FBI Wray Damage Control, Jacob Chansley Mental Competency, Mississippi Abortion Brief to SCOTUS

Now the democrats are mad at the FBI as the country unifies in anger against the Intelligence Agency. News in the Jacob Chansley (Q-Anon Shaman) case shows he may be considering a plea deal and we review the government’s latest discovery filings. Mississippi Attorney General files a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States fighting to uphold a state abortion restriction.​

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

🔵 FBI in more hot water – this time from Democrats (!) – over the handling of tips being provided to the FBI during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.​
🔵 Townhall calls the FBI’s media push “damage control” in response to many recent public failures.​
🔵 We meet Jill Sanborn, the Executive Assistant Director with the National Security Branch.​
🔵 FBI has two principles: 1. Protect Americans 2. Protect the Constitution – which one reigns supreme?​
🔵 Jacob Chansley may be trying to negotiate a plea deal for his part in the January 6th protests.​
🔵 Reuters reports that Chansley’s medical competency evaluation may been completed.​
🔵 We review the government’s latest discovery memorandum and see what evidence they have disclosed (and what they haven’t).​
🔵 Mississippi’s Attorney General Lynn Fitch files brief in the case of Debbs v. JWHO which address abortion in the Court’s October term.​
🔵 Review of the press release and arguments put forth by Ms. Fitch.​
🔵 Review of the Question Present and Introduction of Mississippi’s brief filed with the Supreme Court of the United States.​
🔵 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 #FBI #Wray #JillSanborn #Kavanaugh #Coverup #DefundTheFBI #DamageControl #JacobChansley #CapitolHillProtests #Jan6 #QAnonShaman #LynnFitch #Mississippi #Abortion #ProChoice #ProLife #Conception #Life

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

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 a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to start off by talking about what's going on with the FBI. We've been spending some time on the show, talking a lot about the FBI, poking fun at them, for their failures, all over the place to secure the Capitol building, to, uh, apparently find anything going wrong with governor Whitmere, uh, allegations over there. And now the Democrats are also mad at the FBI for failing to turn over some information that they received during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. So we're going to take a look at that story, and then we're going to sort of rewind the clock back a little bit and meet a woman by the name of Jill Sanborn, who is the executive assistant director with the FBI back in may. She was on a podcast and she helped to Flint, uh, flush out a little bit how the FBI thinks as it relates to sort of protecting America as well as protecting free speech. So they've got this kind of gel juggling balancing act that they're trying to, to balance over there. And so we're going to talk about that. Then we're going to change gears and talk about what's happening with Jacob chancellor. Jacob chancellery, of course is one of the Capitol hill protestors who is still in custody, has been in custody ever since this whole thing unfolded. And now it might be the case that he's trying to negotiate a plea deal. If you recall, last week, when we talked about this, I believe it was last week. There was some indication that Jacob chancellor, he was going through a mental competency evaluation. And so we've got some information about what's going on there. And then we've also got a new memorandum from the government. So the U S attorneys they've been saying, we can't get our act together to the degree where we can actually turn over evidence to the defense, because there's so much evidence. There's millions of pages of documents. We have all these problems. We're trying to figure it out over here. So they submitted a memo to the court, providing the court with an update about what's happening there. And so I want to show you what's going on specifically how much data they are trying to decipher and sort of work their way through before they can transfer all of that over to chancellor and the other January 6th defendants. So we'll talk about that. And then in the last segment, we're going to get into a social issue here. My friends, we're going to be talking about abortion because this is now working its way up into the court system. We are seeing different states sort of look at the new posture of our new Supreme court. It's now a six to three conservative majority. And the question is, are they going to reverse or overrule some of the prior case law on abortion, specifically the planned parenthood, Casey versus planned parenthood. And of course, Roe vs. Wade. So Mississippi, the attorney general there, her name is Lynn Fitch. She filed a brief in a case that is going to be in front of the Supreme court in the October term of this year. I believe so. We'll see. Uh, we want to go through this, this brief. We want to go through about this question because there is an abortion case that is going to be coming in front of the Supreme court very soon. So we've got a lot to get to, if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com where you'll find a form right now, it's, it's available for you to ask a question, use that forum and all of those questions will then come to my screen. It will be able to work our way through them that we're also having a live chat going on over there. We have want to nose in the house. We have COVID Queens here. We have, uh, uh, another Cove queen angel B says, anyone notice Rob's close buzz on the right side. So that would be over here. This is a birthmark actually. So that's not, uh, they didn't screw that up. It's just a birthmark. It's just something that's been there. My whole life, all that's over on watching the watchers.locals.com and over on YouTube, we've got super chats. Now, let me show you what happens when you get a super chat. This one came from yesterday. And so that will pop up on the screen. We have that functionality back, which is very cool and also hello to Curtis Bartel. Ashley truth hurts. We have Zulus in the house over there playing hooky. Uh, Zulu says they're going to pack the courts now, so, so that they can kind of, even those things out, we have, uh, playing hooky, Southern BICS, and many others also on YouTube. So we've got multiple screens going out. I'm trying to watch everything and we're going to have some fun as we get into the news today. So let's go ahead without further ado and get started. All right, the FBI for a long time on this channel has been the subject of some criticism. Most of it I think is well deserved specifically. We've had some problems with their preparation for January six. We've had some questions about what's going on with the governor Whitmer investigation. And we also now have the Democrats who are not too happy about what the FBI is doing because back during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, when we were going through the Supreme court nomination for the latest Supreme court judge, prior to Amy Coney Barrett, we had judge Kavanaugh. And you remember this was where we had the, the whole allegation that, that this guy was some sort of a sexual deviant, I guess, back when he was in high school. So allegations from 25, 30 years ago popped up. And the FBI, after all these, you know, 30 year old allegations started to crop up. We have a bunch of people throughout the country who allegedly had tips. They wanted to sort of on Brett Cavanaugh's background when the, when this was at its height. And what happened was apparently the FBI set up a tip line said, Hey, send us your tips on Kavanaugh. And then they didn't do anything with it. So they just said, well, we're just going to send a couple of those over to the white house. And we're just going to forget about the rest of them. So the Democrats are now out saying, what w we didn't want Kevin on there in the first place they're saying we knew that he was a sexual deviant and all of this information might have been useful back when this was working its way through our political system. So let's go to NBC news and see what they have to say about it. It says Democrats blast the FBI as new details of the cabinet inquiry emerged. FBI said it got 4,500 tips about then Supreme court nominee. Brett Kavanaugh forwarded the relevant ones over to the white house council. So a group of democratic senators are unhappy about that saying these new details are concerning because they wanted a very thorough investigation into Kavanaugh, Senator white house, the guy who apparently is a part of a, I guess, a racist beach club, something like that needs to distract from that a little bit. So now he's going after the FBI saying that the congressional affairs office acknowledged the department conducted only 10 additional interviews in its supplemental investigation, even though it received over 4,500 tips, Tyson said the relevant tips from phone call and messages were forwarded to counsel. It's unclear what happened to the tips after that? So on the one hand you can say, all right, well maybe they were doing their job, right? Maybe there was 4,500 Democrats who were saying, yeah, Kavanaugh, you know, molested me also. And the FBI said, no, you didn't because you weren't alive 35 years ago. And they just got rid of, you know, 4,490 different, uh, tips that were just useless. And so that might be, uh, you know, I guess one way to, to approach it. But I would probably suspect that there's a pattern here, right? The FBI has been pretty much ineffective on a lot of other things. So why wouldn't they have botched this one also, right? I think the Democrats are probably onto something, right? They probably did screw it up because they screw most things up, including routine investigations. So that's happening now. The FBI seems to be, and to other people to be out there trying to do a little bit of damage control. This caught the eye of Katie. Pavlich over a town hall. You can see this here. She posted and said that the FBI is attempting to do damage control after initiating a little provocative, they're initiating the Whitmer kidnapping plot, right? So you could say provocative or the truth, right? We still don't know really the details, but what she's referencing is some of this conversation that we're seeing from the FBI, from their Twitter account, this is what it looks like. And they posted this on July 21, a couple of days ago, right? So that partnerships are key to disrupting violent plots. And you're going to see the language start to work its way back towards a lot of that fear language, right? Anytime we start to question the legitimacy of our government or our intelligence agencies, the first thing they do is they say, well, we're protecting you from terrorists. You don't want terrorism. Do you, you don't want your house to be blown up. Do you? You don't want another nine, 11 or an insurrection, which was way worse than that. Do you? That's why you need the FBI. So we start to see that right. Protecting the United States from terrorist attacks is the FBI's top priority. We work closely with our partners to disrupt violent plots and keep our community safe from harm. Remember this, I w the last time the FBI posted a statement, we've spent a lot of time talking about it. It was like two, two or three sentences, the last one, but it was precision engineered persuasion, right? They they're, they're, they're an intelligence agency. They're very good at language and communication. So you would imagine that their tweets would be top notch and they are right there. They're very, very provocative protecting the United States is what we do from what, from terrorist attacks and it's our top priority. Well then why every single day on your Twitter account, are you posting pictures of grandma in the, in the congressional buildings, right? Trying to find all of those people, because that seems like to us, what you're doing, that's where most of your efforts are going, because that's what we see you talking about all the time. We've been hearing this from a lot of people from the FBI, including Christopher Ray, and many others talking about domestic violent extremism, talking about domestic terrorism, talking about what was, uh, what occurred on January six, being the worst thing that has ever happened in this country since the civil war. I think Biden even said that you're a part of his, his executive branch. So we know what, what this means to you. The question is that constitutional is what you're trying to do now. Something that is allowable under the law, and we're going to get there soon enough. When we get to Jill Sanborn, who is somebody who's going to tell us how the FBI balances, these things. We have the duty to protect American lives. We have the duty to preserve the constitution. The FBI has got these two little, you know, this balancing act to deal with. So we're going to see how they, how their posture works around there. In spite, in light of the, these, the most recent posts from the FBI, we see a lot of people taking the opportunity to dunk on them. Sean Davis posted, are you the same FBI that rented an apartment for two to the nine 11 hijackers? The same FBI that claimed the attempted assassination of Republicans was quote suicide by cop the same FBI that claimed that the Fort hood was the workplace violence, or was that a different FBI, right. And sort of the list goes on and on. Right? I think the, um, the pollster clubs shooting was sort of miss was miss, uh, uh, characterized at the outset. I still don't know what the heck happened to the Las Vegas shooter, whatever it was, the story there, you know, that one's still gone. So, uh, yeah, I'm not real sure that the FBI is, is all that, that focused on they claim to be okay. And then we have Ron Coleman. Another lawyer over here says it doesn't count if you set the fire yourself punks, you know, we have McKay, Coppins says about that plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan, right? Buzzfeed wrote this article that I have not covered yet here on this channel. Very, very interesting article, but it's a massive one. So I just haven't had the time to sit and break through it. But we all have been talking about this anyways. And Buzzfeed says on examination of the case, talking about the kidnapping case for Michigan, it says that some of those informants that were involved in the case acting under the direction of the FBI played a far larger role than was previously reported. They worked in secret. They did more than just passively observe. They report and report on the actions. They had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have been a conspiracy without them, right? It's it's the, but for, would this have happened, but for the FBI where they chain that causal link in the execution of any of these allegations? Well, according to Buzzfeed, maybe not. All right, so let's take a step back. We now know that there's a lot of improprieties that have been circling the FBI for a long time. We have an executive assistant director. This woman here is named Jill Sanborn, and she was on a podcast with the FBI back in may because that's when she got the job, right. She, she got named as the executive assistant director to the national security branch in May, 2021. She ensures that the FBI executes its mission to defend the United States and its interests from national security threat recently served the assistant director of counter terrorism at FBI headquarters in Washington. So she's sort of a career fed began her career as a special agent in 1998, assigned to the Phoenix field office, shout out to investigate bank fraud. She joined the Phoenix joint terrorism task force in 2001, 2006 added to the counter terrorism division also deployed to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UK Kenya, Pakistan, detailed to the CIA's counterterrorism center, acting director for law enforcement, K life-long fed with the FBI on entire her entire career. And she was on a podcast called the changing nature of the threat and how you can help, right? This was something posted this year. Soon after she got appointed to this position, and we've been seeing the shift, right? We've been seeing this from all of our law enforcement agencies all throughout the country, everybody's coming out and reframing it. They're saying, well, now we've got to really focus on gun violence, right? It's gun violence. There was a big wave of defund, the police and law enforcement reform, but that all changed after January 6th and after Joe Biden won the presidency, then the entire structure of the United States reoriented itself, it said, okay, well that was necessary to remove Donald Trump. And so we're going to get back into total control and just massive totalitarian, you know, law enforcement ideals, as it pertains to the United States citizenry. So this is something that we have just seen the shift continue on. We have many different people from the DOD to attorney general Merrick Garland to president Biden himself, Kamala Harris. We have Christopher Ray, we have Austin Lloyd. We have many, many people who are all part of the Biden administration, refocusing, reorienting, this, this national security threat perspective to be focused on domestic issues, right? We've heard about white supremacy. We've heard about all of the different militia groups that are dangerous. We've seen time. And again, white supremacy, this, this concept of white supremacy and these militias being a number one threat to the United States of America. And so the question from all of these people now being sort of put slotted into positions of power were in the first six months of Biden's office administration. Folks, they're all being slotted in here and they're telling us what the next steps are. They're telling us what their, their law enforcement posture is going to be, how they see the job, how are they going to be enforcing the law? And what types of cases are they going to be investigating? So Jill Sanborn was now on this podcast and we're going to listen into a couple of clips. It's not video it's audio only, and we're going to check out a few of them. This is we've got four clips from her. They're about 30 seconds a piece. So we're not going to spend a ton of time on them and they sort of get progressively worse. And they're going to tell a little bit of a story for us. So here is Jill Sanborn. The first one she's asked a question about, well, you know, the FBI, what do you do? And tell me a little bit about your perspective on what the FBI

