Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Biden’s Afghan Exit Underway, SCOTUS Blocks Biden on Evictions, Lt. Michael Byrd on Ashli Babbitt

August 28, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Biden’s Afghan Exit Underway, SCOTUS Blocks Biden on Evictions, Lt. Michael Byrd on Ashli Babbitt
Show Notes Transcript

The Biden Administration continues the Afghanistan withdrawal under a continuing threat of more terror – we review the reports from around the world and remember those we lost. The Supreme Court of the United States rules 6-3 to block the Biden Administration’s decision to extend the eviction moratorium. Capitol Hill Police Officer who killed Ashli Babbitt is interviewed by Lester Holt and we break down his answers in this Officer-Involved Shooting.​

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

🔵 US forces continue evacuations from Afghanistan while under constant threat of additional terrorist attacks.​
🔵 Review of the crowds of people inside the Kabul airport being pushed back by the military to secure the runway.​
🔵 Jenn Psaki holds a press briefing and confirms the U.S. is in the “retrograde” portion of the withdrawal.​
🔵 Confirmation from Jake Tapper and others that U.S. forces seem to be winding down operations.​
🔵 Farewell to fallen servicemembers: Max Soviak, Kareem Nikoui, Rylee McCollum and David Lee Espinoza.​
🔵 The Taliban want the U.S. to keep diplomats in Afghanistan after the withdrawal. ​
🔵 The Supreme Court of the United States issues an ultra-fast opinion in the Biden Eviction Moratorium case.​
🔵 In a 6-3 per curiam opinion, the Court finds that the CDC does not have the unilateral authority to extend the eviction moratorium.​
🔵 Justice Breyer drafted the dissent for the three liberal judges, complaining about the court’s “shadow docket” and the public interest in extending the moratorium.​
🔵 The Capitol Hill Police Officer who killed Ashli Babbitt is revealed to be Lt. Michael Byrd.​
🔵 Lt. Byrd was interviewed Lester Holt after the Capitol Hill Police Department exonerated of any wrongdoing.​
🔵 Review Lt. Byrd’s interview and explanation for the shooting, including a review of his prior misconduct.​
🔵 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://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

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

#WatchingtheWatchers #Afghanistan #BidenRegret #BidenIsAFailure #Aug3

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. 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've got 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 in with us today. I think I botched that intro a little bit, but that's because we've got so much to get into. We're going to be talking about Afghanistan, looking like the country is sort of on its way out. The white house is calling this the retro grade, which is sort of a code word for, I guess, withdrawal or surrender or whatever you want to call it, but they're leaving. And so we're going to take a look at what the white house had to say about all of this. Jen Saki went out and we had a press conference from her today. Talking a little bit about what the situation on the ground look like because we have a lot of open questions here. It seems like there may be a lot of Americans who were still left over there. The deadline is coming up next week on Tuesday. And so the clock is certainly ticking. So we're going to check in with the white house and see what they have to do about that. We've got to pay a little bit of tribute here to some of the names of the fallen service members that we learned about yesterday. And so we're going to pause for a quick moment and make sure that we honor them. And then we're going to change gears and talk about what happened in the Supreme court. Because last night in a very late, very, very speedy decision, the Supreme court came out SCOTUS and they blocked Biden. Remember this, we talked about this earlier. The CDC eviction moratorium was something that Joe Biden and his administration implemented through the CDC and they just kept extending it. They basically were taking people's property away from them saying that we need it more than you do because of COVID. And so the Supreme court had hinted previously that this was unconstitutional, not acceptable, but Biden did it anyways. And so the Supreme court came back out last night and said, not so fast there , buddy boy. So we're going to take a look at that opinion, go through it. We've got the per curiam opinion. That is , is it's six to three. So we're going to take a look at the six conservative judges and take a look at the dissent from Briar, because this is a very interesting case. Actually, you can see how two of the different sides sort of the originalists and the , uh, free Liberty people. The , the sort of Liberty minded liberals on the courts are the people who have this concept of active Liberty so that they can go and sort of recreate the laws in whatever manner they see fit. Anyways, we're going to get into it and sort of compare and contrast the two sides. Then in our last segment, a story we've been following at length here, Ashley Babbitt , of course, we know that she was killed during the January 6th protests. And for a long time, we had no idea who the shooter was, who the police officer who actually did that, firing who it was last night. We learned that it's a guy by the name of Michael Bird , a Lieutenant from the Capitol hill police. And so he was on an interview last night with Lester Holt. And we have some interesting clips here and the timing was very convenient. Remember this, we know that earlier on August 24th, Capitol hill police came out and they said, listen, we did our investigation. This guy's exonerated, but they were still refused to give us the name. And then a couple of days later, August 27th, he does an interview. So it's very convenient that as soon as he's exonerated, he's now hitting the public circuits. So we'll break that down and more. If you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is [email protected] . There is just an amazing group of people chatting away over there. Shout outs to Gale oh eight, Kenny one B's in the house want to know is always here. Chris, John, as well as news. Now, Wyoming want to know again and case cell we've got Kenny one BDG McBride is over there. Miss Danny 20, 21 [inaudible] and many others over on YouTube. Shout outs to K being too legit to quit. We've got James Craft . We have MSW 20 Matt Dennett and Joe SaaS now skis over there. So we're going to now take a look at the show, but before we do reminder, if you are over on locals, this is the form you can use to ask questions. We're going to do our very best to get to them today. Make sure you do your best to try to keep them in order if you can. That helps me get through them in sequence. And another reminder, before we dive into the meat and potatoes of the show, if you're looking for the clips, the segments that we clip out, so that if you can't make the full show, sometimes we go for over two hours here. If you want the clips. So you can just sort of pick the videos you want to watch. Those are all on this new channel, it's the clips channel. So make sure you go and check that out and look right here. It says no subscribers, which is just really depressing. So if you want to go over there and help us out , uh , beef up that channel a little bit, we would certainly appreciate the support. All right? So let's get into the news of the day. Afghanistan continues to descend. Many people might say, but it is now a situation where it looks like the U S is transitioning from securing the airport to leaving the airport. We're going to hear some different terminology used here. So things like retro grade from the white house, from Jen Saki , but in this segment, I want to just kind of poke around and see what the media is reporting. We're going to start off by going to the AP. They're telling us that us forces, they are just grinding along the airlift in cobble , still under the threat of more attacks. Yesterday, we know 13 American service members were killed many more injured. And we also know that the Afghan casualties continued to climb yesterday. It was something like 60 people than 70 than 120. Now the numbers are looking like they may be close to 200 deaths , uh , Afghan casualties. And we saw this yesterday. We didn't talk about it on the show because it was very graphic and some of the imagery was horrendous, but I did retweet it. Somebody posted it over on locals, showing the carnage, showing the devastation that took place because of the crowds that were surrounding the gates entry into the airport. They were just,

Speaker 2:

Well, are just so bottled up that any

Speaker 1:

Explosion was going to cause mass casualties. So we're going to take a look at that, but let's take it , uh , revisit this article from the AP says American forces are working under heightened scrutiny and security under the threat that there's another terrorist attack that may

Speaker 2:

Be coming. The death toll from yesterday's

Speaker 1:

Attacks rose to 169 Afghans 13 service members. Authorities are saying that this number could even increase in the coming days, white house and Pentagon warning. There could be more bloodshed ahead of president Joe. Biden's fast approaching deadline on Tuesday to end the airlift and withdrawal American forces. The next few days said, Jen Saki , you're going to be our most dangerous period to date in the evacuation. Thursday's bombing blamed on ISIS. K the Taliban, the ISIS variant now marked one of the most lethal terror attacks since 2011 for Afghan forces. So this is

Speaker 2:

A certainly, you know , troubling

Speaker 1:

Days that the U S military and the Afghan people are going to have to go through. Some people were speculating that maybe the worst of it was yesterday. Jen Psaki came out today and said, no, that's not the case. And we've

Speaker 2:

Already been sort of speculating that that was going to be how

Speaker 1:

This continues to unfold, because we've already seen when the U S was in a stronger position of power, let's say 8, 9, 10 days ago, whenever that was, there were still crowds of people who were breaking through the airport. Presumably, you know , there was a little bit more security there because all of the Afghanistan army hadn't fled yet. And the U S had more troops and resources there on the ground. And so there was this hoard of people hanging from landing gear , uh , at the airport at the airport that day. And then the U S sent a bunch more troops in there. So people were sort of scratching their heads. We were supposed to pull out of Afghanistan. We had 2,500 troops there. Now we've got like 6,000 there. So that's kind of going the opposite direction. But so the point here is all of those troops. Now the deadline is coming up here next week. We've got about what is that four days, five days until it's time to pick up and abandoned ship. And so the U S military has to be preparing for that and starting to move people abroad. So I want to show you this, this image of something I saw on Twitter, you can see this was posted this morning. I'm sorry. Yeah. This morning 2:42 AM, August 27th. So, you know, it's daytime over there. And this is what the scene looked like from the airport. This is a mass crowd gathering inside the cobble airport. And you can see, right, this looks like it's a runway or a service road or something where, you know, airplanes might be taxing down the roadway so that they can take off and you can see just huge throngs of people. I'm going to play this video quick little, just a notation here. There is some, some sounds of gunfire in there, but you're not going to see anybody getting shot. Right. It sounds what you're, what we're noticing here from, from a lot of the imagery is that they're using guns to sort of stop people and encourage people to not advance anymore. So as these people are advancing onto the runway under the tarmac, you're going to hear gunfire and it's, you know, they're basically just shooting over people's heads, just, you know , to, to, to make the loud noise and to sort of scare them from continuing to encroach. And so you're going to hear that nobody's getting shot and dying. It's just sort of a deterrent sound, but you can see sort of the situation and what it looks like. It's not good. Okay. So as you can see there, there are a lot of people, if you're the last plane that's taking off, off that runway or wherever that happens to be, you are now contending with thousands and thousands of Afghanistan, people who are sort of, I don't know if they're trying to hang on the wheel-well also, but not a good situation. And so, you know, the idea that the byte administration is going to be handing this all off to the Taliban, like, oh, Hey, Hey guys, here's the key take good care of this thing is not going to work out very well. Well, let's take a look at what Jen Saki has to say about this. We know that this is now being complicated because of the additional threats. The Taliban was responsible for security. Apparently yesterday, the U S government in some stroke of idiocy gave them an entire list of us citizens and said, Hey, Taliban, why don't you help these people get through the checkpoints? Don't know if they let any Americans through, but it sounds like they let an ISIS person through when they came through killed 13 American military service people, and obviously a big problem. So is that over now? Have they figured it out? Have they, you know , adjusted their over the horizon capabilities that they keep talking about, that's going to protect America in the future so that they can anticipate and repel these attacks in the near future or not? No , the answer is no, it's actually going to get more dangerous. As we heard from Jen Saki today, she's also going to tell us what the president and the vice-president heard today . We're going to play a clip from her. She had a press briefing this morning or this afternoon, whatever it was today. And you'll notice now that she's saying the president and the vice president have both been briefed. Oftentimes these press secretaries will just say, well, the president's fully aware of this thing. And so now she's introducing Joe Biden's compatriot, Kamala Harris, who many people are speculating is going to be swept in there anyways, as soon as everybody starts demanding Joe's resignation soon enough. So the president and the vice-president are now being brief and we're on notice terror attack in Kabul is actually likely.

Speaker 3:

Many of you may have seen the statement I put out this morning, but just to highlight the reference, I believe AMR was

Speaker 4:

Making , uh, what I, what I would conveyed in the statement. It was that , uh, the national security team, the president met with this morning advise the president and vice-president that another terror attack and cobble is likely, and they are , uh , taking maximum force protection measures at the Kabul airport and in surrounding areas with our forces , uh, as a result. Um, I

Speaker 1:

All right , so you heard that likely another attack is likely, and to be fair about this, they're pretty accurate about this, right? They got the first one, right? They told us a couple of days ago, we've been following the embassy out of cobble , watching their press releases what they put on the website, so that , uh , stranded Americans, I'm sorry, not stranded. Americans can get out of there . They're checking their website, phones, emails, texts. You know, they're very excited about all of their methods of communication. So they've been posting that and they warned before the attacks yesterday, they warned on Wednesday eight . You know, look, we've got a notice that the, they told Americans don't come to the airport. And there was two explosions that happen and resulted in many, many hundreds of deaths. So presumably there , their intelligence is somewhat good. They're in good conversation, good communication with the Taliban. So they kind of have a direct source into terrorism now, which maybe is why their intelligence is so good. So Jen Saki said another terrorist attack is likely the president, the vice-president , they both been briefed on this thing. Let's see what Jake Tapper has to say. He's telling us that now at 11:25 AM this morning to private citizens involved in evacuation efforts, tell me Talib Talibans at a checkpoint in Afghanistan are now turning away us passport holders and lawful permanent residents of the U S. So the Taliban is now turning away people with passports. Now, some of those people might be citizens who knows. Some of those people may not be citizens, but just have an admission status into the United States, lawful permanent residence or whatever. And so a couple of things could be going on here. The Taliban could also know that there is a terrorist attack that is coming. And so they are taking us assets like us, passport holders, people that the us might be interested in saving, and they're protecting them. They're not letting them go through the checkpoints because they know it's dangerous. They're at the airport. That's one possibility. I mean, it could be that the Taliban is just trying to save lives. We know that they've been changed since they have now been, I guess our allies in security in Afghanistan. So the world is very interesting. So we're going to take a look now and see what Adam Kinzinger has to say. Adam Kinzinger is here. He says, reports on the ground in Afghanistan indicate that our allies are being outright rejected after finally making it to the airport. So maybe it's maybe it's not that maybe it's the U S who are rejecting people. Okay? This is unconscionable. He says, we cannot turn our backs on those who promised safe passage. Those who have risk life and limb to help us forces our SIVs deserve better than this. I'm urging the president to fix the situation. Betrayal remembered as such. Well, maybe he can go cry about it. Now it's a sad situation, but Adam Kinzinger is just a big crybaby . We know. So now what we can take a look at is sort of speculate from the other side is the Taliban deterring people because they don't want them to get hurt. And that the Americans are going to be protected by the Taliban, our new partners, or is this something that the U S is just we're, we're done. It's time to go. We gotta be out of here very soon. We are not taking you anymore . And pass that order around. I've seen other tweets and things that are unconfirmed and from people that aren't blue check marks talking about the Marines and different people actually sealing the exterior of the airport, right? That's welding shut the gates and barricading things so that they can make their final getaway, their final leap. And Joe Biden said that nobody was going to be on a helicopter, abandoning the U S embassy like they did in Saigon. No, it's, it's actually, you know, [inaudible] or whatever those planes are called dropping people out of the sky. We're going to see a repeat of that season, two of 'em of cobble . So it's going to be terrible looking forward to it. Let's see what Jen Saki had to say here. Now she is telling us that because of these terrorist attacks, that the troops are still in danger, and they're using this, this language, right. It's persistent, it's clear it's coming back brace for it. So you can expect that it's going to get worse. This is where she also says that we're now in the retro grade portion of the withdrawal. This is the time your retrograde is sort of a different term for , um , surrender, I guess, or , uh , abandonment or stranding or those things. It's a better word than saying, oh, this is the stranding part of our admission. Uh , this is just the retrograde part. It sounds very smart. Probably came from Oxford or something like that. Probably a Jake Sullivan word. So let's take a look over at what Jen Saki has to say

Speaker 4:

That , uh, the department of defense also just gave a briefing this morning, and I will echo some of the , um , descriptions that they offered. Uh, the threat is ongoing and it is active. Uh, it is , uh , our troops are still in danger. That continues to be the case , uh, every day that they are there. Uh, most this is the most dangerous part of the mission. This is the retrograde period of the mission. And what that means is that this is the period of time when , uh , the military commanders on the ground and forces begin to move, not just troops home, but also equipment home. And that is often a very , uh , dangerous part of any mission. But in this case, they're also doing that while there is a , uh, an ongoing and acute threat from ISIS. K. Uh, so that is what they are facing. Uh , I would note , uh , since you gave me the opportunity that , uh, the military , uh, made clear to the president, that they are committed to continuing this mission, to getting , uh , to saving lives, to evacuating more people , uh , from the country over the coming days and completing their mission by the 31st, what it will also mean as they move to this retrograde phase is that there will be a reduction of numbers over the next couple of days. And we've been putting those numbers out to all of you twice a day, so that you can see how that , uh, how, how we are evacuating people out of the country. Those numbers will go down in the next couple of days, and you should anticipate that , uh, that is , uh, as a result of the retrograde process that needs to take place. Uh, but also I will note that of course, force protection is front and center, and it is vital to the mission.

