Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Taliban Warns Biden, Pfizer Approved + No Vax No Fly List Bill, Capitol Police vs. Ashli Babbitt  

August 23, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Taliban Warns Biden, Pfizer Approved + No Vax No Fly List Bill, Capitol Police vs. Ashli Babbitt  
Show Notes Transcript

The Biden Administration hits the media to continue to push back against criticism over the Afghanistan withdrawal as the Taliban hold to the August 31 deadline. The FDA approves the Pfizer vaccine with full authorization, making it no longer emergency use only, and we look at the penalties for the non-vaxxed around the country. The Capitol Hill Police investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong! The unnamed officer who killed Ashli Babbitt is still not named, but was found to have acted lawfully.​

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

🔵 NSA Jake Sullivan on Sunday refused to specify how many Americans the U.S. is “working with” but the number in the several thousands.​
🔵 Chris Wallace asks Secretary of State Tony Blinken if President Biden knows what he is doing – which Blinken refuses to address.​
🔵 President Biden spoke briefly about the situation in Afghanistan, and ties it back to the original decision.​
🔵 On Monday, Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby confirms that of all the evacuees, “several thousand” are Americans.​
🔵 Biden says his administration is in discussions about extending the August Deadline.​
🔵 Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen confirms for Sky News that any occupation past August 31 will be met with a response.​
🔵 The FDA grants full approval to Pfizer vaccine, clearing the way for more vaccine mandates.​
🔵 Meet Janet Woodcock, the acting commissioner of the FDA.​
🔵 U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy excited about full approval, which will give businesses and universities more tools for mandates.​
🔵 Meanwhile, Mississippi criminalizes patients who do not self-quarantine order by Health Officer Thomas Dobbs.​
🔵 Congressperson Ritchie Torres from New York introduce bills to prohibit the unvaccinated from flying on airlines.​
🔵 U.S. Capitol Police investigate themselves (internally) and find they did nothing wrong in the death of Ashli Babbitt.​
🔵 Revies of 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under the color of law​
🔵 Review of the U.S. Department of Justice’s refusal to further prosecute the officer involved shooting. ​
🔵 Live chat after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

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, August 28th 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://watc

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert ruler . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today on this lovely Monday, we've got a lot to get to a lot of activity over the weekend from the Biden administration. We're going to start off by seeing what the Sunday shows had to say about the AF Ghana's Stan situation. We had Jake Sullivan bouncing around on a couple different networks. We have Chris Wallace who asked secretary of state Tony. Blinken a very pertinent, very relevant question. Many of us have been asking ourselves, we're going to check in with president Biden. See what he had to say. John Kirby over from the Pentagon was out there today, Monday talking about , uh , some other problems with Afghanistan. And then because all governments are represented here. We have to acknowledge the Taliban. They have a spokesperson. And so we're going to hear from Sue Heil, Shaheen who's the Taliban spokesperson who was, is going to be engaging or at least communicating the negotiations, taking place between the U S and the Taliban were going to see what he has to say about it. Then in the next segment, we're going to talk about the vaccine Pfizer vaccine fully approved. Now from the FDA happened pretty quickly. Some people are excited about that. Some people are a little bit, not so much. We're going to see what a couple of people have to say in particular, us surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, very excited about this. Very happy, very elated, because now that we have a true vaccine, one that is not experimental anymore, he's presuming that we're going to see more mandates and we're going to see more universities and businesses require the fully approved vaccine now. So we'll see what he has to say about it. And then we're going to go around the country and see what some other states are doing. Mississippi is going to be criminalizing people more COVID crimes. We've got a Congress person , guy by the name of Richie Torres, who is a now trying to pass a, a new bill that would make it so that if you're unvaccinated , you don't get to fly on airplanes anymore. You go on the no fly list. And we're going to take a look at that bill and see what's going on with that. And then in our last segment, we're going to check back in on the Ashley Babbitt case. Ashley Babbitt , as we know, this was a woman who was shot and killed during the January six riots during those protests and the U S Capitol police came out today. They said, Hey, America, guess what? We investigated ourselves.

Speaker 2:

We didn't do anything wrong. Everything's perfect.

Speaker 1:

So they came out and said that there's not going to be any further inquiry into the Ashley Babbitt ordeal. And we're going to go through that a little bit more at length, take a look at us. Code 2 42 sections 2 42, which is the deprivation of rights under the color of law statute. And we're also going to see what the justice department had to say related to this back in April, when they also declined to prosecute or to do anything about the Ashley Babbitt death. So we've got a lot to get into, want to invite you to be a part of the show. If you want to do that, the place to be is [email protected], which is where there's a chat taking place. We've got Kenny one B, we've got K cell. We have Lynn , J N N is in the house and we have justice obsessed. They're all chatting away over there. Over on YouTube. We've got Zulu in the house. Justin F Zorro playing hooky, a straight narrow, too legit to quit. Mason, Al Kat and several others who were chatting over there. If you're a supporter of the show [email protected] , there's a form here. It looks like this very accessible to you. That's where you'll be able to ask a question. You can use the full form if you want. And we can go through as many of those as we can get to on this

Speaker 2:

Quick notes , by the way, show programming notes. You may have noticed over the weekend that the clips they're not on the channel anymore. That's because we moved them to a separate

Speaker 1:

Channel. And so if you're somebody who watches the clips

Speaker 2:

Of the show, you're going to have to go to a different

Speaker 1:

Channel. I know I'm sorry about that, but it has to happen. So there's a different channel now called Robert Guler Esq clips. If you are not somebody who watches the clips, if you watch the live show, you don't need to go over there and subscribe to that. But if you are somebody who watches the clips, be advised that those are being moved over to a different channel just for YouTube purposes, because YouTube is , uh , we're , we're sort of producing too much content for this channel. And some of the videos are getting lost in the mix. So we're going to move those out to a different channel. We'll see how that works. They may come back. I don't know, but for the time being, if you, if you missed the clips, they're over there, Robert ruler , Esq clips pretty self-explanatory all right. So enough of that, let's get into the news of the day. We're going to start off with Afghanistan. Let me make sure that we're cued up appropriately. The Biden administration is still responding to the Afghanistan, crumbling, catastrophe. Over the weekend. They made the rounds on a number of different Sunday shows. And we're going to see what they have to say. They're also out Monday talking a lot about what's going on there. We know that this is going to be sort of a mad dash sprint between now and the end of August, which is when the deadline is, this is the deadline that Joe Biden, the Biden administration set. They said, we're done August 31st and we've been holding them to that. So is the media asking them a lot of questions like, Hey guys, what happens if we get to August 31st and still have work to do? Because there's a lot of Americans, presumably that are still over in Afghanistan and the deadline's coming up pretty soon here, clock is ticking my friends. So what happens? And so the Biden administration has been asked this a number of different times, a number of different ways, many people in the media, us here on the channel have been trying to wrap our head around what is this Afghanistan problem going on? Right. Many of us agree here that leaving was probably a good decision, a good move, had some problems with the method of the withdrawal. And then beyond that more problems with the third layer of analysis, which is the sort of the leadership response to the botch withdrawal. And so we've been trying to see, well, how is the administration now dealing with this? They've been dealt a bad hand. So as America, a lot of Americans over there, a lot of problems that still need to be worked through, but now is the time for leaders to shine. It's the time for people to step up and say, okay, look, we made the right decision. We kind of screwed up a little bit badly, but now we're going to go in there and rectify this thing. We know that we screwed up a good leaders, rises to the occasion and solves the problem. So we've been watching the Biden administration really with an eye to two different things. A couple of couple of really important points. How many Americans are still over there? Can you give us a pretty clear number? Because as we said, the clock is ticking and we want to make sure that we can get them all out of there. And so the first question that we're going to jump into here is from CNN. This is an anchor asking Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor , specifically about this, really trying to dig in here and say, look, USA , byte administration, Jake Sullivan, Kirby , secretary of state, anybody, how many Americans are still over there and what are we doing to get them out of there? This is from CNN. And I want you to pay very close attention to Jake Sullivan and how he answers this question. They're not going to give us a hard number. They're not going to give us any details, but listen, how he says this. He uses this, this phrase working with, oh, well, I can't tell you how many Americans are over there. What's that big bucket. There's one bucket. The total number of Americans who were in Afghanistan. What is that number? We don't know. And so that is the question that's being asked, but watch what Jake Sullivan answers. He doesn't answer that. Does he,

Speaker 3:

Do you know how many Americans and legal permanent residents are currently in Afghanistan? Awaiting evacuation?

Speaker 4:

Thanks for having me, Brianna , we cannot give you a precise number, but we believe that is several thousand Americans who are , uh , we are working with now to try to get safely out of the country. The reason we can't give you a precise number is that we ask Americans when they come to Afghanistan to register with the embassy, many come and do that. But then they leave and never de-registered many others come and don't register at all. That is their right. It was their right, of course, to remain in Afghanistan as long as they wanted. And it's our responsibility to get them out. That is what we are in the process of doing right now. We are working hard to organize groups of Americans, to bring them on the air base , to get them on flights and get them out of the country.

Speaker 1:

All right , Oxford scholar, Jake Sullivan, he comes out and says, well, look, we are working with a couple thousand, several thousand Americans, which is not what she asked. She asked specifically how many Americans are there. It's pretty important to know what the total bucket looks like. If you have a bucket of very valuable things that you want to move from one location to another, and you can only take little smaller buckets out of that bucket and move it, like put those things in that big bucket, on an airplane and move them to another smaller bucket. You want to know how big that bucket is. So, you know, how many airplane trips you got to take from move one bucket to the other bucket. Pretty simple stuff. CNN anchor was intelligent enough to gather that and ask the national security advisor about that specifically. Hey, how big is that bucket? Jake Sullivan says, well, Hmm . These are the people that we've been speaking with about the airplane trips that are going back and forth. And we're saying, that's great, good job. We're very excited that you're saving American lives, moving them out of a war zone that your administration, because that's not the question. The question is how many more people are in the bucket? Jake Sullivan doesn't answer that the administration has been very coy on this. This CNN anchor presses him again here. And he says, well, we've been in contact with,

Speaker 4:

Is that you said we have been in contact with a few thousand Americans and we are working hard to make arrangements, make plans with each of those people in each of their families to get them safely to the airport and get them out. We're communicating with them by email, by telephone, by text message.

Speaker 1:

And that's that same line they're using this all, all over the place. Jen Psaki did that today. I'm seeing in the chat . Some people are saying, Hey , uh , Jen Saki , what are you talking about? Stranded Americans , Rob. Cause Jen Saki came out and said, well, no Americans are stranded. She was responding back to Peter Doocy, which I didn't get that clip because I saw it on my phone as I was sitting down to do the show, but she came out, Doocy says, Hey, there's a lot of American stranded over there. Saki says, I'm offended there . Peter Doocy , uh, there aren't American stranded. We're contacting them by emails and text messages and phone calls just like Jake Sullivan said, it's this it's this , uh, it's this reframing? No, they're , they're not stranded. Well, they can't get to the airport. They can't get on a plane out of the country. They can't leave, but they're texting us. So they're not stranded there . We care a lot about them. So we're going to get them eventually as their point. And so they're just a little bit offended that somebody from Fox news would use language that is just very hurtful to Jen. Very her , uh , she's offended that you used that language. They're working hard. And speaking of working hard, I mean, goodness, there , this has been a really emotional, trying time for a lot of people, including the president. Vice-president we have a secretary of state Anthony. Blinken a very, very emotional we're going to hear from him in a second. But the first clip on here is this is the secretary of state. This is the secretary of state, the person who is the, basically the chief diplomat of the United States, who is supposed to be interfacing with all of our allies and showing that America is back. That, that maniac Donald Trump, that the rest of the world thought was just such a, you know , such a , a sore sore mark on America's beautiful face is now gone. And now Joe Biden, the man who's going to return us to normalcy , normalcy. The man who's going to show us what 40 years of , uh , working in government looks like he's back in charge now. And so, because he's been around in the government so long, he knows what he's doing. Right. Chris Wallace had a question of that of secretary of state Anthony Blinken Hey, Mr. Blinken, does the president have any idea what the hell he's doing?

Speaker 5:

It's the secretary. Does the president not know what's going on?

Speaker 6:

This is an incredibly emotional time , uh , for , for many of us. Yeah . Including allies and partners. Who've been shoulder to shoulder with us in Afghanistan for 20 years , uh, at high cost to themselves.

Speaker 1:

All right . So, so he goes down this little soliloquy and , and he's , uh , Joe, Chris Wallace says specifically, sir, does Joe Biden know what's going on? And he goes off. It's very emotional. You know, we're all emotional. I know you're emotional. We're all emotional. That's not what he asked. Yes . Does he have any idea what's going on? And so Chris Wallace then comes back out and he says, I got it. I know it's emotional for you. I know that Jen Psaki and the rest of you, people are all thinking that this year you're very offended that Twitter is unhappy with you. But the point here is , uh , what are you doing as the government of the United States? Let's go back in and see what Chris Wallace is able to get out of

Speaker 6:

With us after nine 11 invoked article five of NATO for the fertile

Speaker 5:

Respectfully that look, I'm not, I'm not questioning whether or not the allies have a right to complain. I'm not questioning whether or not Al-Qaeda has a presence. The president said all got Al Qaeda is gone. It's not gone. The president said, he's not heard any criticism from the allies. There's been a lot of criticism from the allies, words matter. And the words of the president matter. Most

Speaker 6:

Chris , all I can tell you is what, what I've heard. And again, this is a powerfully emotional time for a lot of allies for me as it is for us. But I've also heard this

Speaker 1:

Don't cry then. Oh my gosh,

Speaker 6:

Deep appreciation. And thanks from allies and partners for everything that we've done,

Speaker 1:

Somebody get that man, a box of Kleenex, goodness, go take it easy. Then go take a couple of weeks off and you know, go talk to your therapist about how traumatic this is. And while you're at it, maybe they'll give you some good advice for the 40,000, maybe Americans who were still stuck over in Afghanistan. I think they're probably pretty emotional as well. So , uh , yeah. So no answers from any of the byte administration, from anybody in the, in the media asking very good questions. CNN asked some pretty hard questions, Fox news, asking some hard questions and no responses. So the leadership score kind of bad. Uh , so far now Joe Biden came out and Joe Biden to be fair. He's actually getting his feet under him a little bit on this entire topic. Remember last week we talked about sort of the three different layers, at least the way that I see a lot of these Afghanistan , uh , controversies and problems. We have a lot of debate about, should we have left in the first place? And so sometimes people will argue about that in an inappropriate time. It's, it's okay to talk about whether we should have left Afghanistan or not. And separate that issue from another issue, which is how did we leave Afghanistan? Was that done accurately or appropriately or not? So there are two different issues that require two different levels of analysis. You also have a third level of analysis, which is the response to the botch withdrawal. And so that is now sort of where we have been spending a lot of our time, which has not been so good for the Biden administration. So what are they doing as a response? Something very smart. They're taking it back to the top level, the first level of analysis. They don't want to have a conversation about the botched withdrawal that's layer two. They don't want to have a conversation about Joe Biden's response to the leadership, to , to the catastrophe, which has been very bad. The media noticed that gave to press conferences. Didn't take any questions and tell us third one then took four. And during his second, or , or I'm sorry, the third press conference. He was saying things that were totally disconnected from reality, which prompted the Chris Wallace response. Excuse me, does he have any idea what's going on? Because it doesn't seem like he does. So what they have done now is they have taken the ability away from the press to comment on layers of analysis. Two and three, Joe Biden is not going to talk so much about the botched withdrawal anymore. He's not going to talk so much about the solution to the botched withdrawal. He's going to do everything he can at every opportunity to take this back to layer one, which is where most of the public agrees with him. He's getting slammed on layers two and layers. Three, everybody knows this is botched . Everybody's been pretty disappointed with his leadership as a result of it, but still large portions of the country are saying, yeah, but it was still a thing. It was still the right thing to do. Cause Afghanistan was a mess. And so Joe Biden is going to take it right back up to level one level, one level one, here it is,

Speaker 7:

And fire away.

Speaker 8:

Right. And actually following up on Andrew's question because the United States is now negotiating with the Taliban over airport access and such. Do you now trust them? And then a question on the public response, a new poll out today shows Americans wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan, but they disapprove of the way you've handled it. Paul also found that based in part and what's transpired in the last week in majority of Americans. And forgive me, I'm just the messenger no longer be competent, focused or effective in the job. I haven't seen that pool . It's out there , um, from CVS this morning. Um, what would you say to those Americans who no longer believe that you talked to the job?

