker 1:

Look at some questions. What's going on over from watching the watchers.locals.com. We've got some questions now. Let's see who's here. We've got thunder. Seven says what the F it's official. Now the FBI is the KGB, the Staci , the brown shirts. It's very scary. Good to see you. Thunder seven. Let's see who else is here? We have it's ed is in the house, says didn't the left accuse, the right of being Nazis. When Trump was in power, yet the left is doing exactly what the Nazis and other socialist communist regimes did. They use family members and peers to spy on each other. This is actually scary when you think about it. It's yeah , it is scary.

Speaker 3:

And just think about what we went through with COVID right there. I know people that have like ruined relationships and families have basically gone to war

Speaker 1:

Or over the COVID stuff, right? You can't come over unless you've got this, this and this and this and this and all this stuff in order. And they say, well, I'm not

Speaker 3:

Coming over then. Right? Parents

Speaker 1:

And grandkids and families are separating over right

Speaker 3:

Stuff over COVID over masks and vaccines. You think that

Speaker 1:

If we're talking about national security, right? If somebody says that Donald Trump is literally a terrorist, who's going to wreck America. And people see that on CNN every day. And their colleague, their coworker is in there, you know,

Speaker 3:

Listening to Michael Savage

Speaker 1:

Or somebody out there they go. Or Alex Jones, wow. That's dangerous. Extremist rhetoric. These are the same people that said, if you don't wear a mask, you're going to murder somebody, right. They're not connected to reality. So now we're saying that a government body like the FBI, that many Americans still think and hold in very high regard in an incredibly high esteem, they say, I have to do this. And they also remember back to the imagery

Speaker 3:

That we just saw on January six, America literally almost was taken over. I've got an obligation. Now, anybody

Speaker 1:

Who voted for Trump now we've got to, we got

Speaker 3:

To root them out because they might be dangerous. Yeah, you're right.

Speaker 1:

It is very scary. Let's see who else is here? Want to know

Speaker 3:

Is , uh , saying, should we

Speaker 1:

Report Antifa and BLM activism they could become?

Speaker 3:

Or do they mean white people? That's racist.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. It's a good question. Right. And , and , and I was going to ,

Speaker 3:

To go through this and actually clip outs ,

Speaker 1:

Examples for each one of them, but there are just too many to go through, but certainly right. You could, you could easily pick out for any one of those different categories, any one of those different bullet points, a

Speaker 3:

Problem that anybody has,

Speaker 1:

Anybody everywhere has done something on that list or a multiple of those things on that list. I say this all the time, you can criminalize anything in the world if you run enough. And

Speaker 2:

So they've got enough criteria that anybody can fall into any one of those things, it just matters. Who's asking the questions essentially. All right. We've got, wants to know, says just, this just gives them a reason to confiscate firearms and other good points. Let's see. Three girlies is here. It says, so the FBI wants us to snitch on thought crimes. Isn't that the same tactic that they are using with the red flag laws? Yeah. Right. So the red flag laws being the , uh, if, if somebody is deemed to be problematic, to own a firearm, somebody says, well, a judge, somewhere, a prosecutor, somewhere, some police officer somewhere says that person's a threat. They get the red flag. They don't get a firearm. They haven't done anything wrong. It's like a pre crime, but they're still prohibited from one of their constitutional rights problem. It says now using a booklet, they revamped from stopping foreign terrorists to family, friends. This is ridiculous. Makes you wonder why the American people, when the American people are going to see past the bloated overreaching government hacks. That's a good question. Good question. Three girls. I don't know. Hopefully soon we have [inaudible] says, this is literally the stuff of the Staci , except way bigger. The German German organization, open data city estimates that while the Staci archives would fill 48,000 filing cabinets, just one us government server could store so much data that if printed out the reams of paper would fill 42 trillion filing cabinets. This is from an article from 2015. So who knows about today? 42 trillion filing cabinets. Yeah. I totally believe that I've said this for some time. I actually think that the government has every shred of data, every shred of data stored in a server somewhere. I mean that, I mean every single bit, everyone that's ever been transmitted and I know that's like insane, but , uh, but I , I think that, or if it's not every bit like almost all of it, the stuff that really matters, they they're jacked in at the, at the ground level. Everything goes through them. Somebody somewhere, let's take a look. We've got a couple more to go through. Let's see, we've got three girls. He says, so are they going to apply this standard to Antifa? And BLM seems to me that those two groups already meet the criteria. If the whole of the homegrown violent extremism, not that I've seen, not from the FBI. They are going after. Uh, all of the insurrectionists from January 6th , eat on test is here, says the devil is always in the details. In this case, the application of this FBI information. If we were to remember from nine 11, the phrase, if you see something, say something like certain individuals wanting to learn how to fly, but not land airplanes. If someone had a heads up when Mohammed ATA was flying at the fly school, maybe we stop that or interfere with that attack. Fast forward to now, when a group wants to have a peaceful protest on the DC mall. Now we put those people on a watch list for a truly peaceful protest. Are we caught in an everlasting catch 22? It's a good question. Right? Don't test,

Speaker 1:

Which is kind of my point. You know, you kind of have to balance the different things that we have to consider all the different variables on the one side, freedom, civil liberties, American ideals, right about free assembly, the right to be protected against government intrusions into your private affairs. Very, very important concepts, right ?

Speaker 3:

And it's important for reasons that are bigger than, than, than, than maybe

Speaker 1:

Making them worthwhile to sacrifice, in my opinion, in the name of some temporary security. In other words, when the government comes in and says, yes, we know that that's important, but we need access to those things in order to protect you. I don't, I don't buy that. Right.

Speaker 3:

I draw the line at that. And so you still have to sort of balance these factors out. You want to protect a lot of those liberties, but you also want to enable the government to do what

Speaker 1:

We want the government to do, which is one of the main things is to make sure that we're not being attacked by

Speaker 3:

Foreigners. And that we have some, some safety

Speaker 1:

And peace here at home. Right? One of the, I would say

Speaker 3:

One of the fundamental building

Speaker 1:

Blocks or legitimacy of government is safety and security. If any, if anything, it might be

Speaker 3:

Only one. And they're not even that good at that. So how do you balance those things? It's tricky. All right. We've got a few more.

Speaker 1:

We got a handful more Saudis here says , uh , meanwhile, there was a welcome mat at the Southern border overthrow the government. Isn't that? What Antifa

Speaker 3:

And BLM are all about. Yeah. Maybe John Brennan should have talked about them. Let's see. We've got go .

