Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Dem Outbreak + Fauci vs. Rand, Paul Hodgkins’ 8-Month Sentence, Bezos’ Launch Irks America

July 20, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Dem Outbreak + Fauci vs. Rand, Paul Hodgkins’ 8-Month Sentence, Bezos’ Launch Irks America
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Dem Outbreak + Fauci vs. Rand, Paul Hodgkins’ 8-Month Sentence, Bezos’ Launch Irks America
Jul 20, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Fleeing Texas Democrats infect Washington D.C. while Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci spar in the U.S. Senate over Wuhan lab funding. Capitol Hill defendant Paul Hodgkins is sentenced to 8-months prison for walking into the Senate Chamber. Jeff Bezo’s launches into space and many people in the media are disgusted, for some reason.​

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

🔵 Axios reveals a White House official and an aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) both tested positive for COVID-19 in recent days.​
🔵 6th Texas Democrat who fled to Washington D.C. also tests positive for the coronavirus.​
🔵 Jenn Psaki responds to a question about whether the fleeing democrats caused a super spreader events.​
🔵 Democrats move the goal posts on coronavirus yet again.​
🔵 Rand Paul gets into heated exchanges with Dr. Anthony Fauci over gain of function research.​
🔵 Dr. Fauci calls Rand Paul a liar for insinuating the Fauci’s work helped to fund research at Wuhan Lab of Virology.​
🔵 Judge Hands down first felony sentenced tied to Capitol riot in the case against Paul Hodgkins.​
🔵 Hodgkins was sentenced to 8-months in prison for his time inside the Senate Chamber.​
🔵 Who is Judge Randolph D. Moss – the D.C. Judge that sentenced Hodgkins?​
🔵 A review of arguments put forth by U.S. attorney Mona Sedky who asked for an 18-month sentence.​
🔵 Hodgkins’ lawyer, Patrick Leduc, asked for a probation only sentence.​
🔵 A review of the protestors at the Supreme Court and in the Senate during the Kavanaugh hearings.​
🔵 We check in with former federal prosecutor @shipwreckedcrew​
🔵 Jeff Bezos launches into space and people in the media cast shade!​
🔵 We review the media reaction from the NYPost, MediaIte and Twitter, all angry with Bezos for the launch. Even some on the right are angry about it!​
🔵 Review the Blue Origin launch, including the 10 second countdown, the booster landing and the capsule landing.​
🔵 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://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

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

#WatchingtheWatchers #Fauci #RandPaul #FleeingDems #SuperSpreaders #Psaki #WhiteHouse #Biden #PaulHodgkins #Jan

Show Notes Transcript

Fleeing Texas Democrats infect Washington D.C. while Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci spar in the U.S. Senate over Wuhan lab funding. Capitol Hill defendant Paul Hodgkins is sentenced to 8-months prison for walking into the Senate Chamber. Jeff Bezo’s launches into space and many people in the media are disgusted, for some reason.​

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

🔵 Axios reveals a White House official and an aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) both tested positive for COVID-19 in recent days.​
🔵 6th Texas Democrat who fled to Washington D.C. also tests positive for the coronavirus.​
🔵 Jenn Psaki responds to a question about whether the fleeing democrats caused a super spreader events.​
🔵 Democrats move the goal posts on coronavirus yet again.​
🔵 Rand Paul gets into heated exchanges with Dr. Anthony Fauci over gain of function research.​
🔵 Dr. Fauci calls Rand Paul a liar for insinuating the Fauci’s work helped to fund research at Wuhan Lab of Virology.​
🔵 Judge Hands down first felony sentenced tied to Capitol riot in the case against Paul Hodgkins.​
🔵 Hodgkins was sentenced to 8-months in prison for his time inside the Senate Chamber.​
🔵 Who is Judge Randolph D. Moss – the D.C. Judge that sentenced Hodgkins?​
🔵 A review of arguments put forth by U.S. attorney Mona Sedky who asked for an 18-month sentence.​
🔵 Hodgkins’ lawyer, Patrick Leduc, asked for a probation only sentence.​
🔵 A review of the protestors at the Supreme Court and in the Senate during the Kavanaugh hearings.​
🔵 We check in with former federal prosecutor @shipwreckedcrew​
🔵 Jeff Bezos launches into space and people in the media cast shade!​
🔵 We review the media reaction from the NYPost, MediaIte and Twitter, all angry with Bezos for the launch. Even some on the right are angry about it!​
🔵 Review the Blue Origin launch, including the 10 second countdown, the booster landing and the capsule landing.​
🔵 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://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

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

#WatchingtheWatchers #Fauci #RandPaul #FleeingDems #SuperSpreaders #Psaki #WhiteHouse #Biden #PaulHodgkins #Jan

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. Let me give you a high level overview about some of the things that we're going to be talking about. Nancy Pelosi , one of her aides, allegedly got the Corona virus along with another white house official. And so the white house was out there today. Kind of dealing with some of the fallout from those fleeing Democrats that picked up out of Texas did that little publicity , publicity stunt landed over there in Capitol hill and now a bunch of people got infected with the coronavirus . So we're going to talk about that story because the white house is once again, moving the goalpost one particular direction, we're going to talk about that. Then we're going to hear about this debate, this battle that has been going on between Rand Paul and Dr. Fowchee, because they were in the front of the Senate today. Lot of activity that took place there, Dr. Fowchee did a double finger point. Look at this. I want to show you this here. This is a double finger point. Look at that two fingers, not just one, two going towards ran Paul. So, you know, this is going to be spicy. Can't wait till we get there. And then we're going to change gears and talk about Hodgkin's Paul Hodgkin's a Capitol hill. Defendant was sentenced to eight months in prison yesterday, and we're going to go through that sentencing memorandum and take a look. Actually, we don't have the memo, but we do have the arguments from both sides from the government and from the defense. And I want to show you what the government is doing, what the U S attorneys are doing, because we're starting to see a little bit of a policy be framed out here. How is the department of justice going to deal with the Capitol hill defendants moving forward? Well, we're going to look into it. We're going to see what judge Randolph Moss had to say about this. We're also going to take a look at Mona said key us attorney. They were asking for 18 months, then we're going to talk about the defense attorney and then do a little bit of a compare and contrast between what happened on Capitol hill on January 6th and what happened on Capitol hill back during the Kavanaugh protest. So we'll take a look at all of that. And we're going to check in with a former federal prosecutor as well then for our last segments , the big news every day of the day, that everybody's sort of talking about is the bayzos launch. And I've seen a lot of people, kind of a needling old Jeffy over there over from Amazon for launching himself up in a sort of phallic shaped , uh , rocket. But that went up into space today. And a lot of people are very kind of throwing shade on Jeff Bezos. And so I want to have a comment on that, which I think might be a little bit contrarian. I actually think that what he's doing is pretty amazing. And so we're going to talk about that and more, if you want to be a part of the show, then the place to do that is over in watching the watchers.locals.com, where there's a live chat taking place. Right now, let's give some shout outs. We got mama rocks in the house, sold Vikings in the house. We have see Wolf 74 is here. We got Jeremy Matrine Baranski, tos forever and Relic hunter along with Joe Snow. Good to see you all over on YouTube. You can also support the show over there. Now we've got super chats enabled. Give a quick shout out. Hello to Reggie and John we're Tarek . We got Patriot capital tourist over there playing hooky, take the clown pill and many others over on YouTube. I don't have the integration for super chats, I think figured out yet. So don't send those if you want me to put those on screen, but I think I can see them. So I'll try to work those in if you send those. But the main place to support us is [email protected] because there is a form over there that you can use to ask questions. If you are a supporter, it looks like this. And we're going to be taking questions from that forum about all of the different topics that we cover throughout the show. So without any further ado, my friends let's get into it. The Corona virus is still active in some parts of the country. Some parts more than others. One that is more than others currently is Capitol hill. Why? Because a bunch of Democrats fled from Texas trying to escape, having to vote, kind of do their job on a voting rights bill over in Texas, they said, we're going to pick up, hop on an airplane. That's chartered for us with our pack of Miller light and go land in Washington DC, where there we're going to, I guess, meet with all of the other Democrats who are very excited about making a big deal about , uh , mostly nothing. So they did that. And unfortunately for everybody there, somebody had the Corona virus. And so they showed up sort of like a missile being launched out of Texas, right over into DC , uh, Stephen Miller on , uh, on Twitter posted saying something like this was like nine 11. I mean, I can't believe the Democrats loaded up a seven , uh , an airplane with infected Democrats and just launched them towards the Capitol building. Absolutely hysterical, but that's what happened. And now we're dealing with the fallout. So a scoop came over from Axios telling us that a white house official and a Pelosi aid . So two people test positive for COVID white house official. And you see there , a staff member from Nancy Pelosi have both confirmed and tested positive for the Corona virus. Why does this matter? Well, both individuals, they are vaccinated. We got some breakthrough cases and they're , they're mildly symptomatic. They illustrate how Americans who are inoculated against the virus can still get infected. We have quote here from a white house. Official says, we know that there will be breakthrough cases, but as this instance shows cases in vaccinated, individuals are typically mild. And so I want to just pay special attention to that. Okay. Watch how the goalposts change. We're sort of changing where the end zone is and it goes from, well, get the, get the vaccine so that you don't get the Corona virus too . Well, you can get the vaccine, but you can still get the Corona virus, but now your symptoms will be less severe. So it's kind of different, right? It's a little bit of a change, but we've got to be very careful with our language and continue to pay close attention to that. So driving the news, the Pelosi staffer helped usher a delegation of the democratic Texas lawmakers. So you can see the chain here. You can see it went from one of the six lawmakers who flew in there and to Washington met with a Pelosi staffer, boom, that staffer got infected, both the staffer and the white house official were on the same rooftop reception at the hotel eaten on Wednesday last week. White house official has not had any recent direct contact with president Biden , uh, who is usually immune to the Corona virus threats because of his, a double and triple masks. Now this was the image of course, that we showed earlier. I think last week, this is the six Texas Democrat who tests positive for COVID number six. And this is the image that is sort of now made infamous around the world because of this 18 pack of Miller light over there , uh, with all of these, you know, women. And I think this guy down here who wanted to go and travel over to DC. So obviously the Corona virus is very serious. Something that everybody should take, you know, take take seriously. And I'm not, you know , thrilled to say that other people have it, right. It's not something that we should be, you know , gleeful about because it is of course , uh , uh, interesting , uh, problematic, right? And we don't want anybody catching the coronavirus . But the question here is what are the Democrats doing? What is the response to this over from the white house? And this is yet again, another one of these incidents of these breakthrough cases that we keep hearing so much about. Right? All of the Texas Democrats allegedly were vaccinated and six of them got the, the Corona virus. And so you're going to hear a very pertinent question coming once again from foxes doosey over towards Jen Saki today here at the white house press briefing. And she is saying , uh , specifically, she gives us an answer here because he goes , Doocy says, Jen, come on, you had like 10% of the Texas Democrats all test positive for COVID. So , uh , you know, w what's what's the white house response to this? What are you guys going to be doing about this? Here's Jen Psaki today in the press brief .

Speaker 2:

I think Jen , more than 10% of the traveling party with these Texas Democrats now claim to have a breakthrough case. Is there any concern that this trip that was intended to advocate for voting rights is now a super spreader?

Speaker 1:

Hold on, let me turn the audio off just a bit. Thank you from Washington. Well,

Speaker 3:

I would say that's not a characterization we're making from here. We certainly understand there will be breakthrough cases, even vaccines that are incredibly effective are not foolproof. They're not a hundred percent effective. We've seen that. Here's the good news though. We know that these vaccines that these individuals, I think if I'm correct have, have been vaccinated , uh, it means that it protects from death. It protects from serious illness. It protects for the most part from hospitalization. Uh , so that is a good sign.

Speaker 2:

COVID-19 uh, after contact with those Democrats has reached the white house. What is your message to these Texas Democrats?

Speaker 3:

Our message continues to be , uh , thanks for standing up for voting rights, the rights of Americans to have their voices heard , uh, at the voting booth. And we appreciate their efforts in that regard.