Speaker 1:

So it's going to be , uh , quite a scene. Isn't it? So let's say you've got 6,000 people here. We've got five days left or 5,000 people over five days, next day, 4,000, 3000, 2,001,000. Somebody has got to be the last person on the runway, on the last flight out of there, I guess, or I don't really know what they're doing, right? Because there's not leaving any equipment you just heard from her. They're there . They're talking about force protection to make sure that the last people out the door don't get hit in the butt on the way out. And it's going to be problematic because we've got ICIC ISIS now, which is a real persistent threat, basically confirming that it's going to happen. So it's going to be just the worst, the worst. And if you don't think that it is already kind of like that , uh , it is really the worst and it's going to get even worse than that. We now know it looks like it's kind of like a free for all over there. Lucas Tomlinson over on Fox news on Twitter, posted this at state department, can't say how many Afghan special immigrant visa holders have been evacuated from? Kabul goal has been put as quote, as many people as possible on planes. Don't have precise figures to provide says Ned price. And so that was from the state department. And , and, and look, presumably they are prioritizing Americans, as you would expect in a situation like this, but who knows what this administration , uh, we've been , we've already seen them sort of blame Americans for not leaving for not leaving earlier for going there for, you know, they're not stranding them. They made the decision to go to Afghanistan in the first place. Joe Biden promised them that there was 300,000 Taliban and this would never happen , but that's a separate issue. So , uh , you know, we know that it sounds like from Ned price, that they're just, it's a free for all. They're just throwing bodies on airplanes. If you're through the thing and you look like, you know, you might belong there, get on board , don't have precise figures. It's, it's basically chaotic. And that's going to be, I think how it goes for the next several days until we get to August 31st. Now, what happens if you're one of the Americans who quite it doesn't quite make it to the airport, you don't, you don't make it there. Are there any guarantees for you? If you're an American and you're set you're over there, your government tells you we're leaving. It's not going to be bad that the Afghanistan army, the people are going to be perfectly fine. It's not going to crumble from like a Friday to a Saturday. And it never happened. Never going to see images like the images we saw, then it happens. So the Americans were relying on their government, taking them in good faith to be accurate in their statements. And so they made decisions based on those statements that came out from everybody, Anthony Blinken and president Biden himself. Then they made some decisions based on that information, decided to stick around. Catastrophe happens, us governments as well. We're still going to bail anyways, thanks for playing. And so they say , uh , you better get to the airport like immediately. So start to pack up and start travel over there. Then the U S embassy comes out and says, you better not come to the airport cause you might get killed. And so now Americans are sort of, you know, now pushed back. The Taliban is in total control of the checkpoints, whether they can let you through or not. We've seen many different people reporting. We've talked about it on the show, people getting to the airport and getting turned back by the Taliban, getting through the Taliban checkpoint and getting turned back by the airport by the U S officials or whomever is in charge over there. And so now you're saying, gosh, that sounds pretty terrible. It sounds like a gross incompetence. It sounds like we might have some serious , uh , bucket of Americans who are good people who should be rescued and saved. And , um, any guarantees, Jen Saki , we're going to get those people. Are we just going to kind of pick up and leave? We're looking for some reassurance here. Here's how she responded

Speaker 5:

After August 31st, for people who will still be on the ground in Afghanistan and want to get out is, does the us right now have a vision of a process that they will use to get people out after August 31st? Like what is the commitment after August 31st? Is it absolute? If you want to get out of Afghanistan and you are, you know, that you and you help the U S military, you're an Afghan, you'll be able to get out. Um , if you're a green card holder or someone else who wants to get out and , uh, will you, is the us guaranteeing that you will be a good attitude ?

Speaker 4:

It was guaranteed. I don't think we can guarantee, but what we can do is work toward, and this is what the president directed the secretary of state to continue diplomatic efforts, international partners to secure means for third country nationals, Afghans with visas who may be eligible for our programs, of course, any American citizen who remains in country to leave the country, even after the U S military presence ends. There's a means of mechanisms for that. Those conversations are ongoing. That's our objective. Our commitment does not change on October on August 31st. Obviously we need to figure out the operational mechanisms, which is the conversation that's underway. Yeah ,

Speaker 1:

Yeah , yeah, yeah. They got to figure out the operational mechanisms. All right . So here's, what's going on here. Now, if you like me have been following the white houses mania over the last 10 days or so you may have noticed that something interesting happened as they were being asked the same question. Many times they'd been asked this question 50, 50 times, we've talked about on the show. Uh, what about August 31st, Joe Biden? Are you going to help Americans that are there past that date? And we've noticed that they really were really having a difficult time answering this. We heard many times different people from the administration kind of say things like, well, we're going to do everything we can until the clock runs out. That was Lloyd Austin. We're going to do everything we can up until the last minute that was John Kirby. And so many people who were in the defense sector, who were part of the DOD part of military operations. Part of that infrastructure, they're acknowledging a hard deadline, August 31st. We're out of there. We're done. We're not having any more military operations. None of that's taking place, but they weren't clear. Uh , they , they were pretty clear about that, but they didn't say it as distinctly as I just did there. But that's what they were hinting at simultaneously while they were saying those things we've heard from other people like Anthony , Blinken like Ned price to secretary of state paper, people who came out and were giving us different answers about this saying, look, if you want to get home , uh, you know, we're going to get your home. And Joe Biden shifted his statement a little bit after that. And now we're going to make a commitment to any American who wants to come home. We're going to come home and you're going well, that's not what your military commanders say. That's not what John Kirby from the Pentagon said, that's not what, what , uh, any, that's not what any of your officials from the DOD like Lloyd Austin have been saying, nobody's been saying that up until the finish line. That's all you got. So how do you reconcile those two things? Well, now we know it's a very clear bifurcation of the two issues. We have Jen Saki , who just said can't guarantee anything, but we're going to use all of our diplomatic measures. And so you can see what's happening there. They're separating the military components from the state department components and the idea that they're going to save Americans or anybody else who's valid. You just heard Jen Saki talk about all of the people with visas, the people who are our partners, they're going to use diplomatic pressures from their international partners in order to help people get out of there. So they've got this nice little, it's a beautiful bow tied , you know, nice , beautifully wrapped little propaganda statement that they can give out. Now that we're going to go through the state department, we're going to use all of our international partners to secure anybody who wants to leave Afghanistan, which is really nice so that they can just, I guess, go to the airport that doesn't exist and get through customs that doesn't exist. Uh , w which is now being run by the Taliban, hop on a functional airplane that doesn't exist, and then get out of the country, right? There are no international partners, you know, who the Taliban's international partners are. I'll Russia, China, whoever sweeps into that and gobbles up that vacuum of power might even be ISIS who knows, right? There's sort of two feathers of the same bird, two sides of the same coin to some degree. So the, you know, the question is for Jen Saki , uh, how long is it going to take for you to establish diplomatic relationships and international partners to put pressure on the Taliban, such that you have leverage to save American lives? Because it seems to me like they have more power. If they don't work with you at all, there , they have more power by keeping 10,000 American hostages, or let's say a thousand American hostages and maybe a 9,000 or 50,000 very concerned Afghanistan. People who have helped the U S that the U S feels indebted to. And they've got that all just in a little pressure cooker that they can just manipulate, however they want so that they can continue to gain leverage with the United States. So it's a very clever trick. It's very sinister almost because it makes it sound like they're doing something to save those people that they're about to strand. They're not at all. All they're going to do is just shift it from a military operation to a state department operation. And they're going to use the state department, I guess, to exercise the levers of diplomacy with the Taliban

Speaker 2:

And ISIS. Good job. We'll see how

Speaker 1:

That goes. All right . So , uh , for the people that , uh, Jen Psaki and Anthony Blinken and Ned price are going to save through the state department and a good luck, I hope they actually are successful there. And I mean that genuinely, because there's going to be a lot of heartache and horror and people who don't make it back as a result of their policies, and as a consequence of their incompetency, speaking of those who did not make it back, let's remember some of them, we have a few names that we now know of the individuals, the young men who died yesterday. First one we got to pay tribute to is max Soviak. His family released the statement. So I wanted to share that with you. He was a Navy hospital corpsman. One of , among one of the service members killed on Thursday. I mean, half of the family, they say, we want to thank all those. Who've extended our support and our prayers on the loss of our son. Max was a wonderful son who loved his family. His community was proud to serve in the U S Navy was excited about the opportunities the Navy would offer him plan to make the Navy a career. We are incredibly proud of his service to our country. As we mourn the loss of our son, we also mourn the loss of the Marines and a soldier who were killed, pray for the speedy recovery of all those wounded in Afghanistan words cannot express how heartbroken we are with this news. And we will mismatch tremendously. As you can imagine, this is a very difficult time for our family. We respectfully request, you

Speaker 2:

Honor our privacy. Thank you. The Soviet fan

Speaker 1:

And man, you know, reading, things like that. I mean, it makes me just want to tear up because look at that young man, right? He's he's not with us anymore

Speaker 2:

Wanting to go serve his country and,

Speaker 1:

You know, made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of good and the name of freedom and honor, and country and duty.

Speaker 2:

And he's not

Speaker 1:

With us anymore. So it's a, it's a terrible thing. It's a terrible thing. Here's another one.

Speaker 2:

Nikolai, not with us anymore.

Speaker 1:

Often visit home on the weekends, 10 or 15 of his Marine buddies.

Speaker 2:

He's now dead as a result of

Speaker 1:

This entanglement that we have next up, we have David Lee Espanoza , another good looking young man, probably holding his mother. There came from Texas before joining the military also wanted to go and service .

Speaker 2:

This country also taken weight too early from

Speaker 1:

This country and from his family. We also have Riley in the column . We have here, one of 13 soldiers who died graduated high school

Speaker 2:

Two years ago, two years ago. So, you know, very young man,

Speaker 1:

Not with us anymore. Rest in peace to him. And we have Jared Schmitz , we know is a 20 year old Marine Lance corporal from St . Charles county, Missouri life meant so much so incredibly devastated to be able to see the man that he was, and won't be able to see the man he was growing into becoming heartbroken . Dad said his son always dreamed of being a soldier on his first deployment father was notified about his death at 2 40 40

Speaker 2:

Am . So there's a lot of really, you know, really broken families today

Speaker 1:

And indefinitely in the foreseeable future. These are young men,

Speaker 2:

And these are people who are not with us anymore because our government,

Speaker 1:

Our government, whatever, however you want, whichever way you want to splice it because we're in Afghanistan because we left Afghanistan because the us thinks it can do certain things in the world because the us doesn't do enough things in the world. However you want to splice it. There are dead young men now as a result of the war machine that carries on no matter who's in charge. So that's great. Awesome. So rest in peace, young men, hopefully their families find some peace in the world this weekend. And in the future. Now the U S government has been asked by the Taliban to keep diplomats there . After the military withdrawals, the Taliban has asked the U S to keep them there beyond August 31st withdrawal, which interesting an option that Biden administration is actively discussing. According to Ned price on Friday, the request comes as the Taliban seeks international recognition following its rapid takeover of the country, grapples with a dire economic landscape after billions of dollars. And until national aid to Afghanistan was frozen and considering retaining a presence, price, net price said the safety and the security of us personnel would be first and foremost on our minds. He said, so I'm sure that's not the case , uh , because they've been in charge this entire time and we see what's happened here. And it sounds like it's going to continue to happen. So the big question is, is what is the Biden administration going to do? We heard from Jen Saki that they're very interested in diplomatic relationships with them. Are they going to keep an embassy there? Are they going to keep people there to secure people out? I don't know, but what options does the us have to say? No. If the U S is being demanded by the Taliban, the us kind of has to do what they demand don't they, because they have thousands of American and other very interested personnel in their country under hostage, under a gun. So not good. Let's take a [email protected] See what you have to say about this. Eddie Oliver started us off with a super chat , says, why did the children of the deplorable die because of failed leftist elites policies. Rest in peace, Texas vets. That's from Eddie Oliver who I know served . He's a regular on the show. Thank you, Eddie. Thanks for being here today. [email protected] We got some questions chime in here. We have Ro-Tel underscore SC says, do you think our allies, England and other nations were given any advanced notice about this withdrawal with the size of this soup sandwich? It seems like our people just woke up and said, let's fold up the tents, boys and girls. So not, not much to my understanding, right? As this situation to continue to unfold. My understanding was is that many of the NATO allies were saying, Joe, you got to keep people over there. And Joe Biden was ignoring Boris Johnson over from the UK and many other individuals. I think didn't speak to anybody for at least 36 hours. I think it was after the situation started to deteriorate. And so he's been sort of asleep at the wheel. As many of us has have suspected Bama. Like it says, how can you differentiate the Taliban ISIS? K Al-Qaeda Afghan, Afghan civilians. Hmm . Just want to know. It's pretty hard to do that. I mean, yeah .

Speaker 2:

I think that if it's sort of, you know,

Speaker 1:

The Taliban and the Americans versus

Speaker 2:

Versus ISIS, I, that doesn't seem like a good ally.

Speaker 1:

Like I think like the U S in the UK sounds like a good ally. We've got common ideals, common principles, common heritage, common human values, common decency, common respect for human life, common economic systems, political systems, all of those things.

Speaker 2:

So that makes a good relationship versus

Speaker 1:

America morals. America's morals, verse moral posture versus the Taliban. Those are not really in sync. I think that they're more in alignment with the other groups who also stone women and behead their enemies. We don't really have much in common with them. Let's see. What else wants to know says, do you think the airport closes tonight or Saturday reports saying cell phone and internet are gone at midnight on August 31st? I don't know what that looks like. I think for all intents and purposes, it's mostly closed at this moment and that they are leaving spawn dog says, Rob, I was wondering what your thoughts on Biden's response to retaliate. We look weak in my opinion, because we didn't respond quickly and decisively. He talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? No, he does. Not at all. Everybody watched him yesterday when he was really straining to give a speech, talking at a very slow and annoying pace. Joe Biden warned the Warren , the ISIS, or whomever's responsible. And you know, in his labored breathing had a difficult time saying that he was going to go get them or something. Now he has already said that we played the transcript. I read the transcript yesterday when he warned them. If there's any problems with our evacuations, there's going to be a swift and measured response or unmeasured. And that obviously didn't happen. So , uh , nobody takes what Joe Biden says seriously anymore. He told us many, many, many, many things, and they, none of it came true, which is what a big part of the problem here is. Right? If Joe Biden came out and said, look, we're going to leave Afghanistan and it's going to be bad. Like, you're going to see , uh , like a zombie movie. It's going to be really terrible. There's going to be bodies all over the street, but we got to do it. Brace yourselves America. We got all right. Well, I guess that's how it is, I guess. And then we would measure that accordingly and say, well, he ended the war, but it happened exactly. Like you said, it would, that is not what happened. He said, that's not going to happen this way at all. Multiple times over many months, don't need to belabor that point. But what that does is it makes people skeptical about the stuff that comes out of his mouth, because we know that he said historically that it was not going to look like this. It looks like this. And so Joe Biden now appears to be somebody who is just disconnected from reality, as we've all known for many, many months and years. Now we have news now, Wyoming, who I thought gave his PC up to the , his daughter. But he's back here. It says hypothetical based on when you were talking about the last plane out the is still there, they can't be forced onto any plane. If the press turns down exit from like the third to last flight, because there will be no room on the last plane. And something happens to the press. Is it our government's

Speaker 2:

Fault or the press's fault?

Speaker 1:

Well, our government is going to say, it's the press's fault. They've already come out and said that, right? They've already said, look, we were telling you to leave a long time ago. If you're still here, it's kind of your fault. We , we, I don't think we played that clip yesterday, but

Speaker 2:

That's what they're hinting at. So then

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I mean, basically you're on your own. I think August 31st, at least from a military military perspective, they are not extending any additional resources for anybody after that date. It's all going to transition over to the state department. Let's see what else we have. Avalon acres is here. Says what happens when the time runs out? Is the Taliban going to call a last call?

Speaker 2:

Call last call . No doubt

Speaker 1:

Is this quote no more. After midnight Taliban blocking the runway with the U S plane trying to leave at 1203 BS at the Taliban gets free guns. I want some too. I know it's really unfair. Have you seen some of those images? They have amazing equipment, beautiful equipment, great equipment that , um , doesn't bode well for gun control and Afghanistan not good.

Speaker 2:

So I don't know how

Speaker 1:

They're going to do this, right? Uh , apparently there's been some conversations that the Taliban is gonna secure the airport while the U S leaves maybe, I guess, did you see the video that I played? Do you think that they are capable of that or that they have any interest in that? I'm not so sure. Don M 9 1 1 says, Hey , Rob, I've been watching since the show been trial, finally joined a locals. Welcome, Don grateful that you're here. I appreciate everything you do. Nine 11 was my 16th birthday. Well , that's it . That's great. So your birthday is coming up. Not, not a good birth date , but happy birthday to you when it comes up and the events that they are , why I joined the army and serve 10 years sickening to me, this is ISIS. Kay , took credit for yesterday's attack. But what are your thoughts on the Taliban releasing the ISIS fighters from the background prison are those forces aligned in an enemy of my enemy is my friend arrangement, is the Taliban playing both sides of the fence on this. So PR probably right. And that's sort of the point that I was making about two feathers on the same bird or two sides of the

Speaker 2:

Same coin. The Taliban

Speaker 1:

Has been fighting against America for 22

Speaker 2:

Years, 20 years in Afghanistan.