Speaker 1:

Gunnar is here. Says guests . I'm a yet on another list. Libertarian NFA items. 80% lowers. There's probably more Molana LA label on Lubbock. Well , I don't know what that is. Uh, good to see you there. Ghost gunner. Uh , yeah. Uh ,

Speaker 3:

We're we're I'm on a list with you. My friend, we got we're on probably several of them. Let's see what else we've got. Thunder seven is here. It says, look. Yeah ,

Speaker 1:

There's a veteran saluting the American flag. A very suspect. Arrest him. He must be a terrorist. That's from thunder seven. Let's see what else we've got another one from Jeremy Murrieta says by the FBI's definition, if your favorite food happens to be the same as a terrorist, the FBI may draw there

Speaker 3:

Own conclusions about you. It's very similar in a similarities there. Yeah. Have , uh , shades

Speaker 1:

Says , so basically we can call in the white house to the FBI under their own guilt book for suspicious guidebook for suspicious behavior. Yeah. Right.

Speaker 3:

Nice to everybody. That's the whole, that's the whole beauty of the, the program we have it's ed says, based on the list you just read wouldn't it

Speaker 1:

[inaudible] fall into groupie . So does that mean the justice system will start prosecuting

Speaker 3:

Antifa. Don't hold your breath on that one. Oh, sock says,

Speaker 1:

Rob, do you think the timing has anything to do with the AC audits, getting ready to release their info? So I'm not sure if they are getting ready to release their info. The last I was reading,

Speaker 3:

Actually , uh, gosh, who posted that on Twitter? On , uh , on locals today? I apologize. I'm missing your name, but uh , uh, one of our members over there,

Speaker 2:

Thank you very much posted a link that was an update about some of the Arizona audit stuff. And they gave us a timeline anywhere from the end of July, all the way up until labor day, which is like

Speaker 7:

A massive window. So I'm not so sure that those are around the corner. We'll see,

Speaker 2:

Chairman of the board is here, says, look for a wave of men, having affairs all over the country to be reported to the FBI as terrorist , too much suspicious activity, chairman of the board. Good to see you. Chairman. We have a long one here from doodle doo says let's be honest folks. We're the frog in a pot of boiling water. I feel like this whole thing is a long game PSYOPs with the intelligence community, starting with nine 11, the Patriot act terrorist events, like the Boston marathon bombing the Mack Ghazi disaster, Russia gate, and anything Trump related, including spy gate . Now the final insurance policy to get Trump out January six. So I'm , uh , I made an announcement earlier today over at locals where I sort of, I'm talking about this some of the January six stuff and what that means in the context of the 2020 election. And I was thinking about this in , uh, in terms of movies. You remember the movie oceans 13 when they needed to change the conversation when they rigged the casino so that everybody would be walking out with a ton of money, but they needed to change the conversation so that the people didn't go back in and then start spending the money back in the casino. And so what they do, they took the power out. And then they cause this little earthquake by ramming this, a drilling machine into the casino that caused it to feel like there was an earthquake happening. And then everybody left and the whole narrative changed. It's kind of that big, hard exit. Thank you. See where I'm going with that throw in the corrupt media and the politicians and sprinkle it with some CRT to inflame a race relations and now COVID and being good citizens and report on your horrible neighbors and even the family members, because they won't wear a mask or get the jab . You have what we're looking at today. The loss of our precious liberties and the end of our constitutional Republic. It breaks my heart and boils my blood red, white and blue blood. Yeah.

Speaker 7:

Doodle do I know, I know that's I know that's

Speaker 2:

Little too on the nose speech unleashed says I got a feeling that the FBI is going to get more calls for domestic disputes than the police. Now every single Thanksgiving dinner is, is now filled with terrorists. So now, you know, no doubt and no doubt says Robert and his band and his band of domestic extremist for analyzing unapproved legal scenarios. Listen, folks, we've known this for some time back in February, when we got the monetized YouTube set it specifically harmful and dangerous yours, truly. I've always known. I'm a dangerous man folks, very dangerous and YouTube confirmed that. All right. Great questions. Thank you to all of those coming over from watching the Watchers dot locals com. Let's give some shout outs over in the chat. See who else is still bouncing around over there. We've got Joe snows here. What's up Joe speech on lease. Be brave Relic hunter. We've got Baranski's here. We've got , uh , let's see who else. Ghost gunner saw you three girlies and , uh , the chat is happening over [email protected] And once again, thank you for all of your support over there. Really do appreciate it. All right. And so our last segment of the day, we're going to wrap it up with Kyle Rittenhouse. It's been some time since we've talked about Kyle Rittenhouse, but we have a little bit of an update because there's a new motion that was filed by the Kenosha prosecutor, Thomas binger, asking for the court to allow new evidence to come in evidence about other acts. And so we're going to take a look at what these other acts are, and we want to really unravel why does the prosecutor want to get this stuff into court in the first place? Kyle Rittenhouse, if you recall, of course, this was the shooting that took place back in Kenosha, Wisconsin sometime ago, last year in the aftermath of the George florid killing Kyle Rittenhouse young man, I think he was 17 at the time , uh, and ended up shooting and killing several people after he was being, in my opinion, chased down the street. When we did our analysis back on this back, right after it happened, I was firmly convinced that this was a very clean cut case of self-defense. And I am still of that mindset. I'm further in trenched in that mindset and kind of still surprised this is going on, but in life, as we know, things often go on for many different reasons in the criminal justice system, as of late, those reasons have largely been political. And so this is going to continue on because Kyle Rittenhouse has become a symbol of something bigger than the underlying incident. Just like Derek Shovan did just like Briana Taylor became just like George Florida became in the list goes on. So now we're smack dab. Once again, in the middle of what many people are calling a political prosecution, let's figure out what's happening here. The daily mail is reporting that a new motion seeks evidence of Kyle Rittenhouse is past violence. They want that admitted into court. So in Wisconsin, prosecutors filed a motion saying that he had a previous encounter in Kenosha before he shot two men, the state's motion was filed Thursday. We're going to take a look at it before we get into it. Let me show you what's happening at the court docket. So as we talked about last time on May 21st, 2021, we had a new attorney joined the game. So Kyle Rittenhouse got attorney Cory GFRC , uh, she, she a reef C Sharifi. She a reef PC . Okay, you got it. We got attorney Cory who joined the team. And , uh, shortly thereafter on that same day, we had a final pretrial conference, right? And a final pretrial conference, generally. Isn't the final pretrial conference. So we say this a lot in LA , oh , this is the final conference. It isn't, we all, we always say it. And then it always gets sort of continued out. And so this was supposed to be the final one, but it's not going to be, we're going to have additional hearings before the trial takes place as we are going to see shortly. But let's figure out what happened back on may says that ADA Thomas binger , which is the prosecutor and Jason zap , another prosecutor, they showed up, the defendant was there with his attorneys. Now Mark Richard and Corey GFRC, which , uh , along with Kyle Rittenhouse, we had some other attorneys also show up. Everybody reported that they are working on discovery. Discovery is the case file, right? That's the police report. Officer's notes , uh, body cameras, witness statements, all that stuff, the government. Then they requested that the court set a deadline for the filing of motions, right? This is back on May 21st. We're going to see now we've got some motions being filed. The state's motion now was filed on July 1st. So we're going to get there. So back in, may they say, give us some deadlines. Defense has no objection. Motions are set to be filed by seven one. Okay . Which was on July one. We'll notice that the state got some motions filed in and we'll , we'll see what else came in on the next slide. So we also know that the fence, so Rittenhouse and his team, they have to disclose their expert witnesses by August one. So that's coming up soon as well. Also the filing of any expert report, Tang parties have their jury questionnaires also by August one. So we're staying on track. We're going to be moving towards a trial and emotion hearing is then scheduled for July. I'm sorry. September 17th. The , uh, jury selection is going to happen on November 1st. The length of the trial is going to take two weeks. So a lot of activity, a lot of scheduling stuff was done at that final pretrial . Then we had the video conferencing. Of course, that was that on that, that was for that. A receipt of something was filed probably this motion. And then we have the state's motion now to admit the other acts, evidence, other acts evidence. What is other acts while we're going to take a look filed by ADA Thomas binger, right? Thomas binger, is that a noxious prosecutor that we've been talking about? So let's see what else is happening here. We noticed, right? That there was a deadline for everything to be filed by seven one July one. So guess what happened on July? One bunch of stuff was filed, right? We saw previously that the government filed their motion. They want to , uh , they want to get other evidence in. We're going to see what the government wants. It's going to be stuff that makes Kyle Rittenhouse look bad naturally. So we're going to take a look at that, but some other things were filed. Let's see what else we have motions in laminate that were also filed on July. One, filed by Kyle's team Richards and sheaf rec. And then we have a motions to admit evidence filed by attorney Richards . We have motion to dismiss count six, also filed. We also have a defendant's demand for specific discovery also filed, right? And so we have receipts for some payments and another receipt here. Now I will tell you this, I do not have these documents. I tried to find these documents. I do not them. I did submit a request over to the court clerk over there from Kenosha county, the circuit court, a very, very nice woman named Sarah . And she has responded and she's going to send us an invoice and we're going to purchase those , uh, documents , uh, hopefully. Uh , so that , uh , happened today. I've been usually able to find the written house documents for some reason, these are not available. So I'm going to see if I can get , get those through public records, but they're just not out there. So if I can get them and post them, I'll do that. Uh , but I don't have them yet. So we'll see. Apparently they want us to send them a check. And so I got to send him a check, like I think, I think , uh , yeah, yeah, we got to go by check. Okay . Anyways , we'll get the documents, but we are able to get a look at the state's other acts motion, right? I got this document over from a supporter who is a member over at , uh, Andrew Broncos site , legal insurrection. So go check them out. Everybody's gathering these documents and sort of sharing them. So , uh , go, go support them. But this is where, this is where the document came from. Kyle Rittenhouse, the state's motion to admit other acts evidence. Let's take a look. This was filed on July 1st with the clerk of the circuit court, Kenosha county. It is nine pages. Let's go through it relatively quickly, filed against Kyle Rittenhouse. Right ? Date of birth 2003 state of Wisconsin has the plaintiff versus Kyle Rittenhouse. Take notice. The document says that the prosecutors Thomas binger and zap they're moving the court to admit this Mo for admission of other acts evidence. What else specifically, we want evidence that the defendant assaulted a female in Kenosha on June 1st. So that one piece of evidence of an assault. And we also wants if you're a prosecutor that he's associated with, the proud boys organization, which is a violently racist organization, which again, I don't know how that's true when the , uh , one of the head of the, one of the proud boys is not a white person. So I don't really know how that works, but apparently it does. So let's go into this other acts motion. It says the defendant is charged with offenses in the first degree, reckless homicide, homicide, homicide, dangerous weapon, all of that, they all occurred on August 25th, 2020, right? August 25th. They're going to say there was another assault that happened on June 1st. So a couple months earlier, Wisconsin courts, they give us a three-prong test as to whether or not to admit this evidence. Number one, is it offered for a permissible purpose? Number two, is it relevant? And number three is the probative value outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. So a couple things, right? We're talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, he's being charged with crimes for shooting people, shooting people. So what the hell does this prosecutor want to talk about a prior act from June? What does he want to talk about? Proud boys for it? Does that have anything to do at all with what Kyle did that particular night, that night we're going to see the prosecutor thinks so, and so they're going to go through this test and they're going to say, well, look, the here's what the test in men in Wisconsin says, it's pretty easy. It's got to be admitted, admissible for a permissible purpose. So we got to have a good reason to get it in. We also, it needs to be relevant, right? It's gotta be somewhat related. So it's like if, if the allegation was that Kyle stole a candy bar, how is that relevant to a shooting? Whereas an assault, which might be an act of violence might be relevant. Okay. So it's a little bit different. And also we're talking about rule 4 0 3, which is the probative value of the evidence outweighing the prejudicial effect. Very important rule. If you're going to law school, you're going to have this real beaten into your head, especially in criminal law. If you want to get evidence admitted into court, the question is essentially, is it going to do more harm than good? Is it going to answer a question that we really need answered ? Is the probative value of this information? Is it going to be probative? Is it going to give us some information that we need? Yes. Okay. That's great. But is it prejudicial? Is it harmful? Is that information too harmful? That it overlays the probative