Speaker 1:

Right ? All right. So, you know , we applaud them for fighting for , uh , voting ideals and America and all of that stuff, but you see how the goalposts move just a little bit, right? Originally it was something like , uh , take the virus there, take the , the , the vaccine. So you don't get sick. But now Jen Saki just came out and said, well, you can get it and you can still get sick. But the benefit of it of course, is that you are not going to be hospitalized. Oh , except in some cases you actually can be hospitalized according to her own statement. And so I found this very interesting graphic over there. When I typed in moving the goalposts on, go on Google. And this actually came up right? That the standard continually changes in front of our very eyes. It's not even anything that's surprising now, but now we can see here that the old standard was of course get the vaccine. Why , why ? So you don't get the Corona virus . That was the big deal. Now it's get the vaccine. So you don't get really sick if you catch the COVID the Corona virus, or more importantly, this could be when, right. If this is really going to be something that is sort of , uh, being talked about as a seasonal flu type of a thing, not saying that it is the seasonal flu, of course, but the , the conversation being that every year, we may see some flurries of the Corona virus. And so we're starting to see conversations about booster shots and about a third dose. And the list goes on and on that some now, sometimes these new variants may not be responsive to the vaccines. The vaccines may not protect against them. So, you know, we're starting to see that the, the vaccine era doesn't really have an end date. It can kind of just keep going and going and going because the goalposts keep changing. And , uh, we'll see where it goes. But while we're doing that, we certainly want to look backwards. We want to take a peek back down memory lane and ask ourselves, where did this come from? Right. We spent a lot of time talking about this, the Nicholas Wade article on my other channel link down in the description below where I went through the entire article that Nicholas Wade wrote brilliant article and analyzing some of the different factors that one might analyze. If they're trying to decipher where the virus came from, did it come from a bat cave somewhere on the outskirts of China? Or was this something that was engineered in the Wu Han lab of virology? Right. So it pretty important question. So Nicholas Wade came up with these different factors. And if you recall, we've talked about this here on the channel, but Nicholas Wade's article has one very, very interesting factor that it analyzes. And it says that essentially what you can do with these viruses is you can sort of cut them apart, sort of stitch them back together. And so on the show of the analogy that I used was Frankenstein, right? You've got the body of somebody else and the head of another person, you cut the head off and you attach it to the body and you kind of get this weird thing. And you can see right here where the cut was, because it makes sense to cut in the neck, right attached to the head, right where you connect it to, to the body. And so the same concept was happening with the viruses. You'd say we cut off, you know, the, the, the body of the virus cut off the head of this other virus, mashed them together. Boom. This is our research that we're doing in Wu Han. And so we're gonna sort of go down that road specifically here because ran Paul and Dr. Fowchee, they were kind of battling over that concept about gain of function, research, and about whether or not labs and scientists were doing a deep dive at to see if they can kind of make those Frankenstein's or it take a virus that we already know a lot about and make it worse, make the functionality sort of gain function, make the effects of the virus more severe so that we could study it. And then of course, develop vaccines and therapeutics to respond to these new viruses, the long-term plan, speculating that these were going to come out anyways. And so we'll be ahead of the game by making sure that we're , uh, we're, we're doing our research. So Rand Paul and Dr. Fowchee get into it. Now, this is a very complicated conversation. We got Rand, Paul, who's a doctor. We got Dr. Fowchee. Who's also a doctor and they're talking about very complicated science in genomes and you know, different , uh , very scientific concepts that we're not going to spend time on here, but we don't need to because all upon it, over from hot air gave us a nice synthesis. And he gives us the headline. He says, ran Paul to Fowchee. You perjured yourself by claiming you didn't fund gain of function research in Wu Han there. And so we're going to go through this very briefly, but he says, I'd love to tell you who's right in this dispute that, but , but the study that ran Paul references is so highly technical that it reads like hieroglyphics to me. He says, you combine that with a running dispute about what constitutes gain a function research. And it's hard for any layman to draw a conclusion. And so of course, all upon it , speculates that this is going to just divide people. If you're sort of profile you , you're going to stay profile G if you're anti-fascist and pro Rand Paul, you're going to stay pro Rand . Paul. He also says that today, what happened here is that Paul confronted Fowchee with a simple question in may. Fowchee told the Senate that the NIH had never funded gain of research at the Wuhan Institute of virology, which we know is BS. But the 2017 study quote discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS related viruses credits the NIH with funding and describe something that sounds a lot like gain of function research. So the question is, of course did Fowchee perjure himself, and that is coming directly from Rand Paul. So we're going to get into this. It was about a six minute conversation that took place, because I think Ron Paul only had five minutes in the Senate. We're not going to listen to the whole five minutes. I've got two clips for you before we get to them. I want to show you some of those hieroglyphics that all upon it was talking about, and this is some of the same stuff that we covered in the Nicholas Wade article. And you notice it, right. It says a large number of SARS related Corona viruses. This is from an abstract that came from that paper that ran Paul was talking about, look at it, right? We see SARS Corona virus, five-year surveillance. We got full length genomes of 11 newly covered strains. We've got SARS, our Cove S circulating and orf three and orf eight and the end terminal domain. And the list goes on and on, right? So that's not the point of this same here. Another excerpt from another study talking about the confirmed use of the ACE two as a receptor of the two novel Corona viruses. So what we're sort of talking about are , what we see are Hess RS , 4 8, 7, 4 S gene ACE, two SARS cov two S eight , the list goes on. And so it's complicated stuff, but essentially where this is boiling down to our labs, mashing viruses together one way or the other, are we taking viruses that either exist naturally or not? Are we creating our own viruses that maybe don't exist naturally, and then seeing what we can do with those things? So think about there , there are kind of two different ways that you can go about this, this gain of function research. One is you take a naturally occurring multiple ways, but two sort of basic concepts here. One, you take a naturally occurring virus and you replicated a bunch of times and you , and you play around with it in a lab to see if it, if it replicates and naturally evolves and gain some function, that's going to evolve into a more severe virus where you do many, many millions of copies of that sort of to mere natural evolution of a virus. That's one way to do it. The other way is you just start Frankensteining. These viruses, you start, you take the head off of that one, the arm off of that one, the legs off of that one , you smash them all together and you create something that was very strong. And you try to insert that into an animal, or you try to see if you can perform, gain a function onto that new virus that you just invented. And so we're all sort of mixing words here. And so you're going to hear this in this conversation that they're there , they're sort of talking in circles because we're, we're having a debate over words. What does gain of function mean? And what actually falls within that jurisdiction? That would be something that would be categorized as gain a function. So after all that analysis, after going through the hieroglyphics, after reading those studies, after the six-minute conversation that they have all upon, it summarizes it for us. He says my best guess at what all this means is Paul says is they spliced features of two different viruses together to make one that looked more like some of the new SARS viruses that they had found in bats in the wild. Okay. So they, they have these viruses that they know that are in nature, and they actually create something that is not in nature by splicing two different viruses together. Then once they have that, Kemira they tested that splice Kemira on the ACE two receptors in the animals. So they take that, that, that mashed together virus throw it into animals and see if it will bind, guess what it did. So it actually worked, it went into the viruses into the bats or whatever they were , they were testing this suggests then that viruses in the wild might be able to make the jump to humans without any help in a lab that does not, that does sound like gain of function to me. But what do I know? Then again, it sounded like gain of function research to molecular biologists , Richard E. Bright , too , right? This guy down here says Falco , Fowchee, brazenly lied. The last time he confronted Paul and Fowchee, brazenly lied again today, right? So viruses could , could theoretically come out of the wild or it's that they splice the virus together and then inserted into an animal, which then theoretically could have made the jump. So once it is inserted back into the animal, then it jumped from the animal into the public and many. And so, so that's, that's a point, right, right there. What if that, that jump was technically natural, but the splicing occurred before it went into the animal. So the animal, the virus that is injected into the animal is sort of, you know, version 1.0, it gets modified throughout the testing process. And it , it naturally evolves. And so that second virus is now natural, but it's kind of really not. And so they're talking about this back and forth here is a two minute clips . So we're going to spend some time on this one because it was very, very spicy. It was a good one today. Here is Dr. Fowchee and folks watch how angry he is. I mean, he's very mad. He's sort of at this point now where he's doing the points and he's doing the, your lion thing, and he's doing the finger wag. He must've been over with CommonWell at the white house because he's getting pretty good at it. Here is Dr. Fowchee .

Speaker 4:

Now you're getting into something. If the point that you were making is that the VA , the grant that was funded as a sub award from EcoHealth to Wolfhagen created saws Kovi to that's what you were getting. Let me finish. We don't know why don't wait a minute. I came to the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab. You and there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself. I totally allow the witness to, I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating Senator, because if you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments that were given in the annual reports that were published in the literature, it is molecularly impossible. No one saying those [inaudible] virus caused the pandemic. What we're alleging is the gain of function. Research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it. That is not away from it. It meets your definition and you are obviously skating the truth. I'm not office getting the truth. You are the one expired, but I will allow the witness to let me just finish. I want everyone to understand that if you look at those viruses and that's judged by qualified virologists and evolutionary biologists, those viruses are molecularly impossible. [inaudible] the pandemic per saying , they are gain of function viruses because they're rare . Now , viruses that became more transmissible and human. You founded it and you get the truth and you implying , oh , your time has expired. And I will allow witnesses who come before this committee to respond. And you are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individual. I totally resent that. And if anybody is lying here, Senator it is you.

Speaker 1:

So ran . Paul just sips his water over there. Fowchee. If anybody is lying, Senator it is you ran Paul, just whatever, whatever, bro, can you just admit it? So did you see what was happening here? Ran Paul is asking questions, not about the Corona virus specifically. He's saying, listen, we're not talking about the Corona virus. Can you stop with it for two seconds? I know you're on CNN every day for 40 hours a day. Can you just leave it alone? My question is about gain of function research that was taking place in the [inaudible] that was funded by the NIH. And remember in previous episodes here, we've covered that the entire sort of a chart, the slide that I made covering the entire chain of events going from doctor [inaudible] through EcoHealth Alliance over to Dr. Bhat lady, Wu Han lab of virology. The whole chain worked its way all the way back to the NIH and the NIH ID, all being run by Dr. Fowchee. So it's pretty obvious at this point that , that there was some, some sort of investment taking place from us treasury over to China, for something we've covered the documents here on the channel, specifically showing you the transfers that were happening in terms of dollars and cents going from our country to another country. And now Dr. Fowchee is of course sitting here saying, no, it had nothing to do with anything. And multiple people are confirming that he is a less than honest on this particular topic. So let's see another question here. I think this is a different clip. I , I clip these earlier. Let's see what we got here. Uh, ran Paul again,

Speaker 4:

Dr. Fowchee, knowing that it was a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th , where you claimed at the NIH never funded gain of function, research and Wu on

Speaker 1:

Turn your mic on, come on, doc, turn it on.

Speaker 4:

I have never lied before the Congress. And I do not retract that statement. This paper that you were referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being

Speaker 1:

Gain of function. Hi , Dr. Desi , let me finish shaken

Speaker 4:

Animal virus and you increase the transmissibility to humans, right ? You're saying that's not gaining a phone yet . That is correct. And , and what's a pull . You do not know what you are talking about quite frankly. And I head that officially. You do not know what you are talking about. Okay. You get one person. Can I obtain again ? This is your definition.