Speaker 1:

They're going to be friendly with America now. I mean, America's responsible presumably for wiping out their brothers and sisters, their children, their mothers and fathers, right? It's a war. And the purpose of war is to kill your enemy . So the us has been killing their enemy and the U S has been killing the Taliban. And the idea that the Taliban now we're going to wake up and go, well, look, we want to be recognized on the international stage. And that we're suddenly going to , you know , moderate and become

Speaker 2:

This new force

Speaker 1:

That recognizes a gender equity in our ranks is insane. Even though the Biden administration is talking about that, it's lunacy. It's not going to happen. Ever. These are people that are ideologically aligned. They are, you know ,

Speaker 2:

Embedded

Speaker 1:

Their ideologies embedded in their lives. And so the idea that they're suddenly gonna , you know , interface with American democracy is kind of a joke. The ISIS K also, and ISIS has been of the same posture, right? They've been doing the same thing fighting against the same enemy, the same cause.

Speaker 2:

So why would they not be aligned?

Speaker 1:

Seems obvious to me. So every time that the white house comes out and they talk about their, their new Taliban partners, you go, have you been asleep for the last 20 years? What

Speaker 2:

The hell have you been doing? All right . Kareem

Speaker 1:

Says, could it be that this like COVID-19 is part of their agenda for something else? A lot of people are speculating. You know , that, that this is a distraction away from other things. You know, I don't know. I mean, I think that this is just,

Speaker 2:

Just colossal and

Speaker 1:

Competence. I don't, I haven't seen any evidence of anything else nefarious going on, but a lot of people are wondering how can something be so

Speaker 2:

Poorly managed?

Speaker 1:

How can something be botched so badly? It almost feels like it has to be coordinated because nobody can be that dumb. Are you serious? All of these people who've been in government for this long, they're all this incompetent. Nobody was in the oval office. Nobody was in the situation room with Joe Biden and said, Hey, morons guys

Speaker 2:

Going to be a problem. And then,

Speaker 1:

And then it's a problem. And then the response to the problem, which has been my biggest criticism this whole time. Yes, I understand you could make a military miscalculation. I understand you can make a bad leadership decision at the outset of a crisis, but then the response to the mistake has been horrible

Speaker 2:

And it's not getting

Speaker 1:

Any better. Sergeant Bob is here, says just the thought the U S government says it is communicating with us citizens via text, email, et cetera. Imagine plugins to keep D devices, charge are not easily found has to be a problem. Yeah. So saying that, that electricity, right? If the whole ,

Speaker 2:

The city is in catastrophe, then yeah, they probably,

Speaker 1:

I don't have good wifi, good cell service, good internet connections, good electricity. You know, did you see the , you saw some of the videos.

Speaker 2:

It's, it's a mess.

Speaker 1:

We it's a war zone. Miss Danny says, Rob, something that's not talked about starting to be addressed now is the Pakistan Afghanistan border. It's a real mess there as well. Yeah. We played a video of that yesterday. Many Afghans, as well as many foreigners too far from Kabul in order to get there are going through the Pakistani border. Seems there has been death. Some people there. Yeah. I think, I think that is accurate yesterday on the show we had , uh, some, some video from that border town and I was showing this, the crowd size, just so people could see how much it everybody's sort of be being funneled into these.

Speaker 2:

These are bottlenecks and they're our bodies,

Speaker 1:

You know , just piled into each other. And we heard earlier in , uh , last week that there were people who were even being crushed and to death and they were dying from the pressure, right? People are pushing them into the barricades to try to breach these barriers. And the people were dropping dead or dropping, you know, falling from heat exhaustion and things like that because of the pressure. And so you can imagine that dense Lee , compact people, you know , some explosive goes off there . It's, it's horrendous. And so, yeah, there's, there's a humanitarian crisis. People are going to be, you know , trying to get out of Afghanistan any way they can. Thunder seven says, I don't know, Rob something about the whole suicide vest, 13 Marines killed story. Doesn't make sense. This is what we've been told. U S military left behind 85 million in brand new. I think it's billion. I think it's 85 beat with a B. They released the dogs , ISIS out of prison. They warned that an ISIS attack was imminent . The attacks happen . And now they gave the names of the U S citizens. They left behind to the Taliban. Meanwhile, Taliban eating, ice cream, mocking Biden, scolding Twitter for banning Trump. Are we watching a show? What is actually real? That's from thunder seven. That's kind of my point, right? How can they botch every single element of this entire operation? And then when they screw it up, screw it up even more and continue to do so it's kind of shocking, but it actually doesn't surprise me. I've been saying Joe Biden's and competent for years, but I'm a lick . It says, where are the squad? The Hollywood BLM, their silence is so definitely no single comment from them. Even FB is so quiet. It must be Facebook. Yeah. You notice that right. Really quiet. They're all talking about COVID and masks and critical race theory and all sorts of voting bills and things like that. What's your opinion on your president that you were so behind recently now looking so good. Sergeant Bob says, Ms . Saki, you should be giving her press updates from the cobble runway they meet . Maybe then she'll have a clue. War games are shameful. That's from Sergeant Bob Kenney . One B says, Rob, I understood that you really dislike the intelligence apparatus, but our tactical military intelligence is actually pretty good. Unfortunately, tactical military intelligence uses much of the same infrastructure is geopolitical and counter-intelligence collection. Yeah, look, I, yeah, I , I really, I really don't like much of our intelligence apparatus. I'm not real sure what they do. Most of the things that we see from them are not good. So I'm not real sure what you S what , what you say have I am recognizing while I say that, that there are many, many good people in our country, many good people in our government, in the tactical military intelligence, in the intelligence communities who are doing good work and very good people. But institutionally, I think that there are some pretty significant problems that are worth calling out. And that's why we do it here. But I take your point there. Kenny , one beam wants to know, says Chuck Norris showed them how to exist an airport on a motorcycle, exit an airport on a motorcycle. Yeah. Chuck Norris has some good escape plans. DJ McBride says what distinguished member of our Washington DC brain trust was clever enough to outsource our security to the Taliban and then docks Americans by providing the Taliban their information location, and all of that. Is it now permissible to communicate with an terrorist organization? Well, DG McBride. Those are our international partners. Now a couple months ago, they were our enemies in the Taliban and, you know, international terrorists people who were , uh, you know, beheading people and things like that. But now international partners, we might have diplomatic relationships with them because they have a lot of leverage. And the United States does not. We have former Elio says they should place GPS markers on every structure that had Taliban, armed people entering and exiting on the way out the door. When the last aircraft is left, which should be protected by every drone in that part of the world should level every building that was used by the Taliban. Well, see, I think the problem with that former Leo is that if the Taliban have 2000 hostages that are American citizens, that they're , that America is very interested in, the Taliban just says, okay, well, will you just start beheading people every day we just take , uh , take the Christians, get the Christians out here. We just start betting them one by one every day. And they have a whole big boatload of people because the U S is stranding them. Let's see what else we have a Sharon Quinn . He says, it's becoming increasingly apparent that this quote incompetence has been totally planned. If you were sickened by Camila , the cackler laughing at people begging for water. Just imagine what will happen when she has shown pictures of dead bodies. They'll probably cut to her crying from laughing so hard. She is a pretty calloused woman. There's no question about that. Very, very phony and highly calloused . Let's see. Kareem says maybe no one subscribed to your clips because we all watched the entire live show every day. That's probably true. I think that's probably accurate. I know I'm making an announcement to people who are here on the show. So the people who want the clips who don't watch the show don't know about the announcement. It's a catch 22 there, Kareem . Thanks for calling that out. Oh, we have be brave says I anticipate the Biden regime staying after August 31st, that all who wanted to leave had the opportunity saying that. Yeah, I think that's right. They're going to say, well, look, we told them they had 14 days to get out of there. They didn't, even though we told them to come to the airport and said, don't come to the airport and send us a text, you know? Oh, I checked my gen sockies there. Oh, you didn't text me. Oh, I didn't get it. Sorry. Dead mouse five says Saki is straight out of Orwell's essay politics and English language quote from that says objective considerations of contemporary phenomenon compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities. Exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with an, a capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. That is, that is a hell of a sentence right there. My goodness. That's a hell of a sentence. Yeah. Well, Jen , Saki is pretty good at that. You know, they have very good ways to manipulate the language and they, they, they, they bifurcate things in a way that it's hard to tell what's happening, but they're dividing this between military ops and state ops, but they're just going to come out. And most people don't know the difference. Right? Most people can't name who their Senator is. So all they hear is, oh, that person, Joe Biden's team said, they're going to get all the Americans out. So that's what I heard. That's great. And you say, yeah , do you know how they're going to do that? They're going to , I guess , uh, give the Taliban a seat at the UN and we're going to start negotiating with them or something. So do you think that's going to happen anytime soon? Do you think that's a reason, would you bet, would you buy a plane ticket from that administration on that basis? Probably not, but it is clever. And it's probably gonna work with to , to some extent, Kenny, one B says the Taliban want the U S military and all foreigners gone appears they, for the most part will agree to get them out of the region. Last thing the Taliban wants is the us military returning at the same time, the Taliban are not disciplined and small groups are likely to take hostages for ransom. Right? That's that's the other thing too is do we believe that there's going to be consistency from the Taliban? Like they're gonna be able to control their ranks with the same rigor and discipline that the U S military has and that they're going to follow those same structures and protocols. No, absolutely not . We've seen them. They're going to play bumper cars. We have Jupa says, have you read into Glenn Beck , the Nazarene fund, along with other organizations securing something like 400 interpreters, Christians , children only to be turned away by the 82nd airborne commander at the direction of the U S ambassador. No, I did not hear that. If they really wanted to get people out, they wouldn't let them in. Now you have the Bratz doll in Congress, AOC blaming Trump for not pre evacuating people. Is she doing that? Haven't heard much from her either lately. All of them are pretty quiet. I did see Glenn Beck was organizing that fund . I did not know that the U S ambassador denied him access to something, but, okay. Brad thorn says, I saw that we have at least one carrier group in the area actively flying sorties. I haven't heard anyone talking about this fact that we have our jets in the region assisting. It seems like everyone is focused on our ground game. Are we conveniently forgetting about the technology that we have in the air? It seems like they could pull the trigger on some air support and scare the bad guys on the ground straight for a few days. Then along with the government's coral with Blackwater makes me question ha their intentions. Good. Good. Could comment there, Brad thorn, let's see what this says. Pull this up here. Turn that screen off and see what this is showing us, but it's a good comment. I think that my same point from previous , uh, time stands, the idea would be that. Okay. So here's what we've got based at the Marine Corps and barked or Ronald Reagan. Royal may strike fighter squadron, diamond backs , Marine Corps . Eagles. Yeah. So it looks like a lot of stuff is over there. Yeah. There's no, you know , there's no question about the fact that the United States military has massive amounts of force projection, right? The U S I think if there was enough willpower, they could go in there and probably take control of the whole situation. Now that might result in massive casualties, because if the Taliban really does have lists of Americans along with all the biometric data that they got from our equipment that we left over there, then they can just go and scan everybody and just start rounding up, you know, external Americans who are, who have been stranded there. And so even if you come with all the force in the world, they have a heart , they have a massive bucket of hostages that they can use that really the dynamic of power dramatically. And what can you do about that? All right . Great, great question. Thanks for sharing that article. Let's see what else we've got. Kenny. One B says the difference between the Taliban ISIS Al Qaeda. It's like the difference between BLM and T for the black Panthers, et cetera. So kind of distinctions without a difference. Pro bono says is Pakistan funding the Taliban? How are they getting back while the U S is going to be funding the Taliban? Now they already are. They got $85 billion worth of Lorenzo greasy. Bottom says , uh, says we should have used a different method of , um, engagement with the Afghanistan. People not going to put that one on the screen, but that's what he was saying. More or less news now says my dyadic , my , my daughter decided not to play the Sims and is on X-Box instead. That's very nice news. Now, Wyoming, very, very nice parents was, was going to let a daughter play Sims she's on X-Box instead. Well, that's fair. And so news now gets to join us, which is even better worked out for everybody. Good to see you wants to a gnosis Taliban actually wants a banker with a lot of money for all the thousands of ATM hostages. They have the U S is just going to start delivering probably lots of cash. We know what that looks like. No name here says, does anyone have a thought that the Afghans have been fighting for thousands of years about what kind of outcome could be expected? Yeah, you know, I heard , uh , a great pithy phrasing for what Afghanistan means for people who are not in Afghanistan for people outside of Afghanistan, like China, Russia, the U S and many of the other countries that are sort of, you know , kicking the can around in the middle east, that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, right? And it's this battleground of empires that rather than China fighting the U S or the Russians fighting the U S everybody fights in Afghanistan. It's a , it's a base for proxy wars where, where the, where the , the major superpowers of the world can go in there and sort of have these little skirmishes in this sandbox that nobody much cares about because it's been a war zone forever. And it's a very, very contested geopolitical region. So it actually comes with some benefits. If you control that, it's like a board game. If you're playing risk, you know, you want to capture certain yeah. Areas of the game. It's kind of a nice piece. China doesn't want , we'll go to war with the U S over any of that or Russia or any of those major superpowers, but they do kind of want to test each other a little bit. And so Afghan is that little piece of land that captures a lot of that attention. Interesting way to think about it. And , uh, and yeah, it's been that way for a long time. Uh, not just in modern history, like historically all the empires, all of the ancients it's been that way for a long time. John Dolores says, when I pick, when I need to pick me up, I watch your videos. Well, thank you, John Delara . I appreciate that. That's a nice compliment because I have, I have people that I watch when I kind of need something like that, too. That's a really nice compliment. Thank you for saying that. All right. We got another one that's loading up here, says the last villain says, do you think the second amendment would have helped every woman in Afghanistan with the handgun? I think the second amendment always helps because you have a fundamental right to self-defense to preserve

Speaker 2:

Life. And yeah, if you know, if the Taliban came around the U S yeah, they'd have a little bit of a difficult time beheading people, because

Speaker 1:

Everybody would be armed up. Oh , no, that's not going to happen right here by right. And , uh , the first thing that often happens when you have these tyrannical overthrows is they take all the guns. Mustang says, Mustang, Jeff says, what will the bite him admin say? When docs Americans are suddenly executed by the Taliban, probably something like they should have left earlier, or maybe they should have responded to our emails or something I don't know, wants to know, says, do you think the Camila speech on women's rights and LGBTQ plus Lex expeditious was a good speech to give at this time? Or was this something that she could get away with? I think a lot. So, first of all, I didn't see her speech. I'm not sure what she said or what she was talking about. But a lot of these things I think have been distractions , uh, when we saw the Joe Biden, I think took a knee the other day. And then he came out and he wanted to talk about COVID and then wanted to talk about infrastructure and all of those things, and then took a knee and they're doing some provocative things. Cause they would do anything to take your attention off of Afghanistan, which of course is not going to happen. Mustang. Jeff says the Abraham Lincoln left San Diego yesterday, wonder where they are headed. Probably a lot of new geopolitical positioning happening right now. Oh, sock says, Rob, who is the Afghan government that us recognizes as legit while they're talking about the Taliban. I mean, there really is no Afghanistan government anymore. The president fled

Speaker 2:

The country's leaderless. It's basically the Taliban. I mean, they are, they are the government when the white house talks about our partners, they're talking about the table .

Speaker 1:

Let's see what else? Red pilled convict says, many of those traps have no way of getting the state department forms . Government says, no forms mean you want to stay . Right. And they don't know the numbers we heard from Jake Sullivan saying that, well, we just don't know who's there. You know, we're the state department, but we don't know anything because when they get there, they don't tell us when they leave. They don't tell us, you know, when they get blown up and explosions that we are sort of responsible for, they don't tell us. So it's just kind of a free-for-all

Speaker 2:

And , uh, yeah, yeah. Not much compassion for them there . Cat's 59 says, rod , did you see that tutored special ops going by ?