Speaker 2: 15:55

Means. Everybody knows that we're the premier law enforcement agency in the country, if not the world. And we can put any of the puzzles back together after an attack, we can figure out who did it and take that case to court. We've done it and shown our success in the time and time and time again.

Speaker 1: 16:11

Okay. So, you know, we're a premier agency, she's out there advocating for her, her, you know, the FBI. Okay. It's debatable. I would say, I think it's pretty debatable. You know, I think that a competent agency would have probably, uh, foreseen a domestic insurrection is plot brewing and they would have done something to prevent that from happening if that was the case. But obviously that wasn't the case and there's a lot of, uh, the various stuff that went on there, so. Okay. So we've got one clip there. FBI's great. All right. That's Jill Sanborn. Let's see what else we've got over here. This one is another one. And she's going to tell us a little bit about how they're responding to these new threats. So we now we've got all this, you know, domestic issues percolating up, what's going to happen. How are they, how is the new FBI under Jill Sanborn going to help us work our way through the processing of these issues? Here she is.

Speaker 2: 16:58

American people need to rely on us for is what are we doing to prevent the next attack? And I think that's really important because that requires not only an embracement of intelligence, but it also requires us to be imaginative and creative and challenge ourselves. We all come up with analytical assessments that maybe were true yesterday that are different than today. And we all have ways in which we think terrorists could attack, but they could get creative in, uh, their thoughts and plans. And we need to be equally as creative for them

Speaker 1: 17:29

Equally as creative got to get creative out there, which, you know, might involve planting a bunch of FBI, undercover informants into a militia group, and then becoming the majority of that group and then coercing the other people into going and participating in a plot. How is it their plot? If the majority of the people are a part of the FBI, which is still speculation, right? We still don't have data on that. But I really liked that clip because she was talking about getting creative, right? Very fun, very creative stuff, which reminded me of that sort of that childhood creativity that we saw from the author of this affidavit during the arrest of one of the Capitol hill defendants had during the arrest law enforcement recovered some other items, including a don't tread on me flag, but you'll also notice that they were very concerned. They said that law enforcement also recovered a fully constructed us Capitol Lego set. Oh my goodness. Like the one right here, in addition, he had three firearms in addition to the Lego set. So you might be sitting to, you're sitting there to yourself saying, well, you know, what is a, what is a Lego set have to do with seizing control of the country while the FBI who are much smarter than you and I, they know what this means. They know that something like this can be used as a planning device, especially if it's fully constructed, which I think is still a, I think that's actually erroneous. I think it was just in the box. So this could be the base of operations, right? They had a Lego set and this was how they're going to be poking around John Jacob chancellor is going to be over here and he's going to have the bullhorns and he's going to go on this side. And then you grandma over here, you're going to come in this side. And then, uh, you know, the, the, the kids with the family, the MUN family. So they're all gonna, you know, get their, their picnic blanket and their Turkey sandwiches. And they're going to go in this this way. And so all of this plotting was taking place there, right? It was somebody saying, yeah, in the box, right. It was in the box. And so I was very inspired by this story, this Lego story. And so fortunately my friends, I wanted to show you what came in the mail this week. We've got our very own Lego set. My friends, this is the exact set that they're talking about. And I, I got this. I'm not planning to seize control of the country. Although this would be useful. If I did want to seize control of the country, I have the Lego set. I could basically plan and make sure that I could actually seize seize power. But because I'm a very diplomatic, peaceful, loving good-hearted American, I'm not going to be doing that. But I did look through this and there's, there's no instruction, insurrection instructions on here. No insurrection, Jacob chancellor is not even on this. We've got some statutes over here, right? It's going to be a lot of fun to build this thing, FBI. I'm not trying to seize control of the Capitol building. Okay. Take it easy. It's not even constructed. It's in the box. All right. So with that out of the way now, you know, the, the FBI is getting very creative. So they're going to be looking for other Lego sets. Probably we'll see where that goes. Now we have another clip. Jill Sanborn is going to be giving us some guidance on what the definition of domestic terrorism is. What does that mean? What does domestic terrorism mean? Because we're seeing this be sort of a very fluid definition. I don't know what it means. It, it apparently means anything that the, the government doesn't like, it, it means sort of any ideology that you have that might be anti-government or libertarian. According to former CIA director, John Brennan saying libertarians might be domestic terrorists and things like that. Right. Getting very, very problematic. The language is getting troubling. And so now we want to know Jill Sanborn, how do you define this? What do you define? Domestic terrorism?

Speaker 2: 21:10

Domestic terrorism is defined by statute.

Speaker 1: 21:12

Let me back that up here. It is Jill Sanborn. How do you define domestic terrorism?

Speaker 2: 21:17

I'd start by saying domestic terrorism is defined by statute. So it's not the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism, but actually the U S code. It's not always that clear cut, whether this is a domestic terrorism act or not particularly if an individual dies in an attack, there may always be questions about why someone mobilized to violence on the day they chose to mobilize. But that's another reason it's so important that we, we here at the FBI focus on the act or threat of violence, because that's actually what we have to work to prevent.

Speaker 1: 21:46

All right. So it's hard to define domestic terrorism, right? And she says, don't listen to us. Don't listen to me. Don't listen to us. We're going to refer you over to the U S code. The U S code is what we refer. We look to as the FBI and, uh, happily, I pulled that section up right here. We can see it's 18 us code 2331. And let's see how easy it is to fit within this category. So you'll notice it says domestic terrorism means that these are any activities. So you gotta be doing something that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws or of the United States or of any state. Okay. So it's gotta be dangerous to human life. It has to be an activity. It's gotta be a violation of the criminal code anywhere of the U S federal code or anywhere of any state. And that's just the first part of it. Then it also now has to be intended, got to have one of these two different intentions. So we have an act. We talk about this as the actus Reyes, this is the physical act, something that needs to be done. And then we also have unintentioned, which is the mens REA or the mental state. We see it, it appears to be intended to do something. What's the intent behind the activity to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. How about this? To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion? Hmm. It's pretty broad. How about to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping? Yeah, that's pretty obvious, right? You can clearly define what that is. Kidnapping assassination, weapon of mass destruction. Sure. But now we've got some very, very gray words in here. Don't we? And this must occur within the United States. Of course, if it's outside the United States, that's going to be international foreign terrorism. This would be domestic terrorism. So here it says to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. I don't, you know, intimidation is a very loose word. Coercion is a very, very loose word, same with influencing the policy of a government. And what does by intimidation mean? What does by coercion mean? Right? You could make this argument for virtually any type of political protest that exists anywhere in this country. What w w what BLM was doing was that intimidation was that coercion. When they're going up to people having rest, having dinner or lunch or breakfast at a restaurant on the side of the road, and going with bullhorns in their face, forcing them, or demanding that they take knees. Is that not intimidation? Is that not coercion? Is that not trying to coerce a civilian population into doing something that might impact the, the laws of the United States? That would be a violation of the laws of the United States? Yes, you would. But you might say that that is not dangerous to human life, right? So this is where it kind of kind of crosses that line. So acts that are dangerous to human life, that might be the limiting principle there, but you might not, right. It might be the threat. It might be, I've got a bull horn. You take that knee. Otherwise there are going to be some serious repercussions coming your direction. And any one of those implied impositions of consequence are, are naturally going to be dangerous. So it's very, very loose. This is why the FBI executive assistant director, Jill Sanborn has a difficult time answering the question, because it is broad. It reminds me of a statute like disorderly conduct, disorderly conduct means it's conduct that's disorderly. I mean, basically that's what the statute says, encompasses anything. Everybody's disorderly almost all the time for any, for any particular reason, right? You can just come up to somebody and say, well, you know, uh, you're, you're being loud over here, sir. Well, I'm not. And they go, well, they think you are well, I'm not, well, they said you are. And they called the police. So now you're being disorderly and the cops show up and they say, well, we just, we have to respond to their claim. And the statute is so broad. You can really use it to encompass virtually anything. And it drives me crazy because they can just charge you for any type of crime, no matter what. All right. So our last clip of Ms. Sanborn, this is the one where she's doing the balancing act. And I don't like this answer at all. Tell me what you think. This is where she's trying to balance free speech and the protection of the constitutional rights versus protecting the American people. And she's going to tell us how the FBI deals with this. So you have to ask yourself sort of, you know, which one of those has higher priority does adhering to the United States constitution or does protecting American lives. And she kind of has a cheater answer on this, but let's listen to it and see what she has to say about that. Yeah.