Speaker 7:

I had a basic decision to make back the layer. One. I either withdraw America from a 20 year war, depending on whose analysis except cost us $150 million a day for 20 years or $300 million a day for 20 years. Okay. Who would I now watch this every day and who in fact , uh , where we lost 2,440 Americans dead and 20,722 wound either increased the number of forces we keep, we keep there and keep that going. All right. And the war. And I decided, as I said the other day,

Speaker 1:

All right. So look, he's going back to that regular old, you know, Hey, we had to leave 2,500 dead. Uh , you know, the list goes on now. He he's really struggling here. He had to pull the card out and he's got a pretty good excuse for pulling the card out because it's, he's got a very clear number on it. And so they they've just, he's like , uh, what's the, what's the, the cartoon go-go gadget. That's what he is. He's like, go, go gadget. Oh , oh, I got a , I got a war question, hang on a second, opens this up. God pulls the numbers out and he's ready to rock and roll. Everything's on a cue card. Everything is scripted in this presidency, the whole thing, but this is more effective than whatever they were doing last week. This is Joe Biden. Now taking it back to the layer. One, most of America wanted to get out of Afghanistan. So as long as he can sort of pivot this back to that, it's a smart strategy. Now the question is, how long is that going? That sort of wool being pulled over everybody's eyes going to last? Probably not too long because things are continuing to get bad in Afghanistan and considerably worse. By the day we now know ISIS is back in the picture. That's right. If you were worried that they were going to run out of boogeyman to scare you with in this country, that is never going to happen. They have an endless supply. We've got a Delta. Now land is coming up. We're going to have Kappa gamma, beta, whatever. And so we thought that we were done with ISIS and Al Qaeda. No, no, no, not so fast. Are you kidding me? Uh , no , they're coming back there. We got season two now of ISIS. New ISIS threat is in Afghanistan. It prompted a U S warning over in Kabul. This is according to defense officials. This came out over the weekend. There is now a new threat from the Islamic state's ISIS branch. So they're opening up branches, I guess like your local bank in Afghanistan prompted a new warning from the U S embassy in Kabul that urged Americans not to come to the besieged airport in Kabul . This was confirmed on Saturday. We're going to take a look at the advisory. This did come over from the Afghanistan. Embassy in Kabul says the events because of a potential security threat outside the gates at the Kabul airport were advising us citizens to avoid traveling to the airport, avoid airport gates at this time, unless you receive individual instructions from the U S government to do so, do not call the embassy for updates. The form is the only way to communicate interest. So they are confirming it for us as well. ISIS is back. And so if you're going, oh, here we go again. What's this going to prompt? What's what, what new war is this going to start? Well, Jake Sullivan is also very concerned about this. Now , you know, he's been sort of equivocating over the last several weeks about Afghanistan, but on this issue, he's pretty well polished . Here he is.

Speaker 7:

Those crowds of course are vulnerable to attack. How real

Speaker 9:

Is this ISIS threat?

Speaker 4:

The threat is real. It is acute. It is persistent. And it is something that we are focused on with every tool in our arsenal. Our commanders on the ground have a wide variety of capabilities that they are using to defend the airfield against a potential terrorist attack. We are working hard with our intelligence community to try to isolate and determine where an attack might come from. It is something that we are placing paramount priority on stopping or disrupting, and we will do everything that we can for as long as we are on the ground to keep that from happening. But we are taking it absolutely deadly seriously.

Speaker 1:

It's a joke . It's persistent. It's real. We just brought him back. So ISIS is now going to be at the forefront of the news. So he was ready to go on that very, it must . That was that . That was very well polished that he must've learned that at Oxford. Now the white house came out today in the last 24 hours. They're they're telling us they're very excited, right? 28, us military flights. This was posted today on Twitter were evacuated. They took approximately 10,400 people from Kabul . That's a lot 61 coalition aircraft's evacuated approximately 5,900 people. Then we're going to see a big fat number here. 37,000 people have been evacuated as of August 14th. That's a lot that's almost 10 days ago. And so you're looking at 40,000 people. It's like 4,000 a day. That's, that's a pretty good number. And so many people are looking at that and saying, okay, fine. Look by an administration. They had a little bit of a rough start on this withdrawal, but maybe they're getting their feet under them. They're getting their bearings straight. They're finally getting, you know, a supply chain of an evacuation plan so that people can just be sort of put on the assembly line and shipped on out of there. Maybe they're finally getting things in order. And the white house is very excited about it . 37,000 people. That's a lot of people. So the question of course was, well though , that's a lot 37,000. Are those Americans? Because again, we don't know what the bucket of Americans is because nobody from the Biden administration will tell us anything about it. We know Jake Sullivan didn't want to give us an answer, but they've been working with and communicating with several thousand. So we say, okay, well, 37,000 came aboard across Plains from the white house. How many were Americans and how many were not? So today Fox news , uh , has this clip. They asked the Pentagon about it. Jake Sullivan. Didn't give us any answers yesterday. Maybe the Pentagon has some information about this.

Speaker 9:

Just another couple of quick ones, Tom , how many, I guess Afghan soldiers remain in the perimeter. I think you had said five to 600 a week in place . That's still the number. I believe that's the operative number. And then , um, how many Americans have been, I think you gave 2,500 Americans, has that number changed? Uh , we, we think that , um, that , uh, overall , uh, we we've, we've been able to evacuate several thousand a minute , uh , and I'd be reticent to get too much more specific than that. But yeah , since the 14th , uh, we believe we have been able to evacuate several thousand Americans. So the last table, top exercise for a new operation from age Kaia was

Speaker 1:

All right . So that was the end of that clip . So several thousand. So the white house is saying, oh, 39. So 37,000 people. That's great, but they're hiding the label. 37,000. What? It's not Americans, it's several thousand Americans. This is important because we have a deadline coming up on August 31st. They better pick up the pace here or they better tell us what the total number of the, of the big bucket of Americans is. Is it look if it , if , if they evacuated several thousand and there's several thousand more, okay, then that's probably okay. We can probably get there in time. There's enough time on the clock to shoot a couple extra baskets and win the game. But if that bucket is 50,000 or 40,000 or 30,000, and we're at a pace of a couple thousand a day, that might be a big problem. Given the fact that there's eight days left in the month. So the question then becomes, are they going to extend the deadline? We don't know what that bottom number is, what that bucket is, which leads you a little leaves you a little bit concerned. Why are they not telling you that? Hmm , well, Biden said earlier today that he was in discussions now about extending that date, August 31st, the Afghanistan withdrawal deadline. This came over from Forbes written by Andrew sole lender says president Biden said on Sunday, there are discussions within the administration about extending the deadline for the U S withdrawal past August 31st amid concerns that the evacuations of Americans and Afghans are still strapped in , trapped in the country, not going to be completed in time. He expressed confidence in a speech at the white house, said that there are some in Afghanistan that are , uh , that are stuck going to get out. Despite difficulties, the comments come after NSA said that there were several thousand Americans who remain in Afghanistan. Biden said that the U S military has extended the perimeter around the airport, creating a plan and asked if the Taliban would agree to an extension by noted that they were quite cooperative about extending the perimeter, but said it remains to be seen. If the U S will be asking for an extension, let's see here

Speaker 10:

Back to the August 31st question is August 31st deadline, is it ?

Speaker 1:

This is a clip that I had . All right, let me what I'm doing over here. Uh , this is a clip that I have from the Pentagon. This is , uh , Kirby. That question specifically is about the August 31st deadline

Speaker 10:

Back to the August 30. First question is August 31st extending that deadline. Is it really an option for the U S anymore? Is this wholly dependent upon whether the Taliban would agree to let a us presence remained in Afghanistan past that date?

Speaker 9:

Our focus is on getting this done by the end of the month, Tara. Um, and , uh, what we do here at the building at the Pentagon is options. We , our job is to provide the president, the commander in chief options. And as you heard the secretary say, if he gets to a point, he and chairman Millie , they believe they get to a point where they need to provide that advice and counsel to the president about , uh, an extension. Then he'll do that. We just aren't there right now. And you heard the secretary say himself, if he had more time on the clock, he would absolutely use more time on the clock. Yes , but we're focused on getting this done by the end of the month.

Speaker 1:

All right . Well, we'll see if they can get it done. It doesn't look optimistic given the fact that they won't tell you how many are left. The reason why they won't tell you how many are left is because they don't want you to keep track of that. Uh , so , uh , they've got their work cut out from them, for them. Now we heard from Kirby says specifically, our job is to give the president options. Uh , we know that kind of, we're supposed to do that before all this happened. Didn't do such a good job. That's why we have questions about this. So we , uh, we know secretary of state said, if we had more time on the clock, we would take it. But we don't, Joe Biden said specifically, oh , they might have to revisit this. John Kirby also confirming that, that they're going to work really hard up until August 31st. And we'll see what happens after that. Uh, the question is now that we have a legitimate government called the Taliban that our United States installed over there. We have to talk to them. They're a legitimate government. Now they replace the Afghanistan garbage. It's the Taliban Afghanistan now. And so they have an official spokesman and they have an official government that has tens of thousands, maybe of American hostages, who are literally under their control with the U S completely emasculated to do anything about it. So Joe Biden is really stuck between a rock and a hard place, and that is putting it lightly. So he comes out well, we're just going to have to talk to the Taliban about an extension of time. We need more time. The Taliban said not so fast. You have no bargaining chips. You have no cards to play. We own everything, including all of your military gear that you gave to the Afghanistan army and yours as well. And so don't you tell us what to do. In fact, if you stay one day over August 31st, there's going to be consequences. This was over from sky news. The Taliban specifically says there will be consequences. If there's any delay in the withdrawal of us, troops here is the Taliban spokesman. Now,

Speaker 8:

If the us or the UK wanted to extend that 31st of August deadline in order to continue evacuations out of the country, would you agree to that? No. No. Th th this is , uh , something , uh , you can say it's a red line. President Biden , uh , announced the , this agreement that until , uh , 30% off , I guess they would withdraw all their military forces. Uh, so if they extended, that means they are extended gov patient while there is no need for, for that. I think they , to able to treat the relation that will create mistrust between us, if they are intent on continuing the occupation. So it will provoke a reaction. Let's talk about,

Speaker 1:

Okay, it's going to provoke a reaction. If you're not out of there, Joe Biden, that's the Taliban. Now setting terms, dictating terms to the United States. That's that's new. Uh, didn't think that that I'd see that anytime soon, but here we are. America's changing rapidly in front of our eyes. Let's take a look at what you have to say about all of this and more. We're going to check in from watching the watchers.locals.com over there, chatting away. We've got news. Now, Wyoming, we have want to know we got farmer's daughter in the house. Good to see you. And we've got Greg Harris chatting away. Miss Downey , 2021 is in the house as well. Over on YouTube, Justin F Zorro , Christine we've got playing hooky 2020. We've got low-key 7, 9, 3 , along with Steven . Let's see what some of the questions are here from locals. We have here, miss Danny, 221 says, good evening. Robert just wanted to share some news with you. In case you didn't see them. China is letting know Chinese people stranded in cobble that they have to comply with the Taliban rules and are not going to be rescued. Wow. On the other hand, they send a message worldwide to warn Taiwan, not to rely on Americans for, they are not good allies. The newspaper that published this is obviously from China, but as I told you on Friday show, it seems they are going to take advantage of north. America's kind of weakness, great shows. I enjoy them so much best from Uruguay us . Thank you so much, miss Danny for that lovely comment and greetings. I thank you for tuning in, from Uruguay. We , I did briefly mention the Chinese sort of thumbing, the United States. They posted on Twitter from a China affiliated, you know , media. They , they labeled them, Hey, this is from, this is basically the Chinese communist party. It looks like a newspaper, but it's the CCP. And what they're saying, what I saw that specifically, they wrote directly to Taiwan and they say, look, look what happened, which they kind of have a point, unfortunately. So that is a , is very troublesome. That is also interesting though, that China is basically telling their citizens good luck. I guess that's one way to do it. We got John COVID survivor. How green is in the house as fully approved, using a condensed timeline that abandons all precedents regarding time being a factor. This is garbage science and erodes the medical community's legitimacy. That's in the next segment, John. So we're gonna have to get back to that. Wants to know, says you think that flooding everyone with these press conferences is to overload everyone. So news channels have less time to show pictures and fact checking . Yeah, it's sort of, I think it, I think there's a lot there that it's yeah , it's a media blitz. It's what it is. It's to go out there and sort of take control of the narrative, introduce new talking points and they're doing it. Uh , George Floyd is here, arrested in peace , says, I don't know what everyone is complaining about. Can't read that. That's important taste. We have a Sergeant. Bob says, just wondering aside from military, what were thousands of Americans doing? Their private industry or government? Uh, probably both right? Contractors. People who are willing, who wants to go and sort of , uh, you know, helping the war efforts. I don't know. Kenny one B says, proud. Boys held a rally yesterday to support January six , political protestors , black block Antifa that's on Ashley Babbitt . We're going out of order here. Folks. We've got to keep those questions in order drew your spider said, didn't these folks realize that if they wanted Democrats to give a F about them, they sh or a C about them. They should've registered and left a swing state instead of Afghanistan. That's funny. Uh, yeah, that's right. That's a funny point. We have another one, Sharon Whitney . He says I'm shocked that CNN is asking questions at all. Instead of just soft, balling it to the regime and asking about ice cream flavors. They don't have a clue as to how many Americans are there. I wonder how they're going to spin it. When the news comes out about women being tortured, eyes gouged out raped. If any of them survive , that is yeah. It's going to be a very slow drip, right? Drip, drip, drip. It's almost what happened to, to basically Donald Trump during the COVID mania . Remember that Trump came out. Everything's fine. Don't worry about it. Drip, drip, drip, drip, every day , death scoreboards, scoreboards all, all over the country. Probably going to see something similar like that. Uh , with Biden Mustang, Jeff says the answer. No, the president doesn't know what's going on. That would have been easier. The truth shall set. You free. Yeah, Tony. He knows it. He didn't deny it. He knows get to not answer that, Chris, because we all know what I have to say about that. Taliban is here. I can't, I can't, I can't take all the Taliban questions, but it says what a joke your country can evacuate your citizens by air. You have the world's largest air force. She needs civilians aircraft as well. LOL, LOL from the Taliban. They say, Rob, if you want your Americans to pay billions of dollars, Joe should retire and go paint pictures with hunter Biden. The Taliban they are so rude wants to know, says the last under secretary of defense said there is 250 to 2 million evacuees. Do you think that if they wore bide, let me insurance, it would help speed up the process and less paperwork. Uh , I'm not gas. As one thing Tucker brought up that is interesting to notice is how all the different media organizations are. All of a sudden are lockstep against Biden. Did the CIA decide his usefulness is up sacrificial lamb for the public? And that's from, I'm not gas . You know, I th there, there is something to that. I , I also noticed that I covered that on the show Friday. I said that , that I, that I , I picked up on it, but I sort of was framing it. I posted this on Twitter. If you saw that, I apologize. But also two things ratings and they wanted comma anyways. Right? CNN, all of these news sites have all just gone right into the toilet in terms of ratings. They nobody's watching them because the only draw that they had for viewership was Donald Trump. He's not an office. Joe Biden is the most unavailable, boring president that we've ever seen, ever. Everything he does is just reading from a teleprompter. It doesn't say anything useful ever. And ,

Speaker 2:

Uh , that's just what we've got.

Speaker 1:

So nobody is checked into the news. Now we've got a war zone. We've got a lot of eyeballs plugged into this stuff. I think ratings is a big part of it. Similarly , uh , probably was on the schedule that Joe Biden, wasn't going to go go the full term anyways. I was always predicting. It would be after the midterms . And because we know that there's going to be a red wave in 2022, they're going to get blown out. Joe Biden. You know, my , my, my,

Speaker 2:

My predictions were

Speaker 1:

After that happens, he comes back out and says, okay, it's clear. The party needs a different direction. I'm going to turn it in. Here's Camila . She starts warming up for 2024 and that's the political show, but you know, who knows now it's been accelerated pretty dramatically. And so he may bail out before 2022. We'll see, Sharon Whitney says, I wonder how this pro feminist regime is going to respond to the reports of shooting of women for not wearing burkas women, walking home from work, being beaten within an inch of their lives .