Speaker 1:

I project pineapple are the ones who went out and brought in those 500 people. The day of the bombing. I saw that headline cats as I was skidding in here to do the show. So I didn't read that, but I did see something about, there was , uh , there were some people, some special ops that essentially went in sort of covertly and rescued a

Speaker 2:

Bunch of people. Let's Rob,

Speaker 1:

Rob, you keep mentioning 85 billion of military equipment. That is the total amount the U S has spent since 2001 in 20, 23 million of new equipment was given to the Afghan army. Well, I saw something about that. Uh, let's see if I can pull that up so that , yeah. I mean that , because that, you know , 3 million, that doesn't sound right, because we went through the list of all sorts of different things. And let's take a look, see if I can pull this up. Let's clarify some of this a little bit. Yeah. So here's, here's an article that I got from Forbes. Just taking a look at this, want to make sure I get this right, because I certainly don't wanna be given out bad information. Staggering costs us left military equipment behind , uh , here's the numbers and the U S provided an estimated 83 billion worth of training and equipment since 2001. This year, military aid was 3 billion alone. So I think we're, we're, we're, we're just , uh , an order of magnitude off, right? This is from Forbes , uh, government accountability office, deadly 174 million on drones. I mean, we've talked about this , uh, on, on this channel, right? I mean, they , they have black Hawk helicopters and things like that. So it's certainly more than 3 million. It's it's it's in the billions I believe so. Uh, thank you for flagging that just glad we got to , um, check that we have a see you tomorrow, Rob, but you will not see me. Oh, look, who's here. Uh, their , their RSVP for the watching the Watchers monthly local meetup. But look who this is. It's the FBI. It's the secret FBI. They're gonna , they're gonna , they're gonna that's okay. Come and talk to us. We're we'll be here. We're good. People come check in FBI. We have some questions for you actually. I'd like to talk to you. We'll see you there. Oh, sock says, Hey, Rob, the only good way, the only good to come away from this is now the Dem have no grounds for gun restriction. Yeah, that's true. They're going to do that anyways though. I think the real big silver lining in this whole thing is that people are recognizing how grossly and competent our government is from top to bottom and something like this is going to really recognize it . Help people recognize that. And the echos are going to reverberate into all the different facets of our lives. We're going to realize that even our revered military leaders, these very smart, Oxford, educated intelligentsia, people are radically incompetent. And so if they can't even get control of a situation like Afghanistan, if they can't even get control of a situation like on the border, which involves just like physical things, how are they gonna get control of a virus? How are they going to get control of an entire population? When they're trying to lock you down and steal away your liberties, it's going to be difficult for them to do that when people are recognizing now what a joke the government is. And so people are seeing this, they're waking up a little bit and that's not a bad thing. It's tragic that it has to be this way, but that itself is not a bad thing. Some other super chats came in, Joe SaaS . Now skis over here says wake up Joe Biden. Cause he's asleep at the house. Good to see you, Joe. Thank you for that. We have Eddie Oliver says ISIS is more conservative that the Taliban believe it or not. As far as the interfaith relationship think Catholics and Protestants. Well, that's a great example. That's a great analogy. Yeah. Right? So the Catholics and the Protestants have more in common with each other than they would with the Taliban, just like the Taliban and ISIS have more in common than they would with the United States. So maybe their interest or moral ,

Speaker 2:

Then the U S should take

Speaker 1:

For granted. The U S is considering them to be our partners. It's not such a reality, is it ? We have Michael M at J L says, aside from drug money, Afghanistan was a Washington DC money, money laundering, op four woke Inc nation building feminized government, military doesn't play well there. No it doesn't. And for some reason, some people in this administration were speculating that it would, I mean, we ha we played some lady on this channel. I couldn't believe it. Who was reading very angrily. I mean, she looked like she was mad, you know , at the Taliban specifically because they were not being very diverse gender speaking wise, you know, they were not inclusive. And so she, it was from the state department and an official lady. I forget her name was reading a statement

Speaker 2:

I did on the show. Very mad, good luck to her.

Speaker 1:

Uh, Eddie Oliver says it's easy to get a suicide vest past security when it's provided by the Taliban. Yeah. It's a great, it's a great point, Eddie. They're not checking too much. They go, oh yeah. That looks like it's strapped on perfectly. No, that's where the Taliban says, excuse me, sir. Do you have a suicide vest? He says, yes, I do. Oh, let me take a look at it. Oh yeah. That's a connected here. Yeah. You've got the appropriate C4. The appropriate explosives. No problem. Turn around. Yeah, it looks great.

Speaker 2:

Head on through. Go for it. Good luck. See you in the afterlife praise be to Allah .

Speaker 1:

All right . So that's uh , that's maybe how that went. I don't know. Thank you all for the super chats and , uh , the support on a YouTube shout outs to everybody chatting away over on locals. We've got be brave over there. Miss Donnie . Want to know several others on a sentence , some great, great chat questions today on the program. And so all of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for all of your support. All right . We're going to jump into our next segment. We're going to talk about SCOTUS the Supreme court and see what they're , what they're up to because an interesting ruling came out. The Supreme court of the United States blocks Joe Biden on the eviction moratorium. We've been following this case for some time, a little bit of backstory on this. Of course we know we're in the middle of COVID it's season two now is 2021. And so we've been through this game before we've seen these shows are pretty terrible, but one interesting thing happened in this season. The CDC continued to extend the eviction moratorium. We know that many people were sort of had to be locked down in their homes and some people lost their jobs. The economy was in a little bit of a questionable territory last year during the head of the Corona virus. And so now that some of that has been kind of settled the vaccines available. Now things are opening up to some degree. They shut them back down again. People have been speculating about, well, what about the people who have been living in other people's homes and not paying their rents? We recalled that back during the height of the pandemic, the CDC came out and said, they can not be thrown out. It's too dangerous. There's too much Corona virus out there. So we can't throw people out of their homes. What kind of order are you a monster? Are you are a Republican? How could you do something so evil? And so, you know, that that didn't happen. The CDC said, no, you're gonna make sure that they stay in their houses, national emergency. We're the CDC. We're going to scare the hell out of everybody and you're going to comply. And so people did that. Then they extended it. Then they extended it again and again and again and again. And finally the Supreme court took a case and listen to an argument from the Alabama association of realtors who said, listen, we represent a lot of homeowners that actually have homes. And they have people living in their property. That's their private property, which is something that's guaranteed by art laws under the constitution of this United States. Very, very important concept that we have here. So Alabama realtors, they file a lawsuit and they say, that's our property. Those people are not paying their bills. We have a right to exercise our property rights and throw them out. Well, this whole case was challenged in the federal courts, the federal courts, the CDC responded, and they're telling us through health and human services, they were telling the realtors that's too bad. Your private property, that's true. It is yours, but not for the time being, not for the foreseeable future, that house. It's our house because the CDC sets up because of the Corona virus because of Delta, because things are so scary out there. We caused a situation where we've got something like 3 million people who may be homeless if we actually throw them out. So we caused this problem. We let them stay there. And now you want to do something about it and we can't let you embarrass us. And so what the CDC did is they extended it again and again, and again, the case went up to the Supreme court. The Supreme court said, listen, CDC, you are not a legislative body. You're a part of the executive branch. And so, because we don't live in dictatorial, tyrannical, insane asylum. You don't get to just on your own voluntarily change, private property rules in this country and just take other people's property away from them. Willy nilly , however you see fit and justify it on the back of the Corona virus. The court gave them a lot of leeway to extend it and extend it and extend it, but set enough already. And what did Joe Biden do? Joe Biden said, well, we're just going to do it anyways. We're going to extend it anyways. And the CDC did that. Now the Supreme court was not happy about that. We're going to go through that today. They picked up this case immediately very quickly. I thought that maybe they were going to kick this can down the road. And maybe we wouldn't see something until next year, not the case at all Supreme court. Didn't like it. That Joe Biden kind of thumbed his nose in their faces and directly was out of compliance with the Supreme court, had hinted at previously. And so now they responded. Axios gives us a headline. Now that we have that backdrop, they say the Supreme court blocks Biden's COVID eviction ban on Thursday night, six to three ruling. There was a moratorium on evictions that no longer is standing roughly three and a half million people across the U S said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to census bureau data from mid August. So that's a lot of people state of play. It says the courts previously ruled that the administration could not extend the ban. This was instituted due to the Corona virus passed July 31st without explicit congressional authorization. But after the protests, CDC did it anyways, they extended the ban through August 3rd case, went up to the Supreme court. After the Alabama realtor sued justice, Stephen Brier , Sonia Sotomayor, and a Lego Elena Kagan all dissented in the opinion. So let's go through it. It's not super long. It's 16 pages and it's split relatively evenly and we can fly through this pretty quickly so we can see what's going on here. And I want to , I want to point this out because this is a direct split. It's a six to three opinion. It's the six so-called conservative judges at versus the three liberal judges. This is an issue on public policy. So now we're talking specifically about how they are interpreting the law, as it applies to a very pressing public issue. What do we do about these 3 million, three and a half million people who presumably have been living in other people's property for free? The CDC said, it's not your property anymore. It's theirs, it's ours. And we're going to continue to use it. What do we do with those three people kind of 3 million people. It's kind of a big question for the court to decipher. And so we're going to pay attention to both sides of this and see how the legal analysis works here. Let's start off from the top. We've got the Supreme court of the United States. This is a pure per curiam opinion. And what that means, you can see that here is it's the opinion of the court. They're not going to label this to somebody or attach this to one particular justice. So here's the picture of the court. You can see we've got the six judges that are in the majority opinion. I have them highlighted here in green, Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, Roberts. We have Alito and we have Kavanaugh and we have Thomas all here in green and they are part of the majority. So let's see if we can piece together. What's going on here. The CDC director imposed a nationwide moratorium that prevented people from being evicted due to COVID-19 transmission. Alabama association of realtors said, this is unlawful, not allowed to do that. District court said that we're not going to make a decision while there's an appeal. And now what they're saying is we're vacating the stay and rendering the judgment enforceable. The district court produced a comprehensive opinion after careful review of the record makes it clear that the applicants are certain to succeed on the merit on the basis of their argument, that the CDC exceeded its authority. So you see that. So they're basically saying that the Alabama association of realtors, if they take

Speaker 2:

This thing up, they're going to win because it's so problematic. What the CDC did. It says here,

Speaker 1:

But instead the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance, on a decades old statute that authorizes it to implement its measures like fumigation and pest extermination. The court says it, strains credulity to believe that this statute grants, the CDC, the sweeping authority that it asserts. So that's a big line there . Nationwide mandate moratorium in reliance, on a decades old statute, the decades old statute is talking about fumigation and pest extermination. So the court is saying the CDC is relying on something that is basically irrelevant to take away people's property. Right ?

Speaker 2:

Right . And that it's strange credulity, strange

Speaker 1:

Credulity that they're doing that. All right . In March, 2020 Congress passed the Corona virus aid, other relief programs. They entered a new eviction moratorium that expired in July. Congress did not renew it. That's a big thing. Okay. Congress passed this bill and they did not renew it. They said that further action wasn't needed. So the CDC decided to do what Congress did not.

Speaker 2:

The new

Speaker 1:

Administratively imposed moratorium went further than its statutory. Predecessor covered all residential properties nationwide and even impose criminal penalties on violators. We talked about that. We went through the order from Rochelle Wollensky and we read through it line by line. And it said that if you threw people out of your property, because it's your house and they're not paying their rent, they're going to charge you with a crime

Speaker 2:

For that as a landlord. And that was from the CDC director. Nobody voted on that, that didn't go

Speaker 1:

Through the legislation legislatures that didn't go through Congress, Congress voted for it in March, and then didn't renew it. So Congress sort of said, well,

Speaker 2:

We guess we don't need that anymore.

Speaker 1:

CDC is moratorium was originally slated to expire on December 31st, 2020

Speaker 2:

Folks. That is eight, almost nine months ago.

Speaker 1:

Congress extended it for one month as a part of the COVID act. As the new deadline approach , CDC again took matters into its own hands, extended the moratorium through March. Then again through June, then again through July

Speaker 2:

Congress didn't pass anything. It expired. The bills that Congress passed expired.

Speaker 1:

CDC relied on different authority. They looked over to the health act says here that the health and human services is authorized to make an enforced such regulations. As his judgment seems necessary to prevent transmission of communicates

Speaker 2:

Well diseases for the purpose of carrying this out.

Speaker 1:

This is the statute that the CDC is relying on. CDC is looking at this. Law comes from section 360 1 says, look, surgeon general, along with HHS, we can do what we need to do in order to prevent the spread of communicable disease , communicable diseases from one state into another, for the purposes of carrying out and enforcing these regulations. Surgeon general may provide for such things. Let's see what they have in this list. This is what the law says that the CDC surgeon general can do fumigation disinfection, sanitation, pest, extermination, destruction of animals, articles to be found infected or contaminated, dangerous infection to human beings, other measures, et cetera. Does it, did you see, I just read that. Did you that's from a court opinion, a legal document, did you see anything that says that you can't throw non-paying delinquent tenants out of your private property in that list? I didn't see it. They also talk about a CFR originally passed in 1944. That that provision is not invoked. It's about the sale of animals in those things, realtor associations and rental property managers in Alabama and Georgia, they sued. They said that this is not appropriate. And the court declined to vacate the state at a Laurel lower level. The moratorium from the CDC expired on July 31st. And we know that there was an opinion that came out from the prior ruling. This is the part where they, that Joe Biden actually just didn't follow the ruling. Justice Kavanaugh issued an opinion, said that they agreed with the district court, that the CDC is moratorium exceeded its statutory authority. The court already opined on this issue said that no , the , the , the last extension that bumped this out to July was basically unconstitutional. But because it's just a few weeks away, we're going to let you do it until Congress can get back involved. Judge Kavanaugh wrote that judge Kavanaugh, when this got on his desk, it was a split decision. And he sided with allowing the extension to stay. He said, okay, look, we're going to let it go to July 31st, but that's it. Don't ask for another extension. Because even on this one, you're outside of your constitutional authority. You're relying on this law that doesn't apply at all. And you've been extending this thing indefinitely, even though Congress has not approved any of the funds. So Rochelle will Linsky the CDC, the surgeon general, they're all just passing laws effectively. These are orders and extensions and moratoriums and whatever, but they're acting like congressional bodies. And they're taking those duties away from Congress. If Congress doesn't want to throw 3.5 million people out of their houses, they're entitled to pass a bill and do it, but they're not going to do it. So they're using the CDC, the executive branch, which is the inappropriate branch to do this type of work, to do it because they don't want to do it. They don't want to be saddled with that. So that got extended again to July 31st 3d three days later after it expired, they did it again. Judge Kavanaugh said, don't do it. You're exceeding your statutory authority. They did it anyways with the moratorium. Once again, in place, the plaintiffs returned back to the district court and let's see what happens. Having passed through the lower courts, the district court concluded that it stays no longer justified. Let's see the court says the applicants not only have a substantial likelihood of winning. It is difficult to imagine them losing. It's talking about the Alabama realtors says the government contends that the first sentence of the law gives the CDC broad authority

Speaker 2:

To do whatever it wants, that whatever

Speaker 1:

It deems necessary to control COVID-19 including issuing the moratorium. So we just read that the same law that said fumigation and pesticides and getting rid of infected animals. And those things CDC says that is so broad that basically they can do whatever they want. Supreme court says not so fast. The second sentence informs that grant of authority by illustrating exactly what you can do, inspecting fumigation, sanitation, pest, extermination, blah, blah, blah. These measures directly relate to preventing the interstate spread of disease. Why , how do they do that? By identifying isolating and destroying the disease itself. Those things are very narrowly tailored. They're closely related to that. The goal of the CDC don't let diseases spread. So you're empowered as the surgeon general with the CDC to now effectuate and accomplish those goals, which means you can exterminate things and prevent animals from spreading and eliminate contaminated areas. Okay. Sounds good. That's fine. The CDC is reading that that means we can do whatever we need to do to stop the spread of communicable diseases. The court says no, because it says specifically in the law, this is what you can do. So don't read it broadly. They say the CDC is moratorium. On the other hand, relates to interstate infection infection far more

Speaker 2:

Indirectly. It's not connected

Speaker 1:

To fumigation in those things. If evictions a cure occur. Yeah. Some subset of tenants might move from one state to another and sub some subset of that group. The people who moved my do so while they're infected with COVID, but this downstream connection between the eviction and the interstate spread is different from the direct targeting of the disease that is authorized by the statute. If you read both sentences together, rather than the first one by itself, it is a stretch. The court says to maintain that the law gives the CDC authority to impose this eviction moratorium, right? And then they go on, they're just a malingering. The CDC here. They say, look, even if it were unclear, even if we read that law and it was ambiguous, this sheer scope of what the CDC is claiming to do is basically insane. These vast economic and political significance, they're saying the power of the CDC is claiming here is , is insane. At least 80% of the country, including between six and 7 million tenants are at risk of eviction at falls within

Speaker 2:

The moratorium con while the

Speaker 1:

Parties dispute the financial burden on landlords, Congress has provided nearly 50 billion in emergency assistance.