value? Right? And so we had a lot of these conversations in the Shovan trial when the government I'm sorry, the defense was trying to get in the co-defendants , uh, what's the guy, the passenger can't remember his name off the top of my head, but they wanted to get his testimony in, right? Because allegedly he was selling pills and he had given George Floyd drugs and all sorts of that stuff. The government said, Nope , that is way too prejudicial. It's not probative enough. It doesn't give us any, it doesn't answer any questions about whether or not George Floyd was killed by Derek Shovan. So most of that evidence got kept out and I think it wasn't really kept out under rule 4 0 3, as much as it was under , uh , the right against self-incrimination that other defendant invoke those rights. But you get the point, if it is too harmful, they'll keep it out. Even if it is valuable, it's got to be more probative. As you put these two things on a scale, the benefit of the evidence versus the harm of the evidence. If it's more beneficial than harmful, we're going to let the evidence in as long as it's also permissible under the rules of evidence and it's relevant . Okay. So that's some legal stuff. The burden of establishing those two prongs of course, is on the person seeking to admit it. And then it shifts to the opposing party to show the third prong. So they're showing you sort of what the value or how the evidence process works. They go through, they give us some statutes here. So several admissible purposes, so proof of motive, opportunity or intent, preparation plan, knowledge, and those types of things. So they're going to want to say, well that this stuff proves Kyle Rittenhouse is motive. The fact that he is a part of the proud boys, well , he's got a motive, right? Or he's got a plan or he's got intent to shoot people because he's a proud board or because he's an assaulter or something like that. Right? So for example, context of the crime to provide a complete explanation of the case. So you can show somebody sort of app operates in conformity with their motive or their opportunity, or their intent says after assessing whether there is an acceptable purpose, we can move on. He says that the defendant can not make certain evidence irrelevant by saying that he will not contest the elements of the defense. All right so we're going to skip that final consideration in the three-step Sullivan. And now is whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice at the third step, the burden shifts to the defendant. If the probative value is closer than closer to or equal to its unfair prejudicial effect than the evidence must be admitted. So they're saying here under Minnesota law, that if those scales are sort of equal, then it should come in. Now let's go through the analysis. All right . So those were the rules. I could have skipped all that. The Kenosha, the court should admit evidence that the defendant assaulted a female. So let's see what's going on here. They're saying he was charged with multiple felonies. The prior acts of violence happened on July one. They offered to show his intent to cause bodily harm. Right? So Kyle Rittenhouse, the prosecutor says is intending to hurt people. He did. So on July one, which I thought was, yeah, so they got a typo here, right? June one was this date on June one. And then they say over here that it was July one, he direct , uh, prior acts of violence. Uh, okay. So somebody Kyle's team can find that, I guess on that date, the defendant is seen in video footage, near the lakefront in Kenosha. The defendant is present with several other people of similar age in the footage of this group of teenagers. Two teenage girls are involved in what appears to be a heated argument while others of the group are standing by. At first, it appears they're going to break apart, go their separate ways. They begin to fight. The defendant suddenly involves himself in the fight. He grabs one of the two females punches back, punch her back repeatedly with a closed fist. The female teenagers pulled away several other individuals in rush towards the defendant to break apart the parties. The video ends shortly thereafter. Okay. So they're talking about, well , like a high school fight, cause these are 17 year old kids. Okay. So they're going to get that admitted. Well done there . Thomas Baker . Good job there, buddy. All right. So the prior act also shows a consistent motive. Yeah. So because he got into a fight with some kids , uh , in both July one or June one who knows, and the August 25th incident, he willingly and intentionally put himself in violent situations. My God, this guy in July one, rather than simply pull apart the parties or contact law enforcement, he begins violently attacking one of the females. I think I've seen that video and it's basically nothing. So then they're going to take that and try to extend that into illegally arming himself with a dangerous weapon and shooting people. He shot three people. Two people died, right? He got into a , uh, basically a high school fight in July or June, you know, who knows? And it's now a precursor to a double homicide. Wow. That's crazy. You ever been in a high school fight before or gotten into an altercation with anybody in high school? Did you suddenly feel the urge to go out there and just start executing people with an assault weapon in the middle of Kenosha? Me either never felt that way at all. Not once the second prong of 9 0 4 involves relevancy, right? We're talking about relevancy. Is the evidence relevant? Is that relevant at all? Is the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse got into it with some female at a high school or wherever that was relevant. He's saying, well, yeah, it is. It happened on July one, which is only two months before. He's also an Illinois resident. He came twice, right? And he came to Wisconsin in both incidents. He willingly put himself in violent conflicts in both incidents. Then we go back over to the third prong. They shift the burden over to the defendant. So now what they're saying is they're saying the way this works is the government is asking that this evidence be admitted. So they've got the burden to prove the first two prongs that it's permissible, that the rules of evidence say, yeah, you can bring that stuff in. And then it's also relevant. Well, it's relevant and happened recently. He's a violent guy, whatever. And once they're able to prove both of those things, then the burden to prove the third prong sort of shifts over to the defendant. And then they got to show that if that comes in, it's going to be unfairly prejudicial. The government's going to say , this is too prejudicial. They'll say, and then the government will respond back and say, no, this is why it's more probative and not so prejudicial. So here they're saying that the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial. They say first a curative instruction can provide the jury with the framework on how to evaluate the other acts evidence, which is such a crock, right? So, so they're saying, they're saying this evidence is really bad. It's relevant, it's permissible, it's probative. So we got to get it in. But when we do get it in, it's so problematic that we have to provide the jury with a curative instruction to correct the problem so that they don't get confused. One of the prejudicial effects that we consider is the tendency to , to confuse the jury, right? It could be prejudicial for many different reasons. One of which might be to confuse the jury. So the prosecutor here is saying, well, we have to, actually, if we do get this in, we're going to have to tell the jury that this is a problem. We have to correct this so that they can apply these new facts fairly and properly, or, or how about you just don't bring it in, in the first place. Cause it's not relevant. All right . Second, the evidence being sought is of the same nature as the charged conduct, right? Which is such a stretch. It's, it's a , it's an assault charge. Guys. It's not a shooting double homicide, which is what happened. The evidence is not overly prejudicial. It's highly probative. The state, their state, therefore respectfully request the court , admit the evidence. This is just terrible. There's almost no analysis in this, in this paragraph. This is for the third prong of this analysis. The burden shifts first, a curative instruction. Second, the evidence is of the same nature. Therefore it's not overly prejudicial well, and it's highly probative. We have two sentence of two. We have two sentences of analysis here. This is, this is a really, really pretty, pretty bad. Alright . Number two, let's see the court should admit evidence that the defendant is associated with the proud boys organization. So I don't think that the judge is going to let that prior assault come in. I don't think so. Government is making a stretch on this. I think it's actually kind of reprehensible what they're doing there. I think they're trying to just get this out in the public and sort of make a big deal about this because I can't imagine why a judge would let that in at all. I'll be shocked if that comes in, we'll see , uh, the court should admit evidence that he's associated with the proud boys organization. All right . He says on January 13th, the state filed a motion to modify its release on a bond. He went to a bar after he got out with several members of the proud boys. Oh, on January 5th, the state incorporates that into their motion. Proud boys are a violently racist organization, blah , blah , blah . Over the past years, proud boys have violently attacked everybody. Okay. The state has learned that the people with the defendant included the leader of the Wisconsin proud boys organization and several of its highest ranking members who proceeded to serenade the defendant at the bar with the song from the Broadway musical Aladdin, the defendant pose for pictures, flashing their okay sign. Obviously the defendant shares their police and has been in a named an honorary member of the organization. It's oh my gosh. It's just like mind boggling the bad . Obviously the defendant it's making presumptions where it's not fair to do that. All right , let's see what else. This is really bad. This is hilariously bad. The evidence is relevant and admissible because it goes to the defendant's motive and intent for coming to Kenosha. The defendant claims that he wanted to protect the core car source business from writing . But that claim is highly dubious. They sing the defendant has no previous ties to that business. So what he did not work there or know the owner. So what he was not asked directly, anyone associated with the business to be there. Okay. All right. The defendant did not illegally, not illegally arm himself with a deadly assault rifle and Wade into chaotic chaotic scene simply to protect a random downtown car. Lot. He never heard of before he did it because he wanted to support a cause that he believed in the motive for being there that night is a key part of that case. After the shooting of a black man by a white Kenosha police officer on Sunday, many came out to protest to be what they believe to be an injustice. Unfortunately, some individuals took this opportunity to riot and destroy businesses. Yeah. Which