Speaker 2:

Do you even, does anybody even know some of these horror stories? Well, it'll probably be just like the border, right? The border was a very,

Speaker 1:

Very important humanitarian crisis. Remember AOC went over there in her white outfit and was crying, hanging off of the chain link fences.

Speaker 2:

Trump is such a racist everybody. And now where are they? They're all asleep at the wheel. Nobody even talks about the border anymore. So it'll probably be the same thing. All of the , the good old

Speaker 1:

Anchors, all of those people who for some time were saying that everything, you know , uh , is , uh , is about women. The , the, the world is female now. And the , the freak, the future is female and all this stuff. Well, not in the middle east. It's not. So we'll see how they're able to reconcile those two conflating discrepancies there. John [inaudible] says, is there any hope for any repercussions against Biden? I just can't imagine he would ever get impeached. If he started a world war three, I can't even see him being impeached. Well, not as long as the Democrats are in power, but in 2022, I think that that dynamic changes pretty rapidly. I'm not gas. As I wonder if the intelligence agencies are sending marching orders out to the media to cover up for their own failures and grifting of taxpayer dollars for 20 years, it could be that too, right? It could be that. I tend to think it's usually the simplest explanation, which is typically ratings and politics, right? Joe Biden is,

Speaker 2:

Was never their top candidate.

Speaker 1:

He was the only person who could beat Trump. He was very middle of the road, very central .

Speaker 2:

And , uh,

Speaker 1:

They're okay if he's not there. Sharon says, so Afghan was costing millions of dollars a day, $10 trillion Joe is worried about a few MES muesli , millions a day. Give me a stinkin break. That's from Sharon. Quit , Annie . Good to see you. We have , uh , pili . Wally says, Hey, Rob, hope you had a great weekend watching the mess of Afghanistan from this past week makes me hope. The great Britain never helps the U S in a war again, great times are changing. The UK government is far from happy with Biden. If this is, I saw that. So jumping in pili , I did see that I saw that , uh, Chris Wallace actually played the clip of one of the British, what do you call them? MPS. The congresspeople , one of your British congresspeople said specifically, he was calling out Joe Biden specifically. Don't you talk about Afghanistan, warriors. I served with those people. You never served over there. So don't tell me that they just drop their arms. And they just fled like little children. That's not at all what happened. And he blamed the U S for it and said that what Joe Biden did was disgraceful. So it's for Joe Biden to come out there in a press conference and say, no, I've been talking to everybody about it. They're they're pretty much cool with it for Anthony Blinken that we played earlier in this segment to go out there and say, well, yeah, yeah, that's true. We did kind of, you know, screw are our allies, but also they're really appreciative of it. And also it's very emotional. First of all, first of all, I'm I know you're upset. I'm upset. It's very emotional. It's like that. It's like that , uh, that argument technique it's like, listen, I know you're upset somebody somebody's screaming at you and you have to validate their feelings. Do you ever see those in the movies? Okay. Don't don't respond. Validate their feelings. Yes. Angry psycho. Yes. I validate your feelings. Got it. Perfect. Okay. So , uh, so that's what Anthony Blinken is doing to Chris Wallace. I know you're upset Chris, but I'm upset too. And that doesn't help anybody. Just us two being upset does it? That's not how this works. This isn't a marriage therapy session. Punks . This is a us government trying to save lives. All right , next up, we've got, Sharon says , uh , sorry. These bozos need to spend the weekend watching the three Stooges. Maybe they can learn a few things to improve their game. We've got Bobby Hill says, is it me? Or is there a big difference in the people in Biden's cabinet? And the peoples in Trump's cabinet when it comes to authenticity, Biden is people seem so scripted and fake to me, it's weird. At least these types used to have decent acting skills. Now they can't even act like people LOL it's from Bobby Hill. Totally. It's totally scripted. Everything is just literally like Joe Biden just reads. And then he goes, he can't even just take a question question at random. Did you notice, do you notice that Trump would go you? What do you want? Ask me anything. You're a moron. Fake news. Next question. So the, their responses, weren't always, you know, the top of the game, but at least there were questions being asked and answered here. Joe Biden says a Zeke Miller AP looks around the room . Zeke Miller stands. Oh, that's who you are as I can't remember you, even though I've been in government for 40 years, IEC Miller has been with the AP for, I don't know how a lot of them, a lot of those. So it's, it's a , you're dead right there, Bobby. Well , Sharon says it should be increasingly to everyone with three functioning brain cells. This is not an accident, nor is it incompetence. Nobody, no collection of nobody's trying to be. Somebody could do so badly without it being totally deliberate. I know, I know it's easy to go there. Share it. I, I don't know. Appili Wally says if the Taliban doesn't agree to an extension and then a few weeks later kill some Americans, would that not be an act of war, which would require action to be taken? If the Taliban is foolish enough to flirt with the possibility of war again, with the U S I wonder. Well, I mean,

Speaker 2:

Yeah. I

Speaker 1:

Mean , I , I would, I would think so ordinarily, but

Speaker 2:

Y

Speaker 1:

You know, I think what's probably gonna happen is it's just a slow fizzle, you know, boat. It's a , it's a , it's a very, very high ,

Speaker 2:

Hot, cold war. The Taliban they're gonna , they , they've got a strong incentive to make sure that they continue to hold

Speaker 1:

They're hostages. Don't they? So on August 31st, they're going to start demanding things. Oh, you want the rest of those Americans? No problem. But we want a seat on this committee. We also want a foreign aid and this amount we want all of these demands. That's why they're saying August 31st. It's all about negotiations. And the U S is going to have no choice, but to comply with that because they have thousands of American hostages, VMT kiss . Prime says, my dog ate my homework. Can I turn it in tomorrow? No, you are suspended. Take this note home to your parents. Ronald Reagan says you don't negotiate with terrorists. I miss that, man. Bernie says, here's hoping that the rebels led by there it is. Here's hoping that the rebels led by the now president, formerly vice-president of Afghanistan will be able to rescue Kabal from the disaster that Biden created. That's from birdie. Well , we'll see about that. I'm not so sure over here. Let's see what else we've got. Soul liking says, apparently the white house poll testing, determined they needed more emotion. Maybe even tears. Disgusting. I guess it looks like weakness. And a nonsense to me, leafy bug is in the house, says the us doesn't know how many Americans are in Afghanistan. Seriously. I don't believe this. You shouldn't. I , I believe they do. I suspect the problem is that many of the Americans still there were working in quote , sensitive roles for the three-letter agencies and quote contractors that were quote helping the Afghan army extracting them might be , um, complicated. This was not unforeseeable. If diplomacy fails at some point, the only thing to do is tell these people to get to the airport at a certain time. Yes, it will be risky and have planes ready to fly them out. Very scary for all involved, but incompetence has a price that's from leafy bug. Good comment there. Leafy bug. Thank you for, for sending that in Josh. SESCO says we need to go back and , um,

Speaker 2:

Excellent ,

Speaker 1:

Cute American diplomacy militarily, until we can safely extract all of our people and teach those terrorists a lesson that is from Josh. SESCO. I agree . Well, I don't know if I agree with, look, I agree that all the stops should be pulled out to save American lives. And if you had a strong leader, you would have a pretty clear dynamic there, but , uh, we don't. So we ha we got a Digi McBride, says things have gotten so bad so quickly under Biden Harris, that it defies imagination. One would be forgiven for thinking it's not merely incompetence, but it is intentional. Yeah. Yeah. I , I think that's sort of how I see it . DG McBride. Now I've always considered Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to be incompetent. I never was under the mistake that they were competent. People we've talked about. We talked about that a lot before the election even took place. We talked about Joe Biden's history. He is somebody who has been on the wrong side of many issues. One that I've been screaming about for years was the criminal justice reform that he basically passed all in the eighties and nineties, terrible. Same with Camila . They've been on the wrong side of almost every issue historically. So why would they not be in that ? Why would they not botch it? They would. They have they're they're not good leaders. As we can see, we have a news. Now Wyoming says , uh, F uh, I give up French could send their army into Kabul to withdraw their citizens. What if the French can send their people? What is stopping us? I can promise you, there is not a military member there that wouldn't want to go into town and get them out. I think it's politics because they have already set terms. They've got to honor those terms, and it is , um , now dangerous if they don't because the Taliban have a bunch of hostages, we got real Butte day says, have you seen the troll the Taliban day with posting the Taliban flag captured in an equipment impersonating an ego Jima moment? I did see that picture robot day . I am actually not going to show that on this show because it's offensive to me and I'm not going to show it. Uh , there is some assem stuff of the Taliban that we'll we'll put on here, like their spokesman, cause it's kind of hilarious that they have a spokesman, but when they're intentionally trying to , uh , anger, mate , we're not gonna , we're not going to show that stuff. Right . Leafy bug says for me, there may be a silver lining to this case , catastrophic exit. It's so bad that it could now be politically impossible for the DC warmongers to re-insert forces back into that mess. I think, I think you're right about that. So, you know , one of the responses would be, well, look, we're America, we're tough. We do still have the biggest military. We still have , have a ton of, you know , force projection, even though we have a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats in the current administration. And I'm sure that we still have some pretty tough, strong, you know, through and through fighters in the military somewhere. Maybe, maybe not that top line of leadership, but the people under them, the people who actually run things , uh , presumably could put together a plan that would go solve this theoretically. Right? You might think, okay, well, Austin Blinken Biden Harris.

Speaker 2:

They all screwed this up. Let's take a look,

Speaker 1:

Look at the actual intelligent people in the Pentagon and the military. Let's see what they have a plan for. And so you might think that that was happening and that they might have a plan to go in there and solve this problem quickly. And you might even support that. You might

Speaker 2:

Say, look, I am in

Speaker 1:

Favor of getting out of Afghanistan, but not like that. Not abandoning 10,000 Americans or 20 or 40 or 50 or whatever the number is. And so we're going to send back forces and we're going to go get every stinking American out of there. That's that might be

Speaker 2:

One tactic to take, but that may not ,

Speaker 1:

Not even be possible if there are 10,000 hostages, right. They may have America

Speaker 2:

Early in this, in this place where you can't go and do that for that reason. So I think you might be yeah .

Speaker 1:

Onto something there , leafy bug a few more here from wanting to know, says, can the byte administration be court-martialed or at least Biden and Camila, there are the military leaders, you know, I don't know the answer to that. I'm not , uh , I'm not real familiar with military law or any of that,

Speaker 2:

But , um, but I have

Speaker 1:

Seen people talking about that, right. And I think the more appropriate mechanism for Biden would be impeachment, but the Democrats control the house of representatives. And so we're not gonna see that , uh , a few more. And then we're going to take a look at the super chats we got dog whistle came in. Did you hear Kamel is going to Vietnam next optics? Yeah, I think she just wanted to get out of Dodge. Really? We have Greg Murat says, is there any reason now for the U S to be back in Afghanistan other than to get citizens out, most of the damage is already done. Yeah, probably. Yeah. I think, I think that it would be hard. You'd be hard pressed to be able to establish another foothold there because the Taliban has the hostages truly leafy buck says in all honesty, withdrawing was always going to be a disaster real, or imagine if Trump was

Speaker 2:

In charge and the withdrawal

Speaker 1:

Actually ran fairly smoothly. The media would still , uh , found some grainy photo or alleged Taliban atrocities and scream the house down about how Trump was responsible for it. They would've made it a Russia gate for Trump's second term. Yeah. You're probably right about that. I think,

Speaker 2:

I think that many people might even agree. I think the bigger points of criticism now are on the response to

Speaker 1:

The exit, which have just been very poor , uh , leafy bug. Got that one few more VNT because prime says, I know someone who was a contractor in Afghanistan, about a decade ago, the person went there because of the offer of a boatload of money. If these people still stuck over there, didn't realize what they were getting into. Even in recent

Speaker 2:

Years, they're not that bright.

Speaker 1:

That's from anti KIS prime

Speaker 2:

Saying that kind of like, oh, kind of might've deserved it

Speaker 1:

A little bit. I didn't say it. He didn't, Todd trout says patent is turning in his grave back when we had actual leaders in America, Sergeant Bob says instability in the Mideast will dramatically increase. I would not be surprised down the road if USA involvement against

Speaker 2:

Can not be avoided.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. More warp 3% is here, says withdrawal from Afghanistan is only so they can focus on the subjugation

Speaker 2:

Of American citizens.

Speaker 1:

We're seeing a lot more of that. We're going to get into that in the next segment before we do, let's make sure we say thank you for all these very generous, super chats that came in from YouTube. Alex bogey says, Rob, you make, you make reconsider going to law school, even though I don't want more debt, our rulers are so helpless. Trump's shadow. Government is very timely. A reconsider going to law school, even though I don't want more debt. Well, yeah,

Speaker 2:

You look, law school

Speaker 1:

Is a useful tool. It certainly familiarizes you with the law and it gives you the ability to go and use the law as a tool, sort of like a tool in your toolkit and your toolbox, but there are many other very powerful tool kits that you can build in your toolbox, right? And a lot of them don't require going to law school. You can be very effective. You can get out there and speak your voice without necessarily having to learn those tools. So something to consider in my point here being you can still be

Speaker 2:

Somebody's living purposefully without going to law school. So

Speaker 1:

Just, just a thought another one from Alex has speaking of ISIS, many brought up the idea that helping out ISIS against the Taliban would have been a shrewder strategy than fighting both. I see. So it's sort of a pit , you know, your enemy of your enemy is your friend kind of a strategy with ISIS. I'm not sure that they're the best group to do that with Jeffrey Schwartz is here. So very nice super chat. Thank you. Jeffrey says thank you for bringing the truth. This is no joke. Three of my family members have not come home.

Speaker 2:

Politicians

Speaker 1:

Like this cause military death. They're too worried about image then decisive action. Sorry to hear about that. Jeffery three of my family members have not come home.

Speaker 2:

So yeah.

Speaker 1:

I'm sorry to hear about that. Thank you for your S your, your super chat. I really hope you and your family are doing well.

Speaker 2:

It's it's not their families. It's your family. It's not theirs. So

Speaker 1:

They're able to do this stuff without even thinking twice about it. They can go on cameras every now and then and fake like they care,

Speaker 2:

But they don't.