Speaker 2:

And the issue at

Speaker 1:

Stakes are not merely financial, the moratorium invades onto an area of particular domain of state law. The landlord tenant relationship Congress is responsible for these things. And what the CDC is trying to do is encroach on the powers of the state. The government's read of the CDC law of the law would give the CDC a breathtaking amount of authority or whatever they want. If they got their way, it's hard to see what measures this interpretation would place outside of the CDC reach. If we read it the way the CDC wants us to read it, they can do whatever they want, because I've been saying it I've been screaming about this for well over a year. Now that there's no limiting principle on what it takes to stop COVID, it can be anything as we saw, they locked us in our houses, folks in most parts of this country, so that you can't even go outside because of your death, viral particles coming out of your mouth or something. And they justified that on the back of the virus of the CDC, because it's so scary and dangerous that the government can do whatever you want, whatever they want, including taking your property away from you. No limiting principle there. The court said, yeah, if we look, if we gave it to you , CDC , you can do whatever you want. And that's insane because we live in America, not China. The government has identified no limit beyond the requirement that the CDC deemed the measure necessary. So if the CDC says it's necessary, that's it? This claim of expansive authority is unprecedented. Since that provisions enacted in 1944, no regulation has even begun to approach that size or the scope of the eviction moratorium. It's further amplified by the CDC decision to make it criminal imposing penalties of $250,000 fine, or one year in jail. They say this law is a wafer thin read on which to rest such sweeping power. This is your little tyrannical dictators. This is the argument that they're making. They're trying to seize control of all the different levels of power, levers of power using these, these little, these little rules. Well , the law says I can , um , I'm the director of the CDC so I can do what's necessary to solve the , the, the virus and if people need to be divested of their private property. So be it because we're saving lives. If you need to mask your , if we, if we're going to mandate that your kid masks up all day, we're saving lives. If we're going to force you to take a jab because we're saving lives and it's all on this basis, it's necessary to accomplish their goals. Supreme court said, no, that's insane. Cause it is insane. Now you're going to see the liberal justices here to go the other direction, but let's finish this up. The equities, the court says does not justify depriving the applicants of a judgment in their favor. The moratorium put the applicants along with millions of landlords at risk of irreparable harm by depriving them of rent payments with no guarantee of eventual recovery. Despite the CDCs determination that landlords should bear a significant financial cost of the pandemic. Many landlords have modest means. Yeah, Rochelle, Willinsky you don't get to decide who pays for this and dump it on landlords, preventing them from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership, the right to

Speaker 2:

Exclude. That's how you know, it's your property because you can see

Speaker 1:

It's mine and not yours. Otherwise it's communal property.

Speaker 2:

If it's, if it's everybody's

Speaker 1:

Property, it's not yours. The right to exclude is a very important, right? That's been well delineated

Speaker 2:

In the law , including in the Supreme

Speaker 1:

Court. As the harm to applicants increase , the government interests have decreased. Since the district court entered, it stated the government had three additional months to do solve this problem. They didn't do it. Whatever interest the government had in maintaining the moratoriums original end date to ensure the orderly administration of these programs has diminished. Congress was on notice that further extension would almost surely require a new legislation. Yet it failed to act in the several weeks leading up to the expiration. Congress didn't do anything about it. That's why you had AOC with her mask off, hanging out with

Speaker 2:

Rashida to

Speaker 1:

Lab. No. Who was that? Who was out there now that wasn't Rashida? She's also in the crew. Ah , the other gal , I can't remember her name, but they were out there on the grounds of the Capitol, screaming out from the rooftops about this thing. They're in Congress. Cory Bush is who I'm thinking of. Cory Bush was the other lady says, we're out here just fighting

Speaker 2:

For something. We

Speaker 1:

Need somebody to act. And I'm thinking your Congress, people, you can go in there and vote on this thing. You didn't do it. You just use the, the Thai radical CDC and the executive branch to pass along

Speaker 2:

Your unconstitutional,

Speaker 1:

Extensions in violation, direct violation of what the Supreme

Speaker 2:

Court intimated.

Speaker 1:

They say it is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in stopping COVID. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully. Even in pursuit of desirable

Speaker 2:

Ends. It is up to

Speaker 1:

Congress, not the CDC to decide whether the public interests

Speaker 2:

Permits, merits further action here. If a federalism

Speaker 1:

Post eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it granted by the Supreme court of the United States.

Speaker 2:

Hmm . Good, good opinion. Very good opinion. I've been unhappy with the Supreme court in a lot of these things, but yeah ,

Speaker 1:

Very good opinion. You know, the same concept came up with elections. Did you see what they're doing here? It's a separation of powers argument. It's saying, look, the CDC is doing stuff that the constitution does not empower them to do. We do not live in a dictator dictatorship. They are not allowed to do that stuff like that has to go through Congress. That's the appropriate venue. Same stuff happened with the election. The legislature is the appropriate

Speaker 2:

Body to maneuver the election rules. It's been delegated by the constitution. But when the states did it, when the state executive branch changed the rules through the secretary of state, when

Speaker 1:

We saw the courts modify the election rules

Speaker 2:

Outside of the legislature, those were all on state levels, state, local levels. And the Supreme court didn't even care. This is happening on a federal level, which is why they care. So we'll see if this extends down to the states at some point. Interesting.

Speaker 1:

See here, the descent , we're going to take a look at justice, Briar justice, Briar here. This is the Democrats are very unhappy with justice. Bryer they want him to step down and resign. So Joe Biden can appoint somebody else up there. Who's not as old. Quite frankly, though. Justice Briar I think is doing a tremendous job. I think he's got a lot of life left in and probably another decade or so.

Speaker 2:

So , so we wish him a very long and continued seat on the court. And he's got a nice , uh , descent here.

Speaker 1:

Let's take a look at it. So he wrote the descent . You can see, these are the three left wing leaning judges. We've got Kagan over here. We've got Briar over here and Sotomayor down here in the bottom, right? And so they are dissenting from the opinion. We're going to go through this a little bit more quickly because it's not as interesting, but I wanted to show you basically why they're siding kind of with the CDC on this, they say, look, they've issued an order that temporarily prohibits some evictions from going on today. This is an emergency matter, and this is happening without full briefing or without argument. And therefore that's why

Speaker 2:

I dissent . Okay. So the

Speaker 1:

Dissent is really not about the underlying issue in as much as it

Speaker 2:

Is about the process through which the court came to this conclusion. So justice

Speaker 1:

Sprier sort of wanted to do what Joe Biden wanted to do was to say, well, you know, send that back down, go up the court of appeals. We're going to put it on the next court docket. We're going to brief the whole thing. We're going to have oral oral arguments. You know, we're gonna have a full day of , uh , and then maybe we'll get a full opinion on this

Speaker 2:

Thing next year, down the road, which is sort of what I was speculating, that

Speaker 1:

This whole thing was going to be kicked around the docket for a long period of time. And that we might see it, you know, seriously, like way down the road. If the Supreme court didn't do this. So the Supreme court kind of did sort of just jump in here and take the case and said, oh no, we're not going to go through that appeal process. You know, Joe Biden said that they violated the Supreme court's , uh, order previously because he wanted to buy time. He said, we might get another month. We might get another two months. We might get more time than that. And he was realistic that this could have gone a different direction, but the Supreme court stood up and said, we do not like that at all. And so they just stepped in

Speaker 2:

There, pluck this case out and

Speaker 1:

Said, we're going to , we're going to issue a ruling on that. So judge Briar is unhappy about it says we should have, you know , delayed this, kick this down the road, a lot more talks about what that means, right? It talks about some of the standards are why this should have been continued, says first, it's not clear that the CDC lacks the power to issue its modified moratorium

Speaker 2:

Or order says that this

Speaker 1:

Current order is more tailored than the other one because it's only for Delta and it doesn't apply to everybody. It only applies to like 90% of the people we've talked about that. Previously, we talked about , uh , one of the sort of escape hatches that the CDC was using here is to say, well, judge, we're not doing the same thing that you told us. We couldn't do. Judge Kavanaugh said, no, if you're going to do this again, you need congressional authorization. So what they did is they said, well, we're not going to do exactly that again. We're going to do something a little bit different and we're just going to modify it to some degree. And therefore it's not the same thing. So we're technically not violating the Supreme court . And so that's the argument that judge Briar is making here saying, well, it is different. It's actually even more tailored than the other one. And so we should give it a little bit, a different consideration, says the CDC modified its moratorium order. You can see some of the changes there, the statutes first sentence, granted ,

Speaker 2:

It's them. I'm sorry. So they are, this is where he

Speaker 1:

He's going through the law. This is the law again about infection and fumigation. He says, we're going to look at the first

Speaker 2:

Sentence that it's essential to control the outcome

Speaker 1:

Of disease. And then he's going to go back and go through some other case law. The second sentence he's saying is giving some examples, but it's not limiting

Speaker 2:

Them. He says that

Speaker 1:

The way that the majority of the court interpreter,

Speaker 2:

This is not accurate , uh, that the court

Speaker 1:

Must speak more clearly to authorize. Let's see what else

Speaker 2:

We got

Speaker 1:

The balance of the equities. This is where you can see sort of how the legal reasoning changes the balance of the equities. Strongly favors, leaving the stay in place.

Speaker 2:

The applicants say they've lost thousands of dollars, but Congress has already given him a bunch of money. Now he's saying,

Speaker 1:

Let's compare that right? He's saying let's compare and contrast the harms over here. We've got the CDC. They're showing us some very scary numbers. Look at these numbers. This is very scary over here. So we see a lot of spikes and waves and oh, we're going back up again. So that's why when you balance the equities, when you say at one of these realtors money, rent payment, there's , there's a bucket of 45 million billion

Speaker 2:

Dollars over there. So they're

Speaker 1:

Going to get paid. They're going to be fine. And if you compare and contrast that with this scary chart, wow. Yeah. Uh , 38 million Americans have been sick in 629,000 have died. So now you sort of compare it

Speaker 2:

Interest private property rights versus human deaths. What kind of a person are you?

Speaker 1:

You're going to throw your renters out so that they can go drop dead of COVID on the streets

Speaker 2:

Monster it's kind of judge

Speaker 1:

Briar was saying, says, look back at the order's criteria. CDC only targets those who might be impacted, blah , blah , blah . The public interest is not favored by the spread of the disease so that the CDC says that a surge of evictions is going to cause a lot of big problems. So the public interest, they say strongly favors, respecting the CDC, following whatever they tell you to do anything. They say, God , I respect the CDC because they're trying to save lives. And that's why he dissents says their impact. Their answers impact the health of millions. We should not set aside. The CDC is more

Speaker 2:

Aye dissent . That's judge Brier

Speaker 1:

Human life, more important than property rights and that because of that, the CDC should be granted authority to do basically whatever it wants, whatever it deems necessary indefinitely without any oversight or control.

Speaker 2:

That's the mindset. That's why the

Speaker 1:

Courts a powerful institution needs to be protected and garden. All right , let's see what we've got some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com . Before we jump into our last segment of the day, let's see what we've got here. Monster one says, why do people think the SCOTUS decision matters? This administration has already shown. They have little regard for the court. Skoda says no enforcement mechanism can do little. If Democrats defy them, maybe it's time for Republicans to start ignoring Roe vs. Wade or other decisions. They disagree

Speaker 2:

With PS . When are we going to see

Speaker 1:

You on Tim pool? I loved him. Paul, I'd go on his show. No problem. Yeah. I , I don't know how to go about that, but that he has some very interesting guests on his podcast. So there's some good conversations on there. Who did I just listen to the other day? They had somebody on there. It was very interesting. I can't remember his name, but yeah. You know , I'd love to, I need to start doing more of that. I really do like talking to people and having interviews with , with amazing people. I'd love that opportunity, but I am

Speaker 2:

Just sort of in this wave

Speaker 1:

Here at the firm we're doing we're , we're, we're growing like crazy. And so I'm trying to button a bunch of stuff up and it's , um, it's taken up a lot of my time, but I'm working through it and I'm going to be able to do more time. I think for Tim's you've got to travel to wherever he lives. And so , uh, but I'd love that, right? If anybody knows how to do that, I'd , I'd be very open to that. Oldest. Dirt says the Lincoln is going south China, sea for a meetup, with a UK flattop and another us amphibious carrier for a show of force. That's from oldest dirt. That's on the exiting Afghanistan. Let's over here , uh , that was from eat on

Speaker 2:

Tests, but that was on the

Speaker 1:

Old, the last segment. So over here, Mustang, Jeff says, do you suppose SCOTUS is calling the admin on the repeated COVID hysteria coming from folk Fowchee and co I bet the admin ignores this decision to then the Dems will use this as an excuse to pack the Supreme court. It's a good concept there , Mustang, Jeff . And I thought that that was a very nice triangulation by Joe Biden, right? He couldn't look, Congress is not going to do anything about this because Congress doesn't want that political meatball, the executive branch, they're kind of the only people who had the political capital to do that.

Speaker 2:

This thing , they did it. And it's set up .

Speaker 1:

I am up for the, the, the debate, the conversation, the implication that the Supreme court is biased. So they, they kick this over to them and they said, look, if they're going to throw 3 million people out and make them do it, don't make us do it. Pretty smart. Politically Supreme court did it. So I think the white house has strategized to this effect right now. I don't know if they're going to go ahead and try to pack the court, but why wouldn't they? Everything else is problematic there right now. They're shifting the entire country. Why would they not try to do that right now? This is kind of their last hurrah, right? They're going to get blown out in 2022 and probably 2024. So this is the last opportunity to do it. And the Supreme court just opened the door for him . So we'll see where that goes. News. Now Wyoming says when I was reading briars opinion, it was almost as if I was watching qualified immunity, get created all over again. The law , doesn't say this. In fact it says the complete opposite, but this is how we think it should be just crazy. There is a great summation of a lot of judicial opinions. Anyways news. Now, Wyoming. Yeah. Well, yeah, I know. That's what it says, but I'm going to twist myself into a pretzel and use all these obscure little citations in order to make the argument that I

Speaker 2:

Want to make happens a lot,

Speaker 1:

Want to know, says, how can we all just pay the 80%? Like the government says, landlords have to take, this sounds like

Speaker 2:

Discrimination to me the 80%.

Speaker 1:

I'm not sure what you're talking about wants to know soul Viking says while some people lost sources of income and couldn't qualify for unemployment, such as small businesses, partners and independent contractors, but a large percentage of the people not paying rent were receiving government funding in one manner or another. With that sudden windfall of extra cash. Yeah. Sick and wrong, right? Yeah . If you get unemployed, you go get state unemployment. You get the federal benefits that they're given out for COVID and you don't pay your rent. So you're living a pretty nice life, not working for 8, 9, 10,

Speaker 2:

And months. It's insane. All right ,

Speaker 1:

Let's see what else. Thunder seven says, this is great news and other wind for the constitution. Follow it up with the wind that when they ordered Trump's remained in Mexico policy to remain in place. And I remember some cases you spoke about with gun owner rights, winning what's happening, give us your legal expertise. Is SCOTUS now functioning properly

Speaker 2:

Again , are they applying the law correctly? So , uh , on this case, yes they are.

Speaker 1:

This is a very good opinion, a very good case. Something that is , is legally accurate. It is connected to reality. Okay. You can take a look at briars opinion and you can see that, right. He's making the same argument that there is really no limiting principle. If the CDC says that you have to, you know , cut your left arm off in order to stop COVID from spreading, you got to do it because it's 50%

Speaker 2:

Lest less touching. So just slice your arm off and you're not going to touch. You're going to touch literally 50% of what you touched previously. It's a pretty good

Speaker 1:

Don't. Don't tell her about that. I just made that up on the fly.

Speaker 2:

Don't tell Fowchee about that. A bunch amputees in

Speaker 1:

This country over COVID lunacy. All right , what else we have here, Sharon? He says, first of all, there will never be an end to COVID scare. At least not. As long as this regime is in power, it's a sure bet. They'll remain in power by running the same game they did in 2020 with all the COVID variants. Secondly, it's amazing to me that the Supreme is managed to stand up for somebody's rights and for what used to be called the constitution, big C and what's left of it after having been shredded by this regime. Good to see you, Sharon. Let's see, we got, Sergeant Bob says an interesting statistic would be the number of routine evictions in non COVID years. Lots of people are evicted as a normal course of law. Compare that to figures for the last year. It seems there was a labor shortage due to the free money being given out by the government. Why work if no rent needs to be paid? Yeah , go look around right? There are a help wanted signs all over the place. People don't want to work because they're getting paid. Not to . We have spawn . Dog says the three justices who dissented should be removed immediately. Apparently they don't have a clue on how our constitutional Republic works. The CDC overstep their bounds and the three justices feel like that was just fine. They do. And they would vote that way in the future. And they would do that for virtually every bureaucrat. They love giant government authoritarian control because they get things done. Right? If the CDC has unlimited power to stop COVID well, I, you know, they , they can make all the attempts in the world to stop COVID. They could act like Australia. If they want it to lock you in your homes, give you an hour of exercise a day, make you comply, send out the military, do whatever it takes. It's basically giving the CDC martial law powers, anything that's necessary. And you had three liberal judges who said, yeah, that sounds, that sounds fair because COVID is so bad. Ooh , good thing. We got Trump in there. Isn't it news. Now I oming says it will be interesting to see what happens. Appears to me. There's going to be over 1 million empty houses, 3 million people. Those landlords are going to trade one deadbeat tenant for another landlord's tenant, or they will remain empty. I'm very curious what that's going to do to the housing markets, right? The housing markets are sort of at all-time highs across the board, like the stock market. They're just pumping money into everything everybody's going. Oh , my housing prices are great. You go, okay. Yeah. Do you see what everything else costs? It's called inflation, right? It's everything is getting more expensive. So, you know, your 401k may look like it's doing gangbusters, but when you go to spend that money, everything costs more. So it's all relative. All right . Gail says, the next attack on property rights is the right to renew legislation, which requires landlords to renew tenant leases, except for cause already passed an Albany New York coming to Tompkins. Then all they will have to do is declare that non-payment of rent is not cause for non-renewal. You know, I was having a conversation with my friend who , uh, who , who is into real estate. Right? And he wants to of go into that space. And I was telling him about all this. And he's having to reevaluate

Speaker 2:

His a future because if that's happening and your

Speaker 1:

Not really your property and people are making these arguments like no, they already have a house. They don't need two houses. Those are just those rich people who are taking advantage of people that need

Speaker 2:

Homes. And I saw how that went

Speaker 1:

In Cuba. It didn't work out well. John Delores says, Nancy Pelosi don't want the house voting. Doesn't want the house voting on it because too many conservative Democrats don't want to extend it. She's trying to protect them for the midterms . Not even sure it would pass. Looks like it won't work. Can't wait until the midterms by Felicia. Your majority has gone like the wind. Whoa . That's from John Dillard. Good to see you, John Dillard. Good energy on that one. Oh, socks says, Rob, is it possible that COVID could be engineered to make the icon ? Oh , SOC that's medical information. We can't talk about any of that

Speaker 2:

Stuff here. YouTube doesn't allow that. Oh , so

Speaker 1:

Look, the only thing that I can point you to is the CDC for shell Wollensky is kind of the smartest person in the world. So you should just do whatever she tells you to do indefinitely. She's very smart, Sharon quit . And he says, you mentioned the nobody voted on the CDC regulations that they didn't go to through the legislature.