Speaker 1:

Do you see the head Bob on that? Dr. Fowchee? You don't know, or Dr . Paul, you don't what you're talking about. Boom. I mean, he was, he was on one today, man. He is, he's not here happy with , uh, with Rand , Paul, but did you hear what the important part of that clip of course was that ran Paul said to him, Hey, so what you're telling me, Dr. Fowchee is that if you take a virus that you put into an animal and you try to make it more transmissible from the animal into a human, that's not gain a function. Dr. Fowchee said, that's correct, which is mincing words. Okay? We all know that's what it is because the virus gains a function. It can move from an animal into a human. And normally it was a virus that was only transmittable to between animals. Now it can transmit from an animal to a human. There you go. It gained a function. It's not even that complicated and I'm not a scientist. So Dr. Fowchee, I think, is being a little bit disingenuous there. What do you think? Let's take a [email protected]om . We're going to jump right into the questions that are coming in from the watching the Watchers show question form . And we've got a few of them queued up. We got first in the house is, want to know, says some doctors, maybe the CDC are saying that after vaccination, it's easier to test positive. So you see that they're from, want to know maybe that's true. Right, man . I , I don't, I don't know. I don't know about the tests , but , uh , that sort of might make sense because we're seeing several of these people who were vaccinated test positive, next up, no name on this one. We've got breakthrough, right? And not a super spreader event, right? From what has been reported, the housing and the food bill, and probably the beer tab is 1 million plus. Good to see you. No name on that one. Let's see, want to know is back here, it says painting from hunter, you're doing better than I thought we have a speech unleashed says only my opinion, but then continuously lying about the vaccine leads to the hesitancy. It says they basically lied about how vaccines work and now it is catching up to them. They would have been better off telling the complete truth from the start. They just keep losing credibility. And because the goalposts keep changing, you know, it's always this sort of always responding to the latest, I think political , uh , momentum one way or the other. And so they've got to just, I agree with you, speech on leash. Don't even have anything to add to that. Thank you, thunder seven says, Hey Rob, it was great to see Dr. Paul socket to Foxy and remind everyone that Fowchee lied on May 11th. When he said the NIH didn't gain didn't fund a gain of function research, but a clear lie, all shown in the leaked emails. The bat lady got around 300,000 from us. Taxpayers. Paul even mentioned there's a five-year penalty for lying to the Senate. Will Fowchee be arrested? Thunder seven says, and my prediction on that one is a hard, no , right. There's absolutely no way that that happens because he is like, almost like a Demi God to certain segments of this country. We have de nicest here says, Hey, Rob, great job on this segment. Why worry about COVID. We can trust the Fowchee. When will this lying smug expert be held accountable. So again, I don't really think anything has ever, I think there will probably be virtually no repercussions for Fowchee. Uh, and you know, I think there's a good argument, whether there should be right. I mean, a lot of people say that you have to remember a huge part of this country listens to Fowchee and they go, that guy is just so good, man. He's honest. He's brilliant. Wow, man, he has a grasp on all of this. He's sort of above the fray. All of these politicians are just bickering amongst themselves. Dr. Fowchee is sort of man, he's saving our lives. A lot of people think that because that's what they've been indoctrinated with for the last 18 months, months, pili wheelie is here. Uh , PLE Wally is here, says, Hey Rob, isn't it crazy how Iraq was invaded because of the so-called weapons of mass destruction, but yet Fowchee and his crew can play around with mutating dangerous viruses, which could be more dangerous if they get out. Who is the more troublesome I wonder. Yeah. Where were those weapons of mass destruction also? Weren't we supposed to find like big caches of that never happened. I was a kid back then. I think I was in high school. Right. W would have been a yeah. Right . High school or young college and was kind of a, of scam, the whole thing. And here we are still, still over there sharing Whitney's here, says Frout cheat . Oh, like that one, like all the Dems is really practiced at deflecting and projected accusations, accusing someone of what you are doing personally. I don't believe a syllable that comes out of his mouth. How do you know when Fowchee is lying? When his lips are moving, he makes me sick. That is from Sharon Quinney . Good to see you, Sharon. We have Joe Snow is in the house, says, what is the penalty for crimes against humanity? So, you know , it's a good question, Joe. I think that's kind of a broad category that encompasses a lot of different things. And uh, I don't know what the answer is for, for some of those, right. What would the crime against humanity be and who would penalize that? Probably the world court or something like that. Right. I really, my jurisdiction is a , is limited to there, but I think I understand your points in general. Good to see you, Joe, we've got soul Viking is here, says unlike other legislators ran, Paul is a doctor and cannot be dismissed by Dr. Fowchee, like many of the others that's for , from soul Viking . And that's exactly right . Right . That's what was so fun about this is that Dr. Fowchee is up against Dr. Ron Paul and , uh, you know, I know who I'd prefer to do my , uh, my annual checkup . Let me just leave it at that. We have John Dillard , 52 is here. It says for God's sake, the Corona virus is an obvious, an obvious bio weapon. Why does anyone talk about the timing of the virus and that it came out from China, Trump, his biggest enemy, all this talk is BS. They don't want the truth to get out. We are going to do this virus dance forever. Well , it's kind of like that graphic that I played earlier in my earlier slide, where you used to kind of just, you kind of put the carrot in front of the horse and the horse or the donkey that Knocky we'll just keep walking indefinitely. We also have Kenny one B says, as a PhD, I understand the detail, the need to have detail in the nuances on the topic, but something is clearly wrong with Fowchee , right? And I'm with you, Kenny one B right . I really don't have much interest in spending a lot of time dissecting all of the different abstracts and the different studies. But I looked at a lot of the documents about the checks being cleared and sent over there. And you know, I think it's pretty obvious what happened, but we'll see what the evidence shows farmer's daughter says the look on his face is the same one that hunter Biden had on his face when confronted about the laptop. Big guide for real. Yeah. Did I think, did hunter have the head Bob too? I don't know where the laptop came from. I'm a hunter Biden. No , I don't know that guy. Oh, that interview is so bad. All right, let's see what else we got 360 3. We have Kareem 1 65 says the one thing Fowchee got right is the name of the virus. It's technically SARS, cov two, not COVID 19 . Well thank you for that clarification. And we have another no-name or says, we know they are lying. They know they're lying. They know, we know they're lying. We know, they know, we know they are lying, but they are still lying. Alexander snowball snitch skin. That's the sole snakeskin. Doesn't Jordan Peterson. Talk about , uh , soul, soul, soul, Michigan. Hmm . All right . Brilliant quote. I absolutely love that one. I'm glad that this is going to be saved. And our last question on this segment is from farmer's daughter says the best punishment for Fowchee is to die in obscurity. So , uh, certainly we don't want him to die. Right. We certainly don't want that , uh , anybody to die on this channel. We don't talk about violence here, but I think I understand your point. There farmer's daughter that , uh, you know, sort of , uh , uh , ride off into the sunset. Okay. You know , thank you for your 15 minutes of trying to save the country. You did a terrible job. Thanks for your service. Uh, have a nice day. We'll go on to the next fake doctor. The other thing that I , uh, that I always thought was very interesting here is why the Biden administration stuck with Bouchie . You know, I understand the need for continuity between administrations , uh, but you know, it might've , it might've served them well to start off with a fresher face. Okay. So great questions. All those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com and we got a lot of people in the chat over there. Let's give a quick shout out, say hello to Jeremy sold Vikings over there . Farmer's daughter Joe's . Now you heard from them. We've got over on YouTube, say hello to the chat over there. We've got red Ford. We got Zorro Christine, 1 6, 2, 0 fours in the house, Jay Mann , Curtis Bartle , and many others. Everybody thank you so much for being here. And if you want to join up and join our community [email protected] . All right . So thank you for that. We're going to move on to the next segment of the day. The Capitol hill riot was something that caught a lot of people by surprise, but some of the sentences, not so much for a long time on this show, I've been talking about the idea that the Capitol hill defendants are being prosecuted as political prisoners. Essentially, we've talked about many of the defendants that have not been let out of custody. Some of the conditions that they're being held under, and a lot of the due process violations that I've called out repeatedly. Now we're coming to the conclusion of some of these cases. And today the judge handed down the first felony sentence for a man named Paul Hodgkins . Let me show you what he looks like here. This is the photograph that many people have seen at this point in time. We've talked about these defendants a lot over here. I think you can see Jacob chancellor with the Bullhorn over here. And so we talked his case. This guy is Paul Hodgkins , and he was right there with him. He's 38 years old. He sentenced to prison for eight months for obstructing Congress's efforts to tabulate and to certify the electoral vote. Okay. And so pay special attention to that. Why is this guy going to prison? Well, obstructing Congress's efforts, right? To do what tabulate and certify the election. We see here, he's holding a Trump flag. He stands in the well of the Senate floor during the January 6th . And so anytime you're going through a case, right, you got to , and we're analyzing it at least in terms of , of justice. And what's fair. And what's right. We've got to ask ourselves what was the crime that was committed? What was the harm that was done to society? And I've got a lot of problems with the types of crimes that really don't do much harm to society. We talk about, you know, non-dangerous drug use personal consumption for recreational use. Sometimes people get charged with crimes for that, and they get imprisoned and all sorts of stuff for something that, in my opinion, really is really a non-dangerous non-violent offense probably should just be decriminalized depending on what you're talking about. But the point here, what are we talking about? The conduct? Why was he, why is he going to prison? Let's see if we can break this down. What we're going to do is we're going to go through the arguments that took place during the sentencing. For those of you not familiar chorus , I am a criminal defense lawyer. And so at a sentencing proceeding, what happens is you will hear arguments from both sides. The government via the prosecutor will come out and they'll say, listen, judge, this is why this case was so bad. And we're going to be actually asking for a major penalty. In this case, it was 18 months as we're going to see, then the defense comes out and they argue the other way. They say, no, that's ridiculous. That's way too much time. We want something significantly less than that in this case, it was probation. And so we're going to be seeing now how the judge dissects the, the offerings, the opinions, and gives us a final sentence. Let's see what's happening here from Politico written by Josh Gerstein. It says a federal judge handed down the first felony sentence in the January 6th , storming of the capital case, sending a Tampa man L Florida man to prison for eight months for obstructing Congress's efforts to tabulate and certify the votes. The sentence for Paul Hodgkin's went on Monday. He was there. The judge who ruled on this case was judge Randolph Moss . And we're going to look, we're going to look at him here in the next slide. The defense asks for his no prison time. They wanted a probation type of a deal. Judge Moss, as he was sentencing, him sent a profound and dangerous message said by raising the flag, it was a problem. The symbolism of that act he says is unmistakable in that act. He captured the threat to democracy that we all witnessed that day. People have to know that assaulting the Capitol and impeding the democratic process. Even if you don't come bearing arms will have consequences. So let's read that one more time here. Let's pay special attention to this. The act of symbolism of that act is unmistakable. So, so to this judge, symbolism was very important. So symbols also very important. Uh, the first thing that we learned that if you obstruct congressional efforts, that's a problem. So obstructing congressional efforts is a problem. Symbolism is a problem, and we also have a threat to democracy. Okay. What does he say? Impeding the democratic process is a big problem. The judge said this, that impeding the democratic process assaulting the United States Capitol . So assaulting the Capitol is also a problem. Let's see if we can, we're going to just put a pin check, check that off. Okay. Symbolism, democracy, Capitol building. Even if you don't come bearing arms got that to obstruction of congressional efforts. Okay. So just put a pin in all of that. And we're going to, we're going to revisit all that here in a minute because the judge has a big problem with that. So we want to make sure that we're just clear about what this judge has an issue with and why eight months of prison is appropriate. Let's let's see who this judge is . So district judge Randolph Moss is over here and you'll notice that, that he was appointed back in 2014. That means he was an Obama. Appointee, went to Hamilton college, 83 Yale law school in 86. He's the current chair of the committee on criminal law liaison administrative conference went to law school, worked for John Paul Stevens of the U S Supreme court clerked for a number of different places. Worked at the U S department of justice. He was a deputy assistant attorney general. So he was a prosecutor for a bit acting assistant attorney general from 2001. He left there. I went to some other places, got confirmed, took the bench in DC circuit in 2014. So we know the judge, we know the sentence, eight months prison. We know that the judge doesn't like symbolic displays that interfere with the democratic process that are an assault on congressional buildings. So like the U S Capitol or like different congressional buildings. They're also obstructing congressional efforts. Got it. Okay. Just remember that. Now the government, why were they asking for 18 months? Let's meet the U S attorney. This is Mona said key . You can see her here. She's an assistant us attorney had recommended 18 months sentence to promote the respect for the law. Ooh . Okay. So we know what the government likes respect for the law. So law and order, and they also want to deter a future riot at the Capitol or another, you know, I would say governmental building the details of the day were quite harrowing said key acknowledged that Hodgkin's wasn't violent or destructive himself, but he witnessed officers being injured and rioters spraying chemicals. So he didn't do those things. He just saw it. I guess that's a problem. She said he was ready for conflict with goggles and gloves. Okay. So preparation benefited from the violence. So he benefited from the violence of the others. So if somebody else is being violent and it helps you you're in trouble, he was among 50 people who made it into the Senate chamber. Okay. So keep in mind this also, right. We're talking about location. So people in the Senate chamber, we have a new fact that is , is problematic for the government and for the judges. If you're inside a physical location in this case, the Senate chamber, oh, that is going to be problematic at its core. This was a grave danger to our democracy. So we have another us attorney who is ranting and raving about democracy, democratic ideals, and going through the democratic process. She was so over the top here that she called this an act of domestic terrorism. See that right there, an act of domestic terrorism. This is Joe Tillman . Joe Tillman is a reporter over at Buzzfeed. She was there actually during the sentencing hearing. So she gave us a play-by-play of exactly what the government said. Let's run through this now, for those of you who do not know, the federal courts don't allow you to record, or they don't live stream or any of this stuff. So you can't even record anything. So you actually have , you see all the paintings and the pictures of people in federal court. That's because nobody can actually , uh, record anything. So Zoe Tillman was there. She gives us a play by play. So she says, the government Mona said ki wants 18 months and three years of , uh , I'm sorry, supervised release. So not only 18 months, but also three years. Right? So this guys would have a probation officer or somebody he's checking in with, for the next three years. That is not instant significant K it's very expensive. It's a big pain in the rear. You've got to sort of be compliant with somebody for three years. So not only 18 months, but another three years on top of that. So almost a full five-year penalty for this. And so we're going to talk about that. She begins by saying that there were disturbing aspects of the offense, the goal was to subvert the election. So we also don't like subversions okay. So if a subversion happens, that's a problem. She says the methods of the riots, the writers use was problematic, like intimidation. Okay. Keep that in mind, judge jumps in to note that he wasn't accused of violence. And he says, the government says, yeah, but his role was intimidation. Just being there. It's important to consider the context. So just him being there was enough intimidation. So that's almost like violence. It's not actually violence, but almost said, key says, this is the government that the, of the various injuries that were caused by rioters Hodgkin's was critically involved in the first type of injury, which was imperiling democracy. Oh my gosh. So imperiling democracy is an injury , right? So , uh , he wasn't actually violent. He didn't actually strike anybody. There wasn't actually any physical harm that was caused, but he did imperil democracy with his, with his offense. And which you could arguably say about basically anything, right? Any type of crime that causes disorder in our society is disorderly. It's causing our society harm. Well, you're trying to harm our society. You're trying to wreck Arizona. We're a democratic state here. That is an insurrection act because you're just trying to ruin us. You're imperiling our democracy here. What a joke. Another injury said key talks about is the emotional injury to who, to who the lawmakers like AOC, like those people who are hyperventilating with their PTSD, because they were rushed out of the building before anybody got inside another injury, motional injury to lawmakers and staff and law enforcement who were trapped inside for hours. Many will bear emotional scars for a long time or forever. She says, okay, said Ky argues that Hodgkins came prepared for a conver , uh, confrontation. We already saw that said key . The government also says the reason the government is seeking the mid guideline sentence was that throughout his time, he doesn't turn around. When he's in the Capitol building, he doesn't turn around and go the other way. She says that she struggled to come up with a pithy catch phrase that would resonate with the court because prosecutors are not very creative. So instead she stresses a phrase that Moss and other judges have used, right. Using their language, saying that Hodgkin's participated in quote, a grave danger to our democracy. So not very creative, pretty boring, pretty bland, not a surprise though. The us attorney over there. And she is out there just using the same language that the judge used. Why would you not? Why would you try to create something clever? Just do whatever the judges already saying. If the judge already said, this is a grave danger to our democracy , uh , just pick up that language. Everything else gets copied and pasted from the us attorney's office. So why not that? So, all right . That is what the prosecutor was talking about. A lot of emotional scars happening there for a lot of people. And you know, the, the lawmakers have a lot to deal with. So this attempt to imperil democracy, even though it wasn't violent, other people were violent, but we're going to sort of impute that to here to Mr. Paul Hodgkin's . He was in the vicinity. Other people were committing the criminal acts, but he was nearby. So we're just going to sort of , uh , attribute that to him. If you think that's a very good standard, that's a reasonable standard. If you'd like your son or daughter to be out at a club or a bar or something like that. And somebody does something crazy and they were just there, you sort of get imputed their activities. Don't you? How would that feel? Not too good. Let's see what the defense attorney here had to say. Paul Hodgkin's lawyer is Patrick LaDuc. He grew emotional. He insisted it was a mistake to brand this as terrorism. He said, it's a protest of Americans that got out of hand, right? Domestic terrorism is the, is the language that they're using now. And I want to make a special point on that. Okay. This is the us attorney's office. This is their official policy position. Now this attorney didn't come out here and wing this case. Well, judge, I don't know. What do you think? 18 months? How does that sound? Okay. This isn't a us attorney who went to her boss, a bureau chief somewhere over there and they decided this is going to be the decision they're going to ask for this for nonviolent felony offenses. In my, in my estimate, moving forward, this is the standard and that request for the 18 months and the three years probation, they're going to probably offer that to a whole slew of other defendants that exists . Now, the problem with this is that the is the characterization of the offense. This is the us attorney's office saying specifically, we are calling these domestic terrorism. We can't charge it as that. They're charging obstruction, obstructing Congress, but we're going to call it that. We're not going to charge you as a domestic terrorist, but we're going to call it that. And we're gonna let you plead guilty to obstruction. And then we're going to go into the courtroom and scream in front of the judge that this was in fact domestic terrorism. Okay? If it was then why don't charge him with any offenses like that? Why are you letting this domestic terrorists get away with an eight month plea deal? Because it's not domestic terrorism. And what you're doing is you're trying to captivate the judge who you know, is previously inclined to Dogpile on the Capitol hill defendants using language. That's going to , you know, ring the bell for them. And you're doing it in a way that is going to make a penalty for a particular defendant, grossly worse than other similarly situated defendants. Paul Hodgkin's penalty is significantly worse than other people who did similar conduct. As we're going to see. Paul Hotchkins says his defense attorney is not my enemy, not a domestic terrorist. LeDuc serves as a Colonel in the army reserves. He says all of this commentary about January six, being an act of domestic terrorism. I find it to be offensive. I think it's gaslighting the country and it needs to stop. It was a protest that became a riot. Yep . Leduke said that if the Capitol riot amounted to domestic terrorism, civil unrest in recent months in Minneapolis and Portland should also be categorized the same way. It says, quote , if we're going to label this protest as domestic terrorism, then please consider this. Where do we draw that line? Expressing concern about first amendment rights, but Moss , the judge jumped right in and said, we rejected the suggestion that these were just a political protest that got rowdy. It's not what he said, judge. He said it was a protest that became a riot. It's right there in quotes. It's right there. He didn't say it was a protest that got rowdy. There was a protest that became a riot. It wasn't domestic terrorism here is a, an image from court today. Of course we see judge Moss over here saw him. He sort of looks like that. We've got the defendant over here, Paul Hodgkins . And we have the attorney and we have the U S attorney down here. Mona said ki who , uh, apparently is wearing a mask still. So they're all wearing masks still. So that's good. All right . So Hodgkin's spoke to the court. He addressed the judge for about 10 minutes express contrition, portraying himself as someone who tried to discourage other protestors from escalating the situation. He said, quote, while I take some solace in knowing my actions did not involve any violent or reckless behavior, my involvement did contribute to the great problem that took place. The company of us who remained calmer in our protest may have emboldened others to carry out the destruction. He said, he knew it was wrong, but he thought that the charges he would face would be a kin to trespassing, which would be reasonable in a country that actually had a justice system. It was my mistaken belief that the consequences would be fairly minor. Yup. Well , uh, it , it, maybe, you know, maybe if you didn't have a newly oriented justice department that was politically prosecuting people, you would be correct. But unfortunately you got the wrong crew in there. Obviously I was very mistaken. He works at a press operator for building products, probably going to lose his job. When he's in custody for eight months, I saw that over on Twitter. However, he did go out of his way to say he no longer believes Trump won the election. It says, I completely acknowledge and accept that Joe Biden is rightfully the president of the United States. Right. Which is obviously true. So, okay. So a little bit of a mayor Kulpa there, right? This is what happens in these cases. People do something that is problematic. They recognize they did something wrong. They get caught up in a flurry of activity. They make a mistake. And the goal of society in one defense lawyer's humble opinion should be about rehabilitation restoration to make sure that the person learns something about that. And doesn't have their life wrecked by eight months in prison. And all of this media fanfare that is singling out this case differently from other similarly situated defendants. It is an unequal protection of the law. The justice department is protecting other people's Liberty way more than it is Paul Hodgkin's . Let's take a look and do a little bit of a compare and contrast showy . We have Indiana resident over here, Anna Morgan Lloyd. She was sentenced to three years of probation. And why is that? Because she was in the Capitol rotunda. Huh? So she was in the rotunda and she got three years probation. So that's interesting because Hodgkin's, they also wanted the three years probation, but they wanted additional penalties for him . So why was that? Huh? So he wasn't, let's take a look here. Let's take a look at this as a , uh , a breakdown of the Capitol building. And so we'll notice that Anna Morgan Lloyd three years probation, because she was in the Capitol rotunda over here, which is right here, right in the middle of the building. And so we know she was here in the, in the center, but , uh , oh, Paul Hodgkin's was over in this room. And so this room, this difference here between these two rooms is , uh , eight months in prison. So if you're standing here, you get zero months in prison. But if you just walk a few feet over here, you get eight months prison, right, right. In the Senate chamber. So I think that is really the only distinguishing factor between the two cases. And , uh , Morgan got three years probation and we got another one let's see here, Florida resident, Michael Curzio was sentenced to six months in prison on a similar charge. So again, we have another defendant who gets less time than him. Michael Curzio six months in prison. Huh? Well, why is he getting less than eight months? Good question. Maybe he has some other factors in his background that mitigated that down. Let's see what those might be. Oh, here it is. Uh , due to a past murder conviction. Oh. So actually he goes the other way. Pass murder conviction ties to a white supremacist prison gang. He was kept in jail on the capital related charges. He's going to get credit for time served. So we have , uh , an ex ex attempted. No. Yeah, he was he's a convicted, attempted murderer with a conviction. Also has ties to a white supremacist prison gang. Guess how much time he got six months. Gotcha. Guess how much time Paul Hodgkin's got eight months. Does Paul Hodgkins also have an attempted murder conviction or white supremacist prison ties? I'm guessing not . So what is it then? I don't know. Let's see else. During the hearing. Hodgkin's lawyer said that what he did was very similar to Morgan Lloyd, which is up here, but the direction that they turned after entering the Capitol made it worse. He noted that more than 200 people were arrested for disrupting the Senate hearings that took place during Brett Kavanaugh confirmation as a Supreme court justice. But that the defense attorney who I'm trusting his research, he said that those people who were charged with those infractions, they carried fines between $35 and $50. Okay. So the defense attorney is doing what we talked about many times here doing the compare and contrast you say, Hey, that defendant got that, that defendant got that. And that defendant got that my client is in a better position than all of those other defendants. Here's why no criminal record mom loves him lives at home. Has two cats raises , uh , you know, bunny rabbits and is somebody who just is an all around general good guy. Right? Very, very loving goes to church and walks a little old ladies across the street when they need help. So that all is happening. And we expect a reduction in the penalty, not here though. In fact, Hodgkin's gets a worst penalty than Michael Curzio. The formerly convicted, attempted murderer. So it seems a little bit off there. Doesn't it. Then we can, we can pair it to the Kavanaugh protestors. And according to this attorney finds $35, $50 all because they were lumped in this area, right? Somebody goes in here and they stay here. Zero prison. Somebody goes over to the Senate chamber eight months prison because they walked over there and took a picture. Now, when we do our little compare and contrast, you can absolutely look back to the Kavanaugh hearings. I know many people were not as involved as these in these as I was because I'm a lawyer. And the Supreme court is very important to what we do. So I paid close attention during the Kavanaugh hearings. And there was a lot of activity that many people have forgotten about. So let's take a look at what happened the day that Kavanaugh was supposed to be sworn in, in the Supreme court. This is a governmental building. We know that the language they use previously was all about assaulting the Capitol . Remember the judge said that interfering with democracy, intimidation, trying to stop a process from happening interfering with a formal governmental process here. Here's what happened. This was from CNN Kavanaugh to be sworn in as a Supreme court justice here's chief judge Roberts here doing the swearing in Kavanaugh, got confirmed. This is the door to the Supreme court right here, the door front door. You can walk right in here. We're going to watch what these people are doing.