Speaker 1:

Thanks for being here. Jeffrey hope you guys are doing well. Zander arena says support lawyer's committee for nine 11 inquiry to get justice for the mass murdered restoration of our Republic. And to ensure the Afghan debacle never happens ever again. Lawyer's committee for the nine 11 inquiry support that I've never heard of that, but I'll take a look at that. That's from Zander arena. We have a couple more from Chris Ann . Chando says Biden is going to botch this so badly. Our allies are really going to have to pick up a lot of weight now that he already messed everything up. If only we had a plan originally,

Speaker 2:

Same place, but orange man is bad. Yeah,

Speaker 1:

Chris and what look the good news is, even though we've got,

Speaker 2:

You know, I don't know, a couple of , couple of tens

Speaker 1:

Of thousands of Americans left over in Afghanistan at your Twitter timeline is pretty clear, not much Trump in there. Vegas mooch says Brianna Taylor cop was charged for shooting through a door, but the Capitol cop that just shot Ashley Babbitt through a door was quote justified. Actually, I don't think that cop was charged either. Brianna Taylor. I don't think they charged any of those cops. We talked about that here on this channel, but I don't think they got charged. No, they didn't because I was very mad at Daniel Cameron. Who's the attorney general over there. I think that was from , uh , Kentucky, Mitch McConnell's home state. God. Great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com . Thank you so much for those over there. They're chatting away. I say, I see I'm not gas. Want to know? Uh , they're they're dialoguing , uh, intensely along with Ms . Danny news. Now Wyoming, Seoul , Viking, and over on YouTube, we've got just cause big shout outs to Vegas, MOOC Chris Zander arena. We've got Jeffrey Schwartz , Alex bogey. Thank you all for those lovely super chats. And our another reminder before we wrap up that if you're looking for clips of the show, those are going to be on a separate channel called Robert ruler Esq clips, which is linked down in the description. And before we move on to the next segment, if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs help with criminal charges, we're ready and available to help we offer free case evaluations. We can help anybody facing criminal charges anywhere in the state of Arizona. So feel free to give us a call. The number is on our website, our, our law, easy.com. All right , so we're going to change gears and jump into COVID. We spent a little bit of time since it's been all Afghanistan. So there hasn't been much COVID now it's time to get into it. Isn't it? Vaccine mania. America has been in the throws of it for quite some time. And now the FDA is approving the Pfizer BioEnTech COVID shop . It's going to be clearing the path for a whole lot more vaccine mandates. CNBC is going to give us a jumping off point before we learn a little bit more about what happened and how this might result in new COVID crimes and new mandates all around the country. They're telling us that the FDA on Monday granted full approval to Pfizer and biotech's COVID-19 vaccine the first in the U S to win the coveted designation. Now, even more businesses, schools and universities can adopt vaccine mandates. Yay . Up until now am RNA. Vaccine is going to be marketed. As community was on the market only had emergency youth off use authorization, but now more than 200, 4 million shots have been administered. Federal health officials have been under mounting pressure from everybody to get this stuff approved, slap the label on it. It's good enough. We've been jabbing it in everybody's arms for the last eight months. It's it's a nut . It's fine. It's good . Just, just put the label on it. So the FDA went and did that, who did this? So Janet Woodcock over here , uh, from Wikipedia, she is American physician. She's currently the acting commissioner of the FDA been there since 1986 held a number of senior leadership positions . So lifelong, you know , kind of a government person Woodcock has seen the modernization and the streamlining of the FDA new initiatives to improve the timeliness. And the transparency of the procedures informs Congress about it receive a lifetime achievement award, significant career history of making ongoing contributions to patient safety, received a biotechnology heritage heritage award. So she seems like a very nice lady. Sounds like she's been working very hard in the FDA and been doing it since , uh, basically I was born. And so she's been there for quite some time. And she said this today during the public press release of the , uh , note news from the FDA posted August 23rd set today, the U S FDA approved the first COVID-19 vaccine known as Pfizer biotech. COVID now going to be marketed as community for the prevention of the disease. And 16 years of age or older also is available if you're 12 to 15 under emergency youth. So what does Woodcock have to say about this? She says the FDA's approval of this vaccine as a milestone, as we continue to battle the pandemic while this and other vaccines have met the rigorous scientific standards for emergency youth author use authorization as the first approved vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing, quantity, quality that we require millions of people have already received it. We recognize for some that approval may now instill additional confidence to get vaccinated. It puts us one step closer to altering the course of the pandemic in the U S if anybody still believes that there's only one direction, one trajectory here, That's not going to be changing anytime soon. So now it's official and I've already been screaming about this for some time. Remember, we've talked about a lot of these little small victories, these little battles that we've seen around the country. I forget what state it was. But some governor somewhere signed a law, said no vaccine mandates anywhere. And if you read the bill and read the fine print, it says while it's experimental. And so people were doing Cartwheel saying, oh, good. Finally, we have some governors standing up for this. Not accurate. We have

Speaker 11:

Now a bunch of,

Speaker 1:

I just lost my train of thought because of that super chat . Apparently detective Hankinson has trial. What? Alright , I gotta look into that. I'm totally, I'm totally off, off Keester over here. All right . Well that's okay. We're going to get back into the , uh , COVID stuff here. Uh , one step closer to altering the course of the pandemic in the U S not , not , not really right. We're going one direction. And we all know where this is going. So now we know that , uh , the vaccines are approved yesterday. On the Sunday shows we had attorney general Vivek Murthy, who came out and he's very excited about this. Look at this, guy's a smiling ear, grinning ear to ear just happiest can be the vaccines are going to be approved. And that means that you can just kind of mandate whatever you want. Back. When I was talking about the governor, who said that we're going to ban any of the vaccine mandates, unless it is a fully approved, you read the fine print and it says, oh, this only applies to emergency use vaccines. So now this is an emergency use anymore. So now they can mandate whatever they want. And none of those laws apply all those laws on the books that only apply to emergency use. Well, they're not applicable anymore because it's not emergency use anymore. And the us surgeon general very happy about this because he knows that now universities and businesses and airlines and all sorts of different people are going to be able to rely on the FDA, the very trusted government bureaucracy, this government body, that's going to just, it's safe. It's very safe for you now. And he's excited about this. This is a , the surgeon general,

Speaker 3:

I wanted to ask you because the FDA of course, is poised to give full approval to Pfizer's vaccine this week. Could that come tomorrow? And do you expect that this decision is going to make more Americans willing to get vaccinated?

Speaker 12:

Well, Brianna, I won't get ahead of the FDA's announcement, but we've known for a while that they were considering the full approval of , for the Pfizer vaccine. And I anticipate that if, and when that comes, that will have two impacts. I think for people who have been waiting for this, the , I think, and that's a small number of people, but I think so significant. I think this may tip them over toward getting vaccinated. But I also think that for businesses and universities that have been thinking about putting vaccine requirements in place, in order to create safer spaces for people to work and learn, I think that this move from the FDA, when it comes, will actually help them , uh , to move forward with those kinds of plans. But all of this is said , Brianne, I think what's important for us to realize is that we've had strong evidence, you know , from real world data that this vaccine has been doing remarkably well and has maintained a strong safety profile. We've given it to hundreds of millions of people, and we've seen that it's doing its job. And that's why we're continuing to recommend that people get vaccinated starting today. And, you know, as soon as they can, because especially with the Delta variant, getting that protection is more important than ever

Speaker 1:

Everywhere. You turn. It's more vaccine salesman everywhere, get it, get it, get it, get it, get it. Okay. So now it's, it's, you know, this was on Sunday. He knew he was coming out on Monday, full approval. Didn't want to get ahead of it, but , uh , sort of dead. And then it's telling us that it's going to lead not to more vaccine mandates, but vaccine requirements from businesses, from schools, universities, different places that have the authority to dictate what you do. In other words, you don't get to participate in your once, cherished whatever, unless you are now part of the government accepted class. We're already seeing this in New York city. They've decided now that there are two tiers of citizens, the vaccine and the [inaudible] . And so this is now going to be rolled out all throughout the rest of the country, in this slow incremental, turn the heat up on the frogs and the boiling water until it's everywhere, everywhere around you. Now we have already been talking about COVID crimes here on this show for quite some time , uh, started off as this idea that yeah, it's probably going to come. And then it turned into sort of what we see in Australia with the police in the military, just rounding up people on beaches and stuff like that, lunacy, but it's starting to trickle out all over the United States as well. In Mississippi, we've got COVID patients that don't self isolate. They're going to be fine and , uh , potentially could get jail time. We have some other health official bureaucrat. Thomas Dobbs from Mississippi issued an isolation order. Don't know if that guy was ever elected or voted on or whatever, but he's saying that people have to isolate themselves at home. Once they become aware that they're infected people who are expected to remain home for 10 days, regardless of being vaccinated. So he's another order. Another stay at home lockdown order. A negative test for COVID is not required to end isolation at the end of 10 days, but you must be fever free for at least 24 hours with improvement other symptoms. So this guy is now making you your own doctor. I guess the order stated the refusal to abate could include several fines, $500 in fines, a six months in jail. However, a life-threatening diseases involved the refusal to obey order could go up to 5,000 in fines and five years of jail time. So this guy, this, this health totalitarian little dictator, Thomas Dobbs over from Mississippi comes out and says, listen, if you're sick, you've got to test yourself and be fever free for 24 hours. Otherwise if you leave and we find out about that, we're going to have police, I guess, with thermometers and throat cultures and stethoscopes , uh, uh, excuse me, sir. Do you know I pulled you over? No, sir. I have no idea. Well, I think that your might be in violation of Thomas Dingleberry Dobbs and his healthcare order that are now mandating that we check you . I'm a doctor now. So I'm open up your throat. And I say, all right , tongue to forget in there. Let me see there. Okay. And so it looks like sir, you might actually be sick. And so I'm going to take your temperature gauge here. Um , well, COVID, COVID kills people five years in jail, $5,000 in fines because , uh , Dingleberry Dobbs over there is a , uh , a health tyrant these days. Now we have , uh, some more judges elsewhere in the country who are ordering defendants to get vaccinated. We've talked about this historically here. Also other judges will just say, oh, that this is , um , part of my sentence. Now I have the ability as the judge, as your Lord and savior as the person who can now command over you to tell you what to put in your body. Not only am I going to take away your life and Liberty by throwing you into prison or whatever sentence I'm going to give you. But I'm also now going to inject subs or demand that you inject substances into your body. Otherwise, things could get very bad for you. This is our government doing this. This is out of New York to New York judges ordered defendants to get vaccinated. Can they do that? Nobody's going to stop them . I guess the defendant was charged with a number of minor crimes, including drug possession and shoplifting prepared to plead guilty. Prosecutors agreed, but a judge in Bronx approved a deal added his own unusual condition said you got to get a COVID backs a week later. Manhattan judge made the same order. This time of a woman seeking bail before a trial, neither defendant appeared to object, but legal observers said the two judges ordered made in different courts for different reasons. Raise important questions. Yeah. About civic responsibility and civil liberties. Yeah, it does. It's a pretty big problem. A number of experts who reviewed the orders disagreed as to whether they were justified or whether one or both could represent an overstep, a debate that underscores legal and ethical complications. Yeah. So, you know , don't know from the article, whether that person, those people had lawyers or what, whether

Speaker 2:

They have a court doctor, somebody who says , um , sir,

Speaker 1:

Offendent and now go see that doctor. And he's going to tell you whether you need the vaccine or not, he's going to review your conditions. Cause I'm not a medical doctor. I'm a judge. That's all I do. I can recommend it. I can make it a strongly encouraged as part of my, my synopsis, sir . Uh, you know, drugs are bad. Shopliftings bad. I'm going to give you this scolding, this finger , wagging that a lot of the judges do, and I'm gonna encourage you to go get vaccinated. That's fine. But that is not what's happening here. These are orders from the government. Go put that thing into your body now.

Speaker 2:

Or you're in violation of a court order. That's not in the law. You can get paid ,

Speaker 1:

Go to prison. You can get penalized . You can go to , uh , pay a fine pay. Restitution, do community service

Speaker 2:

Service never has ,

Speaker 1:

But he'd been sent as far as I know, sentenced to inject

Speaker 2:

A substance into your body. But

Speaker 1:

This is the United States now. And if you don't do that, well, you might not be flying anywhere, going anywhere, doing anything because we have two tiers of people. Now, two tiers of citizens, we have the vacs , which are, you know, kind of like a royalty, very sophisticated, almost godly in their superiority, to the rest of the unboxed. And what we have here is a , somebody who apparently wants to prevent you from flying. If you are unvaccinated , this guy, his name is Richie Torres representative over from New York. Looks like he might be an African-American man, which is very confusing because something like 70, 60% of new Yorkers who are African-American are not vaccinated. So this guy is a presumably telling his own constituents that they can't fly on airplanes anymore, which is a wild thing to do HR 40, 82 direct the secretary of Homeland security to ensure that any individual traveling on a flight that leaves from or comes to an airport in the U S is fully vaccinated against COVID and for other purposes. So in other words, before you get on an airplane, if you're leaving the U S or coming into the U S department of Homeland security, TSA, everybody at the airport, they all got to make sure you're vaccinated. Otherwise you don't get to leave the airport. You don't get to fly on that airplane. This is what Mr. Torres had to say. He introduced this in. Congress says that this is to direct DHS, no facts, no flights, August 6th, 2021 he's from New York. It says, be it enacted in Congress that the secretary of Homeland security acting through the administrator of the TSA shall take such actions as necessary to ensure that any individual traveling on a flight that departs from or arrives to is fully vaccinated against COVID-19 . He says that this is necessary to ensure let's see a exception in carrying out section a, the secretary shall ensure that there is an exception. What is it for an individual who is ineligible or medically unable to be fully vaccinated? So a medical exception, it looks like it doesn't look like a religious exception. Let's see definition in this act. What does fully vaccinated against COVID-19 mean same thing that it means under the FDA act for approval. So that's it. So basically it's, it's a three paragraphs, a, B, and C a , unless you're vaccinated, no flying on airplanes, exception, medical necessity only, and a definition, whatever the FDA says fully vaccinated means. And so that is what your Congress people are doing. They are now really ingraining that two tier system that we talked about previously, that the idea that if you're vaccinated, you get to participate in American life, all those same liberties that you used to enjoy automatically in 2019, not anymore. The default here is not that you sort of start with freedom. It's you start with whatever the government allows you to have. And if you disobey or the government needs to sort of take those liberties from you, they're free to do that. They just don't have that one anymore. Oh, oh, houses, property rights. Nope. Don't have that anymore. Oh, schools. Nope. Don't have that anymore. We're going to take that away from the states and the local governments as well. And so the list just keeps going on and on and on. Oh, interstate travel. Nope. Not anymore. We're going to start pulling that one away from you. And we'll just see how this continues on. Let's see what you have to say about all this and more over from watching the watchers.locals.com saw some super chats. Also come in Vegas. Moose cleared that up from us, said that Brianna Taylor cop Hankinson trial is scheduled for two for February 22. So Brett Hankinson is being charged Volvo . Yeah. This is wild accused of sexual assault. He's a sexual predator. Okay. So , um, all right . I gotta look into that. That was from Vegas moods . My goodness. I'm just like, how did I miss that? All right. Over from watching the watchers.locals.com , we've got news. Now Wyoming says that how can they need and reminder on this segment reminder, no medical information or medical advice or medical , uh, you know, any of that stuff, YouTube is super, super strict about that. I'm not a doctor. Likelihood is you're not a doctor. If you're watching the show , uh, follow the CDC guidelines, do whatever are , are very trustworthy. Government tells you to do. Uh , but the rest of this is just for conversation. It's just for entertainment purposes. So don't take this as medical advice news. Now Wyoming says, how can they consider a vaccine completely approved instead of emergency when they don't know for sure if it needs a booster or how many boosters or how often? Well it's because it's the FDA. And because they really, really needed it, they needed it vaccinated. They knew they needed it approved because, because a lot of people were using that little experimental word to just introduce a lot of friction that they just didn't like. We have a VMT kiss . Prime says, I don't know whether to say who Ray for the revolving door or good enough for government work on that's on the vaccine. Mandates leafy bugs says be careful what you say about the vaccine. People. We don't want the stream polled. Thanks for looking out for everyone. YouTube, you know, best that's right. YouTube has taken very good care of us. We don't want to upset , uh , uh , we don't want to promulgating medical misinformation here. Of course not. Uh, John Howell green says Janet's legacy. Don't trust her the opiate. Oh, Janet. Ooh, this looks good. Let's see what we've got over here. This is from John Howell . Grin says Biden urge not to give the top FDA job to an official over her role in the opioid crisis. Oh, this is from John Haugen. Dr. Janet Woodcock is accused of presiding over one of the worst regulatory agency. Failures says the group fighting the opioid epidemic. Oh, that's good. Yeah. So my family was hit pretty hard by the opioid epidemic. Didn't know that Dr. Janet Woodcock was in a response. It was partly, partly responsible for that. Uh, so , uh , that's weird that she sort of , uh, resulted in a lot of dead people as a result of an opioid addiction. So that's good. Thank you for that. John S shocking. It doesn't surprise me for a minute. Pili . Wally says you just have to love COVID legislation. And the mandates here in Scotland hospital waiting times for routine operations are at their longest. We've had a record drug deaths. Alcohol deaths, suicides are up, had three suicides in my street. The past year alone. Really find it hard to work out who COVID restrictions and mandates actually help in the long run. Well, it's, it's not us as far as I can tell, right ? It's the people who run the big companies. It's the small businesses are getting wiped out. The are getting wiped out. We're seeing the middle-class getting wiped out. It's a huge, it's a huge problem. Uh, but why is that? Because all of that requires more people to rely on the government for their needs. And that's exactly what the government wants. Kareem . 1 65 says, I think the best way to fight these COVID tyranny is through non-compliance . Did you know many Canadians refuse to comply with the three-day travel hotel quarantine, and now Trudeau has removed it because of major pushback. I did not know that John Howell green says , uh, one of the signs you're immune to COVID is frequently using your train of thought. You're good to go. That's not medical advice. That's just something that happened to me losing my train of thought, because a detective Hankinson is back in the news with Brianna Taylor's case. I don't like that guy. All right . We've got John. That was from John. Thank you, John, what else do we have? We've got it's ed says, Rob, how exactly can she say efficiency? It's already been approven the efficacy about the vaccine is whatever it is. Refer to the CDC numbers. The next part you probably can't read, but considering it's the same tech as the, why are they calling it a vaccine? Hm . Uh, I can read this when they outlaw abortion in the left, no longer chance my body, my choice. I will shut up and take the COVID shot. It's the price I'll pay to save the lives of unborn children. It's a good argument. It's been a very good argument. And the, and the, and the, the response to that argument has always, really made me laugh. You know, it's, it's, it's the,

Speaker 2:

It's the well abortion.