Speaker 2:

Police. I asked what the

Speaker 1:

F difference does that make none of the legal manipulations and machinations that took place preceding the election. None of them went through the legal or legislative process and were totally illegal and unconstitutional. We don't have a constitution anymore. This is the totalitarian regime, a dictatorship

Speaker 2:

Run by a bunch of lunatics. Sharon, you're not wrong.

Speaker 1:

You're not wrong about that. It , you know , w we have a constitution. It is being dumped all over. COVID did that in spades. We have Avalon acre assess . So I'm in Alabama. And I evicted someone during the moratorium, not due to non-payment , but because one threatened to kill himself. And during one of those threats managed to break skin. I have kids, we live on the same property. I couldn't risk him following through. And none of my kids finding him, they want to try to come after me, let them, no jury will blame me for kicking him out. You're probably right about that. We talk a lot about enforceability here, right? The government can pass whatever laws they will

Speaker 2:

Want all day, but they got to enforce them. So on Sunday

Speaker 1:

Of those things, I think that's where the balance of power shifts a little bit, Sharon says, it's amazing to me, the Supremes have managed to grow a couple over the past

Speaker 2:

Year where they,

Speaker 1:

Where were they last year when the constitution was being shredded? Yeah. And that's , that's the conversation that I was talking about, Sharon , about, you know, this is a

Speaker 2:

Case legal decision. It would have been, yeah .

Speaker 1:

Nice to have on the , on the basis of separation of powers and that you cannot in one branch cannot use SERP. Another branch would have been nice.

Speaker 2:

They gave us that opinion during the last month

Speaker 1:

When we were talking about some very serious issues there, no doubt says is SCOTUS brave right now because of the Afghan debacle that Biden is going through, it could very well be that, right? Remember that the Supreme court is an institution that likes to protect its legitimacy, because that is the key thing that makes it function, that it's seen legitimate.

Speaker 2:

They don't have an MBA ,

Speaker 1:

They don't have any enforcement mechanisms. They don't have a lot of political power because they're judges and they can't say much if you know, much things, they've got

Speaker 2:

Sort of a , a limitation on their political engagement. And so they really focus on legitimacy and

Speaker 1:

That is relative to the , the legitimacy of the other branches, right? These are co-equal branches. And so if you're in a situation where it looks like America is sweeping Joe Biden into power, and there's going to be this new reformation and America is going to be reborn again in the new vision of Joe Biden. And it's all going to be unified,

Speaker 2:

Beautiful Supreme court is going well. You know, we got ,

Speaker 1:

Maintain our institution and we're not going to rock that boat too much. So we're just going to kind of , you know, play ball a little bit, but now they're co-equal branch. The executive branch sort of looks like it has been completely emasculated. Like it's entirely incompetent. Like the American people are watching this whole facade crumble in front of our eyes. And so their legitimacy is now

Speaker 2:

Subpar

Speaker 1:

Relative to the Supreme court. So if the Biden team comes out now and says, we're going to pack the Supreme court, suddenly the Americans who maybe once were sort of in favor of Joe Biden's vision for America are not anymore. And we look at that movement and we say, oh yeah, this is a more insane , uh, you know, activities from this administration. And we've already seen what that looks like in Afghanistan. Maybe they should not keep their, you know, take their hands over to our Supreme court.

Speaker 2:

Good question. Jeremy

Speaker 1:

Says, Jeremy MITRE does here says Rob has a CDC established a direct correlation between an eviction and the contraction of COVID. In my opinion, COVID is being abused as an excuse to do things that couldn't previously be done before. When will this

Speaker 2:

End? Uh,

Speaker 1:

I don't think there's any correlation. That's sort of the , uh , the argument that the Supreme court was making that it's so far removed. And you saw that in the language where they said,

Speaker 2:

Well, I mean, technically yeah ,

Speaker 1:

If you evict somebody, there's going to be a subset of those people who move across state lines, which would engage in interstate commerce, which is what would trigger the U S to get involved

Speaker 2:

The feds, I guess, I

Speaker 1:

Guess it's possible that when they move, they could get COVID and it could have been a result of the move, but that's kind of hard to define. And that's something that is like three steps removed from the original concept of the eviction that we're talking about. And so, because it's so speculative and it's, and it's so far down the causal chain,

Speaker 2:

Again , it's not relevant enough and it's not appropriate. And the judge rightfully threw it out.

Speaker 1:

It's ed says, Hey, Rob, maybe instead of putting up this eviction moratorium, if the government feels so passionately about this, why not give money directly to the renters instead of hurting the landlords ? Oh, wait, they did give the renters money. A lot of money. A friend of mine refuses to go back to work because she will make less money since the lockdown and the unemployment payments . She has been able to remodel her house and refurnish it happy she can do, but it's wrong when you consider how she got the money to do it, I get the life isn't fair, but it's wrong when it isn't fair because the government is making it unfair. Yeah, you're right about that. It's ed , the government is useless. You know, they think they can manipulate and move resources around to sort of fix problems. And what they do is they end up creating much more problems. We have a lot of people who are looking for employees and there's not a lot of them. Why is that? Because the federal government is creating situations exactly like the one you described and it's pretty disgusting. Brotherhood of not commanding Congress back in the house, great game. The dissenting opinion comes across as arithmetic to enable mixing what is just in what is legal, the abolition of private property and the extension of the state authority has

Speaker 2:

A name has been tried

Speaker 1:

And is very bloody. Yeah. That's from the brotherhood of nod. That's an astute observation. Their brotherhood, we have wants to know, says the government is only paying landlords 80% of money or nothing. Oh, I didn't know that. So that's, that's also another beautiful thing. So they're not even giving you fair market value for your delinquent tenants, who you can't throw out. What a joke we have a former Leo says with deep disgust, I watch a TV interview. Oh, that's on the , that's on the Ashley Babbitt fill . So I'm gonna save that one for the next one.

Speaker 2:

All right. So

Speaker 1:

When that happens, I got to pause a little bit and then get over to the next question. So give me one quick sec ,

Speaker 2:

Looks like a nice car

Speaker 1:

From former Leo . So I'm want to make sure that we get that. So

Speaker 2:

Three apologies there too .

Speaker 1:

This segment, then we'll jump into the next one we have wants to know, says, Rob, your new scribes are confused. They can't read you like I can. When you're BSN , I'd love to play poker with you, would you? You'd probably you'd probably do well. Right? I , uh, I kind of wear my emotions on my face. I won't lie about that. The last villain says, I think the F-you from the byte administration made it clear to the limps in the court that they are two minutes away from irrelevance. Good comments. All right . Let's see if we had any super chats that came in here over from YouTube. We have Eddie Oliver here.

Speaker 2:

Okay. We have Jake here's Jay

Speaker 1:

J super chat . A nice super chat says great show, Rob. I always appreciate listening to the comments and the questions from the locals. They're great questions and great comments. We have amazing people who are part of that community, which is why I encourage you to come and join us over there. It's a lot of fun. And we have a meetup taking place tomorrow at 7:00 PM. Eastern time going to be a lot of fun. Hopefully you can make it, Jay. I appreciate you being here, Joe SaaS Naski says search Joe. Biden's awakening on YouTube. You're welcome. Thanks Joe. There are some good, there's some really good , uh, Biden videos out there. I don't know if that's a funny one or a serious one, but I will take a look at it. Thanks for sharing that. Eddie Oliver says, Rob, how long before everyone recognizes this is this for what it is. This is not a pandemic. It is an endemic. It's not going away. I , I agree with you totally on that. I think that that was the case 18 months ago, whenever it all started the government, oh, we're going to get control of this thing . No, you're not idiots. And they didn't and they're not going to, but they're going to continue to, to, to , uh , liberate. You have all of your liberties for you. This isn't a nice of them so that you don't have to think for yourself anymore. They're going to do all the thinking for you and just take care of everything. So just shut up, put your mask on and shove that needle in your arm. Uh , good to see you there. Eddie. We have another one from warrior B . Yochai says I can see Biden on the runway with this Chinese flag at the last hour. Screaming, closing time. You don't have to go home, but you can't

Speaker 6:

Stay here. WTF.

Speaker 1:

Well, Joe Biden, look, it's very emotional. You know, you might have some tears, Anthony. Blinken, they're very upset about this whole thing. So have a little bit of a, you know, sympathy for these two men. You know, they've never been in a situation before where they've wrecked an entire nation's foreign policy that has catastrophic consequences throughout the world. They've never done that before. So you can empathize. If you're going to be the person responsible for that. Like, you know, you have a bad day at work and you go home and you're like, sweetheart, you're not going to believe what I said today. It was so dumb. I came out in a meeting. I have no idea why I said it. It was just the wrong thing to say. I felt so bad. I apologized after the fact, but I think the damage is done this relationship. Like they're never going to look at me at the same honey. He goes, yeah, that's a really bad day. It's pretty stupid. Okay. But you kind of move on, right? Go back to work. Don't talk to that person. Not good. Joe Biden wrecked most of the world .

Speaker 6:

So he's, he's having a hard time.

Speaker 1:

Um , and uh, he should have a hard time because he is incompetent. And the people who put him in place should also have a hard time because they put them there. And people like you and me on this channel and elsewhere have been screaming about this incompetence for many, many months now. And it's all on full display. It's the, I hate to say, I told you so right. It's here. And so it's appropriate to , to make sure that their faces are rubbed in it because they deserve it. What else do we have warrior? Biatch says, holy crap, Rob, I rarely chat here. Mostly watch the replay while you need some mods. You have a ton of trolls. Let me know if you need some help Wowza . Uh, do we , do we on sort of watching the chat as we go through here, but uh,

Speaker 6:

Uh,

Speaker 1:

7:00 PM. Rob? No. Okay. So somebody, so 7:00 PM, Rob time is 10:00 PM Miami time, but the watching the Watchers, locals meetup is at 7:00 PM Eastern time. It's at 4:00 PM my time. So I just want to clarify that I saw that in the chat. Thank you for all of those super chats. Welcome warrior yachts . Thank you for the offer. I'm not sure what I'm gonna do about mods. I mean, that's no mods. They're saying no mods, you know, it's all right. News . We'll see, you know, there was a spammer there and I was able to get him plugged him out of there. Well , I appreciate the offer. I'm not sure how that works or, you know,

Speaker 6:

Ha ha ha .

Speaker 1:

Well , we'll see what everybody has to say. Those were great questions as always from watching the watchers.locals.com and thank you for the support over on YouTube as well. Thank you. Warrior B Eddie Oliver, Joe SaaS , Nowicki, J and Michael M J L as well. Very, very appreciative of all of that. All right . So our last segment of the day, we're talking about , uh, Ashley Babbitt again, and the person who shot her Michael Bird . So let's jump into it. Ashley Babbitt shot and killed on the January six protests, the riots, the insurrection, the virtual end of America for many people. And since that day, a lot of us people who monitor law enforcement watch the police try to hold them accountable because we fight for things like accountability and transparency had a lot of questions about this officer involved shooting, because there was a woman who was in the Capitol building named Ashley Babbitt , who was shot and killed. And typically when that happens, there's an investigation. You learn who the officer is. Learn a little bit more about him . As we've seen in many other officer involved shootings throughout the country. We've covered many of them on this channel, specifically talked about Ray shard, Brooks. We've talked about Brianna Taylor and the list goes on and on and on. There's always a big inquiry. There's always multiple ways to analyze the shooting. We get to see some of the evidence and make our own decisions about this thing. We went through a whole trial with Derek Shovan about that police death. But none of that happened here because this was the Capitol hill police. And they're sort of secluded from the rest of us. They protect the Capitol , which is our congressional people. And of course, as we know, they are above the rest of us. So the same concepts of transparency and accountability that would apply to any other police department, anywhere else in this nation, never applied in this case. And so for many, many months, we had no idea who the shooter was. People speculated about it, but didn't get to see much about it until yesterday. Now they told us that in the lead up until this big reveal, that the reason why this man could not be revealed and we could not know his identity is because of the danger to himself and to his , his family and all of the threats from the maniac mega Trumpers that were sending his way. And then he decided after he was exonerated by his Capitol hill police department, to just go do an interview with Lester Holt on NBC. So this is the guy, his name is Michael Bird . He's a Lieutenant. And he says, in this interview that I saved countless lives in the chaotic minutes, before he shot and killed Ashley Babbitt , he said he focuses attention on the glass doors, leading into the lobby of the representatives. Chamber 60 to 80 house members were holed up inside. He said, and writers rampage through the Capitol. You may remember the scene. This is from before the shooting took place. We talked about this earlier in the week when the Capitol hill PD exonerated that man, this was the scene before Ashley Babbitt , who we can see here sort of jumped up into this window sill over here. Now, if you watch the full video, I made comment of this earlier in the week that these three officers, for some bizarre reason, just kind of moved aside. They just got out of the way. And there were other officers coming up the stairwell from this right side of the screen. They were walking up this way and they were on scene basically immediately after Ashley Babbitt was shot. The shooter was on the other side of this glass panel. And you can see that the glass here is barricaded. We have three officers who were in front of it. I am not going to play the full video of course, because YouTube , uh , flags, all of that as being 18 plus, and then they, we have to remove the video. So it's something that I would encourage you to watch if you haven't watched it already very strange behavior here, because these three cops who are guarding this, and if you watch this interaction, they are standing there and nobody is being violent with them. Nobody. I mean, they're there , they're in their faces and sort of shouting at them. But if the officers would have continued to stay there, that entryway in my opinion would have continued to have been blocked. There were other officers who were running up the stairwell as backup, literally, and there were other officers on the other side of the door, as we can see in this panel, right there, there were , uh , this, this is the shooter. This is Michael Lieutenant Michael Bird , who did the shooting. There were , uh , if you watch the video, there's many other people back here. There's nobody in immediate sight here that looks like they're in danger. And so what ends up happening is these three officers abandoned their posts. They go down the stairwell and Ashley Babbitt hops right up into this window seal where she is shot and killed by Lieutenant bird. This gentlemen now for the last eight months, nobody knew who this guy was. People had a lot of questions about this shooting. How did this happen? Why was this not revealed to us? We've seen many other shootings where the first thing that happens is we know the name of the cup. We spent many episodes on this show, talking about it all last month. In some cases, I defended the officers. In some cases, I defended the defendants, but we always got to take a look at the evidence and then make an analysis for ourselves. And often that included the government's evidence, body worn cameras. Remember the Shovan body cameras that we dissected almost frame-by-frame none of that came out here. So we never got to piece it together. And the excuse was always that it's too dangerous. This man is going to be attacked by the Trumpers, by the mega ERs . And this is not appropriate. So they, the Capitol hill police said that they're not going to release it. Then they cleared him and we know his name here. It is telling us yesterday with Lester Holt,

Speaker 7:

The name has been battered about on the internet, but you've never been officially publicly identified. Do you want to tell us who you are? Yeah . My name is Michael Byrne . I'm a Lieutenant for the United States Capitol police.