Speaker 2: 25:59

So I think when people think about free speech and then how the FBI stays ahead of the threat and protects us from threats of violence is really important because the FBI has a dual headed mission. And a lot of people don't probably understand that they understand that our mission is to protect America and the American people, but equal is our mission to uphold the constitution equal. Not one is more important than the other, but they're both important at the same time. So dual and simultaneous is what we like to say, not one at the expense of the other. And I think that's probably the most important aspect for me is protecting the American people is not more important than protecting the rights of the American people and upholding the constitution. That is the most challenging aspect about the domestic terrorism fight that we faced, because many of the people, um, who have ideologies that could turn to a mobilization to violence are exercising and believing in their ideologies because it's their first amendment protected right to, and the FBI has to be cognizant that our job is to protect that, right? Your belief, your speech, as much as it is to protect the American people from the act that you may conduct.

Speaker 1: 27:06

Yes. Okay. So, you know, there's a lot to break down there. My friends, you have dual and simultaneous, right? She's saying that you've got the us constitution, which is going to protect things like free speech. And then you've also got the FBI's inherent duty, which is to protect American lives. And so we have somebody in law enforcement, who's saying that they're dual and simultaneous one is not more important than the other, that your free speech is not more important than the protected the protection of American lives or that your, your ability to participate in an ideology, even though the FBI is going to respect your free speech rights, that doesn't give you the ability to do certain things that might put you in a position that might tip the scale into action. And so the FBI has gotta be ready there. When that tips that scale into action, then they're going to spring into there. And they're going to stop that because at that moment in time, your constitutional rights, don't extend beyond that into encroaching, upon somebody else's safety and wellbeing in this country. So the FBI has got to juggle these two things. So that might sound good. It might sound logical on its face. I have a huge problem with it because that doesn't, that's not how it works in practice. What ends up happening is it's not dual and simultaneous. The constitution takes a back seat all the time, every time when any, any law enforcement agent wants to come through and sort of, you know, do this little analysis in their head, or they say, well, I'm pretty, you know, I'm pretty interested in protecting this person's rights, but they just trample all over it. And they justify it in the name of justice or in the name of stopping crime or in the name of protecting America or stopping domestic terrorism. And she cleverly frames this as a free speech issue, right? She says, oh, well, it's just your first amendment, right? Your, your right to, you know, uh, assembly and expression and all of that. The problem with dipping below the constitutional standard on that issue with falling below the line, which is subpar behavior, right? We always say, stay above the line, keep your behavior above the line. The FBI, in my opinion, their line is the constitution. They should never drop below that line. And there is no competing interest in the name of preserving American lives that justifies a drop below that line. She is saying that essentially, that they're both sort of on an even playing field. And if you have to make this gamble between protecting American lines or preserving the constitution, which way is she going to default on what side of that coin is she going to land? And I know where it is in my experience, I've seen it. They always land on the side of the government law enforcement or whatever investigation they're working on. And the constitution always suffers. So she frames it in the context of free speech and free association. The way that this happens practically is you get all of your other trampled as well. In addition to that, you get your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures trampled. When the police just pull you over and take whatever they want, look at whatever they want, you know, open whatever they want. They, they, they step all over those. They make pretextual stops and they make up all sorts of different excuses for continuing their investigation. And they justify it on the basis of, of justice. Right? We've got this dual and simultaneous thing. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. The constitution takes a back seat all the time because these law enforcement agencies justify it should never be the case. We say this all the time in criminal law, I'd rather a thousand innocent, I'm sorry, a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person go into custody. And the reason, the way that we protect that is by holding that line, it's by holding the standard it's by making sure that none of these bureaucrats, none of these law enforcement officials get away with this propaganda BS it's nonsense that the constitution is somehow, you know, analogous to whatever she deems to be appropriate to go in and investigate if she's, if she deems Jill Sanborn and the FBI and the byte administration, or any bureaucrat, any Republican administration, if they get in there and they say, well, we have deemed this to be a threat to national security and the American people. And we know we've got a duty to protect the constitution, but we deem this to be more of a, uh, of a problem. And so we're just going to violate your right to be free from searches and seizures violate your right to counsel, violate your right against self-incrimination violate your right to due process and the right to be let out on your own recognizance. All of that takes a back seat and they all do on the basis of justice and law[inaudible] and national security and domestic terrorism and white supremacy and all of the other ills. They just lump it into this bucket because it gives them more power and more control. And it's disgusting behavior. And it's reprehensible. What do you have to say about it? Let's take a look at the chat and see what's going on. Probably got some questions coming in over from watching the watchers.locals.com. So let me get those pulled up over here. If I can find my, and I think we have some questions from, let's see here. All right, didn't have this queue I got where I wanted it. So let's see where we've got over here. All right. First question is from want to know, says that the FBI is the FBI is busy investigating everyone from January six. I'm sure there is a littering charge that hasn't been fully investigated. A lot of people there that they get defunded too. I do like the raid jacket though in the post makes it look very official. Yeah. You know, maybe the FBI should be defunded. Uh, if, if any, if any law enforcement agency is being defended. Oh, we had a super check come in from little Panda. Cubs said you are so cute. Happy Lego. And I th and I S yeah. Thank you for that. Okay. So that, thank you for that. They're a little Panda cup. I'm pretty excited about that. Lego set. No, no, no joke. Red pilled convict says, was trafficker an expert in domestic violence, extremism or extreme domestic violence. Love, love that Bravo. Well done. Yeah. It sounds like he's kind of the man for the job, isn't it? Because he knows all about extreme domestic violence, which is funny. Isn't it? Look that that case is not funny, but if you recall, like six months ago, as soon as we started to hear Biden, come out and say this domestic violent extremism. I said at the time I said, they are trying to use the same pejorative feeling, the same sense that you get. When you hear the word domestic violence, they're just going to apply that same sort of feeling that you've already been conditioned to feel. And they're going to attach that to all of the Trump supporters. I think it was a very clever attempt there. We also have pili. Wheelie is here, says, Rob, I hope you're well with all respect to the American people, as someone who lives outside the U S to hear Jill Sanborn, talk about the FBI as the best in the world. What a joke, just looking at America from infighting from the last six years, mainly how can anyone think America is a world leader. If a family member was acting like America is you would kick them out of the house for causing troubles, PLE Wally. Yeah. And that's kind of that, that was kind of my perspective on that. You know, when, when Joe Biden was out there yesterday from his town hall saying that the world is like, oh, you're back. You're back, Joe, are you, are you really back? And Joe said, yeah, we're really back guys. I'm thinking, what do they do to the rest of the world? Hang on. Everything that Americans do. I mean, how, what Kamala Harris did this? When she went down to Guatemala, it was don't you come to America people and going listen, folks, the rest of the world, they've got their own problems. They've got their own nationalism. They got their own internal interests that they have to be worried about. And so, you know, America, you know, get your, get your house in order. I think a little bit, uh, Rob the aircraft mech says, Rob, you should hold a raffle for the Lego set and autograph it. Oh my gosh. That's, that's a great idea. I don't know what my autograph would do. Nothing other than ruin a perfectly good Lego set, but yeah, maybe we could do that for a, for a charity or something. I like that idea a lot. That would be fun. Great idea. There aircraft want to know, says Lego and the pillow from Lindale guns D monetize on YouTube. I see a pattern here and a liberal really short hair. It goes against government prosecutors daily and gets paid for. It believes in free speech. I do. I have Lee Lindell's pillows. They actually they're right over there. So, so it's, uh, it's. Yeah, it there's an interesting pattern going on. Good to see. You wants to know leafy bug is here, says, Rob, you cracked me up. Does that Lego set show how to get to AOC office? I, I, I'm not sure if it came with the miniature Lego man that had his feet up on the desk, or I don't know if the podiums in there either. So we'll have to take a look at that. Uh, good to see you leave fit bug. We have Sergeant Bob with miss lucky. Sergeant Bob is in the house and he's got an answer here. Here's what he says. The constitution is superior. There it is folks. That's from the Sergeant. Sergeant Bob, we have the best. We have the best Popo on the show. The best, the best sergeants here ever. Good to see you, Sergeant Bob, shout out Ms. Lucky. Good to see you both. Uh, let's see, we've got a couple more coming in. I see a, see a super shout over there from Zulu. So we're going to get to that here in a minute. We got Sharon Whitney says, so now it looks like anybody doing anything. The current regime doesn't like, like maybe say trying to influence people to vote for a non-approved candidate could be arrested or tried or in prison for domestic terrorism looks kind of like protecting the regime is the FBI's new first rot responsibility. Kind of like the KGB, perhaps that was from sharing kidney. I know Trump, Trump. Trump is here, says, Rob, congratulations on your purchase of the Lego set. I lifted a set similar to that along with my letter to buy it. And when I left the big house, not sure. I'm sure you're now on a list, a big, beautiful list. It's a list that's so important. I would definitely not encouraging purchasing the matching white house set. You would like to get a visit from some very important people like people in black SUV's and wearing suits. Oh, I know. I know I'm in trouble now because I bought that Lego set. I'm nonviolent. I've never, uh, uh, never advocated for violence on the show. I just happened to like Legos. I had, I had tons of Legos growing up. There were a lot of fun sharing. Courtney says, I hate to say this, but as a country, it looks to me like we have turned a corner down a very dark alley here. Uh, yeah, I know. It, it, it, it, it can feel a little bit doom and gloom. I think we're kind of in a, in a dark, maybe, maybe a little darkness right now, but the country is rapidly waking up. And there's some excitement about that. We have three girlies in the house as if the FBI was involved in all these plots. Can't that be entrapment? Yeah, it can. It really can. And it's sort of the, the question becomes, you know, whether they were going to do it with the FBI, I'm sorry, whether they were going to do it anyways, regardless of what the FBI involvement was, right? It's it's, it's entrapment. If they would not have done it, but for the FBI, the FBI were integral to that happening. And so let's finish up your comments as a difference between proactive community policing and corrupt, right? Infringing policing, the FBI, NSA, ATF, and many other three-letter agencies in our government should be defunded. When they started putting their policies before our rights that's corrupt policing, outstanding comment. There are three girlies. Absolutely love that. And I couldn't agree more Zulus here. Zulu says, I feel like we should get a solid