Speaker 1:

Isn't killing other people. If you leave, you can kill other people with COVID. Abortion's not doing that.

Speaker 2:

Did you just listen? Did you hear yourself?

Speaker 1:

Okay. If that's how you sort of break down that issue. That's okay. Uh , let's see. Here, we have some more from Seoul Viking says, and it will create even more than the two classes of people with fully vaccinated, including all the boosters, the formerly fully vaccinated with their two doses, the unvaccinated . It's ridiculous. Yeah . We're just going to be, you know, sort of tearing people into these different buckets. It's doesn't sound good. Natalie's belly. Oh,

Speaker 2:

Oh , that's on the show. Jerry Nadler's belly. Ah ,

Speaker 1:

Gosh. He says, if people haven't gotten the VAX at this point, FDA approval won't change their mind. No it won't. But it will enable businesses and universities and other schools to say, well, it's not experimental anymore. So that objection, that many people have it's expensive.

Speaker 2:

Not anymore. It's not go get it.

Speaker 1:

And now a lot of people are going to use that as cover to pass the mandates. We have thunder seven says there've been plenty of drugs approved by the FDA to kill people, injured thousands. So this approval will not make anyone change their mind. People who don't want to get vacs , won't get vacs . They will leave their jobs . It's already happening. FDA are funded by big pharma, like CDC, Fowchee. They have no credibility. Nobody cares what they have to say. Basically with you on that thunder seven, John Halligan says, judges used to sterilization. How can they not have learned their lesson? Well, it's because it's woke now, right? Yeah. And that is true. Uh , but

Speaker 2:

It's now it's now , uh ,

Speaker 1:

It is, as long as they're doing it for the right reasons, the courts will bend over

Speaker 2:

Any which way to do whatever

Speaker 1:

It is to sort of fall in line with the popular sycophancy of the moment. It's ed says life-threatening disease. What about not having to report your STD status to your partner in California? What a joke? I take massive issue with hypocrisy. My OCD won't allow me to accept it. I know what you mean. It said part of the reason I studied, I started started this show. It's the screaming people over the abandoning of standards. They have double standards all over the place. They set standards for everybody else. And then they fall below the standards. And then they sort of yell at everybody that they fell below the standards. It's a, it's a big problem. But yeah, I mean, if , look, this is a very slippery slope, right? Everywhere you turn, are they going to be checking your temperature everywhere you go for every type of virus, every other type of Corona virus that ever exists

Speaker 2:

Indefinitely. And you just have to get

Speaker 1:

Your vaccine subscription renewed every couple days ,

Speaker 2:

Indefinitely I'll pass it .

Speaker 1:

Pili . Wally says it's so dangerous to mandate vaccines. So the whole population is young and old long-term effects are never

Speaker 2:

Going to be known. If it comes out in five

Speaker 1:

Years, it lowers fertility , uh , hypothetically, right? We don't know that it does. We don't know anything about it. How would a nation, sorry, let me clear that up. We do know what the CDC tells us about the vaccines, but I understand your point, pili , Wally, that there are a lot of, there is a lot of , uh, of , uh, information that we have not gotten yet. Just because time has elapsed five years from now, we may look back on the data and have a different understanding of it. We're sort of doing that in real time . Anyways, now the CDC says, well, you know, this looks like it's going to be this for the foreseeable future. They turn it back two weeks later and they say, oh, we were wrong about that. And then two weeks later they turned it . Oh, oh yeah, we were wrong about that. Oh two . Oh yeah. We were wrong about that too. We're kind of RA masks on max off. Put them back on, take them back off. And so the data is always there .

Speaker 2:

Huh ?

Speaker 1:

Would a nation ever overcome such a situation? People would have committed crimes against humanity. Yeah. Well, it's going, it's going to continue until the people just say enough already. We've had enough. We're not going to continue with this patio says the seven day rolling average for COVID deaths in Washington state. Currently one on the contrary, approximately 30 people per day die from this state in heart disease, you are literally 30 times more likely to die or to eat yourself to death than die from COVID in the state. Maybe they should be mandating lap bands instead of injections and all seriousness though. Where does it stop? I think it stops when you vote them out or when you , uh, when there are, I mean, there's enough friction there that they're in . Remember a lot of this is going to come down to enforceability. We know that the courts, the governors, the legislators, they're all in love with themselves and their own power. And they're all going to support the system and the rules and regulations, and the mechanisms continue to foster that power. And every time they have an additional order, that's extended more money comes in from the federal government. They are able to take up more resources locally. And so they have a very strong incentive to perpetuate this

Speaker 2:

Stuff indefinitely. They put

Speaker 1:

This out in our paper today that , uh , the jail is paying customers $20. If they vaccine now up until last week, only 34% of the jail population is VAX . They don't like that number. So they're paying people in jails to get it. Okay. Jeremy Trita says, Rob, the COVID craze is really driving me nuts. I got my Pfizer because I really had no choice. I didn't have any issues. I'm so ready for the fear. DEMEC to be over. Love your commentary. You always crack me up with your well-timed humor. Thank you for that, Jeremy. I don't know how well timed it is. I'm

Speaker 2:

Just you

Speaker 1:

Get it. You know what I'm saying? You know what I'm saying? Thanks , Jeremy. I'm glad you're healthy. Glad you're doing well. Thanks for chiming in with that. Natalie's belly is back. Ah , if an employee is forced to get the VAX as a condition of their employment, can they Sue the employer? If something goes wrong, maybe employees should push back and tell their employer. They want

Speaker 2:

To sign statement that there'll be liable.

Speaker 1:

That's a good question. Nadler's belly. You know, I don't know what the answer to that question is. Um , I actually am meeting with unemployment lawyer this week. We're not requiring that here at our office. And so , uh, I'm just curious. I just kind of , he's a friend I went to law school with, so I just kinda want to get his a sense for how this all plays out. So I'm a little bit more educated on the topic, but you know, in many places , uh, no, right. It's at-will employment.

Speaker 2:

So it's, Hey, this is our , this is, this is how we're doing things. We mandate this. Do you

Speaker 1:

Want to do that? No. All right. Well then that's the end of that, unless you have a contract, right? Unless you're in a position where you've got some negotiated terms, otherwise, if it's just, Hey, we need work and you're working and we don't need you anymore, unless you do this. Then I think that many people are going to have a difficult time with it, which is why I want to learn more about it. Be brave, says our judges, employers, et cetera, are going to mandate that fat people lose weight or tobacco users quit using

Speaker 2:

That's from be brave.

Speaker 1:

It's a great question. And this is a big reason why I think that this is not so much about actual health or about saving people's lives because they could have said that 18 months ago, they could have said, oh, Hey, we've noticed that all of the people or a large portion of, of the people that are passing away from this, they seem to be overweight. They seem to have , uh, some, some pretty serious , uh, extra body mass that is problematic. And I remember this from the very first days of the pandemic. I actually, it was when this show started, I actually made that observation. And man, the comments I got back then were not so good. You're a lawyer. Maybe you should stick to the law and not think about medicine so much and stick , you know , stay within your hula hoop and all that. Okay. It's fine. Probably true. But it is also a pretty astute observation because every single photograph that we saw over the last year of people dropping dead in ICU, they had a little bit of extra weight on them . Now I know that there are always the , uh, you know, the , the exceptions to the, and you have the guy who's 36 years old. Who's in the shape of his life who runs a hundred mile marathons every day , who drops dead . I got that. But generally speaking had Trump come out, had Biden come out, had Fowchee come out and said, Hey, people, we got to lose some weight here. Maybe it's time to stop cramming those , uh , those cheeseburgers down your gullets anymore. And take about two minutes and , and, you know, think about exercising every day and then do it. So that never happened at all. Now it's just , uh , the way that I had, I heard this framed was in the terms of it's called Newtonian medicine. It's the idea just like the three laws of Newton, the physics rules, right ? Things in Mo for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Things in motion, stay in motion, whatever the three rules are. But it's the idea that if you have a billiard ball and you put it in motion and it hits another billiard ball, it's going to cause the other billiard ball to go, right? It's going to it's it's cause and effect. You press a button, you get a response, you take a pill, something happens to your body. You take a shot, something changes and okay, that , you know, there there's some truth to that. But what are you, are you actually dealing with a sick person? If you're just doing that, you give them a pill, something changes and they get, you know , healthy. Are you masking the symptoms or , or do we want to encourage people more than that? We know that, you know , certain medicines , I'm not talking about the vaccines, but in general, right? About, are we thinking about health fundamentally or are we thinking about treating the symptoms without boosting our immune systems? And I haven't heard much con I've heard basically no conversations about root, fundamental health over the last 18 months. In fact, it's been the opposite. It's stay home. Gyms are closed now in Australia. I think you get an hour of exercise, time a day, something like that. It's insane. It doesn't make any sense, which is why I've got a lot of problems with it. All right . Let's see what else. We've got a little bit of a rant on that one. Let's see. We've got a few more here. Want to know, says, Rob, can you please read all the pregnancies studies two years, one in England coming up, I probably will not read any pregnancy. Studies wants to know, just letting you know that I don't intend on getting pregnant. Anytime soon, Mustang, Jeff says, Rob, I thought our rights were God given. Since when does the government decide whether or not I can fly? I thought a virus had a 99.8. So , uh , look, the government now decides that didn't use to, but now it does because America is changing. They also didn't use to say that their houses were your houses or that their children, your children are their children, but they are now because that's America. We got three girls. He says, the more they push it, the more I'm not going to do it. I can only drive for about an hour. At a time. I live in Ohio and my parents live in South Carolina. It looks like I'm going to be driving an hour, taking a break and driving more until I get there, either that, or I will wait until my oldest girl, he turned 16 and has her driver's license. Cause there's no way I'm sticking that in my body. Now guess I'm not flying. That's from three girlies . Well , we're not there yet. Three girlies . We're not that bill has not passed. It's it's just been introduced. I'm not sure that it passes candidly, but you know, I've been saying that I've been saying that a lot lately. No, that'll never happen. Boom. It happens. Oh no. Well , you know , it's America. We , we have free speech and we have property rights, right? Like those will never be curtailed. Well, they are everywhere. You look , uh , Facebook's doing it and the CDC is doing it. But uh, it , it doesn't show that things are trending well , uh , wants to know, says, so this means the visitors from the south have to take the vaccine now. Yeah. If we , we should probably put the TSA at the border so that they can check all of the migrants coming in, make sure that they're getting their vaccine , obviously. Cause they're coming in to the U S we have Natalie's belly says last one, Rob, I'll take the vaccine. If Democrats agree to forensic audits in all states, that's from Natalie's belly. Yeah. You look, that would be a good bargaining chip. Right. But the Democrats would never do that because they're just going to make you get it. Anyways. There , there was nothing to negotiate with. They control the government. Can doctors refuse treatment? If you were not vaccinated, can the government withhold social security payments to retired seniors? If they are not vaccinated two great questions. I saw, I think out of Florida that there's a group of 75 doctors who are now refusing to treat people. I don't have a headline for it, but I think I saw the headline earlier when I was doing some of the COVID work on this segment. And uh , they're just, they did a walkout . They're like, oh no, we're too busy. And so if you're unvaccinated you , we're not going to help you. Hospital said, no, you have to help people. It's part of the oath you took. We treat the sick, we don't treat a white people who were sick or black people who are sick or Jews who are sick or homosexuals who are sick or vaccinated. People who are sick, we treat the sick, it was just kind of how the standard should be , uh, which is sort of, you know, I think reasonable sort of, kind of my approach with defense law. Yeah. I'll, I'll, I'll represent the January six protesters , all defend , uh, people who do crimes to children crimes , uh , to , to animals crimes again, and all of them. Because I believe in the constitution, I believe in free speech, I believe in , uh, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment, I believe in due process. I believe in all of those things bigger, they're bigger than what that one individual did. Those are very important. Concepts, doctors have something similar, but uh, apparently there's 75 doctors in Florida, more or less give or take who just say, well, we're only going to treat the Vaxxed . So they're making distinctions now, which is okay. Actually I think that this is, this is necessary. I think this is a good thing. I want those people to identify themselves. And I want them to make sure that they understand that these are the standards that they are setting because when the rest of the country bifurcates, as it slowly is doing. And I know that sounds scary. I know it sounds like, oh my gosh, the country is ripping apart at the seams. It's actually a pretty good thing. We'll more time on that in a different show. But what you're seeing are sort of the, the dissection, the decoupling of really the producers and the non-producers that people who are going to be forever indebted and sucking from the teat of the government for the rest of their lives, versus the other people, the product productive people, the people who have free thoughts or freethinkers , and actually do interesting things in the world. They are separating right now. So let the loony tune government doctors who want to do the Walmart vaccine shots, they can do that all day. That's fine. Let them go their way. Everybody else is going to go a different way. And we'll see what system wins the free system or Joe Biden's government. We'll see which one prevails. I know which one I'm aligning with. Thank you for that. We have a couple more here. Before we wrap up this segment, we still have another segment left LT. 13 says still no unvaccinated re-infection is being put on a chart for public shaming. Also didn't the officer outside in get charged with one endangerment. Did he, did he die? I might be mistaking that one that was on the Brianna Taylor case. That's from LT. 13 says , uh , news. Now Wyoming says to please the YouTube overlords, at least our border is open and there are no cases coming over the border. That's right. Perfectly healthy. COVID free immigration. That's nice. We got John Halperin says, remind your friends what FDA approval means. Remember Vioxx responsible for the deaths of thousands. And it was approved. That's from drug walks . Yeah. The FDA approves garbage all the time. Right? Didn't they didn't, they approve wasn't there some , uh, some something for, for , uh, ovarian cancer or something like that that was approved and kind of problematic. I don't remember. I don't remember on that. That. Good to see you. John majors here says there was a research doctor seven years ago, researching treatment for viruses. Yeah. Resulting. I don't know about that. I don't want to read that one. Cause it's a little too close to medical stuff. Uh , but thank you for it. The antique has prime says, what is the goal of a pharmaceutical company answer to make money? Just like any other company, what are the main two main requirements for a pharmaceutical company to make money? You have to be sick. You have to use their treatment. Yeah. Yeah. And we talked about some of the numbers, right? Moderna went from a con a company that in September of 2020 was pulling in about 150 million in revenue. September, 2020 vaccines came out when December, 2020, what are their revenues now in June, 2021, a 4.5, 2 billion. Uh, I think that was a quarter. If I'm not mistaken per quarter, 150 million to four and a half billion in like three quarters. Oh my gosh. A lot of money to be made. You know, what else would be empty ? Because prime is another pretty nice, useful thing. If you're in business and you can mandate your product to be purchased very, very ideal. Yeah. It's very, very positive for your revenue numbers. If you can just dictate to every single customer in your target audience, your target market, you have to get it. And then you use the strong arm of the government, like a mallet everywhere they go. Uh , you can't actually go buy coffee unless you go buy that product. Dang, it's a good business to be in. If you can get it. I tell you what, who should have gone into pharmaceuticals, bum a lick . It says Afghanistan is a losing issue for buy , no matter how hard they tried, that was on the last segment. But it , but it's tying into the vaccine, says just do a quick evacuation, no extension period. So bad. They're going to move on to the next issue, which is the border rather than pushing the vaccine. Why not stop the super spreader immigrants that are coming in a few miles away from where I live? It's a good question, but Mullica , it's a good, good, good question. Uh it's because, well, that, that's what both parties want. They want a big under , uh , a class of, of, I would say basically slave labor, right? People who are not citizens, but who are going to be doing the work that you know , Americans don't want to do or whatever the main party talking points are. But they're basically importing people who I think that they're going to be taking advantage of, which is morally reprehensible. Ms . Danny is here, says it all depends on where you live. Indeed. Down here in Uruguay, we need to vaccinate. If we ever want to get out of the country. On the other hand, the government already has agreed for a third dose of vaccines, but there are no mandates. Yet 60% of the population already has two doses. I got one jab of Pfizer, no symptoms at all afterwards. And I'm 60. That's from miss Danny, 2021. Thank you for that, Ms . Danny , it's good to hear some numbers from Uruguay sounds, you know, more or less kind of like what we've got going on here. I think our vaccine numbers are a little bit higher than yours, but yeah, they're doing the third doses they're coming out and uh , I'm really grateful that your chime in listening in from Uruguay, let's see here. We've got , uh , NAB [inaudible] diaper. Ah , ah, I think he actually wears them to , uh, vaccines will save the U S that's from Natalie's diaper. Uh , I think he does. It's hard to tell, you know, because he pulls his pants up to here. So it's hard to see if there's a diaper it's covered up by his belt buckle, which is about at his neck. That guy is something the antique has . Prime says I'm a 100% disabled veteran. My body is an unmitigated nightmare. I'm spending every waking and sleeping hour in pain. Even if I believe these treatments were legitimate, I couldn't take them. I 100% expect to have my disability taken away for not taking the treatments. That's going to be a whole nother, a whole nother can of worms there, right? Social security, unemployment, disability, food stamps, all of that stuff. You know, the government can just say, no, if you want, this is the power of the purse that I talk about. The feds encroach on all of the state's rights. They come into all of our business on a regular basis using the power of the purse. We have a system that says , uh , no, it's a federal government and state governments and you are delegated certain enumerated powers. Everything else is reserved to the states. So why are the states or the federal government? Why are they in our business all the time money because we have to pay them our tax dollars and then they get to spend it however they want. So if we want a little bit of our own tax dollars to come back to us, they're able to attach some strings to it. And so the states just buckle under the power of the federal government, every which way they turn. And the courts have found that to be largely acceptable. So what do they, what happens now? Disability, unemployment, federal benefits gone unless you get Vaxxed. And I think the courts might support that. I mean, I don't , you know , who knows where this goes? Uh , two years ago, I would've said no. That's that's insane. No court would find for that, but we're in the new America. Jeremy is here, says just had an idea. They should offer free shots at the local bars, free shots for free shots. You just have to learn to speak their language. It's a pretty good idea, Jeremy. I liked that one. Let's see, we had some super chats come in. I want to make sure I get to these. I got Rihanna with that one was there. Linda K Y D is here, says vaccine for COVID-19 or other that should scare everyone. Yeah. From the Congressmen's bill, a COVID-19 or whatever else we say you need scary stuff. Zulu is here, says no one didn't know you guys wouldn't trust the FDA when they approved the backs . The announcement was for everyone else. No one didn't know you guys wouldn't trust the FDA. Okay. So I , I see what you're saying. Zulu, we got a couple , uh , no one didn't know. Yes, I got it. I'm a little slow on the uptake there. What you're saying is I think that the FDA made the announcement, not with the hopes of winning hearts and minds of people like me. They've just abandoned me. They that's what Zulu saying, Rob Zulu said , Rob, this announcement wasn't for you, knucklehead it's for everybody else, which is true. I think that basically anything the federal government is going to say, I'm probably not going to believe them because they've been lying to us for the last two years or so. And they're largely incompetent, which what we have also seen. So I think you're probably right about that. Zulu. The announcement was for everyone else and it is going to be used by everybody else to go ahead and promote more of the vaccine requirements as doctor surgeon general, Mo Murthy , whatever his name is said, specifically, this is going to give people cover. It's going to be pretextual so that they can go and make mandates were not mandates requirements in their businesses, universities, airlines, and so on. So I don't disagree. I think that you're right. It's it's cover. It's a nice pretextual excuse to pass whatever they want. Thank you for the super chat there . Zulu Linda Vegas and Chris. I appreciate all of that. Uh, coming in over from watching the watchers.locals.com . Very great questions as well. Thank you to all of you chatting over there. Mustang, Jeff, look to G, want to know news. Now we have , uh , several others chatting away on YouTube. Shout outs to K bean lean J we shall see and others before we move on into the next segment, two quick reminders. Number one, I am a lawyer here at the RNR law group. If you happen to know anybody facing criminal charges in the state of Arizona, we would love the opportunity to speak with them. We offer free case evaluations. All of the information is in the description below and quick reminder that if you're looking for clips of the show, if you're looking for any of the , the highlights, the segments that we do, we we're typically cutting them and re uploading them onto this channel. That's not going to be the case anymore. They're moving to a different clips channel. And so if you're somebody who wants to see the clips, that's where they're going to be. They're not going to be here anymore. So make sure you go subscribe. If you want that, if you don't ever watch those clips or ever come back and click those buttons, you don't need to do a thing. Isn't that nice, but we certainly appreciate your support. Thank you. Once again, everybody from watching the watchers.locals.com, all right , we've got one final segment on the day and it shouldn't be too long, but it's a , it's a meaty one. Isn't it? Ashley Babbitt . We now know that the Capitol hill police, well, they investigated themselves. And just like what typically happens when the police investigate themselves, they find they did nothing wrong. Oh, isn't that nice? So they did a very thorough, very rigorous, very demanding and exact getting EO , whatever they did. And they came out us Capitol police posted this today , uh, that we completed an internal investigation and we're not going to do anything else about it. Posted August 23rd. This is a press release. And they say specifically, quote, after interviewing multiple witnesses and reviewing all the available evidence, including video radio calls us Capitol police, we've completed our internal investigation into the shooting of Ashley Barrett , Kurt on January six , the us Capitol police, their office of professional responsibility OPR. What did they determine? Very clearly the officer's conduct was lawful and within department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer's own life or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury. Okay. So that looks like a very boring paragraph. There's a lot right there. Couple of different standards we can tease out of this. So conduct was lawful within policy when well, an officer may use deadly force if they reasonably believe. Okay. And so this is what we call the objective person standard here in, in the law. What would a reasonable person in this situation believe that this was necessary or not, or that this was, was to protect that officer's life or anybody else's life from serious physical injury. What does a standard reasonable person believe? And so that means you can just sort of substitute any reasonable person in that position, a reasonable police officer