Speaker 3:

They're not too upset about. I guess

Speaker 2:

By the following night, many people had come to Kenosha to counter that protest and what they perceive to be the black lives matter, moving behind it. The two opposing sides escalated Tuesday night when the defendant came into town, he was clearly aligned with the counter protesters . So, you know, another, another reason I think that this is

Speaker 3:

Pretty shoddy writing is anytime

Speaker 2:

You see lawyers, you know , use these words a lot, it's easy to use these words clearly when you say clearly write clearly and there was another one over here says , uh , obviously right, obviously the defendant shares their beliefs. Uh , and, and when you make claims sort of without analysis, you say the evidence is not overly prejudicial. You say it is highly probative. Okay. Well, where's the analysis there. Where's the actual analysis. We're we're doing the third prong of 904 analysis.

Speaker 3:

Where is it? The evidence is not unfairly prejudicial, but where's the,

Speaker 2:

Where's the analysis. I know you have to turn that over to the other side and then you're gonna respond to it, right? The burden shifts to them. And then you respond to that. But you're just sort of making these blanket conclusions. Obviously the defendant shares the beliefs, not, not, not really why. Cause he was at a bar. You're just sort of you're you're, you're jumping to conclusions and it's just sloppy writing. He was clearly aligned with the counter protestors . Okay. Like you can make those arguments, but you have to have some evidence to back that up. All right. The defendant's presence, as well as the presence of other armed individuals made the potential for violence, a certainty. No, it did not. Rather than making things more peaceful. The defendant's presence increased unrest and chaos, right? These are all conclusory statements. It is important to remember. The only people killed in this saga were killed by the defendant. The only person seriously injured following Jacob Blake shooting was shot by him. The defendant deliberately aggravated the

Speaker 3:

Situation, which are just all

Speaker 2:

Conclusions. It's anticipated that he's going to attempt to assert the privilege of self-defense at the trial. Yes, he has association with the group is relevant to that assertion by illegally bringing a weapon to an already volatile situation. They forfeited their right to the self-defense claim. Simply put, he was a clear and present threat. He was the aggressor after all. That's what happened in the end. It was not the defendant who possessed the right to self-defense that evening. It was everyone else to defend themselves against him. But Kyle Rittenhouse was being chased by the other people. It was not the other way around. Did he watch the video much like members of the proud boy take pride in violence? The defendant is evidently proud that he killed two people and seriously

Speaker 3:

Wounded a third while he was being attacked.

Speaker 2:

Hello. He pose for selfies as if he is a celebrity, his family sold merchandise with his images on it. The lack of remorse on the part of the defendant strongly suggest that he was intend to commit violence.

Speaker 3:

That is just wild. It was his intent

Speaker 2:

To commit violent. Do you understand what he's , what , they're , what that sentence is saying? That Kyle

Speaker 3:

Went there to go shoot people. We all watched the video. All right .

Speaker 2:

The fact that he has since been celebrated, his notoriety strongly suggest that he set out to achieve the goal of becoming famous.

Speaker 3:

This says that his associates association with the proud boys goes directly

Speaker 2:

To his intent and motive as well as his claim of self-defense. The court should admit evidence of this fact for the foregoing reasons. All right . So they want to introduce his state of mind signed off on by Thomas binger. All right . So here is the , uh , that photograph, right? That, that, that everybody's freaking out about , uh, two signs holding the okay. Sign up, right? Uh that's that's in, in the document. So apparently they want to taint the entire trial with that. So I guess that something relevant to do, you know, the proud boys, if it's, if it's a violently racist organization, Kyle Rittenhouse shot white people, right there, there were no black people that he shot . Uh, okay. I don't think that comes in here . Either . My friends, this prosecutor is scrambling and reaching because he knows his case is dog do-do . It's not any good. And his motion drafting is as bad as his , uh , in the zoom hearings that we see very regularly. All right. Let's see what else is coming up on the docket? So we have on July, I'm sorry. September 17th. We have at 10:00 AM. We have a motion hearing to follow up on all of those different motions. And then on November 11th, we're going to start jury selection in courtroom, a 2 0 9 for judge Bruce Schroeder. That's the Kyle Rittenhouse case. So we are in the process of requesting the other documents that Kyle's team submitted. I don't have those yet. I'm hopeful that I can get them from the court. I don't, I'm not licensed in Wisconsin. And so I'm not sure if they're going to , uh, you know , uh, accommodate us there. But we, we , I , I did submit an email over to the court clerk over there. She seemed very helpful. So we'll see where that goes. When we get those other documents back, we'll be curious to see what else is in there. Of course there are emotions and eliminate that Kyle's team filed, which are motions that seek to limit some of what can be said during the trial and during jury selection and those things. So , uh , it could be some very interesting stuff in there as well. And then we're queued up to see what their expert witnesses have to say. So we're going to go get those documents if you have them and you want to shoot those over to me, I would appreciate them. Otherwise, we're going to get them if they'll send them to us and we'll cover those here, let's take a [email protected]als.com . Of course, we've got a form over there now, which is linked up where you can ask some questions. Let's see who is here. First says, Rob, if this was your case, would you place Kyle on the stand to tell his story? Probably not. I don't . Well, you know, I don't know. Uh , probably not. First of all, he's a 17 year old, 18 year old kid now. Right? He's, he's very young. Uh, I think the case is pretty clear, but if it's , I , I don't know enough about the self-defense rules in Kenosha. I need to learn about those more to see how that, to see how that works and how that interplays, right? Yeah . I, you know, if you're, it's a good question. I don't know what I would do as this, as this continues unfold. I'll have a better answer for that. I certainly want to see what the rest of the arguments are from his attorney, but I'm not sure. Right? You almost, you almost never put the defendant up there. All right , Kyle , uh, another question comes in from Watson says Kyle had the worst ADA, except Trump's New York one, both totally political. Can, they both be fired for judicial misconduct. So not for judicial misconduct, but it would be a prosecutorial misconduct if they did something that was egregious enough to reach to that level. But it's pretty, it's a pretty high standard, you know, it has to be something that is sort of like, like actual malice, like intentional , uh, improprieties, more so than you just don't like their charging decisions. You can imagine prosecutors, you know , many people don't like them. They get a lot of the same grief that, that we get as defense lawyers, just from a different, a different perspective. Uh , good question. Want to know? Let's see who else is here? We've got chairman of the board says, I say with complete sincerity that Kyle's defense team should hire you and use your breakdown video in court. I can't imagine the jury watching it and still convicting. Yeah, I don't, you know, look, I would, I would love to do whatever I could to help Kyle. I, he, I think he's got a pretty good team. I know that , uh, he had a bad team for a while . Now. I know that John Pierce was on the Tim Poole show. I did not watch it because I don't know why he was on there in the first place. I don't know what the heck he knows about anything. John Pierce was somebody that we poked fun at some time ago, right? John Pierce was the guy who wanted to fight Kyle Rittenhouse, his extradition from Illinois back over to Wisconsin. And I was screaming back then saying, Hey, dummy, why you can't get him out in Illinois because he's non bondable there . Send him back to Kenosha, generate the $2 million bond. We'll get the country. We'll fund that immediately. But they kept him in custody for like two months. I was screaming about this saying this was the dumbest thing I've ever seen. And then when John Pearce actually went into court and lost the extradition hearing, the , the quote that he gave in, there was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It was like, he's in a Tom cruise movie thinking he's in front of a court of law in Hollywood. He's like your honor or something or something about this form . And he goes game set and match. Your honor. That was a quote that I read in an article I'm going, what, what? Nobody talks like that in the law. Right? They talk about that if you're in Hollywood, but nobody talks like that. And as soon as I started to see some of his antics and this guy