closeup shot of the thumb. So right now it's not very good viewing viewable, but this is, uh, this is rock tape now. So I went to the, I actually did go to the gym this morning. I was not bleeding all over the place, like a sieve. And, uh, there's a nice bandaid on there. And so this is just regular rock tape that is not going to focus properly. There it is. It's not going to focus cause my head's in the way it probably, yeah. Anyways, you can see it. It's pretty, it's pretty gnarly. I looked at it this morning and I, yeah, that's a whole, that's a whole list top of your thumb is now gone. So, uh, so interesting when I, when I'm able to not sort of bleed all over the place, I'll definitely give you a, uh, zoomed in, close up if you want it. I would I give you a content warning on that one though? It might, it might violate the gore policy here on YouTube. So great questions. All of those from watching the watchers.locals.com and the super chats over there from YouTube, appreciate all the love and support. Thank you very much for all of your great questions. All right. And so we're going to change gears a little bit and, uh, sort of, sort of still kind of talking about the feds and the FBI, but not really Jacob Tansley the Q and a shaman is still in custody. And we've been talking about his case for some time here on this channel. If you recall, Jacob Tansley was the ACU and onshore and the guy with the horns on his head and the guy with, uh, sort of the, the very provocative outfit that made the media. A lot of pictures, lot of people were very interested in what he was wearing that day and some of his activities, right. He made it into the Senate chamber, I believe. And he got arrested for that. He's been in custody ever since. And we've been following the case along just to try to see what's happening here to make sure that he's getting a fair shake, uh, PR uh, conclusion. He's not right. The whole thing is being, in my opinion, sort of overly extended. I think that he probably should have been, uh, granted release earlier. He's still in custody, but there was one little rub in the case that caught my eye, that we talked a little bit about. It was the mental competency stuff, right? He was the last time we had a case update for Tansley. He was just going into the process and the competency proceedings in criminal law, it sort of, you know, will vary from state to state, but loosely speaking, generally speaking the way that this works. If you have a person who's been charged with a crime, and you might have some questions about their mental capacity, whether they are capable of understanding the nature of the charges against them, whether they can make intelligent decisions about their lives and their futures. It's a pretty important concept of our law. You really can't be convicted of a crime if you were insane, or if you didn't know what was happening. And so our law has provisions that will allow us to determine whether you're competent or not competent to stand trial. So we saw that this was happening in Chandler's case, Chandley was being sent out to different evaluators, the way that it works in Arizona, you get three evaluators, you send the defendant to the first evaluator, and they're going to give you a determination on competency. This person is competent. This person is not, and this is actually a quite a common thing that a lot of people will, will show signs of this. And as a lawyer, as a judge, as a prosecutor, you want to confirm that you're working with somebody who knows what's happening. So when that is done, they'll typically go to a second counselor. And if both of those counselors, both of those evaluators agree that a person is competent, they go right back into the court system. So they go through the same track. It's sort of a quick detour out to go check on competency. If they're good, they bring them right back. If they're not good, then they'll go and they'll have a sort of a restaurant, a restoration process to see if they can get treatment, get medication, to restore them back to competency. And then the criminal proceedings can move forward. Arguably, there are often situations where they don't, right? Because you can make the argument that the person was not competent back during the commission of the crime. If there is a disagreement between one and two, if they see number one, he says, competent, number two says incompetent. They go see a number three, they break the tie. So that is the process that Jacob chancellor has been going through. Something very similar to that. I don't know specifically what he's been going through, but it's a mental health evaluation and Reuters today came out and said that they've got an exclusive. They say that the Q Anon Sharman was in plea negotiations or isn't plea negotiations after the mental health diagnosis. Okay. So we've got some information. So something must have come out from that evaluation. Their participant was in the January six riots. They say negotiating a possible plea deal with prosecutors after prison, psychologists found he suffers from a variety of mental illnesses. His attorney said, right. And you know, this is not something that you want to speculate about or joke about. It's something that probably, I think many people may have been thinking, right? That maybe some of the people who were a part of this, you know, quote, insurrection, maybe they, they had some actual mental problems. And you know, somebody who dressed like Q Anon shaman might raise a flag for some people. And so everybody, you know, you, you don't want to ever presume that if somebody, you want to have a lot of compassion for people, anybody going through the justice system, but it was something that I think a lot of people were asking themselves in an interview defense lawyer, Albert walk-ins said that the officials at the federal bureau of prisons have diagnosed Jacob[inaudible] with transient schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. Now the bureau of prison findings, they have not been made public, but they suggest that the mental condition deteriorated due to the stress of being held in solitary confinement at jail in Alexandria, Virginia. Okay. And this is a huge problem with our justice system. By the time we get to this mental health diagnosis evaluation, we have already done significantly more damage to this young man. And it is a very sad thing. And in my opinion, you can blame a lot of this on the media puffing, this whole thing up, like it was an actual insurrection. Like this was an actual organized, attempt to seize control of the government when it wasn't right. It was a lot of people who are out there who got angry, who got caught up in a moment in a moment. And we had a small portion of, of them like you have in any society. You know, people don't realize this, right? If you look at a hundred people, there's a high likelihood that a substantial portion of them have something going on mentally, you know, a huge swath of this country are on antidepressants. And a lot of people have undiagnosed, problematic mental disorders coming out of COVID with 12 months of lockdown at that time didn't help. And so there's a lot of societal pressures that are bubbling up all over the place. And the media just said, no, these were white supremacists. Insurrection is Trump supporters. And it's really more complicated than that. And you know, Jacob chancellor is one of these people who was the forefront of the whole thing front and center. And so he's being made an example of, and what the government has been doing to him is making him worse. And he has not been convicted of anything yet. He has not pled guilty to anything yet. He has the same presumption of innocence that you enjoy, except he doesn't enjoy it. He's actually being denied. It bureau of prison is keeping him in custody. And his mental health is deteriorating. He is being punished for crimes that he's not been convicted of or pled guilty to. And that is reprehensible in the United States of America. Now this is what his attorney filed on the 15th. So about a week ago, said that he wanted a motion to file a motion for leave, to file a motion under seal. And so we're not going to know what's in this, right? So on the 15th of this month, USA vs Jacob chancellor chancellor, his defense lawyer said by and through his counsel, we want the court to give us permission to file a motion under seal. He says, the subject of this matter was addressed informally. So they probably had, you know, an off the record proceeding where all of the attorneys went up there, you know, prosecutor, defense attorney go up to the judges bench or the judges chambers and talks about this, that, Hey, look, this bureau of prison report is coming out. Uh, it's not going to be good. Right. It's saying that his mental condition has gotten worse. So the judge says, all right, listen, uh, I make, I have a suggestion for you. Their request here is compliant with the suggestion of the court. Defendant prays. This court is going to grant permission to file the motion under seal course, the judge is going to grant that. So the defense attorney, now we don't know what's going to be in that motion. He's got information that we don't know, but the court, in my opinion, is going to grant this, this permission to file this new motion under seal, which means we're not going to see it. Let's go back to Reuters. They have some more background for us. It says, as he spent more time in solitary, the decline in his acuity was noticeable even to an untrained. I said, Watkins. He said that chancellor, his 2006 mental health records from his time in the Navy show, a similar diagnosis for, to the bureau of prisons spokesman for the U S attorneys declined to comment on the case chance. He's one of the most recognizable people there. Of course, he's from Arizona. Shout out was photographed inside the Capitol with horn head, dress shirtless and heavy tattoos, uh, saying that Trump was a savior figure. And the elite Democrats are a cabal, which has been confirmed by time magazine of Satanist, pedophiles, and cannibals. Although they didn't confirm that that part, but they did confirm there's a cabal of them. He faces charges, including civil disorder, obstructing an official proceeding, which means that apparently for those now in America, you get a six months incarceration just regardless. That's just how it is now. Watkins did not say what chancellor was considering pleading guilty to, but defendants negotiating plea deals typically seek to reduce them to a less serious charge. Yeah, well done their reporter. Yep. That, that is accurate. What can set authorities will need to determine how Chandley can get access to the treatment he needs to actively participate in his own defense pleading guilty negates. The ability to have a trial Watkins said that the bop evaluation of his client did not declare him to be mentally incompetent, but he does not any does not expect Chandley to undergo competency restoration treatment. Like I explained about, so it sounds like the, the evaluation said he's, he's competent enough that we're not going to put them in that program, but it's concerning enough that the judge suggested that they file new motions. Under seal Watkins said his client express some delusions, including believing that he was indeed related directly to Jesus and to Buddha, which is a kind of difficult to plot a legitimate insurrection. If you're of that belief, I would imagine at least the legitimate insurrection, I don't know, maybe they were all following him because he was a descendant of Gita, Jesus and Buddha. I don't know. Okay. What we've done his attorney says is we've taken a guy who was unarmed peaceful. He's got a preexisting mental vulnerability. We've rendered him a chocolate soup mess. Interesting language, federal prosecutors arrested more than 4, 535 people. The bop in 2017 was faulted by the justice department for its housing units to confine inmates with mental illness. So this was already an issue, right? The inspector general, who we talk a lot about here set in 2017, you guys are doing a terrible job. Bop agreed to place limits around the amount of time that the inmates have so that they have human contact, but that did not happen. Guess why not? COVID came through led the bop to step up solitary housing units as a way to quarantine inmates to contain the spread of the virus. Okay, well, we've got vaccines now and stuff, you know, what do they still need to do that? Why is he still in solitary? Then? Bop spokesman said that inmates are sometimes held alone in a cell, but not cut off from human contact. We do not. Okay. Whatever. All right. So the COVID nineteens. What led them to place him in restriction? All right. So, uh, three federal hospitals. All right. So let's go over to the discovery document. We know what they're doing to Jacob Tansley is reprehensible. They're doing it to everybody else. The one caveat there being right, if there would have been a serious mental competency problem, judges will often be hesitant to let somebody out unless they have a very serious place to land, right? The court's not going to send somebody out of custody. If they're mentally problematic, if they could be a threat to society or to the world, Jacob translate to my knowledge, he didn't do anything violent. He was just there, you know, part of, uh, an entourage that made its way into the Capitol, but don't, haven't seen any history of, of, of, uh, violence from the government's documents. So we've talked about, but, okay, let's see. What's going on here. This is, this is the memorandum. This is the discovery motion. So as I mentioned, there's so much to talk about in these cases, it's actually hard to sort of decipher all of it. But in this, in this particular case, one of the main criticisms that I've had from the us attorney's office and the department of justice is that they're not prosecuting these timely enough. If they would've let Jacob chancellor out of custody, then they would have been more okay with them taking time to disclose things, but they don't get both. They don't get to keep him in custody and demand. He sits there while they take their sweet time, doing whatever they need to do. That's not appropriate. They, if they need more time, that's fine, but you gotta let them out of custody, but that's not what's happening here. They're going to keep him in custody every time they try to get them out, the government opposes it. And then they submit a garbage motion like this. That is so irritating. 