Speaker 2:

Or in the Capitol building

Speaker 1:

On January six , would they have acted the same way or not?

Speaker 2:

It's not about what

Speaker 1:

This officer thought it's about, what a reasonable officer thought. So it's a pretty big distinction there. And it's also telling us that they have to think about a couple of things. Action in the defense of human life, that it's necessary. You gotta be able to reasonably,

Speaker 2:

I believe that. So that's the rule that give us the issue. The issue is, is this officer okay

Speaker 1:

For shooting Ashley Babbitt ? Yes or no. They give us the rule.

Speaker 2:

It says reasonable belief

Speaker 1:

That this is necessary to save somebody's life and they give us their analysis. So they take the issue, they apply the rule to it and they tell us, in this case, the officer is not going to be identified. Why officer safety not going to be facing internal discipline either. So no charges, no internal discipline. And we're not even going to tell you the guy's name. We're not even gonna tell you who

Speaker 2:

Did it, so that, so that maybe, maybe the public could have

Speaker 1:

Also inquire into this, do we know his background. Do we know his been involved in any other officer involved shootings? Do we know anything about it? No, because they're not going to tell you, they just get to shoot people. They get to shoot citizens and then not tell you anything about it. This officer and the officer's family had been the subject of numerous credible and specific threats for actions that were taken as a part of the job of all of our officers defending the Congress members and staff and the democratic process. So, yeah, well it's cause he shot and killed somebody. So yeah, it's kind of an important thing that happened here shot and killed a woman. So it's pretty important that we investigate him. Isn't it. We know who Derek Shovan is. We know who Ted THU is. We know who detective Mattingly is. We know all of the officers who were involved in shootings all over the place. Every single day happens all the time. Derek Shovan got a lot of threats. Didn't he? You got a lot of threats for two years. He got a lot of threats when he was sitting in court in the middle of a trial

Speaker 2:

For killing a person

Speaker 1:

In this case , uh, you know, Derek Chauvin's name is infamous. It's it's etched into the

Speaker 2:

Books of history,

Speaker 1:

But uh , in this case, no idea who this person is, the officer they've been the subject of credible and specific threats. Great. Just like a lot of officers are a lot of the time. So now nothing from him, the actions of the officer in this case, potentially

Speaker 2:

Saved members and

Speaker 1:

Staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced

Speaker 2:

Their way into the chambers. All right .

Speaker 1:

So a reasonably believe defense of human life. So you see there , they're taking the rule and they're saying, this is why it was applicable because he was saving human life saying that it was consistent with the officer's training and the S Capitol police policies and procedures. And so that's a big problem there. Isn't it? Because we can't verify that. First of all, we don't know who the officer is. We don't know what his training shows. We don't know anything about the man, cause we don't know his name and we don't know what he was trained or how long he's been with the us Capitol police. We don't know what their PA , what policies they're referencing, what procedures they're referencing. Do they have procedures that say that it's okay to shoot on armed protestors who were protesting inside of a government building.

Speaker 2:

I'd be curious to see if that policy

Speaker 1:

Exists, because I'm guessing that it doesn't on April 14th district of Columbia, us attorney's office. They also declined to prosecute this. The administration investigation launched after the criminal investigation was closed. So they're telling us nothing's going to happen. This has done in

Speaker 2:

An over with not facing internal

Speaker 1:

Discipline. And , uh , it's,

Speaker 2:

It's it's over. Okay ? We're

Speaker 1:

Not going to pursue criminal charges. There's insufficient evidence. So again, nothing, nothing from the us Capitol police. This was now, look, if you haven't watched the full video, the Ashley Babbitt video, I would encourage you to do so very interesting video. I'm not going to play it here, obviously because a woman gets shot and killed. Uh, but this is a still from before anything bad happened before any of the shooting took place. Now, when you watch the full video, very interesting here is Ashley Babbitt sitting here and you'll notice that she's , uh, you know, being, being faced off by several officers, one cop here, another cop here, and another cop over here. If you watch the full video, you'll notice that these three cops, they just leave. So they're all there. There's a, there's a bunch of protesters who were standing there at the door and the cops. I don't know why

Speaker 2:

They just leave. They just move and leave. And Ashley Babbitt is just

Speaker 1:

Once the cops leave, then they start smashing the doors in. But if you watch the video, they weren't going to injure the cops. They weren't going to, I mean, they're , you can watch it. They're all there. There's one guy who's actually pushing people back.

Speaker 2:

So the cops just say, all right, well, get out of the way.

Speaker 1:

As soon as they leave, Ashley Babbitt jumps up into this broken window here, cops leave. The shooter is over here on this side of the window. And she is unarmed. She stands up in the window. She gets shot, falls back down to the ground. She does. So , uh, and, and that's was curious as to why that all happened. Why did the cops move around? Why did this shooter just pop out, shoot a woman. Did he see anything? Did he see a firearm? Did he see a knife? Did he see anything at all? Or did he think that she, that she just by crossing over that barrier was suddenly now a threat that result that that would have justified using lethal force. This is an officer involved shooting just because it happened in the middle of the Capitol building, doesn't necessarily negate from that. It is still an officer involved shooting. You still use lethal force when you're being faced with least lethal force by their own rules. And so the question was, of course,

Speaker 2:

What happened

Speaker 1:

There? Now the DOJ, as we saw previously, this was posted back on April. They also closed the case out relatively quickly saying we're not going to pursue criminal charges. I guess the officer who shot 35 year old Ashley Babbitt . Now again, no officer named this, went through a bunch of different agencies over there. Officials examined the video footage. And then we went through, we looked at the autopsy based on that. We think that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.

Speaker 2:

Okay, well,

Speaker 1:

That's, that's okay. That's fine. But we're also curious about everything else. We're , we're curious about the officer's name, about the investigation, about , uh, his training,

Speaker 2:

His statements,

Speaker 1:

What he saw body camera, any surveillance footage from the inside of the building? Uh, none of it. So that's great that you are just deciding that there's not enough there for a criminal prosecution, but we got other questions.

Speaker 2:

It doesn't stop there. They

Speaker 1:

Give us some information. They say on January six, she joined a crowd of people jumped in there in the building. Members were outside the building, it was close to the public joint session was stopped. Us Capitol police began evacuating members of Congress investigation came out that said that she was amongst a mob of people entered into the building, outside the speaker's lobby, which leads into the chamber. At the time, us Capitol police was evacuating members from the chamber, which the mob was trying to enter from multiple doorways, U S Capitol police officers. They use furniture to barricade and stop people from entering three officers positioned themselves between the doors members of the mob, tried to break through the doors by striking them and breaking the glass with their hands. Eventually the three us Capitol police officers were forced to evacuate. Watch the video, watch that video. And you tell me if that happened that way or not. I don't think so at all. And in fact, when you watch the full video, you'll notice that right after Ashley Babbitt was shot, there were other officers who came up behind the scene, sort of in SWAT gear. So there were cops in front of her who were inside the chamber that they just acknowledged that they said we're evacuating the other congresspeople. So they were okay. We have , uh , this, the shooter who's on the other side of the doors. Who's also a cop with other cops and there are cops behind Ashley about it as well. Very, very, very curious, very interesting here. So the three U S Capitol police officers, they just sort of leave. And that's when, when I saw it, this is out of order. When I watched the video, what you see here, the mob attempted to break through the doors by striking them. What, who are they talking about? Are they talking about these three police officers? No, if you watch the video, they're not striking the three officers they're there . They're striking the doors, but they're also not striking the doors while the police officers are in front of them, they start striking the doors after the police officers remove themselves because they were quite , you know, they were forced to evacuate. Give me a break. As members of the mob continued to strike the glass doors Babbitt , uh , attempted to climb over the doors where the glass was broken out. Officer inside fired one round from his pistol pistol

Speaker 2:

Hitting her in the left shoulder.

Speaker 1:

Us Capitol police emergency response team had already begun making its way into the hallway to try to subdue the mob. They administered a to Babbitt who was transported to the hospital and died. So you saw that. I mean, the officer, so I've got questions about conversations. Wa were , were the Capitol hill police inside the chamber, communicating what? To the Capitol police outside the chamber. When did any conversations go off about , uh , you know, shots being fired, a lot of questions here, but we can't inquire into any of them because we don't know the name of the officer. All right . Uh, and we can't even decide whether it's justified or not. Right. Maybe the officer's evidence comes out and we say, yeah, it's a good shoot. You know? Cause she had something, he saw something who knows, but we can't because we can't see anything. The focus of the criminal investigation they say was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws concentrating on 18 U S code 2 42, which I think we skipped over that's this right here. It says whoever under any color of law, willfully subjects, any person to a deprivation of rights, like being alive while protected by the constitution, somebody who's acting under the color of law violating those constitutional rights. Not, you know , it's , it's a , it's a big penalty under the U S code. So the question is, did any of that happen ? The prosecutors here, the department of justice, that's the standard they're using, which is fine, but we're also asking just about regular information, regular disclosure that would come from an officer involved shooting in any officer involved shooting. All right , let's continue on. In order to establish a violation, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer acted willfully to deprive her of a right protected by the constitution.