Speaker 3:

Is not a defense lawyer at all,

Speaker 2:

He's gone. I apparently he was on Tim pool's show. And for some reason, but I know he's got a better team, some boots on the ground with mark. Richard seems like a good attorney, chief. Rec's a good attorney. I know Robert Barnes is working on the case. So he's got, you know, some , some good people now, which is good, but I would be happy to help because man, this case is, this is a very important case for self-defense very, very important. And uh , it needs to go right. Oh , all right . No pressure. All right. Good to see you. We got [inaudible]

Speaker 1:

Five says free. Kyle USA is a link from Viva barnes.locals.com . I just mentioned him , uh , uh, would like to help Kyle Robert Barnes is loosely associated with the defense of Kyle. Yeah. So free Kyle USA and go check out Viva Barnes , law.locals.com. They are on our locals platform along with us good company. Let's see who else we've got. Speech unleashed says , uh, the leader of the proud boys being black does not preclude him or the group from being racist. Remember, according to the left, being white is a state of mind also known as multiracial whiteness. Yes. I forgot about that. Yeah. We talked about the multiracial whiteness here for some time, because a lot of people back prior to the 2020 election, they were just scratching their heads. Wondering how are all these minorities voting for Donald Trump? This is ridiculous. They're not even racist white people. And then suddenly somebody got the brilliant idea that said, oh yeah, but maybe they're racist nonwhite people. And then they started to, you know , re oh, we're just going to call it multi-racial whiteness. So you can be, this is an article in the Washington post, go type it into Google. Multi-racial whiteness. You'll see it all over the place we're living in bizarro world. My friends. It's no question about it. Osaka is here. It says, Rob, this question is a little off topic in Arizona. If you're able to get the case sealed, would that include any docs or evidence use with getting with, with getting the case

Speaker 3:

Sealed also? So it it's kind of depends, I guess, on what you're on , what you're

Speaker 1:

Talking about. Yes. If a case is sealed, then all of that's going to be sealed, but you'll still be able to sort of know of it

Speaker 3:

Existence. So you will

Speaker 1:

Be able to sort of see what's in it, but you'll be able to see

Speaker 3:

About it would, it would include the docs and the evidence. It depends what the judge seals. Right? So the judge

Speaker 1:

Conceal and unseal certain things. So like in Glenn Maxwell's case, the judges is slowly but surely unsealing a bunch of additional documents , uh , sort of piecemeal. And we really don't know what's in it until

Speaker 3:

We get to see what's in it. Let's see, we got Todd trouts here said, Robert is ,

Speaker 1:

That's how this works. George Floyd's prior violent acts were not permissible, but Kyle's are permissible. Right. That's exactly right. That's exactly right.

Speaker 3:

Right. And we'll see

Speaker 1:

What happens. I don't think that any of this stuff is coming in. I think this prosecutor is reaching big time, but that's what they do. No doubt says, Rob, do you have any other insights on this judge from the clips you have seen so far? Or have you heard from any other attorneys and how he manages his court? So I actually liked this judge so far. His name is Cohen, I think. And ,

Speaker 3:

Uh, is it Cohen ? Let's see , uh , Schroeder , what was I thinking?

Speaker 1:

It's true . It's Schroeder . Yeah. Bruce Schroeder. So I do remember listening to him. He, he actually scolded Thomas binger a little bit for using the word victim. He was referencing. I think gross crudes was on the on call with them.

Speaker 2:

Gross Kreutz was I think the guy who got his , uh, uh, kind of elbow shot off and he's been very much following along on all of these zoom proceedings, remember he's a victim here. And so he gets to participate in many states. I don't know, Wisconsin specifically have what are called victims , bill of rights. And so you get to participate and sort of express your displeasure and all of that. So gross Cruz has been following along for some time.

Speaker 3:

And at some point, Thomas binger said ,

Speaker 2:

Uh, your honor , uh, we have , uh, the victim and his father on the phone. And the judge said,

Speaker 3:

Hey, excuse me. We're not using the victim language here. Okay . He is , nobody's been convicted of anything yet. Rittenhouse is entitled to the presumption of innocence. So we're not.

Speaker 2:

And they use that term. You can call him Mr. Gross Kreutz or whatever, but don't use that term because it's , it's pejorative. Right? It's it's sort of

Speaker 3:

Presuming that he was the victim and that Kyle was not

Speaker 2:

Self-defense now many other judges don't follow that rule. Right. Many judges will just say,

Speaker 3:

Yeah, victim's fine. We're

Speaker 2:

Going to , we're going to use that label. It doesn't mean anything. It's just sort of an identifier, but this judge was very, very careful about that, which is kind of a nice thing from time to time. Right? The defense attorneys don't get many of those privileges let's see, want to know, says, do you think YouTube thinks Kyle is guilty? Does you think YouTube thinks Kyle is guilty? Isn't that the only thing that matters? Does YouTube think Kyle is guilty? I don't think so. I think not , not this channel. I don't think this channel does that's for sure. Uh, I don't certainly let's see a speech unleashed us here says maybe the FBI should add , has a group of people saying a Disney song to you as a possible sign of domestic terrorist group, trying to recruit there . Yeah. There's a lot ,

Speaker 3:

A lot of , uh , uh, look, people can

Speaker 2:

Violent over like sports games and stuff like that. I mean, what , how , how far do you want to take this? Alright . Thunder seven says the prosecutor appears to be very desperate, trying to paint Kyle as a white supremacist, domestic terrorist . I don't think it will work. What do you think, Rob? Who is his lawyer now? A bit of confusion on local . So he's got two lawyers. He's got Mark Richards, who is an attorney out of Kenosha, who does criminal law out of Wisconsin. And then he brought another attorney in chief rec. And so I think Robert Barnes is sort of , uh , you know, doing some of the public stuff, kind of a public advocacy and , uh, you know, generating some , some revenue to support the legal fees. But I that's my understanding. I could be speaking out of turn, but I, my understanding, well, per the court docket, the official attorneys who are listed are the two that I mentioned, Mark Richards and chief rec . So they're, they're both, you know , on the formal, heading on court motions. And so I think you can rest assured that they're going to be the ones appearing. All right. We also have some other questions. Oh, look, who's here. Shreem and this is in the house tremendous as what is the prosecutor talking about? Wasn't the first guy chasing Kyle down because Kyle put out a fire that he started. Wasn't he going around? Giving first aid to protesters throughout the night? How is that going out with the intent to harm people? Yeah. It's not, the prosecutor is full of it. And he's trying to, I think kind of put a poison pill out there into the court of public opinion, which is problematic. Let's see, says , uh , Jeremy, my treatise here says, Rob, you are great at picking apart and analyzing writing. My favorite book for this is on writing. Well, unfortunately there was so much poorly written words these days. Yeah, it is. Uh, you know, I'll acknowledge, I'm not the best writer in the world. I, I like to write, I like to read, I like to listen to a lot of language. I think that, you know, mastering the English language, some of the best advice I ever got was that. And you know ,