12 pages, us memorandum regarding status of discovery. Here it is. The us government files a memorandum to describe the purpose of this discovery and discovery means evidence. This is what we're talking about. This is police reports, body camera, footage, surveillance footage, you know, any cell phone records, nine 11 calls, uh, closed circuit, TV cameras, uh, all of it. That's, what's called discovery. And as a defendant, as Jacob chancellor, as somebody who's being charged with a crime, you don't have any of that in your possession. The government has all of it. So you need to get that before you can start working your case up before you can start preparing your defense. Now, a defendant doesn't necessarily need that to close the case, okay? A defendant and an attorney. If they have a good deal, if they know what the evidence is, they don't necessarily need to wait around and get it all with that framework in place. Let's see what's happening here. As an initial matter, substantial discovery has already been provided. Okay, well, that's not what we're talking about. We want all of it, all of it. And Jacob chancellor has a right to a speedy trial. Dang it. So they have the right to get all of it timely so that they can make a decision about whether to set the case to trial or not. However, as set forth below because the defendant's criminal acts took place. As many other crimes around here, the government's investigation has resulted in the accumulation and the creation of a massive volume of data that may, may be relevant to many defendants. Okay, well, we don't care about all the many defendants here. We care about Jacob's chancellor. In this case, this case is not about all of the other defendants. It's about Jacob chancellor. The government is diligently working to meet its unprecedented, overlapping interlocking discovery obligations by providing voluminous electronic information in the most comprehensive and usable format, which is a stinking joke. This is a joke. The fact that they don't have this system set up, I, we had a previous show. I talked to you about a city court that is six minutes down the road from us, that processes 650 cases a month on a slow month. That includes discovery. That includes body cameras and surveillance footage from all of the old town bars. It includes interviews with multiple witnesses. It includes many trespass cases and many disorderly conduct cases. And we have a prosecutor's office with like 10 prosecutors right down the street who can handle that caseload on a budget. That's like a percent of what the DOJ gets. So the us attorney's office, the entire department of justice with the entire FBI and all of these other agents everybody's involved, they can't figure out 535 defendants. It's actually a joke folks. I don't buy this for a second. I don't buy it for one stink. And second, I think that they're making this up and they are submitting these motions in bad faith to the courts because they know the courts are going to rule in their favor. The courts are going to agree with them and say, you're right. This was unprecedented. You're right. This is crazy. We were, you're working so hard. It must be really, really difficult. So you're granted take all the time in the world. You need. It's not okay. Now here's everything that they're going to put into this, you know, into this request. And the point here is that the government doesn't need all of this to convict Jacob chancellor. They've got what they need. They have enough of it, so they can go prosecute him. They could take their case to trial. They could say, we've got enough evidence on you. We don't need to go through another 400,000 videos. We've got enough. W we, we saw, we all watched the videos. They got him standing there, the Senate chamber. They could go to trial and convict him if they wanted to, but they are delaying this discovery stuff out purposely because they want to keep him in custody and make him an example of it. It's a political prosecution through and through. I don't know how else to say it. Here are some of the things that they say that they're still working on. So we, as the government, we've accumulated of aluminous material that may contain discovery for many, many, many, many, if not all defendants, again, nobody cares about your work for the other defendants. That's your problem and their problem. This is one person's case. You don't get to, you don't get to treat Jacob. Chandley like everybody else that you want to, he's not, he's not a symbol of all of the Capitol hill defendants. He's one man. With one case, the government is trying to make him bear the burden of all of their discovery problems that they have elsewhere. That's not appropriate. Not at all thousands of hours. They need, uh, here's everything. We've accumulated thousands of hours of closed circuit videos from us, Capitol police, Metro police, us secret service, several hundred automated traffic enforcement cameras. Guess what? Nobody cares if it's not relevant to chance Lee's case footage from the Capitol, uh, with C-SPAN great, got that. Do you have enough to convict him? Good thousands of hours of body-worn camera. So from Montgomery county police, Fairfax county, Virginia state police, all of that radio transmission, we've got GPS records for all of the radios, hundreds of thousands of tips, including 230 sites to 137,000 digital media tips. Are you kidding me? You're going to tell me that they're going to go through all of those for Jacob chancellor. And then they're going to send those all over to him and he's going to have to go through them. Also. They are burying them in paper and they're using that as an excuse to continue the case out indefinitely. It's a violation of his right to a speedy trial, drives me bananas, location history for the thousands of devices present in the Capitol subscriber and toll records for hundreds of phone numbers, cell tower data for thousands of devices connected to the capital's interior distributed antenna system, including during the Capitol breach, they got all three major telephone companies, a collection of over 1 million parlor posts, replies and related data. They've got over 1 million parlor videos and images, 20 terabytes of data damage estimates for multiple offices at the U S Capitol multitude of digital services and storage communication devices, responses to grand jury subpoenas over 6,000, which have been issued seeking documents like financial records, telephone records, electronic communication, service provider records and travel records. And so that's really what it comes down to. They need more time to investigate every single of these people until the end of the earth, because they're going to use their presence at the Capitol as leverage as an opening of the door, they say, oh no, look they're there. And so we have to go investigate everything this person does until the end of time, because they were there. They might be a threat. So we need access to their financial records. Their telephone records, their electronic communication records, their travel records. We want grand jury subpoenas for all of these people, for every single crevice of their life. We want access to it and the courts are just going to give it to them. Very, very reprehensible stuff. My friends let's see what you have to say about it. We're going to go over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is where we have our chat forum. We've got a bunch of questions coming in. Let's see who's here. Kenny. One B says, Rob, you didn't read my question from the last segment. Don't know if the form was working, right. So Kenny one B you know, I, I missed it. I apologize for that. Let me see if I can grab it real quick. It's hard for me to, it's hard for me to navigate on this thing. So sometimes I just, I, I'm going to miss a question. I apologize for that. Kenny. One B send me another one. We'll make sure we get it. We have thunder seven says, Rob, what will this mean for Viking man's case? I've given up on these political prisoners ever getting justice, by the way, there's an old man wandering around Washington murmuring and whispering that he's POTUS. Can he be forced to have a mental competency test? That's a good question. Uh, does he need to take a test? I think it's pretty conclusive. I think we all can agree in competent. It's pretty obvious on that one now for Viking man's case, uh, you know, look, if he takes a plea deal and it's a reasonable plea deal, I don't have any issues with that. I don't have any problems with any of these guys pleading guilty for the crimes they committed. Right? I just want to make sure that the repercussions are not something that are going to be overly punitive, which they obviously are because we've covered similar similarly situated defendants on the other side of the ideological aisle with Antifa and BLM. And we talked about the other protestors that were in there in the Senate chamber, interrupting, interfering with government during the cabinet proceedings, they all got$25 fines. So it's, it's one set of very, very harsh rules for one particular ideology, not for the others, but if, look, if he takes a plea deal and he says, I'll just take time served. Let me out of custody, send me back to my family so that we can get some mental health screening, right? That's that's an okay. That's an okay way to resolve the case. I'm not going to be somebody out here. Who's saying that, uh, you know, that these guys should, should be released and a letter of apology should be written for them, right? There was some bad activities that happened that day, but not such that deserve the amount of retribution and punishment and outright constitutional violations that are happening to these people. That's not appropriate. And I can't stand for it. All right. We have pili. Wally is here, says here in the UK, if you do a crime, you have a mental health trouble. Uh, you can be sent to a mental health hospital until you are better, which could be for the rest of your life. And some sadly for some folks, is that the same in the U S it can, right. There are all sorts of different committal proceedings. We have involuntary commitments and things like that. That, yes, that can go that direction. Typically not in criminal law. You know, I really haven't seen many things go that route in criminal. Actually. I don't think I've ever seen a case go that route. So it's not, it's not like, sort of like what you see in the movies, right? Where you kind of get locked up and you're just gone, gone with the wind. But, but certainly it, yeah. Can happen. No question about it. Thanks for timing it and good to see you from the UK. We have a Sharon Quintin. He says this poor guy, whatever happened to cruel and unusual punishment, he needs help. Not months in jail. This is outrageous. I agree with you. I think rehabilitation and restoration is much better than punishment and pain. All right, we have another one from the Darvas here says, could he be an informant orders under seal? Supposedly spent time in solitary. No one saw him gave a lot of media attention that was important to drive out. An important narrative was in the Navy. They are saying he's mentally incompetent, but not enough to leave. All seems a bit suspect to me, fed alert, fed alert. That's an interesting, uh, interesting little take there in the dark. You know, me, man, I love a good conspiracy. I love a good, you know, alternative narrative. That is a big part of what we do. The police say that something happened. We say, no, they didn't, you, you made that up. You didn't see that. They say, they say they saw it. They didn't see it. You get the evidence, you see where they were located. You see where their car was. You see what the lighting was looking like. You see what their body cam says. They didn't see anything, but they wrote they did. So there's always a different explanation. And it's a lot of fun to play with those. We have leaf bug in the house as I'm so happy and relieved that the nice FBI lady and all of her fed colleagues are doing such a wonderful job. Looking after everyone's rights, you can quit your job. Now, Rob, they've got this, you know, that's a good point, levy. I think that you're right. I really do trust Jill Sanborn to execute the laws and the