Speaker 5:

These are live images, folks at the doors of the Supreme court, where you can see protestors have gathered. They are that their voices be heard as they anticipate who will, what, who the person who will be a new Supreme court justice judge, Brett Kavanaugh, to be sworn in here at any moment in a bigger picture, you can see approximately how many people who have gathered there. It looks like there are ,

Speaker 1:

Okay. So what would happen if somebody opened one of those doors? Right? What would happen? If, if, if , uh , let's say hypothetically that , uh, uh, you know, an officer just opened the door, would those people have gone have gone in there and we've already heard from many other people that the entire backside of the congressional building was essentially unguarded. We know that Maria Bowzer refused any help. We know from Kash Patel that they had said specifically that they were kind of shocked at how unguarded the Capitol building was. So if somebody opens a door, you've got people literally banging on the door where those people have gone into the Supreme court that day, I'm guessing, yes, they were literally banging on the door. If it had been opened in one way, shape or form, they would've been walked right in there and charged with similar offenses. And so you might say, Rob, well, yeah, I know, but they were on the outside of the building. They never made it in there. There was no interference with the process that never happened. Very similar type of stuff did actually happen inside the Senate. During the confirmation proceedings, I've got several clips, let's run through them. Here is Senator Orrin hatch. You see, he's a Senator. This is in the Senate chamber, which is the same exact location that Paul Hodgkins was in. Let's take a listen and see if there's, we're looking for interference with the democratic process. We're looking for intimidation. We're looking for the undermining of American values and American ideals. We're looking for , uh , a way that this, this whole process might be derailed. Let's see if we can find out what happened here.