Speaker 2:

Here are the fourth amendment,

Speaker 1:

Right? Not to be subjected to unreasonable seizure, like being shot with a gun. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used the force that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable, but that he did. So willfully folks. What they're doing here is they're just trying to sort of splice the law. The officer acted with the bad purpose to disregard the law at this requirement, it's been interpreted. They say that the evidence that the officer acted out of fear, et cetera, cannot establish that. So even if the officer was afraid, even if the officer was mistaken or panicked or misperception or negligence or any of those things, it's still not enough to constitute that high level of intent. So what he's saying is look in order for a us law enforcement official somebody from the Capitol hill police to violate the law, to violate

Speaker 2:

Us code, they have to , to

Speaker 1:

Show a very high level of intent. And so a gunshot went off, right? He shot her. No question. We talk about this in criminal law, the two different components of a criminal statute in , in the United States often are a mental state. We call it mens REA what was the person thinking? What were they doing before they committed the act? Then you have what's called actus Reyes, which is the act it's the physical act. And so if you're going to punch somebody in the face while you got it , I'm going to punch that person in the face. I'm intending to punch that person in the face. And then I do it. There's an act that comes after that. You combine the two, a mental state, an act. You have a crime in this case. What we're talking about is a gunshot went off. This was a law enforcement official from the federal government, the Capitol hill police shot and killed a woman. That was an act that happened. The next question is what was the intent behind it? What the us government is saying? The department of justice is saying, well, specifically it's gotta be unreasonable that he shot her and he had to have done so willfully, meaning . He said, this is pretty unreasonable, but I'm a shooter anyways, very high standard. Right? Very difficult. Because you would have to say that that guy intended to sort of murder her, which she's never going to be able to prove. And they say specifically, fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, even poor judgment. That isn't enough. According to your us government, the investigation, they say revealed no evidence to establish that the officer willfully committed a violation revealed no evidence that he, that at the time that he fired a single shot, that he did not reasonably reasonably believe that it was necessary to do. So saying it was in self-defense to protect him and other congresspeople against the tragic loss of life. So nothing that was back in , uh, in , uh, April now, Ashley Babbitt's attorney apparently issued this press release. Let's run through it and see what he has to say. So Ashley Babbitt's lawyer says the press release issued today does not demonstrate that the shooting of Ashley Babbitt was lawful or in compliance with department policy. It is telling that they're release states that the actions of the officer in the case quote , potentially saved members, potentially he says one can not be shot for potentially being a threat, which is, which is a not, not exactly accurate. I mean, okay, here he carries on, okay, let, let, let me, let me not get ahead of myself here. Let me not get ahead of myself. Rob, finish the man's statement. All right. He says, all right , one can not be shot for being potentially a threat. One has to be an imminent threat, a real and immediate threat. As Ashley Babbitt perched herself in a side window, she was not brandishing. A weapon members of Congress were not in close proximity to her. None were in the speaker's lobby. At the time in short, she was not an imminent threat of death or serious injury to anyone. And as such, the officer was not justified photographic and video evidence makes clear that there was ample police manpower present in the lobby ready and able to stop or arrest Babbitt . If she got through, she never would've made it into the house. Chamber officer had no reason to believe otherwise killing her, shooting her at point blank range was completely unnecessary. It renders the shooting legally unjustified. Finally, one can not imagine any police department would allow an officer to shoot an individual

Speaker 2:

Well , without first giving a reasonable warning,

Speaker 1:

Not aware of any circumstances that prevented the officer from doing that. Did the Capitol police address this issue hard to tell from reading the press release, our investigation reveals that no witness on Ashley Babbitt's side of the door,

Speaker 2:

Any warning before he discharged the firearm? Yeah. Okay .

Speaker 1:

So, you know, it , it, it's, it's really easy in these cases to take a look at the situation and say, yeah, but Robert happened in the Capitol on January 6th, it was really, really traumatic and scary. And there were a lot of people outside with all these flags and oh, Trump's, I also don't like Trump either. So ,

Speaker 2:

Uh , so , uh, so this makes

Speaker 1:

Sense. And, and yes, I can understand the tendency to want to sort of

Speaker 2:

Bundle this all up in together, happens all the time. It's happening.

Speaker 1:

The January 6th defendants people are saying well, but they were there on January six. Yes. But it's also just a trespass case. It's also just a disorderly conduct case just because the building

Speaker 2:

Is more important. Doesn't

Speaker 1:

Change the legality of the statutes

Speaker 2:

Or what, or, or the, the mechanics, the logic of what's happening here. Legally might feel worse, might

Speaker 1:

Be emotionally traumatic because it was in the

Speaker 2:

Capitol building. But this was a protester who was shot by a police officer. It's pretty simple. It was in the Capitol building. And there were some important people in there, but the logic of the environment doesn't change. So you have to be asking yourself ourselves, why we

Speaker 1:

Is this treated entirely different from any other officer involved shooting or any other officer involved killing? I don't know, we've gone months and months from , without hearing a word from the Capitol police about who shot her says Ashley's attorney. We are really no closer to knowing that today. I find the refusal to identify the officer unprecedented. I challenged the Capitol police to release their detailed findings. If any of its investigation, it's not enough to say that an officer did nothing wrong without showing how it reached such a conclusion. Absolutely agree. An investigation by the officer's own police department conducted in secret proves nothing. And certainly is not an exoneration. The world has already seen citizens videos of the shootings. Many do not share the view that the shooting was justified. And I watched it again this afternoon. And I agree with that statement, didn't seem justified to me. And it's really hard

Speaker 2:

To , uh, to even speculate about it when they don't really know

Speaker 1:

Any of the evidence. Okay. If they're going to say it was justified, they got to release the evidence and they haven't. The burden is with them. They're the government. They're the one who did the shooting. They're the one that have that hold all the cards and the rest of society

Speaker 2:

Is sort of at their mercy. And when they

Speaker 1:

Do an investigation of themselves and find that they did nothing wrong, well, we're going to be a little bit skeptical of that. And I think we have every right to be all right. Let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. We got major in the house was on the last segment, going to look at that one later. Kamala is here, says, can you please do my greatest legal case? Where I had the photographers that did filming of the planned parents selling baby parts. One of my greatest achievements. Thank you. Love it . Is commonly here. Uh , independent outside counsel is here. It says, why didn't that officer shoot everyone else in his line of fire was that officer in harm's way, didn't look like it to me, especially if you watch it again. Sergeant Bob was here, is here, says I was a supervisor in the Portland crime scene processing unit for several years and involved at many officer involved shooting cases, Ashley's shooting would have been viewed as a quote,

Speaker 2:

Dad shooting my P B P retiree, friends agree

Speaker 1:

Profile, civil attorney attorneys , working with the Babbitt family. Some Capitol police reportedly gave

Speaker 2:

That he, that the Lieutenant that

Speaker 1:

Was waving the gun around prior to this finger on the trigger pointing at other officers and politicians clearly reckless. I understand Lieutenant who shot was essentially a plain clothes officer with a desk job, by the way, he was black. Whereas the department of justice, civil rights investigation more should come out defending against death or serious physical injury. Doesn't fly political coverup , bad

Speaker 2:

Popo. Yes.

Speaker 1:

That's from Sergeant Bob. And that's how you know, it's, it's just really good data. It's Sergeant Bob. And thank you Sergeant for that. So great to have you here , uh, to be a part of the show. It's a great comment. And thank you for that perspective. Uh , I agree with that completely thunder seven says there was never going to be justice for Ashley because he's a black protected by Pelosi. So my question is about the maggot political prisoners. If none of them in their trial asks for discovery, which includes the video footage and the prosecutor drops the charge to avoid giving that out. Does that mean that the defense lawyer will never get to see it? I'm just wondering if any defense lawyer has seen all the damning evidence. So it's a good it look, it's a really good question, thunder, and there are a couple of different ways that this could go.

Speaker 2:

If,

Speaker 1:

If it's not disclosed as part of any one

Speaker 2:

Person's individual case,

Speaker 1:

There are many other cases. And so you might see bits and pieces of the discovery

Speaker 2:

Be released in the, in the amounts that is appropriate for ,

Speaker 1:

For those individual defendants, right? So that's typically how discovery goes. You don't necessarily need everything about every single co-defendant if it's not relevant. Now, if you want a lot of that information, if you say, well, you know, I was looking at their case and it seems like some of the evidence in that case might be helpful in my case, because you're saying that they were sort of in collusion together, these co-defendants, and they're not. And that evidence, the discovery in, in person B's case tends to show that my client person a is actually not as guilty as person B. So I want their evidence to show that they're more, more culpable than my client is. And so you might see in very big complex cases, discovery that is sort of , uh, you know, bifurcated amongst different defendants. Now in , in other cases, what all that will be consolidated together because you'll have a series of co-defendants that are involved in like a, like a gang related case. And so they'll charge them all as co-defendants in a similar underlying case, we're getting into the weeds here with criminal law, but, but that would give you access to a more robust bucket of evidence at the outset. And you would not have to do as much investigation in this case. What they're doing the government is saying that they've got, you know, 575 different defendants. So it's sort of a mixture between the two. It's sort of like, well, they're all kind of separate, but they're all kind of together as well. And so that , that complicates things a little bit. And so you have some defense attorneys that I've seen historically that are not really fighting that hard over discovery, at least in these Capitol hill cases, they're not really , um , objecting to the continuances. They're not throwing a stink about it, but there are others that we have talked about here that are, that are saying, no, we want the discovery. Now yesterday we have a right to a speedy trial. We have a right to due process and to review all of the evidence against us and you have not given it to us and we're demanding it. And so I think two weeks ago we talked about one January six case where the government just recently said, oh, we just started eight months later, seven months later when we talked about it, just disclosing all of the 14,000 hours of video footage over to Deloitte financial or something. They're going to organize it and label all the videos so that all the defense attorneys will have it nice and organized for them.

Speaker 2:

And look, I

Speaker 1:

Be true to that. There may not be, you know, I don't, I don't know, but the point here is

Speaker 2:

The evidence exists.

Speaker 1:

The U S government, in my opinion, should give all of it over to the defense. It's all appropriate for the defense to have all of it. Now, the courts for whatever reason, have not been put, putting their feet to the fire in that regard, the prosecutors come out and they say, no, we've got so much. It's 14,000 hours. It's the biggest attack on American democracy. We're so overwhelmed. And so backed up that we just can't process it all. And so the courts say, yeah, you're right. This was such a tragic thing. I mean, I can't believe this happened in America. That guy almost took the podium. I was almost out of a country. And now what we need to do is you're right. Government take all the time in the world. We're just going to continue to hold these defendants in custody indefinitely while you just twiddle your thumbs and just do whatever it takes for you to assemble your numbers.

Speaker 2:

So

Speaker 1:

W which is inappropriate. I mean, the courts should, should demand that this stuff gets disclosed, but if the courts aren't willing to do it and the prosecutors are gonna continue to hold the cards, the defendants are sort of out of luck In this regard. All right, let's see, we've got a couple of other questions here that was from thunder seven. We've got a few

Speaker 2:

More.

Speaker 1:

All right. Let's see what else Jeremy is here. Says there are so many holes in that report. How can the officer ever receive credible threats? If the public doesn't know who he is, this report, that's a great question. This report doesn't surprise because we knew they would continue to paper over this case. I think there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the organization has any credibility. They clearly don't care about the public there . Nothing we can do about it. Yeah. It's the Congress's own private security force. So they're going to take care of their own Sharon quit . And he says, what are they actually calling the January six people rioters and a mob, not insurrectionists , not traders or domestic terrorists, not an army attempting to take

Speaker 2:

Over the government, but I'm not surprised that they continue the coverup and

Speaker 1:

The lies that's from Sharon. We have law abiding citizen says, Rob, I know I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but I will be honest. If someone broke a window in my house and tried to break in, I'm going to put a bullet in that individual, say what you want. I will not allow my family's life to be put in jeopardy. However, if they release information about other officers that shoot people, they should release information about this individual. That's from law abiding citizen. And I think that's the best starting point on this, right?

Speaker 2:

You don't know what's what that officer saw

Speaker 1:

Or what his perspective was. Cause we don't know who he is. And we don't know anything else about what happened there because they're not telling us, they're just saying that we're the government, we're the police. We investigated ourselves. Trust us. We're gonna re we're gonna release this a four paragraph press release that says nothing. Uh , okay .

Speaker 2:

And that's going to be all you get from us, even though we shot and killed the one, which is not exciting .

Speaker 1:

Dull to me, the antique is prime says, I know this is going to spark a lot of hate in the team Coke versus the team Pepsi kill fast . But whatever. On the one hand, I would expect nothing less than people to find themselves not guilty. On the other hand, I watched a few videos of the incident. If I were in the officer's position, charged with the same duties, having as little information as the officer would have had. And with consideration of the situation, I would have most likely taken the same action, which was to pull the trigger. Once that threshold was crossed, unless someone can present significant information to the contrary, this is a justified shooting in my opinion. So that's curious VNT because , and I, and I sort of understand your perspective, right? It's, it's a situation where it is a lot of chaos

Speaker 2:

Madness and you really don't know. Uh, and so that's why I think I would reserve judgment a little bit until

Speaker 1:

We got more information about this. But remember, the, what they're doing right now is they're shifting the burden. And this is where I have such a big problem with this is the burden is now being shifted from the government back onto, I guess the citizens on Ashley Babbitt's family to

Speaker 2:

Say we investigated

Speaker 1:

It. And that's all you need from us. We have found that ,

Speaker 2:

That , that we're in the clear, well, that's sort of not allowing the other side to properly investigate the case. They're , they're not giving the opportunity for

Speaker 1:

A more thorough investigation, which is where I have a problem with all of this. Let's see what else we have. We have a three Gurley's is here, says as a reminder of my background, I'm a former corrections officer, an armed security officer, a lot of training in regard to use of force on multiple levels. This officer could not have reasonably believed. He was protecting anybody. There were multiple officers that left the door shortly before the shooting. I saw that they had just passed Ashley Babbitt and a group of protesters in the hallway. And that was seen on John Sullivan's video that he sold to CNN and all these others newsgroups . Yeah. And that begs the question, right? If, if this was so dangerous and those, those other officers just walked away, they weren't dragged away. They weren't being beaten away. They just said, okay, we're enough of this. We're done. And they left that's it? The officer's backstop includes those other officers. And if they didn't feel that, that it was warranted concern, it is a question on why any officer would feel like it was a concern, any reasonable officer, actually, a few of them had already passed that group of protestors .

Speaker 13:

Yeah. Yeah. If you haven't seen it

Speaker 1:

In the video, if you're passing judgment on this and you have not seen the full video, I would go watch that because it is a little bit different than I think what the news was portraying. A disgruntled citizen of new America says, well, this kind of protection be allocated to the Capitol police at all of the field offices being established throughout the country, somewhat of a terrifying thought. Yeah, there's very good precedence . Now that , uh, that the Capitol police don't have to disclose anything. They don't have to tell you about anything. They're the federal government's police force. And they've got all sorts of protections against any of the civilian oversight that you see in your localities. They don't have that. They're the feds three girlies is here, says, is there the ability of the Ashley Babbitt family to Sue the Capitol police for damages? I think they are already. Yes. That's what the statement I read was from their lawyer. And I think they're filing a civil rights claim or does this determination really stops short of any sort of civil proceeding against the police also, is there a way to have a third-party investigation into this incident? Could the family fight for a third-party investigation or is this basically the end of the road for them? So I'm very curious about that myself, three girls , I'm not real familiar with the intricacies of the Capitol hill police and some of their jurisdictional protections, other than what I've loosely just kind of found online that they, they don't have to respond to this stuff, which was kind of news to me. But , uh , it will be very curious now what the federal courts do. So if the Ashley , I think what, what is probably safe to say is that the Ashley Babbitt family, this lawyer was waiting for an official report before they could file a formal notice of claim or at least file the lawsuit. They may have already filed a notice of claim, but they filed the lawsuit. And we'll see what happens from there. You know, the court could very well order disclosure, you know , under seal of some of these documents, but if the Capitol police, if they really have these real Bulletproof protections that are granted to them by Congress, the courts may not be willing to take that apart. And so you may have a very difficult time of seeing anything else come out of this. You know, I just don't know. I don't practice much , uh , federal law in general. And I S I practice zero civil law. So it's hard for me to speculate on that, but I pulled the message from a civil lawyer, the response to the, to the Capitol hill press release from a lawyer who presumably is going to be filing a lawsuit. Now that we have some closure from the Capitol hill police. Good question. We have, Alex Jones says Ashley was surrounded by glowy. Alex Jones is in the house. We have leafy bug says, it seems to me that law enforcement really, really doesn't want to do any more investigating into anything. One six related the FBI said they haven't found any evidence of conspiracy. Well, they didn't, they didn't say that Reuters said that. And then the FBI came out and charged Owen Shroyer, but I get your point. The FBI said they haven't found any evidence of a conspiracy. They are done nothing more to see here. I wonder what they might find if they kept looking, huh? If they went forward with more serious charges, are they worried? What a good defense lawyer might turn up ? Maybe there was a conspiracy to trash, the U S democracy, but it wasn't carried out by the people Pelosi and the crew are accusing. We need to watch those Watchers more closely than ever love the show. Rob, thanks for your work. Thank you, leafy bug. I appreciate your comments, your questions, all of your amazing participation here. Thanks for keeping the show lively. We have cats. 59 said

Speaker 2:

Pelosi shooter. I don't know. I don't think Pelosi can move that fast.

Speaker 1:

Sergeant Bob says under the government standards, quote , a lot of protestors should have been shot over the last summer were real threats, throwing Molotov, cocktails, hard objects, et cetera. Yeah. It's the same standard, right? If you're a Democrat and you're like, yeah, that cops should have shot her. Okay. Well what about any of the people breaking into the third precinct of Minneapolis? Should the cops have just

Speaker 2:

Shot them? All people

Speaker 1:

Throwing Molotov cocktails at court at court buildings inside the third precinct. Remember that they were inside the third precinct

Speaker 2:

Doing Snapchats , running around

Speaker 1:

Lighting stuff on fire. Having

Speaker 2:

A lot of fun. Should , should the Minneapolis police just BLM dead, dead, dead, dead, dead. No warnings is that, this is that what we want hear from cops. I don't know. I do not know .