constitution. Very faithfully to make sure that all of our rights are being preserved. We have three girlies here says a lot of people with mental health issues are in prison. None of them deserve to be put in a 23 in a cell 23 hours a day. In my former prison, there was a pod that was just people with mental illness. They were not put in general population, sadly, without mental resources on the outside to institutionalize them in a good, healthy place. They get remanded to prison. We get, we get put on medication while they're in prison and they get stable. And once they leave prison, they get off medication and the cycle just continues. Jacob chancellor deserves to go home to a more state place. Great comment. Thank you for that three girlies. Yeah. So far former prison. You know what, what it's like, you know, you know, it can be rough. It can be very difficult in there. And so if you have somebody who's already partially broken or on the verge of breaking and you put them in those conditions, the likelihood of them continuing their decline and breaking further is, is likely it's it's, it's expected. Yeah. That's what's happening. We have Sharon says, wow, a regime change. I could see a big lawsuit for violation of civil rights, all over the place. Speedy trial, cruel and unusual punishment due process, et cetera. Yeah. There's a lot of them. We've covered a lot. Jeremy, my treatise here says, Rob, have you ever seen a case like this before? Every aspect of Chancery's case has been such an atrocity to the U S justice system with the way this case is already going chance, there'll be over 200 years old before his case is finally dismissed because everyone tried tied to prosecuting the case will have passed. There's something to that, Jeremy. I know, I know you're being hyperbolic with the 200 years thing, but, but there's something to that. You know, if Jacob chancellor was symbolic literally, right? I mean, he actually was symbolic of the whole thing. His picture was everywhere. You think of it, you can kind of picture the head dress and the whole outfit there because it was very provocative and it left a big imprint in a lot of people's memories. And so the longer that it can sort of, you know, keep that dangling out there that, that, that sort of stick, that they keep swinging around there for many people in America who do think that this was like nine 11 or worse than Pearl Harbor, whatever the worst thing since the civil war. And they're motivated by that every time that they bring out this insurrection flag, you know, they start waving that around people respond. So I, you know, I don't expect it to be over soon, but hopefully it is for his sake, you know, for his sake, man, hopefully it's over sharing quit. And he says, Hey, at least they haven't executed him yet. Unlike Vander lube accuse of the Reichstag fire, tough Sergeant Bob is here, says all levels of law enforcement constitution, then statutory law, then case law then application to the incident. Honesty, integrity, judgment. Not too hard. I have not gone to the dark side. I only stand for principals. It's awesome. It's a great, it's a great comment, Sergeant Bob, thank you for that as well. Very good. And you know, that's appropriate. That's that's the right way to do things. I I'm actually kind of shocked that Jill Sanborn said that it's like, well, we've got a very big, important concept here to protect American lives. So we've got to think about that too, in conjunction with the constitution and you're going, what? There's no limiting principle to that. If that's, if that is her perspective, how does she limit that? How do you, how do you manage that? How do you tell all the other FBI agents use your judgment? We've seen how that works. It doesn't work well, whistleblower pan does here says they want to make a new Patriot act so they can arrest Trump and Trump supporters running up to 2024. They want to do that or they want to strangle the speech. Something like that. We got farmer's daughter says, Hey, Robert, there were dozens of hours of video for many different angles. YouTube that have magically disappeared. It seems these government hacks have lost their mind. Call me crazy. But I don't think demonic is a far stretch. They will never relent. There are many people out there that say we're in the middle of a spiritual war, that this is something that is more fundamental and deeper down might be of that perspective. It's ed is here, says this isn't right. A guy wearing a head dress caught up in a crowd, walking into the Capitol building. And the FBI spent millions figuring things out. Where was this kind of investigation to prevent nine 11? Yeah, they kind of botched that one too. Didn't they? On average 40 people are shot in Chicago. Every weekend wears the same vigor. This is BS. This doesn't make me scared for supporting the orange man and freedom. This makes me want to stand up and tell the FBI to go bleep themselves. Hoof man. You're it's a, that's a spicy comment, but I feel your, I feel your energy, man. I feel your emotion pili. Wally is here. It says there are many cases here. People being convicted of crimes and sent to mental hospitals for the rest of their time. It's a crazy thing. Yeah. Yeah. Farmer's daughters over there. Chatting away up in, uh, in watching the Watchers dot locals, biblical references over there. Very good comments. And let's see what's going on. Let's give some shout outs over to YouTube. We've got Zulus here. Half Irish is here. We have eight straight and arrow. 60 twos in the house. Josh Sealy. Hello to Josh. We got Zorro. Lindy loo. We have Michael Palmer's in the house. Along with lady Zaga is over there. Good to see you all on locals. We've got Baranski's in the house. Want to know we have, uh, Arcturians is here. We have Sharon Quinney of course. And uh, and Jeremy Machida and many others are also over there chatting. Good to see you all and thanks for your support. So great questions. Great comments. Thanks for the love from, uh, watching the watchers.locals.com. All right. And so we're gonna move on. We've got one more segment on the show today and let's get to it abortion. If there weren't enough controversial issues out there in the country today, we've got a new one. It's getting queued up. It's ready to go. In fact, we're going to hear about it in front of the Supreme court. Not too soon. What are we talking about? Well, it's Roe vs. Wade. It's the new Supreme court. It's the new six to three conservative majority. Now that Amy Coney Barrett has replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And now a lot of people getting a little bit concerned. If you are on a well, both sides of the aisle, many people have had a lot of issues with the current state of the abortion affairs in the United States. Supreme court is very likely going to be weighing in on this thing soon. So let's figure out what's happening here. It's going to start with a lawsuit and it starting out of Mississippi of all states. And so we're going to spend some time looking at Mississippi and seeing what's going on here. The guardian gives us some information, some background before we dive into it, it says that Mississippi now urges the U S Supreme court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In an abortion case, we had the changing of the guard over the Supreme court. It's now 63, the states are ready to go. They want this issue in front of the Supreme court. Mississippi argues that the constitution does not support the right to abortion. The court is likely to hear the case this fall, this year, and then rural in the spring. So this is coming up, which means you got to get your, uh, get, get, get, get, get braced my friends. Cause we've got a whole new issue coming down the line. Republican lawmakers in several states want to challenge row and they want bans on abortion. Once the first sign of a fetal pulse is detected. It can be as early as six weeks federal judge though on Tuesday blocked an Arkansas law that would ban most abortions ruling to the lies, categorically unconstitutional. It says it would ban a procedure before the fetus is even considered viable. Right? Mississippi now had a 15 week law. This was enacted in 2018, but it was blocked. The state's only abortion clinic Jackson women's health organization remains open and offers abortion 16 weeks of pregnancy. So Mississippi, it sounds like wanted to push that from 16 weeks down to 15 weeks. And so you see what they're doing here, right? It's just a small little change, 16 weeks down to 15 weeks. The question is going to be, can we put any restrictions on abortion? Can we just move it one week and see how that works? More than 90% of abortions in the U S take place in the first 13 weeks, Mississippi clinic has presented evidence that viability is impossible at 15 weeks and appeals court said that the state conceded that it had no ID identified no medical evidence, that a fetus would be viable at 15 weeks. And so sort of a quick, a quick crash course, constitutional law on this abortion stuff. Roe vs. Wade, was it a case that I think was Judy additionally improper the way that it was decided was not appropriate. Essentially it made the court, the court was acting like it was a legislature. The court took an issue and they crafted a resolution that they thought fit into the constitutional framework of this country. And so basically what they did through constitutional Fiat is they manipulated the rules of rational basis and intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny and all of these constitutional analysis that we talk about in law. And they said that for the first trimester, the state had a compelling reason had had, had, had had the I'm sorry, during the third trimester, the state had compelling reasons to protect that fetus, that child, because it was viable and Supreme court just kind of created this and they, they broke it up into three trimesters. The first trimester, the state could do a lot to allow abortions and the states could do very little to restrict abortions in the second trimester, sort of the, the, the scale tipped a little bit more, right? And so the government was a little bit more, uh, uh, allowed to place reasonable restrictions. And then in the third trimester, if the government wanted to place restrictions on abortion, they had a compelling reason to do so that the child was more viable at that time. So it became more allowed to place those restrictions. Then Roe vs. Wade sort of got a modified by a second case called Casey versus planned parenthood, which sort of scrapped some of that analytical framework and said that any law, any state law that places an undue burden on a woman's rights, uh, uh, the ability to go achieve, uh, I was gonna say, achieve an abortion, but accomplish an abortion. If she was going to go and do that. And there was an undue burden that was placed by the states, that would be unconstitutional. And so now the question is becoming, is that still viable? And what is that undue burden and can any limit be placed on abortion at all? And so Mississippi passed this law said, we're going to make it, we're going to reduce it from 16 weeks down to 15. And we're going to see what happens. The person who was leading this out of Mississippi, her name is attorney general Lynn Fitch. And so she posted this July 22nd saying that the national fever on abortion can break only when this court returns the abortion to the states. Okay? So she's making an argument that this should not be something that the courts have dictated have mandated through their legislative type Fiat, judicial Fiat, with the passing of Roe vs. Wade in Casey, she's saying that that's not allowed. They should be going back to the states and the state should be able to decide what is acceptable or not. She says where agreement is more common, compromise is more possible and disagreement can be resolved at the ballot box, right? Make it up, make it a votable issue. So that's where she's coming from. She has the attorney general out of Mississippi. You can follow her over here and we're going to go through a couple of things. She actually did an excellent job preparing all of this media stuff. And I want to show you what she did. So when you go through the press release, she has all of this prepared for you. So at the bottom of the press release, there's a button says, click here a link. It's going to give you access to everything. She's got four videos she recorded, which are just ready and available for you. She's also got a bio that's ready for you. And two headshots over here. Okay. Ready to go for you. And then she also provided a course, a full copy of the brief and all of the other documents. So if you want to go check all of that out, you certainly can. The links are in our slides, which are available on locals. Now this is the press release. So this is what she came out with and posted. She said today in the case of Dobbs vs Jackson health organization. So it's, it's the, um, the abortion clinic, I believe versus Dobbs. We'll see who this is. Mississippi attorney general Lynn Fitch filed her brief to the Supreme court, defending the right of the people to pass laws that protect life and women's health and address legitimate interest of the state. Huh? Okay. So let's see what else is going on here? We saw that here is how she explains it. This is from one of the videos in her media packet.