Speaker 6:

The DC circuit is often referred to as the second, second highest court in the land because it here .

Speaker 1:

Alright. So Senator Orrin hatch got interrupted by this lady over here

Speaker 6:

During his time on the bench. Judge Kavanaugh has heard over a thousand

Speaker 1:

Cases. All right . So we got an interference right there. We've got some intimidation going on right there. We've got accounting , uh , you know, a formal process that's supposed to be going on. It's taking place right in the Senate chambers. We've got a protester and it wasn't just her. Right? The whole thing was infiltrated. Here's another. And all right , so more interruption, more interference, more somebody might even say, you know, insurrection almost. They're trying to interfere with a democratic process. And guess what that woman gets where she is right in the middle of the Senate chamber. The same spot that Jacob Tansley was the same spot that Paul Hodgkins was. Again, interfering with the process. Now you might say that the time duration is a little bit different in , uh , on January 6th , the interference that took place, the stopping of the counting of votes was really for what? About three hours, four hours, maybe they were counted. The votes that night in this case, the democratic process was interrupted. I don't know, 30 seconds a minute. Right? But it's the same act. It's obstruction of Congress. It's preventing Congress from doing their democratic duties. Also took place in the Senate. So why is this woman getting charged with a $35 to $50 ? Fine. She's actually in the building. She's actually interfering with a process that's taking place right then and there. So why, why now? Why is she getting a , just a fine, and these other people are not, let's see if we've got some other ones. Here's another one from within the Capitol . [inaudible] Intimidation. They'll breach then a good judge. Never. All right . So another one, right? The list goes on and on folks, this happened the entire time. They were just infiltrating it , standing up interfering with the process. The whole list goes on and on now it wasn't as you know , violent. It wasn't as , uh , problematic, as you might see from some of the imagery from January 6th , but neither was Paul Hodgkin's case. Okay? If you're going to try to lump up the entire January six case and dump it on Paul Hodgkin's backs, that is not appropriate because he is not responsible for that. He's responsible for his activity only, which is very analogous to a lot of these other protestors that we just saw was inside the chamber, interfering with the democratic process, they got $25, $35, $50 fines Hodgkin's gets eight months in prisons. Give me a break folks. I don't know what to tell you other than this is a clear political prosecution. It's obvious. Everybody knows it. Now, there is some people who might say, well, well, what about interference with the, with the votes? Remember this guy, remember this guy when he was in chamber and he was interrupted counting votes. Well, it happened again here,

Speaker 4:

Sergeant at arms, the most order in the gallery,

Speaker 1:

I do not consent. I do not consent. She's screaming. Very shrill. I apologize. I should've given you a shrill. Warning. Interfering with the process

Speaker 4:

Keeps going . Sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery. Sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery. Mr . Mansion. Here it is. Again, clerk will suspend the Sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery. Sergeant at arms will restored her in the gallery.

Speaker 1:

All right. I can't take any more of it. The , the , the voices are just too much for me, but it's not that dissimilar conduct. Okay. Comparing Paul Hodgkin's to them. Right. And we're doing the compare and contrast. You have to ask yourself, what were the differences with Paul? Was he a more serious hardened criminal in the past? No . Somebody else with a more serious pass got actually less time than him. Was he more violent than some other people? No, actually not at all. Even the us prosecutor confirmed that the violence was imputed to him because other politicians were scared and other people were being violent and he was part of their crew. So , uh , we're , we're seeing a lot of stretches here to try to make this thing happen. The government of course, bought it hand in hand and Fest . They it's , it's theirs now. So they're going to make sure that this is the line that we see moving forward. And I thought that maybe it was just me. Maybe I just thought, okay, man , you know, this is my perspective as a defense lawyer, but I actually checked in with a prosecutor that I follow very regularly, post some good stuff. His name is shipped wrecked, Cru . Uh, he regularly gets into it with Barney over there and at Shipt rec crew dot [inaudible] dot com. You can find it where he posts a lot of good stuff. And I , and I read some of it, you know, he's, he is certainly a prosecutor, right? And you can take a look at that from here 22 years as a federal prosecutor. So keep that in mind eight as a defense attorney. So he sort of did the old , uh, the old switcheroo over to the, to the light side. And now he is somebody who posts on Twitter. So 22 years, as a former prosecutor, he might have some insight into what's going on. Let's see. He says that Moss's sentence, which is the judge. So he's referring to Hodgkin's sentence, but Masa's sentencing of Hodgkin's is the result of collective behind the scenes discussions by the judges. Okay. He's saying that they are basically getting together and they're setting a standard and this is not uncommon. I've actually seen this in my career, practicing law. I used to have a, I don't want to get into specifics here because everybody's still, you know, judges and things, but oftentimes one judge judge doing something that seems like it's in the interest of justice. They'll , they're sort of that peg that his staff is standing up a little bit and the rest of the system will smash them back into order. If one judge stands up and says, no, all of these capital six , uh , January 6th, defendants should be all be given probation , uh, that we can't let that one stand. That judges is standing up a little bit. So they're going to smack that judge back down, they're going to talk to the presiding. They're going to , you know, they're going to have their , their entire , uh, you know, crew get together and set a standard so that no judge is the odd ball out. So that's what shipwreck crew was saying here, that they are now going to be in collusion with each other. The last thing they want and the government put them in this position is to have a range of sentences given to January six , defendants with similar or identical facts, which is exactly right, right. That's that's what people like me are gonna come on here and scream about, say, why did this person get a harsher sentence than somebody else who is similarly situated that does not seem right? Is , does not seem just so in order to prevent that criticism, they just say, well, everybody gets the same thing. Even if you are somebody with no priors, they're going to make sure that you get stuck. Anyways. He says, we will see the 15 to 21 month guideline apply to many cases. Defendants who have a criminal history, the range will be higher for those who don't, we're going to see six to 10 months, but this is where the no violence felony pleas will end up. And he made the same observation. He said the Kavanaugh protestors and tens of thousands of protestors before them were all handled the same way. But the Biden DOJ changed its handling just for the January 6th defendants. No one else. Right. And I absolutely agree with that. So this is a former prosecutor from the us attorney's office who is confirming that. And I think we're in sync on that. All right . So let's take a [email protected] . We've got a nice form over there. Quick shout out to those of you in the chat. Baranski's here now. Relic hunter. We've got Joe Snow in the house over on the YouTube side. We got Zulus here. We've got Kenneth reader . We've got K bean . Good to see you. We have red Ford and Tim Grandville and David Von Kettering. Good to see you all over there, chatting away on the YouTube chat. All right. So we're going to take some questions over from the form that we have. Let's pull that up. Let's see what we've got coming in. We've got a lot here. Let's see, we're talking about Hodgkins here. It is. Soul Viking says still no word on the unindicted co-conspirators it seems as if there was a, not a word spoken or written about them, even though from various accounts, we've heard, there were dozens. You know, it is an interesting case. Uh , it was another story that I want to talk about. I'm hopeful that we can get to it this week, but there was a , uh , an FBI agent who was involved in the governor Whitmer case that was just arrested for domestic violence. And so there , I have a lot of issues now , uh, seeing a lot of issues start to unfold for the Whitmer kidnapping plot, because allegedly one of the FBI agents who was involved in that sort of setting up that entire thing , uh, arguably some interesting things might happen with that case based on the discovery that we get in the domestic violence case that has been filed against the FBI agent. But other than that, so Viking, I don't know much about any of the other , uh, any other movement on the co-conspirator stuff. Thunder seven says, Rob, how are the corrupt DOJ deciding who goes on trial? Political prisoners denied bail then kept in solitary, only accused of trespassing. When are their trials, a new admittance from Capitol police that the buildings were evacuated due to pipe bombs and nothing to do with the people visiting the capital like tourists. You've talked about how unjust this persecution is, but when will the people be freed? So it's really hard to say, right? Because there is no standard time. Now there are, you know, there are a speedy trial rules and courts like to see cases, you know, move through. They don't like a bunch of old cases sort of lingering on their dockets. They want to make sure that they can get processed and out because they've got more cases coming in. And this is, this is serious, right? There are a lot of courts that treat themselves almost like corporations. You know, they, they, they measure their metrics. How frequently can we , um, can we close a case essentially? So, you know, the government has an incentive. The courts do at least to push these things through the government has been asking for continuances and big ones just saying, Hey, we need 60 days. Cause we can't get our act together. And then we have other sort of outlier cases like the Jacob Tansley case, where Jacob Tansley is now going through some competency evaluations over there in DC. I, and so he might be in custody for a longer period of time because those mental health evaluations, those competency hearings can take some time. And so, you know, some cases might be resolved quickly. Like Hodgkin's was, he took a plea that closed out quickly. Some of these other cases might take two years, right? They could go on for a long time, depending on how, on how long the judge will allow it to go. All right, let's see what else we've got Sharon Queenie's here says, okay, so this is outrageous. He didn't get a fair trial. Cause he didn't, he didn't go to trial. Right? He took a plea deal. How could he, why didn't he get a change of venue? This is a political persecution. Worst of all was how they forced him to a confession, same methods as the CCP and remorse for what entering a building. If you were Antifa or others, maybe there would have been a better deal saying that the , the very big danger to our democracy from the unit party. It's a good comment there, Sharon, thank you for that. Good to see you. Next up, we got pili . Wally is here. It says off topic, but I wanted to say, even though I'm in Scotland stuff that happens in the U S sometimes isn't so far ahead of the UK. And so it's a good way to stay up to date your stream. Rob is the one I follow most. I love it. Keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing the wall behind being fixed. Meet me too. I apologize for that. It sort of is a, is a bad branding thing. You know, it's supposed to be like this, you know, hard go getting attorney. And it's like, my building's falling apart right behind me, but I apologize. You know what I mean? It's part of the deal. Uh , you can see, I added this, this painting over here. That's not going to be permanent. Probably. I've got a different vision. I'm thinking wallpaper or maybe a bookshelf, like rights , uh , here. Where am I here? A bookshelf and some other things, but I did get some lights up and fixed. So my lighting's a little bit better. Look at camera. Let's let's take a look at camera two camera three over here so we can see some of the color balance is a little bit better. So I'm playing around. I'm having fun with it. I'm really grateful that you're checking in with us. Good to see you. PLE Wally John Dolores here says, so when the Democrats it , for months making it clear that they would let wouldn't let up until Trump was out of office, that wasn't impeding the democratic process. They got off scot-free you're right. Super ironed . Bob is here, says it shouldn't be a shock, but it's stunning to see how nakedly corrupted the federal court system is. In these cases. I have no idea how it could be reformed. It's a good question. Got a lot of thoughts on that. And I'm working on a different presentation for that. Thank you. We got speech unleashed says, I think our founding fathers would have defined the January 6th as patriotic and participating in democracy after all, they went to the Capitol to complain and protest instead of burning and loading property. Have we forgotten that the Capitol belongs to the people and not to the politicians? Yeah, that's a, that's a, that's a good point, right? It's it's certainly not the house of the people where you can just go and sort of commandeer it, but that's not part of the people's house, but certainly right. It's it's, it's more analogous. I would say to a protest than it is to domestic terrorism, which is how it is being categorized. It's a protest in the riot that went wrong. No question . Let's see, we got RO Butte days here. So it says, screw that judge. He hates Trump supporters has an ego. The judge. Okay. I'm glad I didn't. I'm glad I didn't post that one up here. Sharon Courtney says, here comes out old song again. This is not America. I think the movie was Falcon and snowman and let's see, we're going to , we got tos forever says can the over-emotional expressions be a lead to prevent the American people from ever visiting Congress simply to learn more freedom taken away. That's from tos forever. We've got Seawolf here, says wasn't 20, 20 a year full of insurrection across the U S or does that only apply to the Capitol ? Hmm . Legally, what is it? So insurrection. So we've , uh , I don't have the language off the top of my head here, but we went through a lot of the different language that we found kind of around the , the federal code and insurrection was not one that that really fit. I mean, they could, they could look, they could have charged with them with a more serious crime. They didn't because it doesn't fit legally. I don't have the answer for you see Wolf right now. But I did an old show back on this, right after January six, where we talk a lot about the different definitions we have Cove queen says is if this is domestic terror. So is the summer of summer unrest and Camila is an accessory. Yeah, because she was bailing people out on her Twitter, see Wolf says, how does the insurrection act apply to the BLM riots? Or does it not good question? I think we know the answer to that. We have, [inaudible] says what's worse is the U S district court federal court system is a joke. We're not allowing recording it hides political prosecutions and corruptions. I like accountability here. You know that what a joke. That's a, yes. People should assume that, okay. That there are some serious problems with our justice system. Oh, sockets here says, Rob, maybe the defense team should start their own talking points or phrases to downplay. The narrative facts are not working, maybe play the feeling card. So I'm not sure that they actually did kind of try that today. His attorney was , uh , uh , I'm reading the next comment. Uh, their attorney was really making that pitch, right? That this is a good man. This is a good person. And this was a mistake, which I think is a valid argument. Ms . Lucky is here, says Sergeant Bob , Bob raises and cares for bunny rabbit. See, I was trying to throw out a bunch of Nate , a bunch of things that amazingly good people with good souls and warm hearts do and raising bunny rabbits was one of the first things that came to mind because they're just so cute and fluffy. And here we go. Sergeant Bob over in our own community, raising bunnies . Well done there . Sergeant Bob, thanks for sharing that. Ms . Lucky. Good to see you. Both. We have leafy bug is in the house, says off with their heads then. So their heads back on , uh, I think you're talking about dolls and sewing, which is not the subject of this , uh, this , uh , segment, their leafy bug. We also have, Sharon says, if your shoe has been on the other foot and the Dems engaged in the riots, they'd probably be getting a Nobel peace prizes. Want to know, says he entered in the Queens chamber without permission. It's very bad. I think a lot of this has to do with the photos, right? If you have a very bad photo taken of you and you're in the Capitol , in the middle of what they call an insurrection, you're going to get a worse sentence. It's a photo penalty because I think it's just a photo penalty. Or maybe it's a costume penalty. If you're wearing a costume where you have a flag draped over your shoulder, that is what causes the prison. Because the other people who were protesting during Cavanaugh's proceeding, they didn't really have those things. Did they? Hmm . Maybe that's it. All right . We got sold . Biking is saying, Hey, Hey, ho , ho not a riot. Just the beauty of multiple peaceful protests of Javanese . Kevin. I was big date, two sets of justice for the same acts, $35 to $50 fines, wild channeling. My in a Florida girl says these, these terrorized Congress, people earn this were demanding the refunding of police in the riot zones. They didn't care about the terror residents were going through and went right behind their security as soon as it happened, star them. Good to see you. They're channeling Florida girl. We have , uh , aircraft mech 1, 2, 3, who just joined us . Welcome aircraft says Hodgkin's is just an unfortunate pond. Like Shovan right. It's the scapegoat. It's finding that one, a standout case and making sure that they get the full weight of that hammer coming down. And unfortunately right there, that that happens, right? They gonna have to make an example out of somebody. Oh, Sox has Rob think we were missing the big point here about what a failure to secure the capital by law enforcement was. And to think that there would be no problems that day. I think that equal blame should be placed on them. So Osaka is talking about this concept of contributory negligence saying that, Hey, the government was partially responsible for allowing all this to happen. So why don't we just make them partially responsible for that and reduce the defendant's penalty accordingly that works in civil cases, not so much in criminal law, but I understand the perspective and there's some good, there's some good, I think a conversation happening about that. Did the police opened the doors? If so, right now you can sort of say that this is a , you know, less about a formal trespass and more about, you know, a questionable trespass, which doesn't help much. But I still think it's an argument. So three girlies is here says, so setting a fire to a federal courthouse with people inside of it in Portland, Antifa and BLM get no sentences. They were disrupting democracy. They should not get this . They should get the same sentence for damaging federal property. Is there any way Hodgkins could appeal the sentence? No. I mean, he , he agreed to take the plea and he agreed to the range of the sentence. So that's all been, it's all been done, right. He knew what the range was and decided to leave it up to the hands of the judge advice of his attorney. And of course, probably many other people who said that you should do this. And so the attorney I think was actually a fairly, fairly , uh , happy with the results. Although I don't think I would have been, but maybe , you know, maybe look, you don't know what the context is like in that situation. And so , uh , he, you know, he had, he maybe had to take a deal. That's all we can say about it. Hard to second guess a defense attorneys decisions after the fact. All right . And our last comment on this section is from feisty lady says wallpaper and a bookshelf, not , you need a hunter original, which I think that's a great idea. Feisty lady. You know, one of my favorites of hunters is the fungus in milk painting that he did that looks like you sort of left a bowl of Cheerios out kind of for two weeks. Right? Kind of like what happened in college? You know, when you and your roommates would just throw a bunch of cereal bowls in the sink and just let him sit there for like two weeks and be like, will you clean your dishes? And somebody finally goes and does it, and you go, oh, hunter Biden lives here. Look at all this beautiful artwork that's smashed across our , uh , our counter. Oh, what a joke. All right . So great questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for all of your support over there. And we've got one final segment here on the show today. Jeff Bezos back , let's do that again. Jeff Bezos blasts into outer space today. He said it was the best day ever because he was riding on a rocket ship that he built his own company called blue origin. And now he is getting a lot of flack from this many places in the media. And I actually kind of am , uh , excited about what he's doing and I have a little bit of a different perspective to share. And so let's talk through it. Let's get started with a headline over from the AP says Jeff Bezos blasts in the space from van horn, Texas. He went on a board of rocket ship becoming the second billionaire in just over a week to ride his own spacecraft. Amazon founder was accompanied by an 18 year old from the Netherlands 82 year old from Texas, the youngest and oldest ever to fly into space. And so he came out and said the best day ever capsule touched down on the floor. It was a 10 minute flight. And so , uh , look, I've always been , uh , somebody interested in space. I think that that, that is sort of, you know , one of the remaining frontiers that is out there and I like new frontiers, and I think it's exciting what's happening. But a lot of people are saying this guy, this billionaire out there, he is just flying around up and outer space and millions of the , the little people like me all down here are just being left behind. Whereas I think there's some truth to that, but let's take a look at really what's going on here. Let's let's poke around the media. Shall we? The rap reported that Jeff Bezos, a , a phallic shaped rocket launches, Dr. Evil comparisons, right? So a lot of people throwing shade, congrats, the Jeff Bezos on getting so close to a perfect Austin Powers reference one person tweeted. We have another one over here. This one came over. I think this is from the New York post said that yet Jeff Bezos flight is an ego trip. Yes. But it sets the stage for so much more. Right? So a lot of people are making this position that it's an ego trip. Sure. Which of course, right. Obviously it is no question about it, but bad thing let's continue on. We have over here from media, it says that Jeff Bezos is ridiculed for a tone, deaf victory lap, thanking Amazon workers. And the shopper is saying, you guys paid for all of this. Okay. Which he did say, we're going to play that clip here in a minute. And so it's sort of , uh, out of touch a little bit, right. It's Hey, you know, I just came back from a , an amazing spaceship ride that many Americans will never get to experience. But I think paying for that is what Jeff Bezos said. So I can see how that might rub people the wrong way. Now you might be asking yourself, you might be thinking well, that's only for, you know , the liberals out there. That's only for the Democrats, the people who want to harm private productivity who want to come crashing down on free markets and things like that. But not really Jack [inaudible] , somebody who I follow. He posts a lot of very good stuff. I appreciate all his work. He was very similar to this this morning. He said the mega billionaire owner of the Washington post now has his own spaceship to fly through or orbit while his monopolies ruined the lives of the people far below. Right. And so Jack [inaudible] is regularly, you know, sort of , uh, right. You know , very far right. In terms of , um, a lot of the stuff he posts. And I think a lot of people would categorize him as that. I really appreciate his work. I like him. I follow him. I think he's a good follow. He posts a lot of great stuff. I actually get a lot of , uh , links for the show from him and from some of the stories that he shares . So I'd go check him out. But , uh , that being said, I , I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with this take. Okay. First of all, let me explain that the Washington post is a garbage newspaper. Okay. I canceled my subscription over there. I used to have it just for show prep and it really is that bad that it's not even worth subscribing to anymore. So I had to cancel that today. It was up for renewal and I literally canceled it coincidentally today because it is that bad. I don't even use it. And the content is just copy and paste journalism. It's terrible. So that's gone. So he's right about that. But he has some concern about flying through orbit while he's got his monopolies. Right. And so we're seeing this division right now, at least amongst people on the right sort of what I've been categorizing as a , as a battle between the free marketers over here and the populace over here. And I think the , both of them have great points and a lot of brilliant ideas. And I like both of their concepts and I want to bring them together. I want unity in this country, just like Joe Biden wants us all to want you . So why are the populists so angry with Jeff Bezos? And why are the free marketers not understanding why the populous might be upset with Jeff Bezos? Let's see if we can figure this out, but before we do, let's take a look at what actually happened here. So I want to show you a couple of clips from the launch today. It's pretty cool. If you're not interested in space, then you can bail out of here. A lot of you already did, but let's take a look and see what is a what's going on here. This is a picture of the launch from Bezos. And so obviously, you know, some of the criticisms about the shape, of course, you know, I can, I can see it, but , uh , it is what it is. It looks like a pretty functional design because what happens here is this bottom part of the spaceship will detach and this will actually land again. It will actually land back down on the planet and the passengers inside will fly back down through parachutes. That kind of looked like that, which actually looks terrible. Let me get rid of that. So what you see here, they're going to be parachutes coming out of the top there, and that's going to slowly just bring it back down to earth. Nice and nice and , uh , peacefully. So let's take a look at how that works . Here is the launch. We're going to take a look at 18 seconds from the countdown timer. We'll watch it together. It's going to be about 45 seconds. Then we'll watch the landing and we'll go through some analysis

Speaker 2:

Minus 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 command under the star two one.

Speaker 1:

All right. So I mean, that's look, man. That's, that's pretty dang cool. The fact that somebody can sort of, you know , separate and apart from the government, not requiring NASA, not requiring, you know, $20 trillion from the government and bloated over massive bureaucracies can actually do this in their lifetime. Jeff Bezos was a young man wanting to go to space. Started the biggest company in the world became the richest man in the world now flying on his own rocket ship, going to space, man, there was something wild and cool about that. I hear a lot of people who were sort of like to forget about their boyhood excitement, right? A lot of those dreams that you had as a kid. And I, I, there was, there was a person in my life who really sort of rattled, rattled me out of this a little bit. I was at the seminar once and there was a , the person speaking asked everybody in the audience and said, Hey , uh , this was a business seminar full of all business. People like me and what the conversation was, how many of you read fiction? Right? Nobody in the room raised their hands. How many of you read nonfiction ? Everybody raised their hands. I had my hand raised up and I was sort of doing so saying, oh man, what a, what a very intellectual person I am, man. I'm so intelligent. I don't read that fiction. I don't, I only stick to business. I read self-development books. I want to improve my life. I want to learn more. And all of that stuff who cares about, you know , uh, some, you know , elves floating around in the clouds, whatever, what he said at that point was you were making a cat dystrophic mistake. If you were not reading fiction, you're limiting your ability to think big. You're sort of smashing the wonder that exists in the world by not exercising it right by using your imagination as an adult, by thinking big, by setting huge broad goals and saying, I'm going to fly a rocket to Mars . Everybody goes, that's insane. Right? And that'll never happen. And there are naysayers all over the place Elan's working on it right now. So when that happens in 20 years, maybe we'll look back on that and say, man, it's pretty neat that we have some people thinking big, because what Bezos did here is , uh , is, is, is really incredible. And a lot of people, because it's an incredible thing. They're going to be poking fun at it. Let's show what else happened here. This is coming back down. And this is , these are the two parts. Okay? So the head of the , uh , spaceship flew off. And this is the booster. This is where all the fuel was. It's going to actually land back down land. It's not going to fall and break apart or burn up in the atmosphere. It's going to land. It's actually going to watch this. It doesn't even look real. It looks fake.