Speaker 1:

There you go. So we got a name out of him now. Why is it coming out now? Today is August 27th. That's because on August 23rd, we got this, the internal investigation from the Capitol police is exonerating. This guy, they reviewed multiple witnesses, reviewed all the available evidence, including video and radio calls. None of which we have seen none of it, right? Reviewed it, multiple witnesses. They completed their internal investigation of the shooting of Ashley Babbitt . And that occurred, of course, on January 6th , they sent it over to their OPR, their office of professional responsibility. And they determined that the conduct was lawful and within the department's policies, which said that they may use deadly force as long as there's an immediate danger of serious physical injury, right? So they , they go through their own thing and they do their own analysis. Something we have never seen. Don't know what their policies are. Don't know what the analysis was. They give us a stupid press release. They , they , they tell us that they've completed their internal investigation. Don't see any of the videos don't see any of the radio calls. It's all private. Then the officer in this case who was not being identified for the officer's safety will not be facing internal discipline. So if the Capitol hill police won't release the name for internal safety, why is this guy on Lester Holt show on NBC? Four days later must be really scary for him . It must be really petrified or he just got cleared. And now it's time to go and get the book deal. And now it's time to go and make your , your face, make the rounds on all the media shows because he's now it's cleared. Nothing's going to happen to him . The justice department has said, they're not charging him. And the Capitol police did their investigation, and they're not going to do anything about it either. So now that that's all done in closed, now it's time to go hit the media circuit, which is exactly what he's doing. The officer and his families have been the subject of numerous credible threats. Got that. And the actions of this officer in this case, they say potentially save members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters . Okay. So, you know, you can, you can subject that can be subject to your, to a matter of opinion. You might even watch all of the actual evidence and say, yeah, that was a clean shoot. That was a good shoot. Maybe I would do that too. Maybe if I watched everything I would say, yeah, look, that was scary situation. They were right around the corner. There really was no backup. He really did hear something over the radio that th that shots had been fired. It was chaotic. You know, you've got to situate, you gotta protect the speaker of the house, man. And so you might even empathize with the man and say, look, it was a clean shoot. It was a , it was a horrible situation, but we can't do that because they're not showing us anything. And they're telling us that this person was perfectly competent that the Capitol hill police are perfectly competent, that nothing went wrong, that their internal investigations with OPR and the , the IAA division all went swimmingly well. So we, as the American people should just go, oh, the Capitol hill police, oh, look, they, they said that they're going to do an investigation. Are they going to hire outside counsel? Are they going to hire an inspector general? Or are they going to outsource this to somebody else? No, they're going to do it internally. And they're going to follow their own office of professional responsibility guidelines. And they're going to look at it themselves and then vindicate themselves. They investigate themselves and find they did nothing wrong. And then we were just supposed to believe that. Oh, okay. Uh, and, and it's all a matter of , of perfect competency. And everything's done admirably, what a , what a hero. But then you learn about stuff like this, that this officer, some time ago, back in 2019, left his weapon unattended in the Capitol bathroom, which is not a good place to leave a weapon. It's not a good idea to leave a weapon anywhere. So like, if you left it at a , you know, an I hop for example, or at your local Costco, not a good place to leave a weapon.

Speaker 2:

A worst place

Speaker 1:

Is in the Capitol building where you've got a lot of Congress, people who are , uh , you know , highly sensitive, VIP's

Speaker 2:

Their own minds. So if you forget

Speaker 1:

A , you know , look, many people might try to sneak and smuggle a gun into the congressional building. This guy just made it easy for them . Don't even have to do that. There's one in the bathroom. Ready, ready, and waiting for you. Us Capitol police Lieutenant left his service weapon in the bathroom on Monday night later, discovered by another Capitol police officer. So he didn't go back and get it or report it missing. Somebody else found it after the house adjourned on Monday, Lieutenant Mike Bird left his Glock 22 in the Capitol visitor center complex, according to sources familiar with the incident, he addressed the incident on Tuesday morning during officer's roll call told fellow officers quote, he will be treated differently because of his rank as a Lieutenant, not clear what exactly he meant by that comment, unlike a regular gun, a Glock will fire. If the trigger is pulled because it doesn't have a traditional safety, they say Capitol police said a service weapon was discovered during a routine security sweep. On Monday, once it was secured, the department began an immediate investigation into the

Speaker 2:

Matter they take these things very

Speaker 1:

Seriously. And I don't point that out to sort of rubbed this guy's nose in this, but it is something that is pertinent in these investigations. That's why you want the names of people. So you can go and ask these types of questions and say, Hey, you know, maybe this guy is not so competent that he just forgot his Glock 22 in a bathroom in the congressional building as a Capitol hill police, not particularly astute

Speaker 2:

Here now,

Speaker 1:

To be fair. Lester Holt asked him about this very briefly in this interview, I did not clip it because he says, yeah, I did that. And I accept responsibility for it. And I'm trying to do better. I

Speaker 2:

Answer it, but not meaningfully

Speaker 1:

Is meaningful. But my point here is it's sort of regard. I understand that people make mistakes. That's not , I'm not even upset about that. I'm upset about the accountability and the transparency that was missing here,

Speaker 2:

That the U S is telling

Speaker 1:

Us the U S Capitol police are telling the American people. You're not entitled to any information about

Speaker 2:

This at all, until we say you are, or

Speaker 1:

Until he decides to voluntarily speak out and go on interview circuits. Now, Lester

Speaker 2:

Bolt in this wild exchange is asking about racist threats and wants to make sure that he gets that on the record. So he asks ,

Speaker 1:

Asks an open-ended question of Michael Burt , Lester Holt says, have you been attacked and assaulted or sort of threatened verbally as a result of your involvement in this thing, which is interesting because nobody knew what his name was until about 10 minutes ago, last night, officially, there were speculation about it, but now we know this is so , uh, somebody that nobody knew about you were getting a lot of threats. Weren't you? Here's what he says,

Speaker 7:

Talking about, you know, killing me , uh, cutting off my head , um, you know, very vicious and cruel things, racist things. There it is . There were some racist attacks as well. That's all disheartening because I know I was doing my job.

Speaker 1:

So Lester Holt, you could see him. He's just like spring loaded, just ready to go. Well, they were saying hateful things and mean things. And they were attacking my integrity and they were attacking my, you know, my, my valor and my service and my decision. And yeah, but , but, but racist things, did they ask you? Did they say racist things? Uh, yeah, they did say some racist things there. Lester Holt. Why don't you calm down there buddy? Cause I was getting there, relax, stop jumping the gun on the thing. Now this is what he talks about. So I want to spend a little bit of time actually talking about what the officer saw, right? Uh, there was this interview that took place and there are some facts about the shooting that we can actually glean, right? This is not just an entertainment piece. It was for them. But I wanted to see if we can actually extract some, some concepts about what took place with the shooting here is where he talks about the shots being fired.

Speaker 7:

Did you ever hear a call or a of shots fired during any of this? As a matter of fact, that day there was reports of shots fired through the house main door onto the floor of the chamber. Later, those reports would prove to be false. This video captures Byrd , instructing members of Congress to Dawn gas masks.

Speaker 1:

All right. So they got masks under their seats. And so he's kind of, you know , going around now, th the , the pertinent part, there was about hearing over the radio that he heard shots had been fired. Now, you also heard that Lester Holt said that , uh, that was later proven to be untrue, right ? Nobody was shot. Uh, as far as my knowledge, right, nobody was shot and killed. And , uh , I didn't even realize that there were guns going off anywhere. I don't think that happened at all, which is surprising if you're a group of insurrectionists who want to seize control of the country, you'd think you'd bring some guns, especially if you were with these, one of these organized militia groups that, you know, nobody was so interesting there that he got that over the radio, right. That sort of raises the level of his concern. If the intelligence is being feed fed to him is indicating that there is, you know , an active shooting situation. Now that sort of escalates your, your response. Now that turned out to be inaccurate. My question be well, where'd that come from? Who said that? What time was that? You know, is that accurate? Is he making that up? Did that actually be broadcast? Are there any other witnesses to corroborate that? I mean, presumably that's what the internal affairs and OPR was doing when they were investigating him. But we don't know because there's no evidence, there's no report. There's nothing. It's just his statement in America when he shot and killed somebody and we have no evidence, there's nothing for her to look at. Other than she's dead. Her family's dead. Her. Attorney's just sort of looking at the Capitol hill police that just said we investigated things and we did a good job. And there's nothing else to look for. Thanks. Not appropriate at all. All right, let's see what else he says he is. So my, my, my, my next question was about the warning. Okay. We've, we've talked about many officer involved shootings on this channel, and oftentimes they will give a very clear verbal warning , stop, stop, drop the knife, drop the knife, boom. Then they pull the shot, right? They give warnings to stop from having to execute somebody from having to shoot and kill somebody. Didn't see much of that in this situation because Ashley Babbitt just jumped right up into the window, sort of the , the, the busted out window. And she was shot while standing in there. She never made it through the barrier so that they could have a conversation or anything. She stands up right into there. As soon as she gets up, boom, he shoots her. So the question was, was he warning her? Was he yelling? Was he screaming? Was he telling her to stop, stop, stop. I'm going to shoot giving her an audible warning about this so that she knows that there's a man with a gun extended and, and saw it and recognize it. And, and you know, maybe she decided to go anyways. And that's when he pulled, but we don't know because we don't have anything to look at other than a stupid press release from the Capitol hill police that doesn't tell us anything. So let's w Lester hold, ask them about this. Do you warn them at all? Were you saying anything? Here's what he has to say. Yeah .

Speaker 8:

Yelling and screaming as loud as I was, please stop. Get back, get back, stop.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So that's about all we got out of that. So, you know, stop, stop, get back, get back. Not, not, you know, not a verbal warning of I'm going to shoot or, or stop, or I will shoot or anything like that. So, you know, who knows what actually happened there, but he is hit, you know , they are checking that box. They're going through here, checking the box and they check that one. I gave a verbal warning. All right . Now how about this? What about, did he see a weapon? Did he see anything in her hands? Right? Because the , the, the general theory is you use deadly force to combat deadly force. If somebody is not doing something that might result in somebody's death to you or to somebody else or to themselves, well, then you typically don't use deadly force. We've talked about this many times on the show, this the spectrum, the continuum, the use of force continuum, that there are different elements that will escalate. What level of force appropriate? You know, if somebody is stealing a candy bar, you don't shoot them in the head. Cause that's not an appropriate use of force. You know, that you , you use the, the, the amount of force that's necessary, given the , the conditions, the circumstance and the scenario. And we are asking questions about that in this case, what did Ashley Babbitt have in her hands? Anything, did he see anything? Did he see a weapon? Because she didn't have one. She was unarmed. And so did he make that determination? Did he come to that conclusion in his mind? I don't know. Let's see what he tells Lester Holt. Since we're not going to hear anything from the Capitol hill, police

Speaker 7:

Was taking a tactical stance. You ultimately hoping that your commands will be complied with, and unfortunately they were not. When you fired, what could you see wherever you're aiming your toilet to aim for center mass? Uh, the subject was sideways and I could not see her full motion of her hands or anything. Um, so I guess her movement, you know, caused the , uh , discharged to fall aware of that .

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So, I mean, you heard from him, right? Couldn't see your hands couldn't really see anything. Couldn't see whether she had a weapon or not gave her some mornings shot or center mass. She was falling forward as she was coming through the barrier. And , uh , you know, got hit in the neck, fell back through the back through the barrier was coming forward, fell back through the barrier and , uh , was dead. Right. There were cops who were standing there right behind her, if you watch the full video. So I think the show, the shoot was, was totally unnecessary. He said he warned her, but we didn't see her say anything about, you know, a lethal force warning or anything. It was just, you know, stop, stop, get back, screaming, screaming, screaming. Did we see that in the video? I don't know he had his mask on because he was concerned about COVID as well. You know, in the middle of an insurrection, you gotta make sure you have your mask on because , uh , COVID might be more deadly than the insurrectionist . I don't know. So, you know, who knows what he was saying? He couldn't see his mouth moving at all. And he said that he was giving verbal warnings, whether that's true or not pretty clear, he didn't see a weapon. Didn't even see your hands. Didn't look at that. So it doesn't know whether she has anything or not. And , uh , uh, you know, apparently that alone is enough. That's enough. That's how, you know, you can save some lives. She didn't have a weapon, but she could have, but she didn't, but she could have. And because she could have, then maybe she, he was could, it could have saved some lives. So I don't know. So he's very, you know, he's very happy with himself , uh, as is the Capitol hill police as is Lester Holt. Let's see what he has to say about saving lives. That day

Speaker 7:

Capitol police in their press release. After exonerating, you , you said your actions potentially saved members and staff from serious injury and possible death. What was it like to hear those words, to see those words? Those words meant a lot, because that's exactly what I did on that day. That was my mission. That was when I prepared and it's rewarding and refreshing to hear that.

Speaker 1:

Okay. You know, he , he seems, he seems genuine to me, you know, he's , he looked, it was not a good situation on January six. I think that what we saw from the Capitol hill police was so lacking in accountability and transparency that their response was not appropriate at all. Ashley Babbitt is a dead woman, whether the shoe was justified or not, her family is entitled to due process. She's entitled to know who the shooter was and what the investigation was that suddenly concluded that he was not responsible for anything other than a legitimate shoot to take their word for that is asking too much. The family deserves some clarity, some accountability, and some transparency there. They're not going to get it. And nobody cares about it. So now that now that he's out now that his name is publicly available, very likely he's going to be sued in the Capitol hill. Police are going to be sued by Ashley Babbitt's attorney. We talked about their opinion on this last time, which reiterated a lot of what we just talked about there didn't see any weapon at all was presuming that this was a situation that involved that that would have justified, required lethal force, but we didn't see any other weapons from anybody else coming through that line either. And so let's see what you have to say about all this. I know this one is sort of can be, can kind of split people down the middle on this. So let's check in and see what locals has to say about this [email protected] We've got some good questions here, and I forgot that I opened up the other one here from former Elio . So let's get this one. First. It says with deep disgust , I watched a TV interview with an individual who was a sworn, alleged to be a sworn law enforcement officer sat back. And I reviewed the sworn hosts that I have first, when I enlisted in the U S Navy. And again, when I was sworn in as a peace officer, both oath requires that I protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And one of the hosts granted me permission to enforce the laws of the state of California. I even thought back to all of my training, including the certificate certificates and my department's policies and procedures. And I was unable to find specifically the section that allowed the murder of an unarmed citizen based on a guest. Yeah. It's probably not in there. Yeah. And so he's talking about all of the rules and regulations that he had to comply with all of the oats that he swore not in there . This hurts to me to say that this justice is not only blind, but it appears that justice isn't colorblind . This hurts me to say this justice is not only blind, but it appears that justice isn't colorblind . If this incident had the suspect and the victim's races reversed, I can almost guarantee the out, just reexamining some of the givens that I've accepted as a fact, that's from former L E O . Thank you for sharing that former Leo. Yeah. I completely agree with you. If you reversed the , the racial demographics in this story, you'd have a different outcome. When you let's say, you know, you could take the same scenario. What happens if some of the BLM protesters that broke into the third precinct there in Minneapolis who are walking around, setting fire to different documents within the precinct? What happens if the police would have just shot them, said, it's a threat. There are people in our building that we're scared about. It's not different. It's the Capitol building, but it's just Congress people. All right. Former Elio says, sorry about that. Being painted with the same rush is enraging. Oh, it's all good. That's from Ellie . I'm not sure what you're apologizing about, but that's okay. Let's see here. What are the results of the mandatory blood draw as part of the OIS protocol? It's a good question. There. That's from former Lao as well. Yeah . That's a good question. So, yeah. Right. They you'll, there's a lot of data that you get out of an investigation. I'd like to see it. We're not going to thunder. Seven says how was Ashley a threat to the big cop who would have knocked her down with a quick hit to her legs? Isn't he trained to deal with non-violent events? Was Ashley going to run down the corridor and hit Pelosi with her backpack? Moronic cop had left his gun in the washroom twice . Uh , probably has a drug or alcohol problem. I can't believe he got away with murder. It's from thunder seven. Yeah. I know news. Now Wyoming says that was a spicy comment news. Now Wyoming says, why do you have to review the evidence? The police have said the shooting was good and who are we to question it? They worked for Congress. So all the other rules don't apply to them. So why should any review of the evidence apply to them? Just listen, bow down and obey news. Now your rights, you know, sometimes I get carried away, which is why I need to come on this show and , and just kind of get put back in my place. They know better than me. They're smarter than I am. They're really good people. And they do everything right. They have nothing to hide, totally ethical and full of integrity. Okay. So we've got former Elio says former Elio's hot says what was the result of the investigation by an outside agency? And what agency did the outside investigation for question marks on that from former Leo . That's how you know, he's hot. I agree with right. We don't see any of the evidence. First amendment says, by the way, no mods, no fact checkers, please . We believe in free speech. Even for the trolls, they have a right to post, no matter how dumb they are, only spammers should be removed as they take up too much space. That's from the first amendment. You know, and I, I have a slightly modified rule on that. It's dinner table manners. You control the hell out of everything you want. Right ? You have a lot of trolls at dinner tables. You always have that guy. That's like, Hey grandma, what do you think about Joe Biden? You go, whoa , wait for this. And you wait for grandma to just come out there and just start dunking on Joe Biden. Everybody else at the table goes, oh, here we go again. You know, I have that. Um, I sort of have that in my family. I'm sort of a troll to some degree. I have a , uh , uh , an amazing, amazing person in my family. I out him publicly, but he's got strong opinions on COVID. And so every time I see him, I say, Hey, and he's a, he's a steamable person with a lot of , uh, knowledge on these issues in the medical profession. So I'm very actually interested in what he has to say. I'm not just trolling, but I'll say, Hey , uh , uncle, what's your latest thoughts on COVID. And then it's like an hour and a half of just a waterfall of data. And , uh, I love it. I'm going to ask for a reason, but everybody else at the table is like, Ugh , here we go again. But it's all useful. It's productive. It's good conversation. And so we'll allow those types of trolls, but it's dinner table banners . Right. And you know, you , you sort of, we all can recognize that we're all needling each other to a certain extent. Okay. I get on the show. And to some extent, I know that there's going to be trolls over here on YouTube that are just going to love my moral outrage, my moral indignation. And they're going to have a lot of fun going that guy's crazy, Rob he's out of his mind. Look, let's listen to this rant . What the hell is he talking about? He's going nuts over here. What a psycho person and that's fun. And I encourage that, come on in here and , and go, go hog wild. But we want to be respectful, right? When we start calling each other names, when we start saying things like, you know, implying death and you're an F and this and F and a, and all this stuff, type of stuff, that's not dinner table manners. And so we got to , you know, we got to ask those people to leave the dinner table and, you know, hopefully they get better manners next time. But that's the policy of the show. Bulletproof body says bad shooting. This is a coverup. I'm a former LAPD Sergeant I've conducted OISS that's from Bulletproof body. There we go. So that's , uh , that's three for three on the show. Now, first of all, Bulletproof body, thank you for being here. Former LAPD Sergeant, we have a former Portland Sergeant as well, and we have a former Leo also three for three bad shooting. And it's a cover-up . So that's great. So it's not just me. Who's saying that. Thank you. Thank you for, for sharing that as well. Jeremy [inaudible] says the reason they didn't release anything from the investigation is because we would hear Nancy Pelosi shouting over the radio to shoot these MF or shortly before birth fired a shot. Unfortunately, the Capitol police won't be able to refute my claim because of lack of their transparency. Oh, that's too good. That is hilarious, Jeremy and you're right, right. But you can make up and say, Nancy Pelosi said whatever Nancy Pelosi said. Yeah. You know , and maybe it , maybe she said that we should just pull out the machine guns and the cannons and just blast all these Trumpers back into the stone age. She might've said that. She probably did said, say that. In fact, there's no court in America has concluded that Nancy Pelosi did not say that she wanted all the Trumpers to be nuked back into oblivion. I've never seen a court of law that has ever confirmed that. She did not say that. So as far as I'm concerned, she said it. And the Capitol police, if they want to rebut that claim, they're free to do. So. All they need to do is release some of the discovery and all the documentations to rebut that claim. But henceforth , Nancy Pelosi wanted to nuke the Trumpers. Cause there's no evidence to the contrary. I think that's how they do things there. So we're , we're in good company, Perry masonary he says, why isn't this guy getting the Shovan treatment? You already demonstrated his incompetence by leaving his service weapon unattended in a bathroom. I think you can probably guess as to why he's getting different treatment. Well, number one, the races are reversed. So that obviously has a component. But number two, this was the killing of a Trumper of a mega person. And they don't have any value in the modern version of America. They're political prisoners. You can shoot and kill them without any due process. Nobody cares because under the current administration, they are political enemies. That's the answer. Sergeant Bob is here, says when I was in Portland officers set up a six floor hotel room to call out a wanted guy. The guy came, busting out his door and ran towards the elevators. One of the sergeants on scene, let loose a few rounds, nearly hitting several other officers. He thought he quotes, saved the date. He was first terminated. Then late later reinstated. But as an officer, no way he should have shot. This Lieutenant is just as delusional. No one can tell me that he is not receiving favorable treatment because of his race. As I said before, this looks like a quote , bad shooting. Of course transparency. It would help us have a more informed opinion. Sounds like the Capitol police is the KGB. That's from Sergeant Bob