Speaker 3: 1:13:01

This is about the right of the people to speak to their elected leaders on legitimate interest, including protecting vulnerable life and women's health. When the Supreme court ruled in row in 1973, the court was clear that the right to terminate pregnancy is not absolute the decision and those after it left far more questions than answers. However, the court was and is clear that the people may still act to protect legitimate interests, such as a potentiality of life. And women's health. The Mississippi legislature enacted this law consistent with the will of the people to do just that promote women's health and preserve the dignity and sanctity of life.

Speaker 1: 1:13:50

All right. So, you know, there's her perspective. And she's saying that know the people of her state voted for this thing and she wants the Supreme court to rule on it. So let's go back to her, press release and see what else is going on in here. She says, there are those of us that would like to have this issue settled once. And for all, all it did. Roe vs. Wade was established a special rules, re regime for abortion jurisprudence. It's left the cases out of step with the other courts proceedings, state legislatures. She says in the public have lacked clarity and passing laws to protect these legitimate public interests. It's time for the court to set this right and give this back to the states. As noted. She says that the discord that was established by the prior abortion cases made matters worse so that they want to improve upon RO by replacing the strict scrutiny standard with the undue burden standard that was done in Casey, that standard two defeats also other state interests. Okay. So here is the, the, the header from the case that was filed in the Supreme court. And this is Thomas Dobbs. So this is a doctor here with the Mississippi department of health state health officer versus Jackson women's health organization. So they're the respondents. This has been granted, it's coming up from the fifth circuit. It's going to be heard in the U S Supreme court. And the main question that they're asking is this, whether all, all pre viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional, all of them, right? And these can take many different forms. These are sort of the waiting periods. If a woman goes into an abortion clinic and they say, well, we can do the abortion for you, but you have to wait three days, come back in three days, that's kind of a, a burden. Isn't it. According to one side of the argument, it is right there. There are people who essentially want abortion on demand. You show up there and boom, it's done. So if that is delaying the abortion well, then that might cause somebody to think more about it. And it might, you know, provide an opportunity for them to be dissuaded from making that decision. And so many people see that as a burden. Also there are, have been different rules where they will say, uh, you know, we're gonna, we're gonna make you watch an ultrasound where we're going to ultrasound your womb. And before you go in there and conduct that, you know, that, that thing we're going to show you, what's going on. And courts have said that all of that is burdensome. It's trying to dissuade a woman from, from exercising, that decision. And so the question is sort of about that are all pre viability, prohibitions on elective abortions, unconstitutional. And so this doesn't say sort of burdens, but it's talking about prohibitions. And so we're going to see how expansive that is. Let's take a look. This is the brief that came from attorney general. Fitch says on a sound understanding of the constitution. The answer to the question presented this case is clear in the path of that answer is straight under the constitution. May estate state prohibit elective abortions before viability, before viability right before the child could live on its own. She says, yes. Why? Because nothing in the constitution, nothing in the text, the structure, the tradition supports a right to abortion. A prohibition on elective abortions is therefore constitutional. As long as it satisfies the rational basis review that applies to all laws. Oh, okay. So you see what's happening here. We talk about these different layers of constitutional scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the highest they want to drop this all the way down to the bottom. So this would say that that a state, if they say, if they want to put any restriction on abortion, that has a rational basis, that's the standard that they have, which would basically mean a state could entirely eliminate it if they want it to, if they voted on that, she says that that's appropriate. She says this case is made hard only because Roe vs Wade and Casey hold that the constitution protects our right to abortion. She's saying, no, it doesn't right. So she was watch those overturned. Under those cases, a state law restricting abortion may not pose an undue burden before viability. This court has said, a state may not maintain a prohibition of abortion, despite the state's important interest in protecting and unborn life and women's health. So they're saying that we, we have such strong interests in having another human being be born in our state. And we also have a tremendous amount of interest in maintaining a woman's health that both of those satisfy the court's pre row underpinnings or even the row underpinnings. In other words, the justification for why Roe vs Wade and why planned parenthood versus Casey ever made it. We can, we can also sort of reach the same justification, uh, protecting an unborn life and women's health by reducing the standard down. All right? So both courts below understand that these cases require them to strike down the gestational age act, which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks, Roe and Casey are thus at odds with the straightforward constitutionally grounded, answer it. This court should overrule those decisions to starry decisis case for overruling ruling. Kate Rowan Casey is overwhelming. So she wants a total throwing out a rope, which my goodness, can you imagine what that's going to do to people in this country be a spicy one? Isn't it? All right. So she carries on, she says the brief continues. The only workable approach to accommodating the competing interest is to return the magic, mattered the legislatures to send us back to the states. We want the court to affirm the right of the people to protect their legitimate interests and give us some clarity in 50 years, since row science and society of March forward. During this time, the viability marker has moved from 28 weeks to 22 weeks. In some cases, and science will only continue to advance. So it's, it's once it's viable, then that's changing. And she's saying, can we, can we make any restrictions? Pre viability court let us know. Legislatures should be able to respond to that. As part of her media package, she gave us different arguments that she's going to be making. And she tells us on page 10 of her brief in the Supreme court, she says that argument is the court should hold a state, may prohibit elective abortions because there's a rational basis for it. She says the Mississippi act also furthers the interest of protecting unborn life and women's health and the medical profession's integrity. So she's saying that the same reasons that were being used to justify the allowance of abortion can be met with the limitations on abortion. So we're sort of, we're getting to the same end point of protecting medical integrity of protecting women's health and of protecting unborn life, where we're achieving. All of those rational basis. Review is, is not applied to abortion laws because the precedents have raised the scrutiny, but the court should overrule those precedents and drop it back down from strict scrutiny down to rational basis. Review the court should reject the viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions and reject the judgment below. So get rid of the viability question at all. As long as it has a rational basis to anything, if a court says, I'm sorry, if a legislature says we've got a basis for this thing, it should be allowed. She continues. She says a lot has changed in five decades. In 1973, there was little support for women who wanted a full family life annex successful career maternity leave was rare. Paternity leave was unheard of the gold standard for professional success was a nine to five. The flexibility of the gig economy was a fairytale in the last 50 years. Women have carved their own way to achieving better balance for success and personal lives. By returning the matter of abortion policy to the state, we allow a stunted debate on how we support women to flourish. It's time for the court. Let go of it's hold on their prior precedent. All right, so that's a spicy one. Let's see what everybody has to say about this one. Let's see if we've got any questions coming in from watching the watchers.locals.com on our locals exclusive form. We have another one here from three girls for the last segment. I think I'm missing somebody from thunder seven. We've got journalist pan to hear her saying, have you seen the video of Pelosi saying that Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned. It's too much political power for the Dems. I have not seen that video, but I do believe it. We have Sharon says row was a very bad ruling. Kind of like Dred Scott unborn children are human beings. That's all there is to say, just take a look at embryology tells the whole story. The horror of abortion is far worse in my opinion than slavery from Sharon Courtney. Good comment, Sharon, we have hugging money in his ear, says the best thing I've ever heard against abortion is if a one cell bacteria on Mars is considered life. Why isn't unborn fetus on earth, huh? Yeah, that's a good one. Let's see what else we've got coming in. We have a no name on this. One says abortion is up to 12 weeks, 11 weeks, about six days in Norway. But we do have medical courts that can decide abortion at a later date. It's about 600 years cases in Norway. Yeah. It's small number a lot more than that here. And goodness, and shout out to Norway. Shout out to Norway. Oh my gosh. I love to go visit that part of the world at some point in my life, my day. But uh, probably not going to be this year. We have Sharon quit and he says, I'm really passionate about this issue. A woman's right to choose means a right to choose to murder somebody. Women's health. Pregnancy is not a disease. The overwhelming majority of abortions are because of failed contraception. If people would just be responsible, it would be a better world. That's from Sharon Courtney. Good comment, Sharon. I agree with that. I think if people took a little bit more personal responsibility, things would be a lot better across the board. Pili wheelie is here, says, oh, what would they say? If it was a girl transgender that now really wants to live life as a guy, can she get an abortion? Nobody wants to hurt those sensitive, sensitive feelings after all Rob yawn, yawn. Oh, I can't keep track of it actually. A can a girl transgender living as a guy having an abortion. I mean, biologically, right? Probably, maybe. I don't know. Thunder seven says, Rob, it appears to me that the dams keep pushing the abortion needle. Literally allowing portion partial birth abortions. It won't be long before they will allow killing a newborn as long as it's within a minute or two. And I think I saw an actual article about that one time it's called like infanticide, right? It's actually a thing. Honestly, if it's, if they say celebrate the death of babies, it's very dark. Why not allow individual states to pass their own abortion laws and keep their beliefs, whether it be for or against. Why do Dems insist that only their viewpoints be allowed? Good question. Thunder seven. And that's exactly what Fitch is saying. Attorney general Fitch from Mississippi, she's saying, listen, what you created court this right to abortion. You just created out of whole cloth out of thin air came out of nowhere. It's not in the constitution. You don't get to create it out of this penumbra of rights that exists in out of other parts of the constitution. There's a lot you could dive into on this case. No, no doubt about it. And we did in law school, but yeah, that's what attorney general Fitch's arguing. She's saying if you bring this back down to the state level, if you make it so that it's not a constitutional right anymore than the states can regulate it and people can get up and move around wherever they want to go. If you want to go live in, in, in an abortion friendly state pick up and go to California, if you don't go to Mississippi, right? That's kind of one of the things that that's kind of neat about the countries you've got this laboratory, the states, I think Sandra Day, O'Connor called them laboratories of democracy. Let the different states work through some of these issues. See what works, what doesn't work, pick the best ones and let the country decide rather than letting Washington decide or letting judges decide because that's not a PR that's not democracy, right? That's sort of a, we elect officials who, who appoint other officials who get life tenure, and then they get to make decisions for us. All right. Well, that's a social issue, you know, but th th the countervailing argument is that no, it's constitutional. It's my body, my choice. And I have the right to do whatever I want with it. So that standards should be set across the country is how that argument goes. We have Sharon, if a woman has a right to kill her baby, because it's inconvenient, then why don't have the right to go over and shoot my next door neighbor. Because she parks where I don't like her. Don't do that. Sharon, just, just because other people are having abortions, don't do that. But I understand your point, right? Their response to you would be. Yeah, but it's not a human, it's not a life. That person was alive. This thing, wasn't, that's their argument. I know. All right, let's see what else is up? This is spicy, spicy topic, great analysis of a complex issue from Sergeant Bob and Ms. Lucky is here too. Well, thank you, Sergeant Bob, you know, it's a complicated one and it, uh, it, it tends to invoke a lot of energy. Doesn't it? Good to see you guys, as the Darvis here says right now is the perfect time to use their vaccine lunacy against them and say, I'm sorry, but your body, but your, my body, my choice card was revoked this year after you've been a complete hypocrite over agreeing with forcing COVID-19 vaccines on people against their will. And then we got, I think we got four has there, which is some serious laughter, which I support that. That's actually, yeah, it's actually very, very funny. Uh, and I, and I've seen some of that, right? My body, my choice don't tell me to inject. And the, the response to that has been, well, it's not the same thing. If you don't take the vaccine, well, then you could go out there and you could kill somebody that's different than abortion. And all of the people who are sort of, you know, pro-life are going, did you just hear yourself? You said, if I go out there with, with, with COVID and without a vaccine, you're concerned that I might kill somebody. Are you listening? You are advocating for killing people in a woman's body. You know? So it's kind of, you're going to have a lot of fun with that. Oh, we have a Superchat just came in. That was from pro player. 