Speaker 1:

Uh, John hands up. Don't shoot how green says , uh , this confuses me since the, excuse me about that over here. Let's get that going. All right . There we go. This confuses me since the officer believed what he was doing was right. He's not subject possible prosecution. I'm no lawyer. So this is way behind , beyond my comprehension.

Speaker 2:

Uh, so, so , uh,

Speaker 1:

It's not that he subjectively believed that it was okay to shoot that person. So we don't have subjective standards in , in a lot of these intent types of situations. What that would mean. It would be like, John, if you were there, the question was John, do you think it's okay to shoot Ashley Babin ? If you said, yeah, I do. We go, okay, that will John thought it was okay. And you might put Robin there and Rob might say, well, I might've waited. And maybe it's a little bit different, but it's because I have some special training.

Speaker 2:

So I waited. You didn't. But

Speaker 1:

In both of those cases, it doesn't matter because it's our subjective thoughts. What I did personally, what I thought was reasonable. It was perfect for me. What you thought was perfect for you? That's not what we're talking about here. Right? You might find somebody in a situation where there's a crowd coming through that just start shooting before they even reached the door. Right? You might have another person in this hypothetical that says I would have started shooting when they were down the steps on the other side of that door. And if it's a subjective standard, that would have been reasonable because that person thought it was reasonable. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an objective standard. What would any person who's reasonable without officers' training skills experience? If we just picked up a random person out of the street and we said, oh yeah, he looked like a cop, like a Capitol hill police officer can , we're going to put you right in there. That fictional person would they have done that? Would they have reasonably believed that they needed to shoot her in order to protect their lives or somebody else's life it's arguable. I think it's very debatable. Really. I really do. The problem is that we don't have any evidence. From the other perspective, we don't have anything else from the government. They just said we investigated it. We found that we're good to go. So that's all you got. That's the problem. We need to see that so that we can have a more clear determination about what, what actually took place, but they're not going to give that to us. So we have to continue to , uh, criticize them law. Abiding citizens says, let me amend that previous comment. I would announce that I have a firearm. I would announce it multiple times. If they continued, I will have to protect my family. That's from law abiding citizen. Right? Stop, stop, stop. Got a firearm . Okay. Now you get shot. Now. That's not apparently what that officer did. We have a Watson , oh , says, saw the video. We're no one laying on the floor or hiding, just standing around three officers. They just stepped away. They did. They just walked away. Three cops just go, okay, well, we're kind of done protecting, I guess the speakers back there. So they just move. And if they just move , uh, why , why did they do that? Where they not protecting the very important congresspeople behind them? Why they just leave? If this was a life or death situation, which apparently it was because an officer shot a woman. Why did they leave? Very curious news. Now Wyoming says, I realized that justice is blind, but with all these beatings, during the riots burning a federal property, throwing a bricks. If any cops reacted at all, they were charged with violating rights. Why is there a difference here? Because those were BLM supporters. This was a mega person. So there are different rules. If you're of the favored political party, then you get to kind of do whatever you want without really any repercussions. In fact, you'll get the vice-president of this country who will tweet about raising money so that you get bail and get out of custody. So , uh , that's that's if your favorite, if not, you just get thrown in a political prison. Basically indefinitely tweak is here, says, have you watched this interview with the Japanese journalist who made really interesting analysis of a bunch of video footage in connection with the shooting made some really interesting observations involving John Sullivan? I think a lot of people have paid too much attention to . I might be mistaken though. Haven't really heard much about it. There are some very interesting videos about the Ashley Babbitt shooting tweak . I th I have actually seen that one, that one came out from , um , the epoch times, I think put, posted that one. And so go look that one up. There's also another one that was really well edited. And it sort of makes it seem like the whole thing was scripted and that video will, will shake you because this guy does this video so nicely edited and he made any speeds it up and he makes it look like it's like a special effects show. And it really looks like it. It's really weird where you can do with , uh , with editing. Oh, sock says, Hey, Rob question are the rules or law different because this happened in DC. So it would be, it would , it's a, it's a federal jurisdiction. So you're going to talk about federal law. It's in the DC courts, it's involving the U S code, which would be different. I don't know where you're from. Uh , oh , SOC , but it would be different from local states, right? And it's the Capitol hill police. It's not, you know , the Phoenix police or, you know, the , uh, Minneapolis police it's Capitol hill police. And so those things cause some changes in the analysis. Three Gurley's is here, says there are many officers who are now behind bars. You killed somebody without intending to kill them. What makes this guy any different? I find it absolutely unacceptable that this guy could have gotten off over splicing of the laws versus actually how the law is written. Any officer on the outside of that building would have had way more scrutiny, what a hat would have had to answer in a court of law. Right? You're you're absolutely right. If I had shot somebody in the line of duty, I would have been charged no matter if I had intended to harm somebody, I was told by my, by my CEO captain, that if I were to shoot an inmate who had gotten over the fence, no matter how justified I would be sued to the ends of the earth. And I have the very funny feeling that this officer will not even have an iota of the scrutiny or costs that he deserves. You're right about that three girlies . And I'm not sure that anything's going to change. It sounds like they're done. They've done their investigation, the other people out there, the peasants, Ashley Babbitt's family, her friends, her loved ones. Ah , sorry. Don't get any information about any of this leafy bugs as a quote by the KGB ICI from the great mini-series Cher. Noble says, first we must have our hero. We must have our villain. We must have our truth. Then we will fix the other reactors. It seems applicable here. Great series. Oh my gosh. Great series. And it was really, really, really hard to watch because of how realistic it was talking about people melting from radioactive poisoning, VNC kiss . Prime says, I completely agree with your response to my comment. I just wanted to cover all bases because a lot of people approach situations like this with heated emotions. Remember what I said? And you didn't read about the glory holes.

Speaker 14:

Oh ,

Speaker 1:

You had to guess Brian . Yeah . I didn't read the glory hole comment. Cause it's, cause it's said , you know that word and I just said it multiple times. Um, yes. I , I agree with you. Totally VMT . Cause prime VNC cause prime completely agree. Right? There are, there are reasonable on this, on this segment. There are reasonable , uh , differing of opinions here. I think you can easily view this a couple of different ways and analyze it. But my issue is that I can't, we can't really see all of the , the full picture because they're hiding the ball from us and that makes it difficult to analyze. But I think you're right , right. I think you could see a situation like this. If you're a new police officer , you could at least make an argument for it. Look, I'm a police officer. I've been here for like three days and look , there's this Trump mob coming in here. The speaker of the house is back. I didn't know what to do. So I just shot her. Okay, look , uh , a bad shoot wrong, but we know we can, we can have a conversation about that. And you could even empathize with that person and understand it and make a decision about that. But we're not getting any of the evidence to do that analysis. The Capitol hill police had just , we looked at it and we're good. So that's not enough for something involving a police shooting. A citizen's not appropriate. Thunder seven says I'm so depressed over Ashley's cold blooded murder. I want to leave on a laugh, did a lot runaway to Vietnam because they don't have an extradition treaty with the us and they can't drag her back here. Well, look , if that happened thunder seven, then it's no problem because she could just go down to the border and just walk right across. She's in charge of the border. There's obviously nothing stopping her from doing that. So if she has problems in Vietnam, in Saigon or anything like that, she can just walk right across the border that she's in charged with. Not even have a problem. Does it even have to do a COVID test? If she flies back in, by the time she comes back, she might have to take a COVID test. If you just comes across the border, she's clear. A major is here, says rules of engagement in Afghanistan, under Bama don't fire until fired upon rules for engagement for police and American citizens go hog wild. Just shoot whoever you want. No problem. Especially if they're a Trumper, just you can just shoot them. No problem. Oh, Sox says Rob. So if the Capitol police are fed, why is the FBI involved while they're there ? They're different. They're different , uh, federal bureaucracies. There are many, many police agencies in DC. All you got police up the wazoo. I think that you've got the us mince police, the Smithsonian police. You've got the monuments police, the all the police everywhere. So FBI is just the federal bureau of investigation. They're sort of the law enforcement arm of the executive branch. And they spread out throughout the world. Whereas the Capitol hill police, their jurisdiction is much more narrow. It's in DC for the Capitol and congressional , uh , offices. Let's see what else is here? That was it from watching the watchers.locals.com . But I saw some super chats. Come in here. Let's see what we've got over here. We have , uh, uh, yeah, a lot of these can , Y I, I didn't see some of these. Okay. So look, two G chimed in and says our government should have civilian boards to oversee these issues. It's a travesty that they can be investigate tour. And the judge. Yeah. They just investigate themselves. No, we , we have an internal affairs division. We have an entire , uh , an entire office here. Yeah. They're all police officers, but it's okay. You can trust them. Just trust us. We've got to figure it out. Yeah. I agree with you. Look to G it's a little bit problematic. Uh, and civilian boards, civilian boards are also, you know , partially problematic because then you have what the , the morons are doing elsewhere in the, in the world, like what they did in Portland, defund the police disband the force that goes out there and in stops, you know, gun violence and then gun rates, gun violence goes through the roof. And then they say, well, we got to bring the police back. Police are gone. They've already left. So when you have civilians also in charge, they also really don't know what they're doing. So it's, it's a big mess. Bend over is here, says it's like we have everyone from Sesame street running our country. Yeah. It , it is. I think the treasury is sort of like the cookie monster, just eating up all of our precious cookies and the Republicans and the Democrats spending it. Yeah, no, it's fine. Taking all of our cookies and just eating them. It's really, it's not fair. It's so offensive to me, Chris, on Chando is here, says you forgot to mention all the undercover FBI, CIA, et cetera. That were also there. I think that that is it . That is an astute observation. Chris. It did seem like there were a number of officers , law enforcement officials that were surrounding the whole scene. I don't know why she got shot because there were cops everywhere. A good thank you for that, Chris. Another one from Linda says, why was he the only officer in fear of his life? He wasn't even in the front line. No, you're right. He wasn't. And he had a whole door, a barricade between him and the others and the three cops left. So presumably they left because they didn't need any more lives to protect. Three cops walked away. Their life-saving duties were , were done. So they , they moved. And then Ashley says, oh, I guess , uh, this , this is open now. So she jumps through cops shoots her. Was that, was there collusion there at all? Was there any , uh, conversations taking place? We're going to stand down. We got an order to stand down, brace yourselves. We're opening the doors, something like that. If so, that would introduce some different avenues of analysis, but we'll never know. Will we let's thank you for that. Linda. We have another one from Tager with SyFy says, I think the Capitol policemen knew she wasn't an imminent threat. I think the shot was made in order to warn everyone else there. She was sacrificed and it did that. Right? Cause it stopped the crowd from coming through. And I'm sure there are people out there that will say that's, that's justified, right? That is actually something that is worthwhile. We have bend over. Also says all this craziness going on, has me expecting Howard the duck to return next, riding a unicorn. Well, you know, I , I, it wouldn't surprise me. Anything is possible. Now in , in 2021 America, we have looked to G says, Ben Dover, Howard, the duck was a silly movie and it is not coming back. LOL. Just kidding. Howard, the duck. What does Howard the duck do ? Why don't , why don't why do I not know this? Do you need to have children for this Howard? The duck? Let's see what? This is Howard. The duck. Oh, it's a 1986 movie. Oh, this movie. Oh,

Speaker 2:

It's this movie. It's on Amazon prime.

Speaker 1:

That's with Michael J. Fox Howard. The duck is that the, you know what? I don't know that I've ever seen this movie. Uh , yes. I have seen this. Maybe look

Speaker 2:

At this thing. Oh my God. I've

Speaker 1:

Heard that . Oh no, that's horrible. Okay. I think, I think I was traumatized by that. It's like a six year old . All right . We have lava, Java lava also chime in and says, do you think voters will be turned away if they don't present a vaccine card during elections? That's a good question. Look, that might be a win-win you know, this, this is how you could bridge the gaps. What if you told all the republics

Speaker 2:

Ken's listen, we're going to require vaccine cards to vote in elections, but we're also going to make it identification. Oh ,

Speaker 1:

Oh, you're going to anger . Both sides with that one. Wait , voter the Democrats wait ,

Speaker 2:

Voter ID. Uh, no, we don't want that, but you want vaccinations though? Yeah.

Speaker 1:

You do want vaccines. Vaccinations. Okay. So how about this in the same vaccine card that you want to tag everybody with? We just put their photograph and their name and ID on it so that they can just vote with that and we can know who they are. Well, I'm not so sure about that.

Speaker 2:

Vaccines are important, but voter registration, that's

Speaker 1:

Racist. And so w we know how that goes.

Speaker 2:

Uh, probably not going to , uh, probably not ,

Speaker 1:

Not going to work out in anybody's favor, but it's a fun idea. Isn't it? That was from lava, Java lava. All right. My friends, those were great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com . Let's make sure we don't have any more before we just wrap up for the day. Sometimes they come in late and Nope . We're good to go. I want to thank everybody for the nice super chats . Big shout outs to lava Java lava. Look to G bend over. We got Tager with SyFy , Chris and Chando. We got Linda Kydd with a couple of them, another mend over another look to Jesus Hulu in the house. Vegas, MOOC , and Zander, Jeffrey Swartz , Alex bogey, with a couple of those at the

Speaker 2:

Start of the show. Thank you so much for

Speaker 1:

Those super chats. Every time I get off the show, the live stream is demonetized. By the time

Speaker 2:

I apply and get re monetized it's time for the next show.

Speaker 1:

So it's kind of a frustrating thing, but I appreciate your support. Of course, a lot of you are supporting us over at locals as well. We have Beth Cottington wrapping up with a nice super chat . Always very generous. Beth says, sorry. I slept through most of your stream. It's okay.

Speaker 2:

Beth it's recorded

Speaker 1:

So you can watch it later. I hope you got some nice sleep. A nice restful slumber, nothing personal. Have to watch it later. Hello and goodnight. That's from Beth Cottington . Hope you got some good arrests there, Beth. And it's , uh , I'm grateful that you're here and for that nice Superchat. And so that my friends is it of the questions. Let's welcome. Our new members [email protected] had several new new people sign up over the weekend. Let's give some shout outs along with a lot of people. Last week, we have big welcomes going out. And in order for chai, web dev, I think it might be Chicago web developer. We got action in the house. We got doc thunder bone in the house, along with Ms . Danny 2021 signed up and been chatting away over there. Last week, we had some signups here from Jack man 20. We had M J B www Mustang. Jeff was in the house, chatting away, keep her 21. Cool guy, 18,000 Sapper Jackson, Kent , north thunder. Mr . MBP, w C Hodges and watcher 45 all signed up the week before that big welcomes. If you want to join the community, it's [email protected] five bucks a month, 50 bucks annually.

Speaker 2:

If you want to be a part of the community

Speaker 1:

And I'd love it. If you did that, because we've got a locals , monthly meetup taking place over zoom. This Saturday, it's been a long time coming my friends, but we've got it queued up Saturday, August 28th, this weekend, 7:00 PM Eastern time. It's going to be a lot of fun. We turn cameras on. If you want, if not, that's okay. If your camera's off. Well, it might be, you know, it's hard to tell, but you might be an FBI agent, but that's okay. It's all friendly language. We're all just good people. Good Americans trying to get to know one another, put some names to faces. Talk about some of the current issues. Get some feedback on the show. See what you think. See what you'd like to see. See what you'd like to see less of. It's a good time. Come check it out. Saturday, August 28th, 2021, seven to 8:00 PM. We had a couple other super chats come up before we get out of here. Let me make sure I say thank you to those. We had one from TB,

Speaker 2:

D F H five one with me ,

Speaker 1:

No question, but a nice, generous, super chat . Thank you for that. I do appreciate that. And then Andrew Passman says, my prediction for Biden end buddies is after the Arizona audit, America will turn

Speaker 2:

On them and write things.

Speaker 1:

Uh , we'll see that that is coming up here. August 31st, we have a deadline in Afghanistan and I think they said we also

Speaker 2:

Have a deadline in Arizona

Speaker 1:

Because the audit report is supposed to be due up by the end of this month. We'll see if we get it. We'll see. What's in it. Looking forward to talking about that and more want to make sure you're a part of the show because we're going to do it again at the same time, same place tomorrow, 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here

Speaker 2:

Tomorrow. Bye bye .