Speaker 5:

Thank you again, everybody for joining us live for our first UN flight on new Shepard . So far nominal flight. Our booster is about to return to its landing pad. There we see engine it's , Sonic and booster. Touchdown. Welcome back new shepherd . There it is a beautiful rocket that provided a beautiful flight to space. What's first

Speaker 7:

Step , your booster has landed.

Speaker 1:

Well , what on earth? This, the spaceship goes up. The top comes off. The thing just goes up. Just going to land right back down here. Just go up. Here you go. Oh , just like that. It's insane. That's insane. Okay. Now you have to appreciate an engineering feat . When you see it. That is absolutely one. And this is , this is incredible. This is the top part of the device landing and Bezos and the crew are inside 70 feet, 50 feet. And there it is. Right? Nice, hard landing. They're all laying inside there, back shepherds

Speaker 5:

First human crew

Speaker 1:

Folks. Uh , you know, it's a big deal, right? This is the richest man in the world who said, I trust this technology enough. We've had 15 rocket launches. I'm going to put myself in it. I'm worth $150 billion. Not a big deal. I'm going to go up to space. It's safe enough for you to do it too. And you don't even know where this might end. Right? You know, 20 years from now, your kids might be taking a trip up there because of the framework that these guys are laying down. And many people think that this is just a joy ride, right? Many people think that this is something that , uh, is, is, is totally useless. And many people who are on the left wing in particular are regularly saying things like, well, well, you know , what about poverty here? What about the planet here? How much , uh, how much energy are you burning when we could be using it? How much pollution are you creating by launching those rockets up there? And I want to show you how Bezos thinks, right? How these guys think they don't think in those terms. They think in terms of, you know, 200 years from now, and this is a clip from the interview. As soon as they walk out of the, sort of the exit room , uh , this journalist caught him on the way out. And I want to show you what he says, because he's thinking strategically, he's thinking about offshoring all of the heavy industry from our planet and launching it into space. And let me show you, I mean, this is, this is, this is big vision stuff. So let's take a listen and see what he has to say for the

Speaker 5:

People here on earth who are wondering, why are we investing all this money in space this time and space. Talk to us about how you believe this will actually help benefit us here

Speaker 8:

On earth. Yeah, well, this is what we're doing is we're building infrastructure. This is a road we're building a road to space so that future generations can build the future. We live on this beautiful planet. It's the most beautiful planet in the source system by far. And we have to keep it safe and protect it. And the way to do that is so slowly over decades to move all heavy industry, all polluting industry out, into space. That's what we're going to do. So we can keep this planet, the gym that it is, but to do that, we need reusable spacecraft. We need low cost spacecraft. And to get that we've got to practice and that's what this tourism mission

Speaker 5:

We saw your kids greet you on the ground. I have four kids for the kids watching. What, how do you want this to inspire them ? Well, they're

Speaker 8:

Going to , you know, kids are, they are all, if every kid has so much potential inside of them and what I hope that what we're doing a little bit and is , is unlocking that. So for kids everywhere, if you, the way you unlock potential is with inspiration. I was inspired as a little boy by the Apollo astronauts. And you know, this is a next phase of commercial , right ? So

Speaker 1:

You kind of get the gist of it, right? There's Bezos talking about it. I love the idea that we're going to be removing the problematic industry off the planet, sending that out into space. I think that makes a lot more sense than trying to abandon earth and go to Mars and create a second planet there. I love the , I love that they're doing both of them. Actually. I think, I think that these things are very important and he's getting a lot of criticism for this, right? It's a big ego trip and this is not useful. And I just, I just, I fundamentally disagree with it. He came out today after the, after the event and says, I want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer, because you guys all paid for this, what? And you go, wow, that's a really kind of bizarre thing to say, right? A lot of people say I'd like a refund and everybody on Twitter was skewering him over this. Here he is. Right. Not, not best public relations statement, but let me explain it to me . I also,

Speaker 8:

I want to thank , uh, every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer. Cause you guys paid for all of this so seriously for every Amazon customer out there and every Amazon employee, thank you from the bottom of my heart very much. Uh , it's very appreciated.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So, you know, a lot of people are going to be very critical of that statement and they're going to say, oh, so , uh , you know, I bought my widget that you shipped over from China. And , uh , you're exploiting me in order for you to go and write up in space and you go, nobody ever forced you to buy your product from Amazon, right? It's a voluntary deal. You bought your product. Amazon made some money. They did it in a way that improved your life dramatically. My life is way better because Amazon exists then before Amazon, obviously all of ours are. And so Jeff Bezos is going to win for himself. And then he's going to help the rest of the world, win in many different ways. And this is a different strategy, right? It's win and help. When I talk a lot about this year at our law firm saying that we're gonna win and we're gonna help other people when you can, you can do well while doing good. And you can do it in a way that actually creates some , some momentum, some progress in society, the government by contrast, okay. They actually force you to take your money. You have to pay them regularly and they really don't provide you that many benefits. Okay? It's all sort of just part of the deal. You just have to pay money to the government. Why? Because that's it, you know, death and taxes. Those are the only two things that are certain for us. And so we just all sort of accept that facts . But what if there's a different way to think about this? What if by, by doing business with something you can actually create more value. One plus one doesn't equal two, one plus one equals three. We get better service because we use Amazon. Amazon makes some profit. Jeff Bezos is able to push the limits, create a separate platform for launching things into space, which may long-term solve global warming solve all the climate crisis problem by removing all of the polluting industry off of the planet. So, you know , if anybody would be interested in this, I think it would be the sort of the left wing and the people who are , uh, you know , very in favor of , of climate change initiatives. Because this seems like it makes sense to me. The other criticism that I've seen a lot is that Jeff Bezos doesn't pay his taxes, right? Oh, he doesn't pay taxes. Amazon doesn't pay any taxes, which I agree is problematic. And this is the problem. This is where we start to see the divide between the free marketers and the populous . Okay. The free marketers say, well, so what, so what if he made all that money? It's a voluntary conversation. You can just choose not to buy Amazon anymore. And then the populist say, well, no, you can't because they've kind of built up a monopoly. And the monopoly now is securing Amazon at the expense of all of the other potential competitors. Nobody can possibly compete with Amazon because they own everything. And I have a problem with that, right? I've been very critical about Amazon and AWS throwing parlor off. And I, the Washington post is trash . And I think that , well , Bezos does largely , uh , at least from a cultural perspective is not that good for the country guys like him and other billionaires in the millionaires and all of them, you know, the , the Bernie rants about they all are okay with using the government benefits to get to the top. And then when they get to the top, their first incentive is to pull the ladder back up from under them. That's how they create the monopolies. But why are people mad at these people for just playing the game better than you, right ? Bezos and Facebook and , and , and Zuckerberg and all these guys, they're just playing the game better. They know what the rules are and they're exploiting them to hell it's hell and back. And so many of us as Americans, we sit around and we go, well, that's just wrong. You shouldn't do that out of the goodness of your heart. You know, you should be a better person. That's not really how our system was set up. James Madison talked about this specifically pitting ambition against ambition, pitting one. Person's willingness to go out there and conquer for themselves and to create something against somebody else's same and similarly situated ambition. And what happens as a result of that competition is a synthesis into something that is bigger and better. So here, yeah. Look, the populous are right. The government has enabled Jeff Bezos and mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey and the Google people to create these monopolies. The government is responsible for it. I'm not mad at Jeff Bezos for not paying any taxes. I don't want to pay any taxes, either taxes, aren't destructive. They are not good. Look what happens when you don't have to pay any taxes, you , you can fly to the moon. You can create the biggest countries in the world because you have gotten to the point where you can sort of create an environment for yourself that is better suited for you. Jeff Bezos is , is on the right move, right? The whole country should pay less tax, less taxes because everything would be better. Taxes are just a burden on everything that we do. They're , they're taking useful resources from something that is productive into something that is nonproductive . I trust Jeff Bezos to do more with his, not with his tax dollars than the U S government does because the U S government is trying to, you know, build a usable space program for a long time. They couldn't figure it out. Paizos did Musk did Branson did so they are using their resources much better than the federal government is. And I think that that's not a bad thing. And I think that our country would do a little bit better by having people think big. And we all think big, we all get in touch with that boy hood wonder and say, what else can we do? This is amazing, right? If I was an eight year old boy watching this, I would be doing cartwheels. And this is, this is crazy. I could be an astronaut mom. This is wild. And so I want to continue to encourage that. I mean, who else is talking big in this, in this country and this world other than private entrepreneurs, Bezos's Musk is many other people are, but nobody in the government, all they're doing is just fixing problems that should have been fixed. 30 years ago. It is a crumbling system. The U S government private industry, private infrastructure, I think, is going to see a resurgence and the problem going to come in when there's a mix of the government and these big industries. So the populous are absolutely right on this. The government created this problem. The government allowed these big monopolies to create themselves and to exist in the first place. And we know how button paid for all of our stinking election elected officials are every time that any one of these billionaires gets hauled in front of Congress, nothing happens. They ask them a bunch of softball questions, and they just say, we don't know anything about that Senator and nothing meaningful happens. It's basically useless at this point. All right. So Jeff Bezos exciting day for him, I think is exciting day for America. And I'm excited about where this is going to continue to go throughout my lifetime and hopefully my kid's lifetime. So we'll see if that happens. We'll see what happens with all of that and more, we've got some questions coming in over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's see what those looks like before we wrap up the show for the day we've got Sharon Quintin . He says, Hey, I think Bezos in space is pretty cool. I mean like, why not? If you can afford to launch a rocket into space, a fun ride, right. Go for it. I agree with that. Yeah. Miss lucky says, Hey, it's his money? So we got, we've got some , uh, we've got some, I like it. I got some ambitious people. We got Kenny, one piece says , Bezos rates , 67 miles in altitude. The space station flies at 250 miles, man. Not that great after all. I think there's some truth to that, right? So it's, it was like 11 minutes. And you'll notice that the space suits and everything, we're not exactly what you sort of see if you're going to Mars or to the moon. Right. So conditions are a little bit different. We've also got chairman of the board is here, says, what did they expect his rocket to be shaped? Like his competitor is Virgin. Boom. It's chairman of the board with a good one. Oh, that's a good one. I love it. Well done. That's probably yep . I think you, when Sharon quit and he says, okay, so bayzos is a little tone, deaf and really out of touch. But again, why shouldn't he be? But Sobek does have a point though, right? I'm not saying that the Sobek doesn't have a point. I'm just saying that there's, there's some, some very, some very important reasons why he has a monopoly. I don't blame basles for that. I blame the government for that. If Bezos creates a monopoly because he played the rules better than, than other people. Well, that's his benefit, right? And I was thinking about this this morning, I was thinking about this in terms of video games. Okay. When I was , um, when I was younger, I would play video games with my brother. Who's not with us anymore. And we would, we would play mortal combat . Remember that game. And my brother would always be scorpion and he would always sit there and he would go back back, be back, back, back, back, be backpack , be as he was sitting there throwing the scorpion hook. And every single time I would get the scorpion hook, I would get, you know, get over here. He uppercut me, I'd fly back the screen. As soon as I land, he backed back B and it , get there , get over here again. And guess what he, what my butt all the time. And he would probably get beaten after those things, because that's what older brothers do, two younger brothers, but the point remains he was winning. Cause he was exploiting the rules. I could have easily picked a different character and figured out a strategy, but I didn't mad at him for that. All right . Let's see what else we got. Speech unleash says, I think Bezos and Elon or important four are in competition for who can produce the more adult-like content crypto names versus shuttle shape more adult-like okay. So I see, oh my gosh. I see what you're saying. Yeah, because Elan , I was very disappointed with him. He was promoting this very pervasive , uh , garbage coin out there. Lovely lady is here, says I love space adventures as well, but I would have preferred to take that energy out and roll out a plan that Amazon can pick up their shipping boxes that are already in their neighborhood and take them to a recycling plant. So much goes straight into the garbage it's like he's taken a dump on the world and flies off to find a new home. Thanks. Feel free to stay rocket man. That's a great point. Lovely lady. Right? There's a lot of that. I think Amazon has actually addressed that. I'm not sure what their answer is though, but I think I do recall them saying that, you know, my question though, is, are, are we recycling still in this country? I thought that China stopped buying all of our recyclables. And so I think that there was a flub in that market and the recyclables market. I'm not sure what the status is of that thunder seven says, are these elites really flying into space? Are they blasted or being blasted over to get moat ? If you get vacs , you can develop a serious blood clot when flying are these elites Vaxxed. Oh , that's a good question. Right. And were they wearing masks? Were they wearing masks on that spaceship? I want to know I want to get to the bottom of that. You know, you and I, if we have to fly to space, we got to put our masks on why? Because the TSA and our , uh, bureaucrats in Washington said it's face masks time. But if you're a billionaire on your own rockets, you don't even have to wear a face mask. What is this country coming to? That's ridiculous. All right, Sharon Courtney says, now, if it was running on the taxpayer's dime different story, you can contrast this with the mask list Dems in their air, beer bash, running from responsibilities. Nice comparing contrast in the show today. Good to see you there, Sharon. Thank you. We have super ironed . Bob says , uh , one hazard missed in the discussion between the populace and the free market is that the policy is in support of the free market. Often sabotage populist efforts. Yes. Like when Republicans bring businesses to an area, but those businesses bring liberal policies and employees with them replacing the community and drowning out the concerns of the locals. It's a great point. Super iron Bob. It's a great point. And I, and I agree with that, right? And so this is where I think, you know, a lot of the free marketers, I think have this rub with the idea that the populists want the government to come in and break up. Some of these companies, the free marketers start flipping from the rooftop saying, wait a minute, you're going to interfere with the free market and the populist response. And my response would be, no, this is not a free market, right? The markets have been entirely manipulated. We have a system where the network effect has created these mega mega corporations that are essentially mandalas, that, that really have so much political power that they can prevent the government from regulating them to a large degree, which has been the case since the 1990s, section two 30, hasn't been touched and they just get all in and they get whatever they want, essentially. So the populous response is ideally, you know, this is the band and approach. This is the Tucker Carlson approach that the government caused this problem. And so ordinarily, yes, we would prefer pure markets where, where the markets are free to sort of regulate themselves. But the government perverted, the markets, the government disturbed everything. And so that allowed guys like Bezos and Zuckerberg to create these monopolies. And so now, because the government caused the problem, they were the only ones with the regulatory power to come in and break these things up and whittle them down to size. So that there's , uh , you know, there's a more level playing field. The markets are a little bit more even, and the populous get what they want. They get guys like this paying taxes. I think that look, if, if , uh , if all of us have to pay taxes, bayzos should have to pay the taxes too . Right? It's not fair for , from a fundamental perspective that somebody like that can sort of escape the , the, the bounds of the law, but I am not pro taxes. Okay. I would, I would much prefer that, that instead of bayzos paying what we pay, how about we all just pay what bayzos pays and we don't have to pay any taxes either. That might be a much better solution in my eyes. We also have wants to know, says, sorry, it looks like a female deodorant proud products . I would do it. If I could, it would be a blast. Of course you would. Right. Of course you would. A speech on leash says, got to hand it to Bezos. He isn't littering the orbit by having the booster returned to the landing pad. I applaud that maybe NASA will learn from it. Yeah. It's very, very cool. Musk is doing the same thing. Sharon says vertical takeoff and landing. What an amazing engineering feat. Fantastic. Wow. Yeah. It's incredible. Jeremy says when one has built the most profitable, one of the most profitable organizations in the world, one is earned the right to launch oneself into space. I haven't seen Elan's response to Bezos, but I've seen Elan ASCE , which would be more impressive seeing a pod parachute to the ground or seeing a rocket land upright on its boosters. Just saying. Yeah. So , uh , they did land. So, so their boot , their , their booster did land, but the, the, the top did not one B says the highest weather balloon went 31 miles in altitude, Sr. 71 flew 17 miles space station is at two 50. The space shuttle fluid orbit between one 90 and three 30, basically when 67. Hmm . Yeah . So I, I think it's know , I don't know what the categories are and I don't, I think it does matter actually, because this is the game that they're playing Bezos said that , uh, Branson's wasn't high enough, right? No , that's great. But he's sort of casting shade on Branson. All right . Sharon says, okay, so Democrat climate politicians are worried about Paula pollution. They might start by shutting their mouths . That would stop a lot of the non-existent global warming, as well as mental and environmental pollution from Sharon C. Wolf says great point about thinking big Rob got to stay a kid at heart, but it also certainly helps to do big when you have a big bayzos budget. And no question about that Seawolf . Yeah. You can think big when you've got an extra 150 billion in your bank account. It helps. Okay . Uh, not that I know of from experience, but I would guess that it does aircraft Mack . 1, 2, 3 says Amazon employees, thanks for enduring low wages to ensure that I live out my childhood dream. That's a good point. Aircraft Mac . And it's a , it's a valid one, right? It's a very valid one. There are inequities in society. There are hierarchies. No question about that. And , uh, you know , I don't, I don't know the condition of Amazon's employees. I certainly don't want people to be, you know , working in unsafe or unsavory conditions. Uh, but you know, I, I , I still think that fortunately many of those jobs are , um , not mandatory, right? They can just decide not to work there if they don't want to work there as far as I can tell, but I could be off on that. We have another one from Osaka saying Rob off topic, but did you see the ARS statutes from weed convictions? I did. I probably did actually tos forever says, oh, my word, sending poison out to, into space without the historical concerns learned from all the previous launches and how they will cause issues on earth space travel is one I , one issue I agree with, but trashing space, no way. That's interesting. Tos . Yeah. That's interesting. So I think maybe concerns that the , maybe the trash comes back and actually interferes with the planet in a more problematic way. Yeah. That's a good question. Miss lucky says, I like this. It gives everyone a chance to dream. Remember star Trek, the flip phone . People never thought we would have the phones we have now. It's good to have an imagination and see what we can do in the future. I couldn't agree more. I think it's, I think it's very important and we , uh , we lose a lot of that rope . Your day is here. It says, I don't like Bezos monopoly, but he has every right to travel on the rocket. The problem with the rocket is that people have a huge fuel payload. Can't carry many people on it. Ilan is not going to Mars. Anytime soon, it's going to take seven to 12 months to travel from the time needed to travel normous amount of supplies to make Mars travel viable, the nuclear propulsion. Yeah. We're going to see a lot of that. I think coming in the future, we have to under seven says, can we blast the entire Texas dams ? We ran out of town to space, maybe. Yeah. They're they're into private flights. So maybe they can , uh , hop a board . Bezos. We got into Darby's here, says, I think they want to turn the moon into what Epstein island was. Maybe Epstein is already up there. That's why it's only for rich folks at first. Yeah . The island is a little bit too accessible now, but people are flying drones over that thing. So they got to send out, set up a moon base up there. We also have, see Wolf says, Bezos may not have paid taxes, but it doesn't. He still have a tax liability. Like every year, like every income earning American, I'm not a tax attorney, but I , I believe he business deducts his way out of tax liabilities. So it's a , it's actually even more , uh, really simple than that Seawolf. So what he does and what many of these people do according to , uh , where was that leak? There is somebody just leaked a bunch of stuff out. I can't remember the organization that did that, but they leaked out , uh , a bunch of high-profile people's taxes. And the way that this whole thing worked is billionaires will get lost phone's on their stock. Okay. So let's say , uh, you know, Bezos has 50 billion in Amazon stock. He goes to a bank and says, I got 50 billion in Amazon stock. I want to take out a $50 billion loan. They say, no problem. We're going to secure it with your stock. So he goes, okay, great. I got 50 billion liquid. So now what I'm going to do is I'm going to use that liquid loan money to fund all my auntie , my , uh, my , uh, endeavors, whatever I need , my mansions, my flood Plains , all that stuff. Then what they do is they pay back the interest on the loan, which is a non-income taxable event that is just interest on a loan. So they're sort of getting a revenue stream, paying taxes essentially only on the income that is only on the money that is being paid to pay down the interest on the loan to pay the interest of the loan. So that's how they avoid taxes. They pay almost $0 and they've got, you know , billions of dollars in liquid money that they don't ever get taxed on. So it's a very, very unique little, a scam they got going on, but I think it should be rectified. Eat on test says Bezos and his taxes is far more complex. You have to define how much Jeff does own personally. And what part of his net worth is Jeff does not have 222 billion in a vault swimming around like Scrooge McDuck, which was a great show. What was that called? The something the, I don't know what it was, but I used to watch that as a kid, that's hilarious. Three girly says fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisoned by the enemy, don't we consider it as his duty to escape. We value freedom of the mind and soul persons of Liberty. Then it's our plane duty to escape and to take as many people with us as we can. This is breeding fantasy, like past space flights , read it in him. Love that. Ah , it's great. Great love that. I agree with that. I think we need to , I think more like that, a lot of us do robot day says I don't like the monopoly developed by Bezos. The government should not be giving subsidies to corporations. Also, Robert, the 16th amendment should be we repealed and we should generate tax revenue because it is needed. Hey, good to see you. We've got a few more screen squeezing in here. We have dreamer pandas here says yes, space. Having supercomputers in space would be awesome. No cooling needs. We can use solar for power and beam. 12 G Facebook down to earth. Can you put supercomputers in space without, yeah, because I don't think you can cool them , right? Because it's a vacuum. So you need, need a medium to dissipate the heat. So I'm not sure how that would work in space. We have another one chairman of the board says, I agree about taxes. It drives me crazy when people complain about billionaires, about how we should tax them more because they have the money. I wish they would instead look to the rules that help them become billionaires in the first place. And then as you always say, pull up the ladder after themselves. Yeah. How about we all talk about creating environments that allow us all to succeed would be better. It's like, you know , it's like when you're a kid and you have a , a toy and your sister has a toy and your toy breaks and you say, mom, my toy broke. She has a perfectly good toy over there. And you say, your mom says, yeah, that's right. And you say, well, that's not fair. And mom says, well, that's too bad. Life's not fair. But how about you break your sister's toy so that you're both, even now things would be fair. Bezos doesn't pay any taxes. He should pay tax . I have to pay taxes. We should break his toy and make him pay taxes too. So both people just have to be shoved into a garbage, useless system. No, not all . How about we just make better environments for all of us. We also have, Jeremy says, honestly, I don't have a problem with Bezos living out his childhood dream, but I would have a problem at Bezos started sending my Amazon orders into space prime delivery to the moon. Hey, you know, it's possible. We need, we need to, you know, we need to shift our production. All right . Last one is coming in from Watson . No . Who gave me the answer? It's DuckTales folks. That's right. Duck tails is the name of the cartoon. Thank you for that. From want to know, and that is it, everybody. Those were the questions that came in for the day. I appreciate all of them. Let's take a quick shout out. Say goodbye to everybody over on locals. We've got Joe Snow Relic hunters over there. Let me jump to some of these more recent messages. We've got be brave, Joe Snow. Uh, the chats going on over there, over on YouTube. We've got Andre Sanchez. We've got Jenny B. We got planned hooky over there, Zulus in the room again, along with Kay bean . And I'm seeing some comments that maybe the , uh , maybe there was some problems with the chat over on YouTube or something like that. But it seems like it might be working on my end. All right . Well, those were all great questions. Once again, over from watching the watchers.locals.com . If you want to sign up over there, we'd really appreciate your support. Want to welcome a couple of new members you signed up. Of course, these were a bunch of new signups from last week. I want to of course welcome all of you. But over the weekend we had a whole bunch of new signups . I'm so grateful for it. Let's welcome, George Klaus, over to the community. We got Trump. Trump. Trump is in the house, signed up very recently. We got Whit 1 7, 3, 6 , signed up to be a girl. 74 is in the house. We got Shelby. Berenger who signed up. We got Zau. AI is here. So we got , uh, maybe, maybe some artificial intelligence is here, which is good. We could use some more intelligence on this show. Aircraft Mac 1, 2, 3 saw you today. Signed up. Welcome to you, Tim Flynn is also here. We got some yearlys you signed up to support us for the year. Thank you. We have engineered 12 volts is here. Welcome to you engineer. We got blue tiger. Dog is here, which is awesome. Named [inaudible] H rad is here and we have super ironed . Bob saw you here today, Bob and CB Ridell . Number one, all joined [email protected] and it's man, if you want to sign up all of you , uh , of course you're invited. I expect to see you here at our monthly locals meetup happening on zoom on this Saturday, July 24th, this weekend. Oh my gosh. It's like a few days away. Can you, can , can you feel the energy? Can you feel the excitement? I know I can. Whew. It's going to be a good one. So watching the watchers.locals.com and the registration link, I'll post the rest of this week. My friends, I want to thank you all so much for being here and being a part of this show. We'll be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow, 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central and 7:00 PM on the east coast for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I will see you here tomorrow. Bye-bye .