2000 says from a former fetus. Hello from Illinois. Hello. I'm glad you're with us. I'm glad you're with us. I'm a former fetus too. I think there are many of us in the chat and we've got 679 former fetuses here and then on locals, another several dozen over there. So, wow. All right. We have things in common. My friends, we all made it here. Ghost gunners in the house says that abortion is such a heinous and unnecessary, cruel act. Condoms are cheap, even free in some places. Uh, you're old enough to have intercourse with other people. Use your head on another note. They think my three days of waiting is unconstitutional. Guess I'll have to figure out who to Sue. Next time I get delayed. My FFL. No, that's a good point, right? If they're going to do that, that's a good point. If they're going to make you wait for your firearm of, uh, an undue burden on your second amendment rights, isn't it we have wants to know, says how do we keep the back alley abortions from happening? Rich can always fly to another country. A lot of women ended up severely injured when abortions aren't an option. So you're right. It's a good, I think it's a good question. I don't know what the answer to that is. Um, but I think, I think that a lot of people would, would probably say that he should be criminalized, which, I mean, that's a whole nother complicated issue, which we'll skip today dreary or says, well, I would agree with Skoda's overturning Roe and Casey, does anyone not realize this court is to cowardly look at the election cases and the Obamacare decisions. I totally agree with that. Dreary or spider. I don't think that they're going to do it. I really don't. I think that they're way too interested in preserving, uh, you know, their sort of PR progressive credentials that they're not going to do that we have it's ed says, Rob, finger's looking good, buddy. I'm on the mend. It's working out well. I actually was able to, you know, move, throw some weights around today, not too much trouble. It says, I miss that part of us history, where they outlined the part of the constitution that gives the us Supreme court to determine what is or not considered a life. Can you point that section out to me there? You know, I don't think it's in there. Ed, read it a few times. Don't recall that definition of when something becomes life, your point is well taken. John Finch stayed at and later reiterated by O w Holmes says, quote, your right to swing. Your arm leaves off where my right to not have my, I was struck, begins. I support women's rights and people's rights to do with their body as they please so long as the cost of said, decisions are not placed on anyone else. Murdering a baby is a clear cost on another person. When the woman makes that decision with her body, I pray 50 years from now. We look back and think of abortion in the same way. We look back and think of slavery and Jim Crow laws looking at it with total disgust. It's a powerful comment. And thank you for that. And I know a lot of people agree with you on that. And the court is primed and ready to sort of, I think, regardless of where you stand on the issue, what the court did legally was inappropriate. And I like the framework of sending this back down to the states. I think that that will be a good, a good way to, you know, let, let, let local governments sort through this stuff rather than setting a standard because it is such a volatile issue. We have another one with no question says, add meds, require the prescription, be hand delivered to the pharmacy. And no refills are allowed. I'd love to have the same, right. To medical integrity as a woman using to abort on demand. I didn't know that about add meds. That's interesting. Yeah, because they're, they're essentially amphetamines aren't they many of them. So that makes sense. But it's, it's an interesting, it's interesting take there. And when you start playing that sort of compare and contrast game, you can really have a lot of fun taking that logically to the end of the world. I have leafy bug in the house says, isn't it competitive federalism to the model. Some states are going to accept this. Some aren't after having children, I am personally a lot less tolerant of abortion. Interesting. So that's from leafy bug. So you're you notice your perspectives changed, changed a little bit. Let's see what else is coming in here? We have a couple more before we wrap up for the day, bug also says with our last child, we were offered a test to see if the baby had down syndrome. The implication being that we could abort her. If she did that revolted me. Of course we did not get the test. She's lying right next to me right now. Seven months old, perfectly healthy, healthy cannot imagine doing something like that to her that's leafy bug leafy bug. That comment hits home. My friend, I have a down syndrome brother, Joey. He is 3 34 years old going to be 35, September 20th, amazing young man. He actually works around the office, helps me keep my fridge full and you know, does some little odds and ends around the office. He was in the hospital for 48 days last summer with COVID. He is the biggest blessing on the plant. I love him to death and I'm very, very grateful that he's here. I don't know if my mom had that conversation with their doctor at the time, but I'm glad that she did not make the decision. And I'm glad you didn't either. Amazing. We have another one from Jeremy madrina says Rob, excellent coverage of the article and the topic as an adult male, who wishes to maintain good standing with women, I fully support a woman's choice and do not agree with the government. Getting involved. Human reproduction has nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with survival instinct. I'm a man. I am man enough to admit two times in my life. I faced faced the question of whether to abort. Second time I was much older and wiser and supported my partner in whatever her choice would be. And secretly prayed. She would make the right choice showing support, allowed her to make the rational choice, but I had, I had to allow her to come to that conclusion on her own man, Jeremy,[inaudible] that man, what a comment. Thank you for that. That is vulnerability man, for, for just coming out there and typing that down and, and submitting that and having to read that on the show, I'm honored, I'm honored to have to have you share that with me and to have been able to share that on this channel and on this show, I'm honored for that because it's, it's a very complex issue and it's very easy to do, take these things and realize that, you know, our lives are integrated with other people and that everybody should do everything that we do. And there's only one right way. And that everything has to be dictated and even, and mandated across the board. And it's complicated, man. And that is a complicated, you had some different, cool questions to work your way through. And I'm grateful you shared that with us, man. Okay. We have a Bama Likud now. So we, we go, we go, we, we go from that to Bama Likud, which is one of the best usernames that we have can no, I can't read that. I get read that, but I'm I like it. All right. So we've got no doubts as, Hm, no waiting period on abortion with a guaranteed kill yet. They want a waiting period for a gun that will most likely not hurt anyone. Yes, it is. That, that just outstanding contradiction. We have, uh, three girly says, I believe Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided. And I believe it's the state's rights issue. States are responsible for all vital statistics, such as birth death, marriage, state, the side, personal crimes, such as murder, rape assault charges for their citizens state should have the right to make abortion laws at the state level. Right? So we've talked about all of these other issues, birth, death, crime, murder, rape, all of those things. It's a very, very good point, right? It sort of consistency. We're going to have a pattern of consistency. Justice. Thomas has been laying the groundwork in legal reviews for awhile. It's to take the states to pick up the bread crumbs and bring it to court. Mississippi is the first to use the breadcrumbs. Thomas has laid out for everyone. Yeah. And so various Stute observation, three girlies, right? Th this is often what happens is it takes years and decades to lay the legal framework. And Mississippi now is sort of, you know, asking that question. Is there anything we can do at all? Any, any possible ability to limit pre viability? It's a big question. And it's going to be one that the court is going to really have to grapple with. And I'm curious to see where it goes, but you're right. Thomas and, and there are others who have been on this train for a long time. Let's see. We have, Jeremy says to clarify my, my response abortion has a lot to do with a man. And whether he makes the woman to believe that she will be taken care of and safe. Oh yeah. Okay. So another addition there, right? It's it takes two to do the deed. It takes two to raise a child. It takes, well, I was, my mom raised me. So maybe it doesn't take too. We have, but I appreciate your comment there, Jeremy. And it is, it is something that I think is very important to have a, you know, a real serious conversation about, and the fact that the fact that you're sharing that with us is just, it's amazing. We have an, a Darby says we have Nia Darby, as in all seriousness, I think that it should be up to the states, but I don't think that the state has any right to claim interest in protecting the baby until the baby can survive out of the room. And so that's kind of what the court said. Yeah. Doctors say 22 weeks is the earliest age when baby's viable or able to survive outside of the womb, leave it to the states. And you can only get an abortion for the first 20 weeks or four months, which is more than enough time to find out you are pregnant. Yeah. And so the question would that, would that become, is there a limiting principle to that? Is there anything that would stop a state from basically saying that abortions are just outright prohibited? That that is what attorney generals Fitch's request would allow in my opinion, right? If this is, if the Supreme court comes out and says, yes, there are certain pre viability prohibitions that our law allowed. The next question is what, and then the question after that, is there any limit to that? Like, can a state just ban them outright if attorney general Finch gets her way? The answer is yes. I think farmer's daughter says I had a friend who worked with PPE. She quit because there was no counseling to discourage it. PPE being, I think, planned parenthood, they simply schedule the appointment. Same with gender dysphoria. Let's cheer them on instead of offering viable options. Yes. There, there is some of that, right there are, there are people out there that sort of celebrate on abortion. And, uh, I've seen, I've seen, you know, memes and screenshots and stuff like that. And, uh, uh, people, you know, they're on their third, fourth, fifth abortions. It's like, okay, it's not contraception my friends. It's not that that I think we can be pretty clear about it's ed says right on about Joey, my cousin, Hector has down syndrome. He's the happiest person. I know. I love hanging out with him. He is special to me. I'm glad my aunt didn't abort him, even though the doctor tried to pursue her too. Yeah, I know. I know man, down syndrome, people are just, they're such a gift and I just people with down syndrome, I just, oh my gosh. Is that, is that a fair am I, I think I'm allowed to say that, right. Can I, can I use those words? I think I have licensed because I actually have a down syndrome brother. It's very complicated now. All right. We have John Delara is here. Says just want to say I really enjoy and look forward to your show and thanks. Thanks John Golan. Look, I appreciate it too, man. I really look forward to spending time with you. I learned a lot. I think we have great conversations and it's, it's really a lot of fun and very rewarding. And I, and I really appreciate it. Three Gurley's is here, says fun facts. Ralph Northam, governor of Virginia, when, so far as to say that the mother and the doctor could determine if the child would live past being born infanticide. That's what it was. You nailed it. Yeah, that was, it was governor Northam of Virginia. I do recall that. I remember them talking about this, right? And, and the way that they do these things is just horrific. Archbishop Salvatore, quarterly Oni. The Bishop in Pelosi's hometown has denied her communion for her stance on abortion. She professes to be a devout Catholic yet says and believes what she does on abortion. And those were great questions. Great comments. I think we've got one more in, uh, John Dolores says this generation is a pretty good argument for birth control. That's a good way to end it on a Friday. It's uh it's. Yes. Great questions. All of those were a lot of fun over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's give some shout outs over to YouTube. We, uh, we got some people who are, uh, chime in and over there, we've got Christine, we've got Marsia Jones, bloodhound, Terry, we got mass in the house. Kenneth reader says a horrible bloodhound and others are over there. Thunder seven farmer's daughter, Baranski, RQ Ariens. We've got, want to know thunder seven, they're all over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And I, once again, my friends, I really do appreciate all the support from you supporting us there at our community. I want to welcome one newcomer, Truman HW signed up. Let's go back over there. Truman HW signed up for, uh, our community and watching the watchers.locals.com. Very, very, uh, very grateful for that. We had a super chat just came in right now from pro player. 2000 says, thanks for being you. We're going to see that on the screen here in a minute. So thank you for that pro player. Really do appreciate that. Uh, and let's see what else is here. Oh yeah. So if you are there it is pro player. Thank you so much for that. Really do appreciate it. And if you want to sign up and be a part of the community, it's watching the watchers.locals.com right down here, five bucks a month, 50 bucks for the year. We have a monthly meetup. Oh my goodness. It's happening tomorrow. And the link is available at, at the post right now, the latest posts you can sign up. The registration form is there if you've not already done. So if you have, you should be already getting the reminder. We're going to meet tomorrow via zoom, July 24th at 7:00 PM Eastern time. And it's a lot of fun. This is going to be a month. Number three, the last two months, we've had a handful of more than that. We had like 35 40 people come through. We talked to people from all over the world, from people with all different professions. We have, you know, police officers, firefighters. We have, uh, a lot of just amazing people. So it's a lot of fun. It's very informal. I don't really have anything prepped. Thoughts, suggestions, comments, ideas, criticisms. Do you want to flip me off? Come do it. That's no problem. No FBI, no FBI agents. You're not invited not allowed in there, but if you want to keep your camera off, that's okay, too. It's all right, because we're all just trying to get to know each other and build a little bit of a community over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. We would love it if you joined us over there. All right. My friends, well, that is it from me for the day. I want to thank you all so much for being here. Being a part of the show had a lot of fun this week. Thanks for bearing with me on the new studio. I'm going to be sinking some work in there. You can see the walls getting a little bit better. It's not as bad because I put some spackle on there yesterday. And so I'm going to be working on that probably still not going to be done for the next week or so, but we're going to get there and the show will continue on in spite of the construction. And I hope you do join us next week for that and more so everybody have a tremendous weekend. Remember to get some rest, have a nice hearty meal. We did a lot of work this week and we need to take a little bit of a break from politics. Cause we want to make sure that our energy tanks are refilled and were rocked and ready to go on Monday. Everybody I'll see you right back. Then, then at that time, 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM central mountain time, 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous weekend. I'll see you right back here on Monday. Unless I see you tomorrow at our zoom meetup. I'll see you then have a great weekend. Bye bye everybody.