Speaker 3:

I got that from rush Limbaugh, honestly, as a kid,

Speaker 2:

That was the first place I heard that when my mom used to listen to him,

Speaker 3:

I'm in the car when I was a young boy. Yeah .

Speaker 2:

And uh, he used to say all the time, people would always say rush, what can I do? I want to be out there doing things. What can I do to help? He'd say, listen,

Speaker 3:

The master, the language, you gotta learn how to speak it, read it. Right ,

Speaker 2:

Right . It articulate it , learn the words and learn how to communicate because that's how you communicate ideas. And if you can communicate ideas accurately, that's a powerful skillset . And so, you know , I try to, I try to, I try to be careful with English

Speaker 3:

And , and, and

Speaker 2:

Practice. That's part of the reason I do the show candidly. Right? It's to get out here and just practice talking off the cuff stream of consciousness. We'll see where that goes. I think it'll be useful. Let's see what else we've got. Oh, SOC says, Rob, why do defendants change their plea to guilty? Right. As a trial starts, it's a good question. It's a very good question. This is a procedural criminal law.

Speaker 3:

And when you, when you start a criminal case,

Speaker 2:

You are charged with a crime, right. Somebody is making an allegation against you.

Speaker 3:

And so in order to start the process, you have to respond

Speaker 2:

Of those allegations. So one of the first things you could do, if you want it to is just say , yeah, I did that. I'm guilty of that. Sure. People do that all the time. Sometimes people call us and they'll say, Hey, you know, I just want to get this over with, if I hire you, what's this gonna , what's this gonna look like? And we say, well, we're going to fight the hell out of it. And it's going to be six months and filed this motion and this motion, and we've got this expert and we've got this procedure and here's our plan . And they say, I don't want to go through any of that. Can I just go and plead guilty to this thing?

Speaker 3:

And you say, yeah, absolutely. You can. And they say, well , uh, what are the penalties?

Speaker 2:

And you say , well, it's going to be this and this and this. And they say, well, I can live with that. That doesn't bother me at all. Um , maybe I've already been to jail, right? Oh, I've had people say 30 days in prison. There are 30 days in jail. That's it I'll take it. Right. No problem at all. I'm not going to hire a lawyer. What are you charged ? Oh, that's too much. Okay. I'll do 30 days. No problem. And he said , okay, great. Right . That that's a solution for you, but you could change your plea at that moment to guilty. I don't ever advise that. Right. Because you don't even know what is in the case. You don't even know what their evidence is yet. So sometimes people do that though. It's their life they

Speaker 3:

Can choose to do. But the

Speaker 1:

Normal way you do this is you plead not guilty. You say, oh, you're charging me with a crime. Yeah, didn't do that. Not guilty. And remember in America, the presumption of innocence is still in existence and the burden of proof is on them. They've got to prove you're guilty. You don't have to acknowledge that or agree to that or acquiesced to that in any way, shape or form. So you say, you say, so, prove it. All right , go get the evidence and let me see it all motions for discovery and notice of our defenses. We're going to be filing in all of these different motions and lemonade and suppression and

Speaker 3:

List goes on.

Speaker 1:

Now you can go through that process and you can enter a plea of not guilty and fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight,

Speaker 3:

Bye . And see at the end that you know what my shot at trials , not looking so good. Or

Speaker 1:

You work out a benefit with the prosecutor and you say, listen, we've got some pretty good defenses here. You know, they're pretty good. You've got a pretty decent case as well. You know, it's pretty decent, but we're not real sure where this is going to go. So how about this? How about you dismiss the most serious charge? All plead down to a lower level offense. We'll compromise on a , you know, the jail, the probation, the fines, the fees, the restitution, all of that other stuff. We'll negotiate this thing out. We'll save everybody a trial. You'll get a little bit of a victory. We'll get a significant benefit here on the defense. We'll close the whole thing out, judge, we'll be happy. We won't have to impanel a jury. What do you say? And sometimes you can negotiate a good deal out. And then at that point before the trial starts, you enter the change of plea. You change your plea from not guilty to guilty, but guilty to a better charge, right? A reduced charge with , uh, I would say variables that you have fleshed out in that, you know what you're going to be getting, which is oftentimes a better resolution than going to a trial where everything is know

Speaker 3:

Kind of up in the air. And a lot of the predetermined , uh, you know , penalties

Speaker 1:

That you might be getting under a negotiated plea are no longer available to you, right? You go to trial and you lose. You don't get that deal anymore. Now you're talking about the maximum penalty. And so you can limit your exposure by having a good plea deal. So it , it , there , there are good reasons to do that. Great question. All right . And we got two more. We have one from feisty lady is here, says if Kyle's intent was to shoot and kill people, why did he bring ,

Speaker 3:

Uh , medical equipment bag with him?

Speaker 1:

One of the videos, Kyle even stated he was there to help with anyone who was hurt and wounded. Yeah, he did. Right. And he was wasn't. He also like on like, on pictures, like scraping off graffiti and stuff, like, is the prosecutor going to talk about that one also? Or not? Probably not. Right. Good question. Feisty lady. Good to see you. And our last one other day comes in from Nadar. Listen , you know , we got another one [inaudible] says since we cannot rely on the courts to punish the government like this guy, would it be possible for the public to start something similar to a union, but to secure our rights and punish the government instead of jobs for all citizens. So , uh, Nadar, let me give you a sneak preview on something I'm working on. So I'm working on this , uh, this, this presentation called ,

Speaker 2:

Uh , first principles for criminal justice and American freedom. What are the first principles for justice? If we wanted to just sort of reinvision our entire justice system, what would it look like? And I think the way that we do that is not going through the government, right? It's not by mandating anything or legislating anything because the government's not going to do that. I think that the biggest problem, the most rational starting point is to rebuild what I call our informational supply chain, which is going to be in existence for the justice system. So the justice informational supply chain it's entirely broken. We have no idea what the data says anywhere, right? We have a very old numbers from the FBI, 2019 numbers about crime, data and statistics. We've got literally thousands of different jurisdictions, right? We have , uh , thousands of different police departments. Everybody is kind of doing their own thing. Nobody's really communicating much about anything. And it's very difficult to get good data because it's just not being shared and communicated appropriately. And so it's very difficult for us to actually know where the problems are. I made this point previously, right? The byte administration is now saying that all of our problems are based on gun violence. Okay. Well , uh , how can you even argue that? Because nobody knows what the data says. Everybody can go out and just say, oh, look, look at my spreadsheet. It says gun violence, but somebody else can go get another spreadsheet and say, it's about something else because nobody's really talking to each other. And so I've got this vision for how you can create a volunteer