Speaker 9:

Three for three on

Speaker 1:

The show. Former Leo all chime in in. Amazing. Thank you, Sergeant Bob. Yeah. I agree with you. You know, it , it, it would be good to have more, more evidence. And if you did, maybe you could come back out and say, yeah, no, it was, it looked good, but not from what I can see here. Wide awake says this in my eyes is Floyd 2.0, racist things, Lester Holt. Did they say racist things to you?

Speaker 9:

Are you sure? Let's let's let's

Speaker 1:

Stop with the rest of the script here. Let's talk about more of the racism here. Officer bird , tell me all the racist things they said to you. Hmm . Anything else? Hmm . Let's keep going about them. Did they say this word? How about that word? Cause that's what matters. Obviously, John Dolores says, I'm starting to feel like the tide is turning. People are starting to wake up. I don't think the Capitol police and the government will get away with this crap forever. Rest in peace. Ashley Babbitt . I think so too . John Delara , the Afghanistan situation is making people realize what a joke our government is. Every the whole thing, everything from top to bottom, we have, I'm not gas as LMA. Oh, this guy's Facebook was loaded with anti-Trump crap and was identified shortly after the shooting. He was probably waiting for the chances .

Speaker 9:

Shoot a Trump supporter. Yeah,

Speaker 1:

I know. I know he was identified earlier than the day, but I didn't see any of that evidence, but you know, look, it's look, it's just, okay, we're going to stop there. Joe Biden says, hang on. I need to get some ice cream. It's Friday, Joe, you're done with the week

Speaker 2:

You earned it. Get two scoops. Former Leo .

Speaker 1:

It says the Glock 22 is not a 22 caliber rim fire round. It's chambered for the 40 Smith and Western round, which is much more powerful than the nine millimeter has a mag capacity of 15 rounds. That's a lot of firepower. Yeah. Um , I think I have a Glock 22,

Speaker 2:

Actually. I think I do.

Speaker 1:

I have several blocks, but I don't know if it's a [inaudible] specifically, that might be a law enforcement model. But I think I have a version of the civilian model. Right. Obviously I'm not law enforcement, but uh, yeah. I know it's not, yeah. It's a serious weapon. That's why I bought it. Uh, let's see what else we have. Thank you for sharing that. Yeah. It's not a 22, no way. Uh , spawn doc says the officer was coached plain and simple, which is absolutely true. He went through, if you watch the full interview at six minutes, I didn't want to play the whole thing because it's a lot of Lester Holt talking, but , uh , and it's a lot of the, the fluff, right. Oh, okay. So I didn't want to go through that, but he checks all the boxes, you know , uh, take the, draw, the sting out of the competency question, check that one. Talk about the bathroom thing. Check that one. Talk about the , uh , the, the fear for my life. Check that one, you know, the list goes on and on. So it's all, it's all, you know, just by the script we have Sharon Quinn . He says, I really don't like having to ask this, but I wonder what the outcome would have been. If the races were reversed. If a white cop had shut up unarmed black woman and BLM and NAACP, not to mention the Southern poverty law center and Maxine waters would have been all over it. My guess is the outcome .

Speaker 2:

Some would have been entirely different probably right about that, Sharon. Uh , unless, unless they ,

Speaker 1:

They were also incorrect insurrectionists, you know, I don't know.

Speaker 2:

Probably. Yeah, let's see.

Speaker 1:

All right. We've got Sergeant Bob says great analysis and discussion, you know, your stuff. That's nice. Sergeant Bob, that's a nice endorsement. So nice endorse . I hope so because we're running a company. I hope I know a little bit of some stuff, but you know, the , um , the real value here is your input. Sergeant Bob, the fact that I can sort of rant a little bit and , and, and you and former Leo and a former LAPD, the fact that we can have these conversations is really where I think the value is, you know, anybody can, can sort of , um, opine on things, but the fact that you can, you join here consistently and share, share some feedback makes these segments so amazing. So thank you for doing that. Lord Nelson is here, says miss Babbitt, strange Ms . Babbitt , standing next to officers who saw no reason to restrain her. He thought it was imperative to pull that trigger. Yeah. Yeah. And , and it's even worse than that. Lord Nelson. I mean, those cops like left. They moved out of the way and I don't know why they did that. And then as soon as Ashley Babbitt was shot, there were all sorts of cops right there on scene. It's weird. If they were all talking to each other on radios, you would expect them to sort of know that the situation was under control,

Speaker 2:

But not

Speaker 1:

All right . Oh, sock says, Rob, I now understand why the Biden group loves the Taliban so much. Here's why the Taliban disarming civilian

Speaker 2:

Population. All right . So

Speaker 1:

That's a good comment, but that's, I can't read that in the segment because I'm on the Ashley Babbitt stuff. Uh, let's see here.

Speaker 2:

Yeah. It's a good comment. The midnight, midnight lime says, hopefully

Speaker 1:

Get some funding for stun guns

Speaker 2:

For the Capitol hill police or like Joe Biden recommended just shoot them in the lake. We have

Speaker 1:

Gas says, I'm so glad Mr. Bird feels like he is such a hero for shooting an unarmed 90 pound woman. What a brave fearless man. Yeah. They're very happy about this. Want to know says, ha ha. They're just congressmen. So they don't count. It's like, all right , let's get a few of them. Want to do whatever you want to do with them? Who cares says a chairman of the board says I'm torn on this, but I can't really hold an officer at fault for firing, but there's a warning shot legal as a first measure. I don't think Ashley Babbitt being a threat was as much of a threat as the unbeknown, as the unknown of the mob behind her. And I would think the officer would be concerned about being overrun if he let

Speaker 2:

Her through. But there are just too many unanswered

Speaker 1:

Questions about all of this. In my humble opinion, you have officers taking selfies, waving people in moving barricades, not to mention all the turning down of help before when they knew this was a potentially bad event. It's hard not to have a conspiracy theory that they were some, that there were some on the left that wanted the metaphorical powder keg to blow up that day. I can't understand

Speaker 2:

Why aren't why we aren't getting an investigation on all of that

Speaker 1:

Show is always Rob, sorry. I'm not around live as much lately. Hope to see you tomorrow. That's good to see you chairman of the board. Yeah. I appreciate you being here. And I do hope to see you tomorrow and I'm grateful for the time that you can show up and , and submit those tremendous questions or the comments. Cause I agree with you,

Speaker 2:

You know, the institutions that we look to for truth are not purveyors of truth. So when they tell us something happens, it's appropriate for us to question it. And in this ,

Speaker 1:

This case, when they're telling us that this was a perfectly clean shoot and everything went accordingly and everything that we saw on the screens was exactly how it happened. It's okay.

Speaker 2:

Okay . To question that. And it's actually an American thing to do

Speaker 1:

It's to say, no, we're not going to just believe what you said happened. We're going to investigate this. That's why we have things like due process

Speaker 2:

Written into our constitution. Very important concepts that we should not be so quick to overlook, especially when it's easy to sort of throw this whole thing under the rug on the basis that it was a ,

Speaker 1:

An insurrection, you know, this, this is a politically disfavored class. And so we can just forget about them because they don't matter. No, those people matter more than anything. It's those people that need the protection, the most it's the people that society says. We're just going to forget about them. They're the worst of the worst of the worst. And so, so what if we just bend the rules of due process a little bit, who cares about

Speaker 2:

That? That's

Speaker 1:

The first chip in the structure that leads to cascading tyranny. So we can't let that happen here. So we have to call it out. Thank you for being here, chairman of the board and for , for asking the right questions. Former Elio says, just remember that the Keystone cops also known as the Capitol police are coming to a city near, you says it's okay. I talk myself down. Yeah. There's there's less , uh, punctuation marks here. Less just one period instead of four question marks or like six exclamation points. But former LEL, listen, I'm with you, man. I get hot about these stories too. So I'm glad that you're right there with me. Yeah. And they are, the Capitol police are expanding all over America. So if you like what you saw from Michael Bird , guess what? You too might be shot unnecessarily in your home state as well. It's coming we're right around the corner. I'm excited. No doubt says capital policy displays, overwhelming signs of guilt by covering up capital. Paul is not weight bird innocent until proven guilty capital policy displays, overwhelming signs of guilt by covering up. Yeah. So there you go. That's a good way to frame it. Right? Bird is innocent until proven guilty, but we want to see some of the evidence so we can see whether that was a clean shoot or not. We already know that he forgot his gun in the Capitol hill bathroom. So not exactly top of his game there, Bubba , lik it says I'm pro law enforcement 100%, but the way they handle the investigation, it's so hush, hush, that gives me the reason to question a bit, I guess BLM matters more rather than all lives matter. Yeah. We always knew that was the case. Yeah . Always knew that was the case. That's from Bama Likud . Let's see, we got a few more here before we wrap up, says Robin Robert says, did they

Speaker 10:

Say racist things juicy? Smoley a juicy smile .

Speaker 1:

Yay . The famous French actor. Oh, we have a user who spam it over here. Let me, let me get rid of this. Oh no, I think that person's gone. Oh look, we have, we have a spammer on YouTube. Can you believe this? I just was talking about that and we're going to have to , uh, I think that solves that problem. Yeah. That solves that problem. Okay, cool. I don't have to do that much, so I don't really know how to do that, but , uh, that is now it looks like it's taken care of. Hey sweet. All right . No more spam over there. Alright. Uh, yeah. Juicy small yang , the famous French actor who was responsible or who was responsible for his own hate crime. Yeah. That guy , uh, Joe Biden is here, wants to know is tomorrow 7:00 PM. Your time 10:00 PM. Eastern time. No, Joe Biden tomorrow is 4:00 PM. My time 7:00 PM Eastern time. So same time as the show, same time tomorrow. Don't want to go too late, just so that everybody can get back to their Saturday nights. But speaking of that, let's get over there. Before we hop in here, I want to pull up some of these questions from a YouTube. We had a super chat here from Tager what's . If he says it is convenient, that she's a Trumper. Also, it is very convenient for , uh, for the government. We had , uh , another one from Tager says, as I said, the other day, I believe Ashley was as a warning to the other people in the crowd,

Speaker 2:

Her being killed was crowd control. Right? And I think there's probably some truth to that, but that's not an appropriate reason to shoot and kill somebody. Right. Which I think is the problem with that, you know, crowd control is not doesn't justify that type of force. All right .

Speaker 1:

Great questions over from watching the Watchers dot

Speaker 2:

[inaudible] dot com and from

Speaker 1:

YouTube shout outs to take her with SyFy warrior B, we had Eddie Oliver all with some very nice super chats, and I appreciate all of you also want to welcome some new members who just signed up [email protected] If you sign up after this, you're going to make next week's. But big welcomes to monster one who just signed up along with JS row 2019. Super excited to have you both here , uh , this week, grim nightmare, seven signed up chai web dev along with action, man signed up for the year along with grim nightmare. Doc thunder Bohn signed up with miss Donnie 2021. And of course the big shout out to tweak for the love and support over at Eric's house.org also welcomes the JAG man, M J B www Mustang. Jeff was here today. Keep her 21. Cool guy, 18,000 Sapper Jackson, Ken north under Mr. M B P in the house, along with WC Hodges watcher 45 had some people sign up last week as well. If you want to join in on the community, it's five bucks a month, $50 a year. You can save two months. If you join [email protected] and we're going to be here

Speaker 2:

Tomorrow on a Saturday, doing a live zoom meetup.

Speaker 1:

It's a monthly locals meetup . Here's what the invitation

Speaker 2:

Looks like seven to 8:00 PM Eastern time. So that means at 4:00 PM Arizona time, we're going to have

Speaker 1:

Up on there the same time as the show, we're going to do the monthly, watching the watchers.locals.com meetup, and it is not recorded. We are going to do this. Uh, it's , it's a, it's a, it's an event. It's like a clubhouse room, but we get to look at each other. So you get to come in on zoom , uh , turn your camera on. If you want, leave it off. If you don't want it on, you can use your real name if you want,

Speaker 2:

Or don't the chat will be

Speaker 1:

Going. And so you don't even have to say anything you can just hop on , on, on, in, on there and sort of see what the conversation looks like. We don't really even have an agenda. We just kind of talk about whatever comes up. I like to hear where people are from and then , uh , sort of, you know, get to get some feedback in the chat where you from, let us know where you're from and then raise your hands and throw out a question. And we'll take some, some thoughts on the show on the world. Anything that you want to talk about, it's a free for all. And it's a lot of fun. It's for an hour. So it's very low investment. Come for a little bit Lee for a little bit, not recorded. So it's there and then it's not. So I want you to be there tomorrow. Saturday, August 28th, seven to 8:00 PM. We do this once a month and it's a , it's a good time. So I hope to see you there tomorrow. And that my friends is it for me for the day. We're going to wrap up the show. It's been a very busy week, a very tragic week, a very hard week. And so this weekend, we want to make sure that we unplug a little bit, that we make sure we spend some time with our families, our friends, that we get some rest and relaxation and we sleep.

Speaker 2:

We reset our minds a little

Speaker 1:

Bit because we've got to be back here next week to do it again. A lot of people, a lot of institutions, a lot of government bureaucrats to hold accountable, to make sure they're being transparent because we're all working towards justice. We're building a community to that end. And I want to thank you for being a part of it back here next week, Monday seven, I'm sorry. 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, that's all on Monday, but tomorrow I'm going to see you at those same times as well. Thank you so much for being here. Have a tremendous rest of your Friday night. I'll see you right back here on Monday. If I don't see you tomorrow, have a great evening. My friends

Speaker 2:

See you next time. Bye-bye .