Speaker 3:

It's it's

Speaker 2:

It's blockchain. I know it's blockchain. It's, it's , uh , it's a blockchain methodology for

Speaker 3:

Rebuilding the supply

Speaker 2:

Chain for criminal justice. So I have this whole thing I'm working on the point here is this, in order for this to work, you would need enough public pressure to convince people to go in and basically demand that police departments voluntarily

Speaker 3:

Really participate in this new scheme, right? And the public runs, the new scheme,

Speaker 2:

Public runs the new let's say, framework for justice. And you would voluntarily sort of mandate that local police departments adhere to these new, these new policies. And so you're building sort of a parallel system. Once you get data, that's a little bit better. Once you can start seeing what these prosecutors do, once you can start knowing what their conviction profile looks like and what types of crimes they prosecute and, and you start getting a deeper understanding of who these people really are. These prosecutors, these us attorneys, these judges

Speaker 3:

Is people will start to wake up and they'll start to demand a little bit more

Speaker 2:

Accountability and transparency. I don't have a solution for the justice system. Do we end qualified immunity? Do we mandate body cameras? There's a lot of different

Speaker 3:

Solutions. The bigger problem. The first problem,

Speaker 2:

The way that we restructure this from first principles is based on better information, better data. A lot of privacy concerns, of course, right? We don't want sort of a

Speaker 3:

Centralized , uh, amalgamations of data, but we do want distributed sort of , uh , good data, real data.

Speaker 2:

Then we can really start reforming our society. And so I've got a vision for how this works and I'm talking about sort of interfacing in different ways. And I , I got a whole outline,

Speaker 3:

But I like what you're talking about, right? The idea here is the government.

Speaker 2:

It is way too corrupt to fix itself. You're never going to find a district attorney's office or a state bar or a judicial enterprise. That's like, oh yeah, we're going to start where we have a lot of problems here and we're just going to reform the system. Now that's not going to work. Uh, I know that because I'm working in the system right now, I've been doing it for some time and it can be very, very few tile feeling. So I write about this.

Speaker 3:

I book , we need a sort of a top. We need , we need a multi-pronged approach. We need people

Speaker 2:

Well in the system working to reform the system. And we need a lot of demand in public pressure outside of the system to reform the system. This is why I was excited when , uh , we started to see some calls for reform back during last year, in the summer of unrest, that evaporated immediately when this whole thing turned into, you know, race, basically race wars and had nothing to do with justice at all.

Speaker 3:

Uh, and beyond race, it had to do

Speaker 2:

With removing Donald Trump. Really? I think it was a primary purpose. So got a lot.

Speaker 3:

I have to say about that. I think it's probably going to be the bigger, the better portion of ,

Speaker 2:

Uh , maybe my life's work. I don't know. We'll see. All right . We've got a chairman of the board says when someone pleads guilty because of a deal, how do they honestly answer the question about whether they offer them anything in trade for their plea? That's a good question. So when you're going through the police ,

Speaker 3:

Uh, sort of a synopsis there,

Speaker 2:

One of the things that the judge will

Speaker 3:

Ask you has is, has anybody promised you anything not contained in this plea deal? Right? So the judge will hold,

Speaker 2:

Hey, did you sign this? Okay, I'll read through it . Make sure you understand everything that anybody promise you, anything not contained in this document. Like, did anybody say, if you sign this, I'm going to give you a million bucks or I'm gonna make sure that you get a new car or we're going to pay your mortgage for a month. Anybody promise you anything?

Speaker 3:

No, that's what people will typically say. The judges

Speaker 2:

Not meaning something like, did you get a reduced plea deal? That's not what they're asking about. They're asking for other external influences. Uh , but it's a good question. It's a little bit of a nuance question there, but, but good one. Good to see you. We have, oh , sock , last one. Uh , oh, Sox says , sorry, Rob. I meant to say when the trial

Speaker 3:

Like open statement

Speaker 2:

Starts, then change the plea. Well, so that happens less frequently. Oh, socks .

Speaker 3:

So , uh , you know,

Speaker 2:

Sometimes that happens once the trial starts and the jury has been impaneled and you have opening arguments,

Speaker 3:

Typically the trials will , will continue forward until you have a conclusion, a verdict , occasionally what will happen will be something happens .

Speaker 1:

And , and maybe you have sort of a last minute plea deal. This doesn't happen frequently. But sometimes that might happen. If there is some sort of a situation where the government's witness doesn't show up and they say, man, we're not going to get that first charge. We'll give you a smoke and plea deal, but you got to take it like now, sometimes you can get those , uh, those last minute deals and that my friends is it from the questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. And of course, I want to welcome our tremendous new members who signed up over there at , on the, watching the watchers.locals.com . We've got you Ramirez. Welcome. You Ramirez signed up. We've got Angela B 66. Welcome to Angela B 66. Welcome to the community. We've got freedom lives is now here in the house. And my friends. We have one Florida man,

Speaker 3:

Which I think is our second Florida man. So this is about to get wild up in this show. We've got to

Speaker 1:

Florida man here. Oh my goodness. It's going to be total madness by the way, if you want to sign up over [email protected], which is where we're chatting right now, it says you can join now by going over to that address, of course, it's five bucks a month or $50 annually. We extra love you when there's a, when there's a yearly signup , very much appreciate that. We've got some good stuff that's happening over there. I just posted a little bit of an update. You're going to see some, some other types of content created , uh , from

Speaker 3:

Our , uh, our social media

Speaker 1:

Profiles and things. So go check that out if you want to take a look. But the real reason to be there is to connect with people. And we've got a pretty awesome event coming up in July, July 24th, 2021. We have our monthly locals meetup via zoom. And so you can come swing by have your camera's off, have your cameras off on or off whatever you want to do. It's a lot of fun. We had about 35 to 40 people in the last two. And so it's just a good time to kind of put names to faces and ask some questions. We've heard from people in other professions and other parts of the world. And we're trying to sort of build a little bit of a community, something one brick at a time that that's , you know , it gives us a little bit ,

Speaker 3:

A bit of a , of a place of respite

Speaker 1:

From some of the other big tech platforms. And we would love your support over [email protected] and that my friends is it from me for the day. I want to thank you so much for tuning in with us. We are going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow, same location, same time. It's going to be at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one Florida man to Florida, man . Now everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. So you're right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .