Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Garland’s FBI in Schools, Feds Prepare Trillion Dollar Coin, Kyle Rittenhouse October Motions

October 05, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Garland’s FBI in Schools, Feds Prepare Trillion Dollar Coin, Kyle Rittenhouse October Motions
Show Notes Transcript

President Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland drafts memo authorizing the FBI and other federal agencies to more closely monitor parents at school board meetings. Officials warn of a forthcoming debt default as President Biden and Congressional Democrats scramble to raise the debt limit while considering printing a trillion-dollar coin. Kyle Rittenhouse appeared in Court today for a final motions hearing prior to the November trial, and we review what happened. And more! Including:​

🔵 Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice issue new memorandum authorizing the FBI to get involved with “harassment, intimidation and threats of violence” at school board meetings.​
🔵 The DOJ authorizes the FBI and other federal agencies to determine what tools to use to prosecute parents at school board meetings.​
🔵 A review of Federal Encroachment under President Biden, including schools, property, vaccines, gun laws and now educational decisions.​
🔵 Review of the memorandum signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.​
🔵 Policymakers continue to sound the alarm about a potential default of U.S. debt.​
🔵 Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns of irreparable harm, a recession and higher interest rates.​
🔵 President Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer engaged in a full court press on Republicans.​
🔵 Senate Minority Leaders drafts letter to President Biden promising no help from the Republicans.​
🔵 Can the treasury just make a $1-trillion dollar-coin! Yes, why not? According to Philip Diehl.​
🔵 Kyle Rittenhouse appeared in Court today for a final motions hearing before trial is scheduled to begin on November 1, 2021.​
🔵 Government lawyer Thomas Binger argues expert witnesses should not be used to discuss reasonable force or self-defense.​
🔵 Judge Schroeder agrees to allow expert witnesses Dr. Black and Mr. Willis to present their expertise to the court.​
🔵 Judge Schroeder refused to toss the weapons charges, agreeing with Prosecutor Thomas Binger.​
🔵 Mark Richards, defense lawyer for Kyle Rittenhouse, conducted a Daubert Hearing with defense Expert Dr. John Black.​
🔵 Review of the upcoming docket, with the Rittenhouse trial scheduled for November 6th.​
🔵 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://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246​

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​
✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 November 6, 2021 at 7-8 pm 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!​

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 have prosecutors behaving poorly. We've got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called a justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot of news to get into. We're going to start off by talking about attorney general, Merrick Garland. He's leading the DOJ, the department of justice. And very, very interestingly yesterday, he released a new memorandum saying that the FBI and a bunch of other federal agencies can now get involved in the educational upbringing of your children. That's right. You've been hearing a lot on this show and elsewhere that parents are not real happy about what's going on in their local schools. We've talked a lot about the feds coming in and encroaching on basically everything that happens now in American life. And so it's just extending day by day, feds are dipping their dirty little grubby tentacles into everything, including the school's attorney general Merrick Garland had a memo. We're going to go through it had a press release. We're going to go through that. He sent his deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco out there in front of Congress. God asked a question about all this by Josh Holly. So we're going to see what uh , happened there. And so we're going to go through that a little bit. And , um, well, we'll just talk about the federal government encroaching, cause it is something that is going to be with us for the foreseeable future three more years of this stuff. So that's going to be fun. Then we're going to change gears and dig into a little bit of the financial news, because we're like on the verge of a default here in America, which is kind of a big problem , uh, given the fact that they keep spending money and printing money and kind of running out of it. And so Janet Yellen, the treasury secretary, she's out warning, Hey guys, you know, we need more money. So raise the debt limit. And the feds are now talking about possibly possibly printing a $1 trillion coin. So like a coin that might ordinarily have $1 on it. They're just going to put $1 trillion on it. And I'm not joking about this. I'm not making this up. They're actually going to just make a coin that has $1 trillion denomination on it. And they're going to give that over to the fed. And then the fed is going to say, here's a trillion dollars . So we're going to talk about that insane story. It's like monopoly money. It's like a fake country we're living in, but that's going to be fun. And then in our last segment, we're going to save this one for last. So we have a little bit more time on it. Kyle Rittenhouse was back in court today and we it's been a long, long time since we had a real substantive update on this case , uh , because a lot's been going on and he had court, I think it was in September and I was, I couldn't even hardly talk in September. So we're gonna , we're gonna cram a lot in on this Kyle Rittenhouse update. He was in court, not a whole lot of interesting stuff, went down today, but we are hearing from expert witnesses that sound like they're going to be a part of the trial. The trial is coming up in November like November 1st, my goodness. So less than a month away. And we're going to be all over the Kyle Rittenhouse case. So we're going to dig into that. If you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is [email protected] And over there, we have a forum . If you want to ask questions and participate in what we're talking about today, you can use this form and we will get to all your questions. If you can keep them in order that way we can sort of , uh , scoot through them nice and easily. We also have some amazing support over from a YouTube. We've got Diane bees in the house. We have lean shout out. We've got Andrew Richardson, Ronnie Cole playing hooky. We have EJF liens also there. And so they're chatting away having a good time. We're also over on rumble. Roadtrek girl is over on rumble , says smiles from Kentucky. We've got some Kentucky news. We got Mitch McConnell, a clip from him in the show. Cocaine. Mitch is one of his primary opponents called him the turtle. Mitch McConnell will talk about him. And so of course, over on locals, who've got K cell just joined sweet PO T toe . We have three girlies in the house and Avalon acres and many others all over there and watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to get the clips of the show, those are available here. Quick reminder that we're not putting the clips on this channel. So sometimes I know you may be able to pop in for 45 minutes, but you can't stick around for the whole show, which even though it breaks my heart, that's okay. You can go over to the clips channel and just pick up, oh, I missed that segment. So I'll watch that segment. Oh, I missed that set . It's like TiVo for, for the nineties children out there, or it's like the internet. You just go and just click on a video on YouTube. So a very convenient at the clips channel. Be sure to check that out. All right. So enough of that, let's get into the news of the day. Shall we Merrick Garland the attorney general running the department of justice in the United States. And since Biden took office, he's really kind of done a lot of things that empower the DOJ to go out there and start making some changes that might otherwise have to go through Congress, or it might need to be voted on by people, or maybe it's not the federal government's business at all. Regardless, they are sticking their tentacles into these things. And attorney general Merrick Garland has done a lot of it. We've got a slide in this next segment, talking about all the different ways that the federal government has encroached upon local governments. And the list is getting long. I'm going to need another slide here soon. But today we're talking about just one other way that they're doing this specifically by authorizing federal law enforcement officials to go into schools, to go into parent schools. We've been seeing a lot of angry parents upset about their children being taught about a critical race theory. We've seen a lot of angry parents upset about their kids being forced to mask all day. A lot of different COVID precautions that a lot of parents are scratching their heads about wondering how this is good for their kids or how this educational material is good for little Johnny or Sally. And so they're upset about it. They go to the school board meetings and they raise a ruckus there and they say, Hey, I'm tired of this. You're not letting us speak. You are all acting like little mini dictators. And so we're going to make our voices heard. This is local governments taking place locally and the feds don't like that. And so today, actually this was yesterday on Monday, October 4th, the justice department released this press release for immediate release. It says the justice department addresses violent threats against school officials and teachers. And so if you've been with this channel, of course you could have prognosticated this earlier this week or the last week we heard from the department of education secretary Cardona. And he was saying something specifically like, well, you know, parents, aren't really the main stakeholders of their kids' education. And this is something that should be left to, I guess, the teacher's unions. But he was saying, well, we're getting a little bit concerned about these board meetings. People are getting violent, it's getting very dangerous, you know, because , um, uh, he , he didn't mention it, but maybe they weren't wearing their master or something. I don't know. But now FBI, we have 30, we have , uh , 30 days now for federal and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies to address this disturbing trend. He's saying that they're citing an increase in harassment and intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers, and workers in our nation's public schools. That's why attorney general Merrick Garland came out and said that he's directing who is he directing the FBI and the us attorney's offices. So the FBI is like, I kind of like the national police force to some degree and the prosecutors are the us attorney's office. So the police are going to go round them up. The U S attorneys are going to prosecute them. So the DOJ ordering them to meet within the next 30 days to start discussing strategies for addressing this disturbing trend. And so it , you noticed that it's, it's kinda hard to define what that means or what the extent of the, you know, what , what, what this entails, but we'll go through this a little bit further. He says these sessions will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting assessment and response by law enforcement. And so, you know, obviously we don't want anybody, nobody on this show wants threats or intimidation or harassment of law enforcement. I'm sorry of teachers or school board members or workers in our nation's public schools. Nobody's advocating for that. But the problem is we've seen from the byte administration is they have a real difficult time defining their terms for us and the terms continue to change. And we don't really know what the hell they're talking about. So they're talking about harassment and intimidation is that somebody , uh, you know, actually threatening or harassing somebody, is that somebody actually intimidating somebody or is that somebody who's just up there saying, Hey, you know, your policies are stupid and I'm not going to shut up and sit down. I have a right to speak at this meeting. This is a public school. I am a public constituent here. And so I want to make my voice heard. What does that, who defines what that means is that now disorderly conduct is that now a criminal incitement, are you a public nuisance now? W w how are we going to define this? And so what you see oftentimes with big gigantic government bureaucracies, like this is a lot gets lost in the middle. A lot gets lost in the gray area. And it's because it's by design. They get to define their terms, however they want. So now they're going to authorize the FBI, us prosecutor's office, the attorney's office to open dedicated lines of communication. Don't even really know what the strategies are yet for threat reporting and assessment and response by law enforcement. So you might just have a regular parent out there who is speaking up, sharing their opinion about where this should go. And now the FBI is getting called into the frame. They have a quote here from Garland said, threats against public servants are not only illegal. They run counter to our nation's core values, which is the stupidest thing I hear from politicians. That's just not who we are. It's kind of like this administration's motto says those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education and a safe environment to deserve, to be able to do their work without fear for their safety. And I think I don't have kids in the public school system. I don't have kids in general, but they really been getting a proper education these last two years. I mean, I know people with kids and a lot of them have been staying home. A lot of them have been going mass . A lot of them, if they have a sniffle they're , ex-communicated from the schools for a certain period of time, we've got, you know , teachers in total disarray across the place. Some schools are still sort of pseudo open. So not real sure what he's talking about against a proper education ensure anyways. So that's where they're going. He said he wrote a memorandum here, says that they're going to launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days to address the rise in criminal conduct. All right , well, we're going to dig into this memo specifically, see if we can tease out what that means. They're going to create a task force here, representatives from , uh , look at all these different bureaucrats criminal division of the national security division, the civil rights division, the executive offices for the U S attorneys, the FBI, the community relations service, the office of justice programs, which are just like, you know , uh , six different agencies, too many. And they're going to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes and ways to assist all the local governments where threats of violence may not constitute federal crimes. So it's sort of, we're going to get involved in your business when it's criminal. I'll also, we're going to get involved in your business even when it's not criminal. And they're going to use all of these different executive agencies to do that. The, all these different divisions of the , uh , of the department of justice, all of them, bup, bup, bup, bup, community relations, executive office, civil rights, division, national security, division, criminal D you know, the whole thing goes those from top to bottom. And so we've been talking about this a lot. We've got let's, let's finish this before we jump into the next slide, they're going to create specialized training guidance for local schools and school administrators. It's going to help school board members and other potential victims. Now. So people who are kind of doing their job right, isn't that what a board is for to , to sit around and do meetings and take public comment on and take motions. And , uh, do I have a first for that one anyway , any motion to adjourn my motion to adjourn? Or do you have somebody else? Okay. But I second that, and then everybody votes on it in the whole , it , that's what this is for. It's all to have opportunities for the public to listen in and come in and , and chime in on their opinion. But they're already calling these people, these, these board members potential victims. Okay. And they want to understand the type of behavior that constitutes threats, how to report it, how to capture and preserve evidence of the threatening conduct to aid in the investigation and the prosecution of these crimes. So again, very little definitions about anything, what constitutes criminal behavior, but they're gearing up. They've already got the victims labeled, and they've already got a prosecution , uh , sort of aim well underway. It says threats of violence against school board members report all that stuff over to the FBI. And , uh , they're going to take a good look at it. They're very busy still with the where's Waldo game that they're playing as a result of the January six protestors . But they've got more time, I guess, now to go to go and investigate those parents, those dang parents who just care about their kids. Good thing. The FBI is all over that. Yeah. All right . So now we've talked about a lot of these different federal encroachments. We've talked time and again, about issues that are best to resolve in my opinion, locally, where they involve local people and local money and local issues, local populations. And we've talked repeatedly that since the Biden administration took over, we've been seeing various federal entities just sort of deciding that's not a local issue anymore. That's our issue. That's, that's our business. And we're going to go in there and we're going to take that over , uh , whether you like it or not. Some of these we've talked about here on the show, you see this list over here, we've got a big one schools in masking, the department of education and the treasury department member. This guy, Dr. Miguel card , Donna talked about him. He's over with the department of education. And this came about when Ron DeSantis came out and said specifically , uh , no mass mandates, you know, none of these vacs pass , none of that nonsense. And if you do it, we're going to defund you. Well, guess what happened? Well, the civil rights division over with the department of justice through the department of education said that we're going to go and investigate you if you're doing those things. And also we're going to just refund you. We're going to take the federal government money. And DeSantis is going to defund the schools that are in violation of local law. But the federal government is just going to say, oh, no problem. We're going to pay for that. We got it covered. And where does that money come from? Yeah. From Florida from the same citizens. So they're taxing their own people. And the people are deciding that they don't want local. They want local laws in place to protect their local interest . And the fed say, well, we don't care about that. And so , uh , good luck to you . So that's what happened with the schools in masking. Of course, we talked a lot about the CDC saying that it's our property. Now it's not your property. Now that was under Dr. Rochelle will Lensky . She , she came up with this brilliant idea said that this the COVID coronavirus is so dangerous. That property rights, they just have to be put on hold. So we saw that happen with evictions and property for many, many months until the Supreme court finally did something about it. Very recently, the executive branch came out and said, all public employees, everybody in the military, we see that they're all going to be mandated to get the vaccine. So the executive branch, just through executive order did that. They mandated it privately though using the department of labor and some very obscure OSHA standards that said, well, even if you're not a federal public employee, then , um , you know, ordinarily, you wouldn't be covered by our public mandates, but you are now because we're going to use OSHA. And we're just going to go pick this very obscure ruling. This really obscure opinion, that was sort of never really implemented when it was, it was overturned in the courts, but we're going to use that now to concoct this new structure, this new framework to impose mandates across the entire country for anybody that has an , a company over a hundred employees, which is a lot of companies out there covers, as Biden was saying something like 80 to a hundred million people. Very interesting. If you were going to do something like that, that's going to impact a third or fourth of the country. You think you maybe want a little bit more of a constitutional underpinning there, but not for this administration. They're the executive branch. They just say, it's our world. Now those are our laws. Now we're going to interpret those, however, the hell we want to. And they did. And so they pass that private mandate. We're also seeing the department of justice go bananas over election rules. We see Texas passing their , their laws. And now the DOJ is saying, well, oh , not so fast. We're going to come in and investigate that that's election rolls , gun laws, same thing. They went , poked their head around in Missouri and said, you can't pass laws like you did. Missouri said, we sure as hell can they did it. And the DOJ said them a very sternly worded letter. We're angry about this. And we're going to do something if you enforce it against our federal agents. So we'll see where that goes. We recently seen the department of justice reproductive issues. Now they're very nasty letter over from Eric Garland. And here we now see added to the list. And as you can see my friends, I'm literally running out of room on this slide, but now we've got the department of justice weighing in on educational decisions for the youth, for the youth out there, all the young as rush Limbaugh used to say skulls full of mush out there that need to be highly educated, man. They are now going to be educated, not by you, not locally, not by your local school boards that have parental oversight. We're going to be just kind of having the federal government step in and take control of this stuff. This is the official memo. A lot of this is going to be sort of a repeat from what we've already talked about, but you can see the official document here , uh , office of the attorney general in Washington, DC, October 4th, yesterday, FBI. This is going to executive office for the us attorney's office. And we've got Merritt Garland's name right here. You can see he's signed on it. Usually he'll have Lisa Monaco that his deputy sign there, but that's him subject a partnership among federal state, local tribal and territorial law enforcement to address threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. And so we'll see if this memo defines what the hell. That means, what is a threat , uh , or how they're going to take this entire memorandum apart and actually apply it. We'll see if we can get to that, but it's a partnership. You see that it's just, we're going to total agreement. Everybody in Florida and elsewhere around the world is really thrilled that the feds are going to come in there and just stick their noses into all of their private business. Is that, how is that how this is working or is this sort of a , um, a deal that the feds are imposing right there, like Darth Vader to some degree? So it says in recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers , staff, doing the vital work of running the schools. While they say a spirited debate about policy members matters is protected by the constitution. That protection does not extend a threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. How do you decide what that is? What is intimidation of individuals at a board meeting? I mean, isn't that kind of what you're talking about at the board meeting? It's saying, Hey, dummies on the board, I'm a voter. I have children in this school, myself, and 200 other parents around me. We're all taking a look at what you're doing. And we're saying that you're all incompetent. And we don't like this direction. Is that intimidation? I mean, kind of, right. It's kind of intimidating somebody to say, you're going to lose your job. If you don't do what we ask you to do. And we are the voters, we ha we pull the levers in the, in the polling booths and we have a lot of at stake here. And so we're going to come here and it's our kids at stake. And so we're going to come express our opinions. Is that intimidation? Well, it probably is. As long as it is sort of against critical race theory, if it's pro critical race theory, then I'd guess you'd probably in the clear on that one. But if you're going to be challenging, critical race theory, or if you're going to be challenging, whatever the byte administration's narrative is, well, then that just might be intimidation or harassment or a threat of some particular kind of violence who knows. Let's see what else he says to see if we can figure out what he's talking about. He says threats against public service got that one. The department takes these incidents seriously, what incidents he's committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur and prosecute them when appropriate. So it's going to not only chill the speech here, meaning that these people, you know, people are not going to want to go and speak out because of this. In the coming days, the department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct. Alright , directed at school personnel coordination partnership. We're going to have these implemented across 14,000 public schools. I am directing the FBI, working with each us attorney to convene with local leaders. Within 30 days, these meetings are gonna facilitate different strategies and open lines of communication. The department is steadfast in its commitment to protect all people from violence, threats of violence and forms of intimidation and harassment. So just a beautiful, gigantic broad statement that doesn't really define any of the criminal conduct at all. And there's a problem when that happens. It's sort of saying, you know, if you, if, if you do anything it's illegal and so what does that mean? It means you , well, it , it , you really don't know what conduct is being defined in there. It's just kind of everything. And if you can't really define the conduct, well, that's a problem because you can't govern yourself in order to avoid breaking the law. And so in this case, what you have is sort of a very loose statement from the DOJ saying specifically that this is now disfavored and it might even be illegal or criminal. I guess if you go speak at a school intimidation, harassment, threats of violence don't know what that means, but it's very broad covers. A lot of conduct. What I probably also covers in here, as we're going to see is a lot of protected, purely constitutional non-criminal conduct. And it's this memo is going to overlap all of that. And it's going to chill that speech. Now, people who might otherwise think about going to one of these meetings probably are not going to go to the one of the meetings because they don't want to get prosecuted by the department of justice. They don't want the FBI knocking on their doors. They don't want to be sort of rounded up like they did with the January six protesters and shove everybody in a DC solitary confinement camp for the next six months. They don't want that. And so they're just going to say, well, you know, what are we going to do about this? Maybe nothing, which is exactly what they want. Now, Lisa Monaco is the deputy attorney general. She was in front of Congress today in front of Josh Holly . And she got a question about this. Let's listen in and she would see what she has to say about it. Here is Lisa Monaco at local

Speaker 2:

School board meetings. Let me just ask you, this is parents waiting sometimes for hours to speak at a local school board meeting to express concerns about critical race theory or the masking of their students, particularly young children is that in and of itself is that harassment and intimidation is waiting to express one's view at a school board meeting harassment and intimidation.

Speaker 3:

As the attorney General's memorandum made quite clear, spirited debate is welcome is a hallmark of this country. Um , it's something we all should.

Speaker 2:

No, I don't think so. Ms . Monica, with all due respect, it didn't make it quite clear. It doesn't define those terms nor does it define harassment or intimidation. It talks about violence. I think we can agree that violence shouldn't be condoned or looked aside from in any way swept under the rug at all, but harassment and intimidation. What do those terms mean in the context of a local school board meeting? I mean, this seems to, in the first amendment context, we talk about the chill , the chill to speech. If this isn't a deliberate attempt to chill parents from showing up at school board meetings for their elected school boards , I don't know what it is. I mean, I'm not, I'm not aware of anything like this in American history. We're talking about the FBI, you're using the FBI to intervene in school board meetings. This extraordinary

Speaker 3:

Sarah , I have to respectfully disagree. That is not

Speaker 2:

Point me to an instance,

Speaker 3:

The attorney General's memorandum , um, made quite clear that , um , violence is not appropriate spirited, public debate on a whole range of issues is absolutely what this country is all about. Um, What it is , it is not when in if , um, any , um, uh, situation turns to violence, then that is the appropriate role of law enforcement to address it.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Right. Which is, which is the current situation, right? If one of these things were to turn violent, presumably law enforcement would be there to take care of it. When they they've got local police, they've got local prosecutors, they've got local, everybody to go and stop these types of things from happening. What the hell does the FBI need to get involved in this for? She doesn't answer that. And he says, it sounds like you're gonna be sending the FBI to get involved with school boards. As we literally just read FBI and all of the other useless agencies that are part of the DOJ and the executive branch are all going to be working on this and they're going to be available. And they're going to prosecute and investigate any of these , uh , threats or claims, harassment and intimidation. Nobody knows what they're, what they mean, what those definitions are. And when she's asked about it specifically, I respectfully disagree. We , we encourage public debate, but not the harassing kind at the school board meeting. Now a little bit pathetic. I got to say from the DOJ to send out Lisa Monaco, Merrick Garland signed that letter. Why is he not out there answering these questions? He sort of just sends his deputies out there. You signed off that, that stupid thing. So where are you at? Why aren't you out there? Why do you send your , uh , your second in command to go answer those questions pretty lame. But , uh , that doesn't, it's not surprising at all at sort of par for the course got some reaction from around the country. Ron DeSantis is out here saying attorney general Garland is weaponizing the DOJ by using the FBI to pursue concerned parents and silence them through intimidation. Florida will defend the free speech rights of its citizens will not allow federal agents to squelch dissent. So good for him on that. Yeah. Federal agents coming into your local schools. Cause they don't like what the parents are saying about , uh , their curriculum, about their mandates, about their support. Literally every single lever that the feds have in order to seize control of the narrative. Even in local states, they're certainly doing it. That was Ron DeSantis. Joe Kent is actually not in Congress, but he's running. And I really like a lot of what I'm hearing from this guy. He said that ag Garland should be called to the floor of Congress to explain why he's using federal law enforcement to intimidate law, abiding citizens. It says dismantling the national security state is essential for the preservation of our nation, but it doesn't seem like that's happening. Does it? It seems like it's kind of going the other direction. The department of justice is encroaching on all these different areas. We have the Capitol hill police they're setting up offices all around the country. FBI is now going into schools and we're talking about homegrown, domestic, violent extremism. We're talking about , uh, you know, race, racial extremism, and all sorts of different violence, violent extremism. And it sounds like the national security state is sort of coalescing, but it's not to protect America from an outsider. It's to protect America, I guess, from America, from other good Americans who don't like dictate a dictatorial, bureaucratic governments. So that's from Joe Kens , Ted Cruz also chimed in on this. It says at his confirmation hearing Merrick Garland promised not to follow the Obama model of weaponizing, the DOJ to target and persecute his political opponents just months in he's already breaking that promise. Yeah. And he started a long time ago. So let's jump into some questions here [email protected] Let's see what we've got coming in over here. A former Elio is starting to soft says , uh , just taking an overview of the bite administration. If there weren't the government, there would have been a Rico investigation. So when the government's involved in a criminal enterprise who investigates and who prosecutes serious doubts, that my country will still exist in three more years of this corrupt administration, even if Republicans take control of everything, well , we still have an administration that has nothing but contempt for the constitution and the rule of law. I, I largely agree with that former Elio , right ? I don't see anybody in the Republican camp that's going to come in here and reverse course. They all were basically asking for many of the same things over the last 18 months. So I don't have a lot of hope in them. Monster. One says so glad that the FBI is investigating these domestic terrorists. Wouldn't want these parents disrupting the BLM or the Antifa riots. That's a great point from monster one. You got to really focus on the most hardened criminals out there. And obviously, you know, Johnny and Sally's parents they're out of control. So yeah, the FBI, you know, this, this is even more serious than the January 6th insurrection that almost stole America monster. One says so glad that we don't have any mean tweets anymore. Wonder if the Biden voters think it was worth it. I know a lot of the Biden voters and so far, they do not think it was worth it. Perry masonary says didn't know that the parents legitimately concerned about their children's education or the new domestic terrorists guess they are getting in the way of the children being brainwashed with Marxist propaganda when it does all this fed overreach end , probably not any time soon. I actually think that things will probably get worse before they get better, because a lot of people are still stuck in their complacency. They're still sort of fearful about, you know, their own, their own shadows. And so government is promising the protection. It's, it's relieving them of the necessity to think for themselves. They have an opportunity to self identify with a cause that gives them all sorts of meaning. And so I think that a lot of people are going to live in that little bubble for the foreseeable future. It's going to take something, smacking them in the head, like empty store shelves again, or like a , uh , a dollar that has the bottom fall out of it. I don't know, but it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. D rod says when dealing with a Democrat or a liberal or liberal harassment or domestic terrorism is simply not agreeing with the liberals. If you don't agree, you are a threat and that's why you need the FBI to come make sure that you get sent to a reeducation camp. I'm not gas as a bit unrelated, but you notice how the Facebook whistleblower that is being thrown around everywhere is basically arguing for more censorship. Weird. The whistleblower is working to empower the Facebook to restrict our speech further. Yeah. And I haven't, I haven't really taken a deep dive into that yet. The whole thing sort of just looked at first glance, sort of like, it's just been concocted, right? You have this weird Facebook whistleblower who's going to come out in the Facebook is helping the Trumpers out there. And then you have calls for more online censorship from this whistleblower. And isn't she , she was her family is like connected to the attorneys who were working on the impeachment or something like that. The whole thing, even the , the Q and a that I was watching, I watched a little clip on Twitter of that Q and a, some senators like walking her through a direct examination, like a lawyer would do, right. It's like, oh, a prosecutor to a police officer. And what'd you do next? Well, I , uh , read him his rights. Oh, you did. And you read the whole thing, the whole thing directly from the card. All right. And after that, did you , uh, uh, you know, take him down to the station? Sure did. And you put them in the station, you locked them up , uh , perfectly clean, follow the procedures of what nuts and bolts you read him . His , uh , advisement. Yes. I did follow everything by the book. It was that type of language back and forth. Senator it called response, call response, call response. Like this whole thing is fake as hell. What is she talking about? All right. That was from, I'm not gas lean over on YouTube says that , uh, maybe I'll take a deeper dive on that. We will. Um, I'll take a look at it, but that's sort of my first take on it. We have somebody named Nick on here with a very inappropriate name, says something. Uh , uh, doesn't it seem scary that the FBI is getting involved. That first of all, this name got me the last time and I'm not going to let it get me again. Doesn't it seem scary that the FBI is getting involved in matters of public schools just a few years ago. This would have been unheard of or seen as satire. Yeah, it it's. It's insane that you have federal law enforcement agencies being dictated by the department of justice to go into local schools and start investigating parents. I mean, look, even if you are like a rabbit, anti-Trump okay. If Donald Trump did this, if Donald Trump said, listen, you know , um , we're going to send all, we're going to send FBI agents into your local schools because parents are upset that we're teaching , uh , Trump university materials or something like that, right. People will be freaked out about it. They'd say he's a dictator in a tyrant because it's insane to send the FBI into local schools. All right , Dianne Feinstein's wrinkly fun bags. Oh gosh. It's pretty sad. How the Biden ministration just keeps on encroaching on rights of Americans. And we're not even one year into his presidency. No, we got a whole, we got like, like three fourths of a term left. Three girlies is here, says Cardona is an idiot. What the hell? The parents aren't the primary stakeholders. Whatever happened to the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, whatever happened to local control over local school boards, whatever happened to what isn't given to the federal government remains with the states. It seems like the DOJ, the department of education and the Biden admin are stepping all over the bill of rights. At the girlies charter school. We have guardians of steel, which is a meeting for parents to express any concerns. They have. We have a meeting that's coming up on the 13th. The guardians of steel is a group in addition to the PTO and every school that I have had my girlies in beg for parent involvement. I don't understand schools that don't want the parents involved. First Gavin Newsome advocates for school choice. Now Biden admin has shown why school choice is necessary. I have a funny feeling. A lot of parents will be running for school board positions. If the little tyrants in charge, can't listen to what the parents are saying. That is from three girlies in the house. Great comment as always grateful that you're here, three girls , and for sharing your experience, it sounds pretty awesome. Like the guardians of steel, you know , I don't have any kids, but if there was a group called guardians of steel, I mean, kinda might want to join that group. That sounds like amazing work. So thank you for sharing. And for being here, we've got monster. One says, what do people expect in a world where speech is considered violence? Burning businesses is PE it's peaceful. It's 1984. We need to make Orwell fiction again, put that on a hat. We have Greg Waratahs here says, Hey, Rob, this is related to the yesterday segment that David Pac-Man a moderate left channel just did a poll recently had 26,000 people vote on the following question. Following Kiersten cinema into the bathroom was one necessary. The only way to confront her 41% of the audience , uh , number two says totally fine, but it looked bad 15%. So that puts that number at 56%. The majority say, it's okay to do it. I don't know, 9% a step too far, 36%. So the majority of the moderate left, it seems like this is going to be the norm going forward in leftist, protesting that's from Greg Morat. Uh , and Greg is over from Australia. And so he was , uh , over on our, our monthly meetup has sharing with us prognosticating a little bit about maybe what is coming down the pike for the rest of us around the world. And we saw that at Kiersten cinema yesterday got accosted in the toilet dinner business, washed her hands and got out of there to her credit. I mean, I got to take my hat off to her on that one. Pretty amazing. But here, what we're seeing is that many Democrats are saying that's perfectly okay. And cinema got accosted again on an airplane. I think that was today flying back over to DC. Literally, it sounds like they were on the air, like in the air, you have some immigrants or migrants complaining about, you know, whatever she's complaining about, walks up to her. She's sitting in an aisle seat and she's like , uh , uh , uh, Senator , uh, now's the appropriate time to have a conversation with you about immigration policy on the middle of this aircraft. And I mean, it's like, if that were a Trumper going after any Democrats, it'd be like, oh, it's an insurrection. This guy's a , an insane lunatic. And we have to take his guns away and lock him up and you'd have a bunch of DC judges just say , I can't believe that happened. This is outrageous. I mean, you can just look at the , oh my gosh. It's it's insane. All right . Thank you for that, Greg. Follow up on the cinema story. Monster one says intimidation. You mean like following a woman into the bathroom? No, that's not intimidation. That's just part of the process. According to Joe Biden, it's the new normal in America. The DOB says the feds don't have jurisdiction over local schools. Do they? They do now because Joe Biden said, so Merrick Garland said so. And so they're now authorized now to form a partnership in the dark. It's just a partnership with local schools. And so even if there are jurisdictional problems, you know, if it's a threat against a local official, this could be a threat against the government. And so you never know where that goes. You got to bring the FBI in to investigate it. Do you think that they're going to care about a little thing? Like jurisdiction? No, don't be silly. That's for the defense lawyers to deal with later down the road, ghost gunner says, Rob, this is clearly clearly intimidation because they didn't mention that it happened in a bathroom. We covered this yesterday. It's not intimidation. If you threatened to vote people out, if it takes place inside of a restroom. Oh yeah, that's right. Yeah. This administration is the dictatorship. They were all screaming. That Trump was. Yeah. It's not intimidation. If you threatened to vote people out, if it takes place inside of a restaurant, it's a great idea. Yeah. All political protests should be inside bathrooms. Now it's fair game. It's just part of the process. Yeah. I like that. Brilliant. That's from ghost gunner. A few more. We've got Nadler's belly up. Just so I have this straight. He says yelling at a school board for teaching kids. They're either born racist or oppressed as bad, but yelling at a Senator while she's trying to use the bathroom is good. Okay. Got it. That's Natalie's belly. It's. It's developing its own conscience. Now we have soul Viking says once again, Ms . Monaco getting a bit of extra pressure and FaceTime. Interesting. Again, makes a person wonder why. Yeah. Why is Monaco out there all the time? It's Garland's memo. Why isn't he out there talking about it? Leaves it up to her. Sergeant. Bob is here, says prior comments comparing to Nazi. Germany are not so far fetched . I don't disagree. Sergeant Bob don't disagree for a minute. You know, in 2019, you know, the Nazi comparisons were all like, again, really? But now in 2021, it's like, yeah, that makes sense. I see it. Thunder seven says violence only allowed with the lunatic left Antifa BLM, Trump haters. They can burn the country down. Riot, kill plunder, pillage, most peaceful, chaos and killings. But if a Republican or anyone opposes the Marxist agenda in a peaceful way, they're deemed a terrorist and violent criminals. How much longer will this madness continue? Uh , probably at least until, you know , 20, 24. I'd say, because they're in charge until that time we have another one from J Heath says this administration never ceases to amaze me. The most terrifying part is we still have more than three years left. How much more damage are they going to cause this country, grandma beware the FBI. They're coming for you. Yeah. Grandma's in deep trouble. We have another one. Sweet PO Taito says , um , this is terrifying. Next we'll probably ban homeschooling . So all kids have to get Vaxxed and be the subject, whatever they want to teach them. I would guess that is coming at some point, right? It will be. They're going to have to reconvene and get control over the homeschoolers because the homeschoolers are not following the rules. So we'll see where that goes a few more before we take a look at what's happening on YouTube and rumble. And of course, locals DOB says, I'm seeing a lot of people ask when will this end or when will that end? It will end when you and enough people like you say, so no one is coming to save us. We have to stand up for herself. Every time you give an inch, like putting your mask on to go inside a gas station, they're going to take a mile and expect a thank you says stand up. That's from the dark. And I totally agree . And it's hard. That's why people like me have been screaming about this stuff from day one, because we knew it was never going to stop here. That was a great comment. We have a few more monster. One says in response to three girlies, these school boards do want parents' input. Just the leftist ones. All right. So yeah, just the leftist ones. It has to be your, the approved messaging. If it's unapproved. Well, we don't want that here. That's illegal. We have Kiersten cinemas in the house. That's these activists. I need to go away from them. I'm changing my name to Kiersten cinema. Like the movie theater, like Harkins or AMC we have in the dark says, remember the nominee. They nominated this man for the Supreme court that should tell you everything you need to know about the true intentions of the party. Yeah. He could have been doing this all all from the bench. Diane Dianne Feinstein's dirty diaper and Natalie's dirty diaper say we just had a baby. So they , they didn't have a total that they're now , uh , cognizant they're alive. And they're procreating. This is like, this is like the new version of Godzilla it's coming out of the sea of Congress. Just take over the world. Uh, Kenny one B says the FBI are the Biden's secret police. Good to see you, Kenny. One B over on YouTube, Texas, shout out a super chat. It says, Rob is Rob is my, the teacher's unions to stop parents from going after the school board. The teachers' unions. Yeah, probably right. The teacher's unions have a lot of control in this country. Everybody basically knows that the Biden administration does whatever they tell them to do. And so, yeah, maybe this was some pushback from them. We heard from Dr. Cardona department of education was also very upset about this. You know, we got to go after a mom and dad because they're angry. We have Josh, oh my gosh is here, says I'm going to go hold a school board meeting and declare myself king of learning. And anyone who speaks out against me is a bad guy, silly peasants. It's a good strategy. You know, the self identification strategy. I think it's pretty invoke right now. A lot of people are doing it. And so that's not a bad one . That's not a bad strategy at all. Over on Twitch. We had existential flow, followed us over there, getting a nice little audience over there on YouTube. I see, excuse me. Lean , chatting away. Sarah Brown Zulus in the house. We've got Renee , we've got playing hooky , K being over on rumble. We got some, some activity in the chat over there. Shout outs to Raven. Kraft says how you feeling , Robert? You don't . I'm about 95%. I still have a little bit of the, kind of the leftovers in the chest, but I'm pretty much back in business. The big, beautiful spotlight it's kind of working again. I'm happy about it. Also shout out to road Trek. Girl says that the rumble channel was at the top of my feet today. First time ever. Good job. We must be getting some momentum there on the algorithm over on rumble. And so check us out there certainly. And once again, always appreciate all your support from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for those great questions. All right. And so we're gonna move on into the next segment. What else are we talking about? Oh, that's right. We have , uh, some financial news to talk about. Take a look at this here first, before we get into it. All right . So we're going to get into the debt limit. Oh yeah. It's going to be a good one. The us financial situation, not looking so good. The debt limit kind of an important thing. Seems like it's right around the corner. In fact, they're talking about like 10 days from now, October 15th, October 18th, don't really have a good day in set in stone on when the U S is a credit card is going to max out. And all of those prior obligations are going to become due. And the U S might default don't have a specific day on that. They don't, they don't have the best bookkeepers over there, but it's coming up coming up soon. And the U S has to do something about this. Otherwise you sort of default on that debt and you could land yourself in a big Nadler's diaper. If you're thinking about it, this is what the chart looks like over from Bloomberg. We've talked about this chart previously, the U S total debt. You can see here in whites , the U S debt limit. You can see here in yellow and you'll notice that they sort of will sort of follow each other, right? The yellow, we see go up in these little stairsteps and every time it goes up, the bureaucrats in Washington, they keep spending just goes up and up and up and up. And every time the debt gets raised, oh, the total debt goes up to match that. And then we have these little periods where it sort of is , you know, kind of , uh , neck and neck with it. But now what we see is that they are converging again. The U S debt is about to hit the U S debt limits. And so what happens when that happens? Nothing good. Uh , at least according to the people in charge treasury secretary, Janet Yellen says that this is going to cause irreparable harm. She's warning her pants off this woman over here is talking to a lot of the bureaucrats over in DC saying that if they fail to meet its debt obligations, there's going to be irreparable damage remarks where the latest in the series of dire warnings that Yellen issued as Congress remains deadlock . She said that the government will run out of cash around October 18th, unless Congress raises the federal debt. Currently it's capped at 28.4 trillion, which is a pretty big credit card bill tab , $28.4 trillion. She says after that date, the treasury would be in a simply an impossible situation. We won't be able to pay all of the government's bills, which is not a good thing because the U S has a lot of those bills to pay. And they're trying to tack on some more bills too. And it's something trillion over here. 1.9 trillion over there, whatever it is, a lot of money being printed and spent, and nobody wants to pay for it. Joe Biden was out yesterday upset about this as to the American people. I say this, tell us, Joe, as soon as this week, your savings and your pocket book could be directly impacted by this Republican stunt to block us from raising the debt limit. It's flat out dangerous. He says they need to stop playing Russian roulette with the U S economy. And so what we're going to see here is yet again, just a , another political story as this always is. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this stupid story come through. That goes up. Oh, freaking out. Everybody freaks out about the debt limit. And it's always political partisan nonsense. We just heard about this, like two weeks ago, right? When they were , uh , Elizabeth Warren was out here, the Republicans, we played it on the show and the Republicans came out, oh, it's the Democrats. And around and around, we go and tell guests what happens. Something works out. Something gets done. They raise the debt limit. And the disgusting federal government continues to lurch on like a dying cow. It's just the worst thing in America, but it continues on indefinitely. And here's Nancy Pelosi, ranting and raving about it here. It says when Donald Trump was in office, Republicans raised the debt limit three times and they had democratic support today. Republicans led by Mitch McConnell are refusing to raise it, even though they're responsible for more than 8 trillion incurred during Trump. Right? And so that's the game that goes back and forth. Well, Trump did that spending. So the Republican should help pay for that. The Republicans are now saying, oh , we're not going to pay for it because the Republicans and they're going to oppose the Democrats. Like it's like a shock every time this happens and the Republicans are in charge and the Democrats are going to oppose it. And everybody's shocked about it. It's like, oh my gosh, wow, nobody can get along in Washington, DC because it's all political footballs are just kicking back and forth to each other. Now that being said, leader McConnell here wrote a pretty nice letter, said that , uh , I'm going to send this over to Biden. Here's our position on the debt limit office of the Republican leader. He says, listen, Joe Biden for many years, our working relationship has been defined not only by our strong disagreements, but also a mutual transparency and respectful candor. Oh , that's nice. So he writes in this spirit to express that our nation is sleepwalking towards a significant and avoidable danger because of confusion from the house speaker, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer over in the Senate. So since mid July Republicans like may have clearly stated the Democrats need to raise the debt limit on their own all year. Your party has chosen to pursue staggering quotes . Transformational. Look at that. It's beautiful word. Spending through the unprecedented use of party line reconciliation process Democrats inherited bipartisan trends from COVID relief to appropriations, but have chosen to govern alone. Even now with Americans already facing painful inflation, Democrats are preparing another staggering taxing and spending spree without any Republican input or support bipartisanship, he says is not a light switch that speaker Pelosi and leader Schumer may flip onto borrow money, and then flip off to spend it. Republicans are simple here. We have no list of demands for two and a half months. We've simply warned you that since your party wishes them to govern alone, it must be you that handles the debt limit alone, as well as you know, and I know from our time in the Senate for 400 years, this is not unusual. The debt limit is often a partisan vote during times of unified government. In 2003, 2004, 2006 Biden, you joined Senate Democrats and opposing debt limit increases and you made Republicans do it ourselves. It sounds like what's good for the goose is good for the Gander. Joe , you explained on the Senate floor that your no votes did not mean you wanted the majority to let the country default, but rather that the president's party had responsibility for a policy agenda, which you opposed your view then is our view now, oh, he's doing the old topsy turvy, flipping that sob around him and sending it right back over to Joe Biden, which is always how these things work. Right? Because when you've been in Congress or been in the government for 37 million years, then you're going to have necessarily any series of votes that any one of your political opponents can just take out and use in very narrow, limited context for your own benefit. Mitch, McConnell's doing a masterful job here. He's very effective. He's good at doing it. That's why he's the leader of the Senate and the Republicans. He says there is just one difference between then and now leader Schumer requested and won a new powers to repeatedly use the fast track party line reconciliation process. As a result, Senate Democrats do not need Republican cooperation. Anyway, Democrats do not need our consent to set a vote at 51 instead of 60, they can do it. Nonpartisan experts confirm the Democrats have every tool to pass a standalone debt limit, increase through reconciliation, and they got enough time to do it. As I've warned for months, this is the path they will need to take. Congressional Democrats have wasted weeks. Mr. President, as you know, as a Senate veteran, it's not an excuse. Republicans will not build a speaker Pelosi and Schumer, a shortcut around procedural hurdles . Hurdles gotta do it on your own. I've conveyed this to everybody, your lieutenants leader, Schumer and speaker Pelosi, but they're not accepting reality. Your majority have no plans of their own to avoid a default. On Thursday, we narrowly avoided the shutdown by a few hours. The American people could not afford the same rudderless drift towards danger because of you. Your lieutenants in Congress must understand that you do not want them to sleepwalk towards an avoidable catastrophe. They've had three months notice to do their job signed off on by Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican leader, which is a nice letter from Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. So he sent that over there to the white house saying we're not helping at all. We're not going to help it's on your own. You want to spend America into oblivion, do it yourselves, raise the debt limit. Of course it's all political nonsense. I get, I totally get it. And when the Republicans are in charge, the Democrats are going to do it and guess what? They should do it because that's what this stuff is for. We, my, my personal perspective on this is anything that sort of slows the churning gears of government in particular, when it comes to spending in debt. That's kind of the only thing that gums up that mucks us up is the political partisanship. Otherwise, both of these knuckleheads would be spending all day long, every single stinking day. The only thing that stops them from spending is the political partisan gridlock. So yeah , more, let's get more of that, but it's all going to get resolved as is usually the case. Now here , uh , even though Mitch McConnell came out and said, you're on your own senators, good luck to you here. We have Schumer. Who's going to force a vote anyways. So , uh , this week, it sounds like they're going to be forcing a vote to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans of course are not going to vote. He says, he's going to tee up another ill-fated vote on waiving the debt limit, not raising it, like waving it, attempting to shame Republicans for blocking this. Another failed vote could come on Thursday. It worries economists it worries. Wall street investors. There's a so-called X date coming up around October 18th, which is soon 13 days. It says, let me be clear about the task ahead of us. This is Schumer. We must get a bill to the president's desk, dealing with the debt limit by the end of the week, that's this week period. He says he threatens to work through the weekend, or he's going to cancel next week's recess. If it doesn't end up in Biden's hands, we don't have the luxury of waiting until October 18th. It could be disastrous for American families raising the cost of borrowing hampering, our economic recovery over the longterm . So we'll see if this goes anywhere. Uh, we've got a quote here from Mitch McConnell now explaining to Chuck Schumer that this you're on your own on this fellas. Here he is.

Speaker 4:

Well, good afternoon, everyone on the reckless tax and spending bill it's pretty clear. The president has picked a side. He signed up with a progressive, came up and tanked his own infrastructure bill. And as a result of that, they've obviously taken a one month pause, which leads me to addressing the debt ceiling. I said in July, I said in August, I said in September, there's a clear path to achieve raising the debt ceiling, which must happen. America must not ever default and doing it with Democrats only during the previous reconciliation, they got a ruling from the parliamentarian that it's possible to amend the budget resolution. It's called a 3 0 4 process. They've had plenty of time to execute the debt ceiling increase and have chosen not to do it. Now they have plenty more time because clearly the pause button has been pushed on the larger reckless toxin spending bill. I implore them one more time, not to play Russian roulette with the American economy. We've been down this path before, when you did not have divided government and the party and the majority got the job done, they need to do this. They have the time to do it. And the sooner they get about it, the better to make sure the markets and the American people know that as usual, the American government will never, ever default.

Speaker 1:

All right. So that's, that's the turtle. That's cocaine, Mitch, somebody on YouTube says, it sounds like he's got marbles in his mouth, which is a very good synopsis of that. And, and so that's Mitch McConnell, you know , we'll see what he does. I really, really doubt that , uh, all of these people are going to let the U S government default because they have a very strong vested interest in making sure that they don't lose America. Now, even though we've got, you know, guys like Mitch McConnell on this, we've got Nancy Pelosi, she's all over it. We've got Chuck Schumer all over it. We still need to hear from the president. Don't we we'd hear the president he's out there. And he is somebody who is grabbing the bull by the horns. He's going to solve this thing for us. In fact, he was out traveling the country. He was in Michigan , uh , talking about infrastructure, talking about these spending bills and explaining why we have to get this done. Otherwise we're gonna lose our edge as a nation. I mean, we have to raise our debts. We got it . We have COVID economic recovery. We've got a $3.5 trillion bill that apparently caused $0. We've got a lot of stuff here that needs to get done in order for the recovery to continue. And so Joe Biden is out there just selling it and he's out there just making sure that good old Americans, everyday Americans across this country are in touch with what is happening on the ground. And he was telling us a story about his grandpa today. Let's see if you can glean something from this.

Speaker 5:

Theoretically, when you build a charging station is like back in the day. When my grandpa worked for the male granola company, back in the turn of us in the 19, not 1920 in that area, they went from state to state convincing people that they put . They allow them to put 20,000 gallons of gasoline under the ground. They didn't want them around, but

Speaker 1:

Okay. So we're , uh, we're doomed , uh , American, the American economy is in a , in deep trouble. Fortunately, even though Joe Biden doesn't know where he is or what he's talking about or what he's doing, we still have to , uh, hand it to some people over at the treasury department. They have a plan for us and they're going to solve all of these debt problems. It's actually very simple. I'm kind of shocked. I didn't think about this myself because this solves a lot of problems. All they're going to do is just mint, new currency. And it's going to be in the version of a coin and it's going to be worth $1 trillion here. You can see this as a potential version of the coin. Trillion dollar platinum coin could be minted at the last minute. And like, this might actually sound like a joke. Like, what do you mean? Like, they're just going to print. Like this would be like printing out like a dollar bill that says , uh , $1 trillion with many, many, many zeros on there and they just print it and they just say, oh, this is worth a trillion dollars. Now, here you go. This is a plan from our , our government. Like not a joke here. It is from Axios. A trillion dollar platinum coin could be minted within hours of the treasury secretary's decision to do so. This comes over from Philip Diehl , a former director from the United States Mintz . Why does this matter? According to Axios says that congressional solutions to the debt ceiling problem, they could take weeks to implement. Time is running out. If there's an emergency, they could just take this trillion dollar coin and they could use it to bridge any gap between the money. So the U S doesn't default, how can the U S default on their debt? If they have a trillion dollars right here? It's right here. Oh, you owe us some money. Yeah, no problem. I got a trillion dollars, like right here. Here you go. Thank you. The U S mint, which Adele ran from 1994 to 2000 already produces one ounce platinum Eagle coins. There are no shortage of platinum blanks in the stock. So all they would need to do is produce a trillion dollar Eagle only require that the denomination gets changed. So rather than a dollar, it goes to a trillion dollars. This could quickly be executed on the existing plaster mold of the platinum Eagle. It's an automated process with transfer the new design to a new plastic resin mold. And so even if Janet Yellen has no intention of minting a coin, there's no reason for her not to quietly instruct the mint director to take those steps a day or two in advance. So it's like monopoly money. It's like, oh man, we are going to run out of , uh, of money. And so you're just going to go to your printer. And you're just going to print some more monopoly money and bring that back in at this point, a coin could be printed in minutes from the west point mint, even if it needed to be physically deposited at the New York fed, that's only a short helicopter away. So you print it in the mint, send it over to the fed, deposit it in the central bank. And then while up he says, we got ourselves the equivalent of a trillion dollar increase in the debt limit without any impact on inflation, which is just outstanding. That is from a deal over there. Uh , ridiculous. So there is a lot of people behind this idea that there's a hashtag mint, the coin, if it's successful, it would prevent a catastrophic debt default, thanks to congressional. Uh , loserville. We have us treasury secretary wants to avert that reportedly been considered and rejected this idea, but they're talking about this as sort of being a last minute backup plan. The scheme looks legally feasible, but politically it's a non-starter democratic party is capable of raising this on their own, through the reconciliation process, but they don't want to do so for political reasons. They want Republicans to also grapple with the fiscal reality of the bills that they pass. So Democrats control the white house and the treasury neither want them to let the Republicans off the hook for raising the debt limit. And so we'll see where that goes. If anywhere, I'm sure everything's going to be fine. They always find more money somewhere. And it comes out of our pockets in the longterm through taxes and inflation. But let's see what you have to say about any of this. Before we jump into the next segment, we're chiming in [email protected] . We've got some questions queued up on this. We got, we've got Mike, last name ox long is here, says I need a platinum trillion dollar coin to pay off my only fans. I mean, my student loans, if they're going to be printing a few of those, I mean, why don't, you know, why don't , this could be the , um , this could be the new plot of a James Bond movie or something like that, right? Go and get that trillion dollar coin Mustang. Jeff says, I thought that the dams had majorities in both legislative and executive branches. So why can't they raise the debt on their own typical downs , blame everyone else for their own failures while they could, they could. But what they're saying is they don't want to do it on their own because they want bipartisanship. Don't they, they want unity. Most of the time, they don't care about that, but now they need it because they know this is a big, disgusting thing to do that many Americans are sick of. And so they want to make sure that they spread that around a little bit, spread that. And rightfully so, the Republicans are also lunatic spenders, right? They did the same thing. They kick the can down the road. The Democrats are saying, Hey Republicans, you helped. We helped you kick the can down the road. We helped you avert responsibility here. Now it's our turn. You know how this game is played. Now we need help kicking the can down the road. And the Republicans are just not there to do it. Oh, let's see. We bought another one from D rod says, Rob, the Democrats have slim majorities in both houses. They like to point at Trump, but Trump did reach out to everyone and tried to find a balance. Where is K Mala and Biden working? This initiative never fails. Democrats are so divided and they can't agree on anything. We have. The hand of nod says the Dems can own it. The VP is there's pubs better not blink before the midterms . This discussion is enabled at least in part by the floating currency system. U S D is it detached from reality? Devalue is a little bit more than the world's faith in the American hedge . Amani . We have end the fed over from hand of nod. Yeah. The banking system is a largely a sham. We have shifting Nadler is here, says good old rhino, Mitch. He's good at blocking the Democrats and playing defense, never on offense to do anything good for the Republican voters though , we have another one from Ronald Reagan. Courtesy of D rod says government is like a baby, an elementary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other from good old Ronald Sergeant , Bob says no way, do I defend or support former president Teflon, bill Clinton. However, under his watch, the budget was balanced. Maybe I missed something. But perhaps this demonstrated that fiscal responsibility is in achievable. Don't disagree with that, right? Yeah. You got to hand it to him for that. Right? Recognize the accomplishments where they are. We have another one here. Let's see who else? A couple more questions. Before we jump into the Rittenhouse segment, we have Jeremy Trita says, Rob, isn't the debt ceiling higher than our GDP. Yeah. Dramatically like dramatically higher. At what point will the monthly accrued interest per month exceed the GDP? I don't know when that is, but yeah, we pay a tremendous amount of our annual budget every year, just to pay the interest on the debt. That credit card monthly payments is getting high. Isn't it don't know when, when one supersedes the other Mitch McConnell says we can't play routine roulette with the economy, but we're definitely going to be playing heads or tails with the economy. That's for Mitch McConnell, president sippy cups as corn pop was a bad dude. Nigerian prince says, I stole the coin. Jeremy says, Rob Mitch McConnell has dentures. That's why he sounds like he has something stuffed in his mouth because he literally does. Depending on the material, his dentures are made of sound will deflect differently than with real teeth, too much information, but important, nonetheless, well, I don't want to make fun of a man with dentures, but I think that's just kinda how he talks also. I think, I don't know. I'm not gas as after a trillion dollar coin is minted be ready for a million dollar paper. Toilet rolls. At least my crypto and PMs will do great yet more trillion dollar coins. I think the better that crypto is looking monster. One says if trillions is free, can I get a million hell all settled right now for 10 grand would be, would be nice and easy over from a monster one over on YouTube. We've got Jim [inaudible] says, did you see the story out of Chicago today ? Prosecutors dropped charges against gang members in daylight. Shootout caught on video three dead, and they're calling it mutual combat. So I saw that I saw a clip of the video, but I didn't dig into the story. I didn't realize three people were killed. Uh, and they're calling it mutual combat. Yeah, well they probably don't want to go round them up. And that's just how law enforcement is going to be in some cities. Now, if you're, if you're excuse me, if you're gang bangers and you're just shooting each other, then good luck to you. I guess wherever that is, is that Chicago that's from Jim Santalla . I'll take a look at it. There was so much news, criminal legal news today that it was hard to sort of pick, but there was a lot of it. Thank you for that support, Jim [inaudible] over on YouTube and let's see what's going on around the world. We still have Raven craft and road Trek girl over there on a rumble. We see them chatting away. We've got another one over here on YouTube shout outs to Charles Rhodes . We got Ryan Jackson Zulu there again, playing hooky Stace on the case. Zhan Athera is there as well on locals. I'm saying shout outs to Jeremy soul Viking. We got Dallas photography's in the house. Sweet potato three girlies rata . See , I'm not gas and many others. Thank you for all of your support. I appreciate it. All right. We're moving on. We got one final segment on the show. Let's see what we have here. Oh yes. Kyle Rittenhouse been some time since we've had an update here. Kyle Rittenhouse was back in court today. It is October. And so he's getting very close to his November trial deadline. We've got an update. It's been some time since we've spent really any time on this channel talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, but there's been a lot of activity in the case, as we're gearing up for trial, several motions have been dismissed , uh , submitted. There was an attempt to dismiss one of the charges. In this case, it was the , uh , minor sort of in possession of a gun charge. The judge listened to that claim today and decided that that was not going to be dismissed, but he's open for a possibility for reconsideration. So we're going to set that one aside, really the crux of today's entire hearing was centered around expert witnesses in particular, the defense expert witness a doctor that the defense on behalf of Kala Rittenhouse is seeking to introduce so that he can come in and explain what use of force means and what reasonable use of force and reasonable self-defense looks like in the context of what we saw with Kyle Rittenhouse. And so the defense wants to bring this doctor in to talk about these things. The government does not want expert witnesses to come in. And so we spent a lot of the day today talking about that one issue about expert witnesses for self-defense, for use of force. And so this is a big, crucial issue in this case, and let's break it down and figure out what happened. This is a picture from the court today. We can see a very familiar seeing. We've been seeing a lot of this in prior court proceedings, full courthouse . We've got Kyle Rittenhouse over here on the far left. You can see him over there , suit and tie, not mast up. Judge isn't mass court reporter isn't mass. We have the court clerk, not mass. We have the prosecutor, not mass. We have the defense attorney, not mass. So all that is looking good. Here is Mark Richard, the defense attorney. We had his other attorney to refill who was appearing by zoom. The doctor who was also the witness who was being presented by the defense was also appearing by zoom. I believe this lady was just sort of an assistant over here. We have a prosecutor, Thomas binger, the judge up here at the front is Bruce Schroeder. And so we have another, this is a case manager or assistant prosecutor. Didn't catch his name. Of course, Kyle Rittenhouse. You remember this famous image, something that was shared all over the internet. We talk a lot about Kyle Rittenhouse on this channel. A lot of our videos got flagged for, you know , showing some of the gruesome stuff, but all of that should be backed up over on Odyssey. So you can check that out there, but we've talked a lot about Kyle Rittenhouse here. Let's start at the top, give ourselves a quick refresher on what happened. We have seven different charges. As I mentioned today, this charge number six here , this possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18, they argued a little bit about this. The defense lawyer, Mark Richards didn't handle it. He passed that off to the other defense attorney who was, I think , uh , signed on pro hoc VJ. It could be wrong about that, but he was brought on to, I think, argue that specific part of this case. And so it made a very compelling argument, went through all the different statutes and basically said, luck . It doesn't apply. I mean, it literally doesn't apply because if you applied it here, it would produce an absurd result. And he talks about all the different ways that the statute interacts, all the ans and the yours, the judge, quite frankly, I don't think it was following that argument, all that well. And so just said, well look, they charged it. This is going to be something that we're going to present to the jury and the jury can decide. So it is an important issue. I think it is something that w w we, we still may see some future decisions about because the judge just didn't seem to me, like he had his head wrapped around exactly what the arguments were set. I'm going to deny the motion to dismiss that charge. We're going to allow it to come into court and move forward, but I'm open to a reconsideration. I'm open to the defense, submitting some additional documents. And Mark Richards specifically said that he has legislative history about why these, these state legislatures , uh , passed this in the first place. And so he's going to get that all submitted to the judge important issue, but also a side issue. And so really what we're talking about here, the reason I've always had my teeth in this case is because of the self-defense angle on this. When we went through this and watched the video, and we went through frame by frame and we listened to the audio and we saw the gunfire and the muzzle flash off screen , we saw a lot of different things that I think that were missed. And it's sort of the first go round. And it looked like as clear a case of self-defense as anybody has ever seen ever. The fact that he was being charged seemed to me to be highly political. Of course, this was right in the aftermath of George Floyd. We had many other shootings that we covered in the summer of that unrest. And so it's always seemed like this was a political hit job against a 17 year old kid who defended himself against three other aggressors. So with that, as the backdrop, let's look at the court docket, we know that today up top, you can see October 5th, we were in courtroom at 10:00 AM courtroom 2 0 9. That was judge Bruce Schroeder. Jury selection starts on November 1st at 9:00 AM very, very soon. And so what you can see here is very recently, the defendants submitted a witness list. Several different , uh , documents were , were sent back and forth receipts for some additional documents being filed. The court submitted a letter to the attorneys, and we don't really have any of those documents here, but we do have this update from the last court setting. This was from September 17th when they had a prior motions hearing. So let's go through this just for posterity. What happened about a month ago was there was a hybrid court hearing. The Thomas Thomas binger is the prosecutor. James Cross also came. They were appearing for the government w Kyle Rittenhouse had Corey chia reef scene and Mark Richards and attorney Natalie Wisco appearances over zoom. There was an argument about the state's motion for acts, evidence, argument heard, and the governor , the court denied that motion. I think that was about , uh , sort of the , uh, the photographs , uh , of Kyle holding up the , you know, the allegedly the , uh, you know, illegal symbol or whatever they were upset about with his hands. And so they, they wanted to get that admitted. They wanted to sort of, you know, label Kyle Rittenhouse as somebody who was a white supremacist or a racist or something to that effect. And the judge denied that it's not relevant. Doesn't need to come in. Arguments were on the defendant's motion. Eliminate. This is stuff that is trying to , uh , emotion eliminate from the government. I'm sorry, from the defense is to try to stop the government from saying something during a trial. And so it sounds like here, the defense tried to get the government to not talk about those things, but since the government is not going to let that, that argument in, in the first place, not going to going to admit any of those evidence, any of that prior evidence, the motions eliminate just don't apply that evidence about Kyle's other acts is not coming in. So those motions eliminate are not , uh, were not necessary. We've got a defense motion to admit evidence about , uh, regarding the decedents . So this is the defense now trying to talk about probably gauge gross Gruits that was denied. So if Kyle's prior acts are not admitted admissible , maybe the victim shouldn't be admissible. Either state defy supplied the defense with narrowed list of witnesses. Defense has not received contact information. State has to get them information by September 20th arguments heard on the state's motion to compel donations and a list of donors. They want to go after Kyle's money that was denied. Arguments were also heard on the state's second motion to admit other acts that motion was taking under advisement with a bias, not to allow the evidence in. We've got another motion to dismiss count six, which we talked back , uh, uh, hear about again today that was ultimately denied. The state filed their response to another motion, provided a copy of that. They want to finish the trial in a couple of weeks court, may someone 150 jurors conversations about the juror questionnaire, state raise concerned about jurors names, blah, blah, blah. Alright , so now we schedule what's called a Dobber hearing that was scheduled for today. We've got two expert witnesses that now that we're going to talk about, and they were both appearing by zoom. And so that was just sort of a quick synopsis. A lot of backstory on this. Obviously there's going to be a lot to dissect when the trial gets well underway, but we're still in the pretrial phase. In this case, we're still trying to work our way through and understand what's going to be allowed at a trial. And so we were less than a month away from the start of the trial. And we're still trying to figure out expert witnesses here. If you were with us during the Derek Shovan trial, you remember how many different expert witnesses we had like dozens, right? The defense had maybe half dozen and the government just had every day expert witness talking about respiratory stuff, talking about use of force stuff. All sorts of different experts were being used in this case. It's a little bit of a different situation, right? We don't need all of these expert witnesses come in and talk about police policy and those things. This is not a police officer. This is a civilian shooting, and we're talking about self-defense now. And so we have to sort of ask ourselves, you know, what, what experts do we need? Do we need an expert to come in here and talk about all of this stuff? I mean, a jury is going to be able to sit there and watch the same video that we all watched. Do they need an expert to come in and tell us that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense or that the force that he used was reasonable or unreasonable? Well, the defense thinks so. Yes, they think, yes, pretty good idea to have that expert to come in and talk about this thing. Because many people have never been in a situation like Kyle Rittenhouse, many people don't know what it feels like to be placed under direct threat from a mob of people who are chasing you down. And so maybe an expert witness to come in and talk about that context would be useful rights , which is accurate, which is exactly why Mark Richards and Rittenhouse his defense team decided to do that. And they brought in an expert witness. Now, the prosecutor not real happy about that. He does not want expert witnesses coming into this case. Doesn't think it's necessary. Just thinks that a jury can just decide for themselves if they just see what they see there . Well, going to be an open and shut case. He says now, cause he's thinking that an expert witnesses only going to help the defense. We'll see. Now the sound on my first two or three clips is pretty bad because the news agency Fox who was in there, they're not allowed to bring a recorder in. So they have to sort of Jack into the court's audio system, but they were not able to do so until we get to about our third clip. And so we have some really bad audio. I did clip it and I did amplify the audio , uh , from the court, the original court file . So it's a little bit better, but bear with me, the audio is going to get better. We've got one or two clips where it's really bad or not so great. And then it gets better. So let's, let's, let's listen in first, we're going to start off with the district attorney. This is Thomas binger, who is , uh, arguing as to why expert witnesses should not be allowed in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Here he is

Speaker 6:

It in my email, the CAC position is that the jury is not easier expert to make a decision on the issue itself. The jury is a reasonable person , uh, would , uh, feels appropriate. People have three reasonable people. There is no scientific technical or other specialized knowledge that will assist the jury in making that determination. So it was not our avenues on the issue of self-mastery supports here. However, when the defense informed us that they were retained , uh , a , uh , we respond to all along the supply motion , challenging lab , which is a us based area , but we also , uh , retain our own expert , uh , uh, who has sex , uh , the last couple months reviewing Lewis documents. And , uh , all this case is in the process of very important. As I orchestrate my email, you should have a [inaudible] and we will be at time assuming the court , uh, sides , expertly as point screens .

Speaker 1:

All right . So , uh, if you couldn't hear that quick synopsis of that, this is the prosecutor here. Who's prosecuting Kyle Rittenhouse. He says, listen, we got noticed that the defense has an expert witnesses. Dr. Black, Dr. Black is going to come in and we don't even think it's necessary. Right? This is a shooting case use of force experts. Self-defense experts. It's not really applicable here according to binger, because this is just a regular case. We don't need to know all about the policies and all the complicated things that the police are supposed to do. And all of that training, it's just a regular civilian. And the jury is also going to be filled with regular civilians who are gonna be able to take a look at the evidence and make a decision. You need an expert to come in and talk about complicated expert things, right? Like respiratory , uh , patterns in the George Floyd case, or, you know, blood spatter analysis. In another case, the list goes on and on and on about the very complicated things you might need an expert for. But in this case, it's just civilian shooting another civilian. And so we don't need to think about use of force or self-defense is what he said. So as soon as they knew that they got that, that , that Dr. Black was going to be on the witness list. They said, all right , well, we're going to object to that. And they responded and said, we don't need this. We don't need anybody in here, but they also went and got their own expert. Then they , and they started preparing their own report because they know that it's probably going to come in. We're probably going to be hearing from expert witnesses. So they've got their own witness. It's not a doctor. It's a Mr . And it's Mr. Willis. We're going to hear , uh , we're not going to hear from him today, but we have a picture of him later on. So , uh, the judge now in this clip is sort of recognizing that maybe he kind of dropped the ball on some of this Rittenhouse planning. You're going to hear him say, well, don't really know what to do about all of these convoluted issues. And he says , uh , shame on me, actually shame on me. I should have , should have been paying attention. Here he is.

Speaker 6:

Um, Hey , art , uh [inaudible] um , those are legal . Um, uh , it's a guy . I , I , uh , uh ,

Speaker 1:

Long pause. We're just going to let this one linger. It's still playing.

Speaker 6:

Uh, I'm

Speaker 1:

Still going . Okay . All right . It was still going. Yeah. So he was just like , uh , I don't know what to do here on these expert witnesses thing, because , uh, he , he sort of didn't really give them good defined terms about any of this. And so now, now we're last, we're like three weeks out of trial and we're still doing Dobber hearings for these expert witnesses. And so we've got three weeks until we've got a trial. We're going to do the Daubert hearing, which I'm gonna explain what that is here in a quick second of the defense expert witness. But now the government is saying, well, we want our own expert witness. And the judge said, well, you should have disclosed those a long time ago. And then the prosecutor said, yeah, but judge, you didn't tell us whether we were even going to be using expert witnesses in the first place. And you sort of were kind of indicating that maybe we don't need them. And now you're sort of saying that we do need them. And so now if they have a witness and we needed a witness and the judge is just like, ah , uh , shame on me, I should have , uh, I should've, I should've planned this out a little bit better because we've got trial coming up real soon. And what they're going to try to do now is squeeze in all of these hearings of these expert witnesses to get them vetted, to make sure that they can testify. And so they're squeezing a lot in very, very quickly. We'll see if the trial goes forward. I hope that it certainly does. So that was the judge and , uh , sort of, you know, a little bit stumped now, he also gets a little bit stumped right here when he says back to the prosecutor, he says, okay, Mr. Prosecutor, listen, if you don't want expert witnesses, well then why were you using expert witnesses in other proceedings? Why were you , uh , in other cases that have come through our courtrooms that have involved shootings and deaths and things like that, why didn't you use an expert? Why did you use an expert witness in those cases, but not here? Pretty good question. And the prosecutor has an answer. He fires it right back and he just stumps the judge again, here it is

Speaker 6:

More expert and [inaudible] Jacob Blake foodics , uh, um , and , um , why would a great evidence or report available? And [inaudible] for this, there's a different standard for police officers. I agree there . I know in certain

Speaker 1:

Cases, oh my gosh.

Speaker 6:

Uh , uh, the , uh, uh, regardless of that, and there was a lot of in black work , uh [inaudible] uh, orders of ordinary citizen of it. So , um ,

Speaker 1:

All right. So the judge got a little bit , uh , twisted there. I think just a little bit, the judge said specifically to the audio gets better in the next clip and , and moving forward, they take a break and then the news crew goes and they plug it into the court system. So it will get better. But if you didn't hear that, the judge was saying to the prosecutor, listen, you've used expert witnesses in many other cases before, especially involving shootings and use of force cases. So what's the difference? Why are you not using one here? And he goes over to the prosecutor and binger says, well, it's a different standard because they're police officers and this is not. And the judge says, well, I agree with you there. Uh , well, actually I don't actually, I don't know. I better just stop talking about that. And then kind of, you know, reverts back, does his , uh , thing doesn't really know what to say next and then sort of reverts back and says, yeah, but we read Dr. Black's medical, [inaudible] memorandum his opinion on this, and there's a lot more there. And so then he goes back in and sort of, you know , gets back into it with attorney binger. Long story short here is what they're trying to do is sort of tease out the usefulness of the expert witness, right? Are they going to add value to this trial? You can't just call in a bunch of expert witnesses to rant off about stuff that's not applicable to the underlying issues at a trial. And so one of the threshold issues is he going to be able to come in and a pine about something that's going to be useful to the jury. That's going to move this case forward in some reasonable way. And what binger is doing is saying, no, it's not because this is not a police case. And when the judge asked him about that, the judge says, well , uh, that's a good point. You're right. It isn't a police case. And so the obvious response to that would have , would have necessarily been well. Yes, but , uh, Kyle Rittenhouse is still a human person. Isn't he? And so police ordinarily would be held to a higher standard when they, you know, police have to sort of wait until the very last minute they get, they get, we hold them to a higher standard. We say, now you got it . You, you all have training, you have experience, you know how to use this weapon. You have to wait till the last minute you've got all of these use of force analyses that you have to go through before you can pull a trigger. And so even if you brought in an expert witness to, let's say, let's say that this was a shooting case. Kyle was a police officer. You bring in a person to come in here and say, yeah, person who was a police officer in Kyle Rittenhouse, his position could have easily identified all of these three individuals attacking him as threats could have used reasonable force could have justified the shootings using self-defense would have been perfectly fine and capable of doing so if they would have, if, if that expert witness could come in and show that Kyle Rittenhouse would have met that standard wouldn't that necessarily include all of the lower level standards as well. Like the standard for a 17 year old young man, right. It wouldn't necessarily be included in there. And so the , the, the expert that the defense is trying to call in is actually overqualified to talk about those things, because he's talking about all the different standards he's talking about the police standard, which is one step up from a regular civilian standard. So in order to talk about that police standard, necessarily, you're going to have, be able to talk about the lower standard, right? Because if you're a police officer and your life is not endangered, like a normal human being would, well, then you can't use deadly force. Can you? No , you can't. It's sort of the same thing. If it , if , if , if it's justifiable for a police officer, then certainly it's justifiable for Kyle Rittenhouse, but the judge got, you know, a little bit twisted up on that finally works his way through it. In some degree here, next we're going to hear from Mark Richards. This is his defense attorney. And you're going to hear this is back after the break. This is actually where they actually fix the audio right. In this clip. So it's going to start off bad, but it's going to sound much better by the end. Here is defense attorney Mark Richards now saying, well, yeah, we're not going to talk about it in the context of a police shooting because it wasn't, but we are going to use Dr. Black, our expert witness to come in and talk about this in the context of a 17 year old kid here is Mark Richards in court,

Speaker 7:

But Dr. Black testify , he will testify that he did this evaluation, not from a law enforcement standpoint, but the citizens' standpoint. And that was one thing. When I engaged him, I didn't want a bunch of law enforcement, mumbo jumbo. I wanted things to look at the eyes of a 17 year old in a very chaotic evening on August 25th and Kenosha . And that's what I think he can bring to bear in this case. They could .

Speaker 1:

All right , we're going to talk about it in the context of a 17 year old kid. He's going to talk about, All right , so hold on a second. I got ahead of myself. He's going to talk about it in the context of a 17 year old kid. Not going to be a situation where we're talking about a police shootings was not a police shooting. So prosecutor comes in, we don't need that. We don't need that person at all. Defense comes back. Yes, we do. It's going to talk about it as a 17 year old kid, the jurors are not 17 year old kids. They're going to need to have some free , some, somebody to help them explain some of the context here. And so that's what Mark Richards was talking about. Now we have the judge, who's going to allow the Dobber hearing, which I'm going to explain next to continue here. Is that clip?

Speaker 8:

Well, I , uh, I am going to , uh, open the door to , uh , the testimony of , uh , uh, Mr. Black or Dr. Black rather , uh, after I hear presentation by the state. And then also to that , uh , uh , uh, Mr. Willis , uh, when I have more information about that and , uh, we'll see what can come in and what can't. So that's , uh, one issue. There was an issue. You ready ?

Speaker 1:

All right. So gonna allow those things to go forward. And so what we had for the rest of the day was a presentation of expert testimony. And it's in the form of what's called a Dobber hearing. Now it's a very, very common hearing. This hearing is essentially used to validate expert witnesses to make sure that they are actually experts to sort of hear about what they're going to talk about. Because expert witnesses are very tricky and criminal law, right? If you, if you start bringing in an expert, jurors and judges and everybody in the courtroom kind of goes, oh, that guy's kind of an expert. I guess we better just do whatever he says. We saw a lot of this in the , uh , Derek Shovan case when we were analyzing, what was the Dr . Tobin? I think might've been his name. He was the respiratory guy who came in here and said, oh, it was clearly the knee on the neck. That's what did it. And he was very, very good. He had diagrams and arrows and he had fonts and different colors that an excellent job got a conviction because everybody was like, oh yeah, that guy knows what he's talking about. He wrote a book this big, he said it was the knee on the neck. And so that was basically the end of the trial, not to mention , uh, you know, methamphetamines. We had , uh , what else phentenol was in the system , uh , uh , cardiovascular disease. He had a lot of other problems going on, but the jury just heard the expert witness, boom. And that's what they latched on to. And you got to be very careful with experts. You got to make sure they're experts, we've got it. Like they're actually qualified. They actually know what they're talking about. And they're also going to testify about something that's relevant and pertinent. And so a Dobber hearing, as you can see here, it says that it's a trial judges evaluation about whether or not an expert's testimony is admissible . They occur when the validity of the expert's testimony is challenged due to the methodology, used to form their opinion. These are conducted outside of the jury's presence, usually based on emotion eliminate or something that happens. The hearing determines which evidence or testimony is ultimately going to be presented in front of the jury. You want to sort of protect the jury to some degree , uh, before. And so you, you, you will actually listen in and hear what the expert has to say. This is the defense expert witness. You can see this is John Black DBA, God , his pronouns in there. And what you can see is , uh , it's a , he him, which is, which is, you know, we can handle that. We know that we know those pretty well, and I want to play a quick clip of him. He sounds very polished. Looks like a doctor, looks like somebody. Who's going to be very good for the jury. He was in court today. And he's talking a little bit about that issue that we've already flushed out here. Now he testified for about two and a half hours today. Uh , he testified for an hour from on direct exam. So he had Mark Richards asking him a bunch of questions. You're an expert, aren't you? And you do with this work all the time. And you can opine about this, this and this and this can't you . Yes, I can. And you're qualified. And this is your school you went to, and you're really smart and you're competent. And you are in fact an expert, aren't you? Yes, yes, yes, yes. Okay. Then the prosecutor comes out and says, yeah, but you're kind of dumb though, aren't you, you're kind of stupid. And this year, and you've only worked in this area and you've also don't know anything about 17 year olds and you also , uh , have never, you know, you never particularly worked on this street and isn't it also true that , uh, you know, glasses mean you have a vision problem or something, right? It's , it's like, it's like the exact opposite of that. It's a cross-examination and it's all to flesh out. Whether this doctor is actually somebody who's going to be useful to this trial, which is the bare essence of it. Now there, we're going to rewind back to that sort of initial threshold issue. Mark Richards asked him specifically about this and says, Hey , uh, you know, you do a lot of work with police and use of force and other self-defense cases in this case, do you think that you could give us some good analysis about a 17 year old kid in Kenosha when there was a shooting that took place, and he says, this

Speaker 9:

We're engaged in this case by myself to review the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse, a citizen on August 25th, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Is that a fair statement? Yes, sir. Do you look at cases involving a citizen differently than a law enforcement officer? Um, to degree to the state's argument of , uh , being put forth the idea that I've looked at a lot of things from a police perspective, meaning the loss of standards as has already been described, that's absolutely true. But the thing that even precedes that is all cops are humans. And so the fact is the first thing we have to look at when we're engaged in these types of analysis or reviews is how is the human being involved, especially with the effect of their perception, attention training, put in all the different variables, how has the human interacting with the event that's unfolding in front of them? So I would argue that a person foremost, every person involved in a , in a use of force man is first and foremost, the person and that the principles outlined in my opinion are primarily directed towards that. So that's the first part, even if I were to look at police and then as a state accurately describes if there's another layer to apply against the analysis or the reasoning such as police standards, those other things.

Speaker 1:

Yes, obviously. Right? That makes sense. So if you're a human being and you have to ask yourself whether I use lethal force, one of the threshold issues there is whether you are having your life or physical wellbeing threatened, right? Don't need to be a police officer to make that calculation. Don't have to be a firefighter or any other special person to , to get there. That's the baseline standard. Now, somebody who is going to be starting there , even for police cases, you would necessarily imagine is very good at starting there. And so he could definitely opine about this as he just very articulately explained, here is a little portion of the cross exam from the prosecutor , uh , being he being here over here, and he's asking about , uh, his curriculum is a CV, whether or not all of these different conduct credentials, you know, really matter, he kind of , he's kind of like , you're just a police guy, right? You just kind of work with the police. You don't know anything about a shooting like this, right? Here's that awesome ,

Speaker 10:

Sir , involved shootings, police, tactics, police training , incident command, and police slash jail operations. Did I read that correctly? Is it fair to say then that the times that you have been qualified as an expert witness relates to , uh , police use of force, as opposed to civilian use of force,

Speaker 9:

I've had a majority would be related, we should support that's correct.

Speaker 10:

In your CV, you have a section where you list the cases that you have been involved in as an expert witness or consultant, those begin on page 24 of your CV. There are 57 cases that you list running from there until page 32. Is that correct? Correct. Is it correct to say that in every single one of those cases, one of the parties is a law enforcement agency?

Speaker 9:

Um, no, I don't think that's correct. At least on some of the advisement I've advised them civilian self-defense before it have to take a look at which one and when , um , so the short answer to your question, sir, is, is now I'd have to go through them, but I haven't it on shelf. Okay.

Speaker 10:

All right. Well, let's, let's go through.

Speaker 1:

All right . So , uh, you know, did you notice that you can see on their computers, they might want to , uh, adjust where those cameras are in the future. You can actually read that dude's emails. So , uh , that's not my deal, but that was, that was what was happening in court. Thomas binger is basically just like, you're just , uh , you're just a dumb police representative. Aren't you, you don't know anything about any of this . And he says, no. I mean, I do a lot of this type of work. So you're going to guess that that all of this gets admitted in. We did not hear from the government's rebuttal witness or their expert witness. What we have here is this guy. This is Mr. Willis, Mr. Willis was on the hearing today, but they didn't get to him. You can see the court is over here. Uh, this is mark. This is Thomas binger. This is Mark Richards. Kyle Rittenhouse is over here. Let me clear that up. And then this is John Black, the doctor that we just heard from. So Willis, Mr. Willis is going to come back on October 25th to do his version of the Daubert hearing. And so he'll have a direct exam from the government . Government is going to say, oh , you're qualified to come in here and talk about this. Right. Then Mark Richards is going to say, you're not qualified, right? And the judge is going to have to make a decision on this on October 25th, which is like six days out from the trial. So they are skidding all of this in, at the last minute. If you were wanting to see what Kyle was doing, this is him in court today. Uh , nothing really interesting going on here, you just sort of , uh , you know, kind of hanging out. You can just kind of see what he looks like. A lot of people want to , you know , make sure that they're staying , uh, staying connected with him and , um , that's what he was doing in court. All right . So let's see what you have to say about the Kyle Rittenhouse case. We are going to be covering this case hard in the near future. When it comes up, let's see what's coming in. We got, I'm not gas as while Kyle being held without bail or bond for so long. It's horrible. The fact this is taking so long to go to trial might actually help Kyle now in a jury trial now that the political frenzy behind this has had time to cool off. I don't disagree with that, right? This is a much better time to have a trial last year earlier this year, even, you know , right around the election, people were in a fervor. They wanted blood, but things seems like they have calmed down a little bit, especially with this case. Jeremy says, Rob, in light of the circumstances surrounding this case, I propose a new type of defense. The reasonable insanity defense Kyle was reasonably defending himself during a period of insanity that was spreading around the country. I see. So it wasn't, Kyle is almost like Jeremy, like you're introducing the idea of a purge to some degree. You know, it's like everybody gets off. If there is a global insanity and we are living in that, for sure right now. Good to see you. My friend, we have Davis says I got into some arguments on an ABC post about Rittenhouse. Some people don't understand common sense. They are so certain that he's evil, that they won't even consider the circumstances. How exactly do you handle jurors like that as a defense attorney, do people actually change their mind in court? Uh , it's a great question. You know, and this is a, this is a basic practice question where you'll get many different opinions on different jurors. You know, if you're gonna look, all jurors are supposed to be open and honest about it. At least open to hearing the evidence. If you get any juror that is like a hard one way or the other, they really should not be on the panel. They should identify themselves. They should fill out a questionnaire on the form that says, I'm honest, I have already made up my mind. Nothing's going to change my opinion. You want honest jurors because you need to get them out of there. Right. And if there's nothing wrong with that, if you're a juror and you're like, listen, I can't that that guy has been accused of raping a child and you go, I just look at him and he just looks like it. I can never get my head out of that. There's nothing I can do about this. I will be, I will be unbiased. I'm being honest about that. Let me go. Right. That's like, thank you for being honest. Thank you. Okay. You're doing an amazing thing for society. By being honest about that, a lot of people just go, well, I think I can be honest and truthful and fair, and they get on there and I'm like, oh, well, I'm guilty. That's not a service to anybody. You might feel like you're doing your part. That's not a service. You gotta be honest. You gotta be open to it. And if you're not somebody that's open, you really shouldn't be on a jury. And so what we do is called voice deer . We ask jurors a bunch of questions and we design our questions to identify those people that, you know, maybe don't want to re don't want to. I self identify as somebody who is not capable of making a neutral decision. People like in the George Floyd trial, the guy who had a podcast, the guy who was attending George for a Floyd protest rallies before he was even a juror, right? That guy should never have been on the jury, but he eats through and he made his opinion made. And he went out and he said that we got justice done that day in interview , shortly thereafter. And so he was sort of a social justice warrior that made it onto a jury panel. That's not what our system is set up for. And it works both directions. If that continues to happen, that's a problem. But you do go through voice deer . It's asking the jury questions. You are asking them specifically , uh , to just sort of root out those, those problems. And there's going to be a big questionnaire that goes out to all these jurors. And they're going to be asked to if it's going to be a very similar process to what we saw with Shovan where they just go through the questions. Have you seen the footage? Did you think about the footage? Did you come to an opinion based on the footage and if anybody has a hard rule on that, you want to do what you can to make sure they're not on the panel. That's just the right thing to do. Monster one says, sorry. No way. Kyle ever faces a fair trial. Protesters will intimidate the jury. Just like with the Shovan case. Does anybody really think a jury member will risk their own personal safety for some kid ? They don't know. They will say, okay, we'll convict. Just don't hurt us. That's on monster one. We'll see, we've got thunder. Seven says, Rob, do you have faith in the judge to be unbiased during the trial? In other words, is he an Obama Soros appointed judge? I hope not. In order to give Kyle a fair chance, it was clearly self-defense the videos prove it. Looking forward to your legal expert analysis during the upcoming trial. I'm looking forward to it too. It's going to be a doozy of a trial. I think that, you know, honestly, from what I've seen of this judge so far , uh, not particularly impressed. I mean, today was a hearing where the judge was sort of stumped a couple of times didn't seem like he had a lot of stuff in order. Uh, if you're looking for a judge who's on par with the Shovan judge, I think that we're not, we're not quite there. That being said doesn't mean he's an unfair judge. It just means that , uh, we have a different style of judge, right? We have, we have a different judge now. He , he , he has also been somebody who's actually been pretty, pretty neutral and pretty fair in my experience. He , uh , he specifically scolded the prosecutor earlier on in the pretrial proceedings and said, don't call those people victims. Okay. Victim is a pejorative term. They have not been found to be the victims yet. In fact, Kyle May have a very clear self-defense case. They have , they maybe were the aggressors. So Mr. Bingham stopped calling them that because that has not been detailed in the court of law. And I appreciate that. I mean, I really genuinely do a lot of judges. They don't, they just sort of presume that your client is guilty and they start calling the people who are the victims by statute, the victims, even though nothing has been proven in a court of law, whatever the hell happened to my client's presumption of innocence, where the hell deco, oh, is a victim. Oh, there's a bunch of victims over there. So that means my client's guilty. No, never been proven, never agreed to that. Never not a shred of evidence has been presented yet. So why do we allow that to happen? It's insane, but that's what we do. And this judge didn't like that. So, you know, this judge is a little bit , uh , I would say more , uh, more reasonable when it comes to issues like that. But he also seemed to be pretty unprepared today , uh, especially regarding, you know , expert witnesses and some of these obvious questions and he's taking more stuff under advice . He just doesn't seem like he's on top of his game. That's just one man's opinion about that. Uh, with all due respect to that judge in that court, I'm not gas as , okay. I don't have a lot of confidence in this judge being able to moderate their proceedings fairly, let alone tie his shoes. Yeah, yeah. A lot of the , um, and he's just going, he's staring at the screen like, oh shoot, I don't know what to say. Next. We got sold Viking in the house. As in light of the recent problematic high profile cases. It seems like jury selection in this liberal area will be extremely challenging for the defense and even more important. I don't know what the demographics are there, but it would be , uh, would be very interesting to see those. And we will, we'll see what the jury looks like your soon enough. Sergeant Bob says, I agree on the admissibility. The perspective of a 17 year old is important as is a perspective of a cop in their cases, but different perception and different circumstances are a lot. Yeah, no question about that. Thank you, Sergeant Bob. Good to see you. I hope you join us for the trial. I know that you will, and we'll have a lot to talk about when that one comes through a couple more questions. Monster one says, is this judge, the public defender from my cousin Vinny it's from monster one. I don't , uh , another one we've got , uh, somebody's name says, Rob, you mentioned before that Robert Barnes was hired by the defense . Is he still with them? You know , I don't know. I actually don't know what the nature of that relationship is. I think he was sort of , uh , being sort of roped into , uh , help in the , in the court of public opinion is, is I think where he was coming into this, you know, to help with sort of the conversations taking place out there in the real world, you know, something, something interesting happened back during the Shovan trial. I had a question that, that I did not hear asked by the defense attorney and then I pushed the, posted it on Twitter. And then I think Robert Barnes retweeted that, and then it got, you know , a bunch of vault . Everyone's like, oh, that's a great question. Why isn't it? No . Why didn't he ask that? And then after they came back from lunch, they picked up the cross-examination again. And attorney Nelson asked that question and I was like, that's kind of crazy. Did that happen ? Like did that happen? And I'm not saying that I communicated that question to that person, but it was a good question and it came up in court. And so I think that that sort of sort of helped spur the idea that, Hey, maybe in Kyle Rittenhouse, this case, we can really crowdsource a lot of the defense if we're watching the trial in real time, if we're all sitting here going, Hey, ask him about this, pull up this, pull up that document, you know, and we can communicate things back through a legal team there. I think there's some validity to that, right? Somebody fighting in the court of public opinion that sort of connected into the legal team that says, listen, we got all these, you know, attorneys watching this thing in real time, funneling good information back to the defense. I support that fully. So I don't know what the extent of, of Robert Barnes , you know , connection with them is , uh, certainly ask them they're over on locals , uh, Viva Barnes, law.locals.com . They're our neighbors. They have a much bigger house than we do, but they're our friends. And , uh, and so check with them and make sure you get his official opinion. I'm sure he's going to be all over it too, as will Veeva . We've got a lot of people who are very interested in this case. We have another one from the dark says, I really hope the defense says, what's you talking about Willis? Mr. Willis testifies . That's the extent of the cross-examination. Yeah, that's it. Mark. Richard stands up. What'd you talking about Willis? He goes, I , uh, you got me nothing. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Jury says not guilty, acquitted, adjourned trials over. I like it in a dark. That's what I'm talking about. Crowdsourcing . This stuff, Jay , he says, is Kyle going to be tried as a minor or an adult? I remember you covered this last year, but I don't recall the answer. Yeah. He's going to be tried as an adult, right? I think he's 18 now. And so he's going to go that full, full direction. And those were all the questions over on the Rittenhouse segment from watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's give some shout outs to everybody from around the, the, the room we've got Jeremy muh Trita over on locals. We've got sweet. Potato tweak is in the house. We've got Mustang. Jeff. We have , uh , many others chatting away saying , uh , trial by Twitter. Hmm . Yeah. Somebody says, Rob, you threw the case in Georgia, Florida case. It's all my fault folks. It's all my fault. All right . So that is going on over there, over on YouTube shout outs to Zulu Andrew Richardson, Charles Rhodes , KB, and just cows. We've got a lean in the house, stays on the case. Lean, lean, lean. Lean is all over the place. Uh, in the house , uh, Ryan Jackson says, say, Lean's name, which I did. What's up lean and over on rumble , we still have some people chatting away over there. Raven craft is over there along with road Trek girl. And so we're , uh, we're having some fun on all the different platforms, all over the internet. Some new people following us over on Twitch as well. I surmised and we've got Timo ma we see these zombies pop up when you follow us over on Twitch. So thank you for that and shout out to everybody over on Twitch as well. If you want to be a part of the show in the future , uh , as I mentioned the [email protected] want to welcome some new people who signed up over there. We've got Lau Patricia with three eyes who joined in on the community. Welcome Lau Patricia. We got Paula Revere number twos in the house. We have H S D N P in the house signed up for the year. Along with Patricia, we have Thai living. We have Maxime 27 signed up for the year unbridled form . Aviatrix signed up for the year. Welcome Albea she's over on locals as well. Burnt to a crisp 6, 6, 2 has signed up for the year. Along with let's be fair. We have our Taylor J movie tie . We got Lou Lula G maximum 92 angel baby Hellraiser, jumping Jeff desert Daisy, and many others, including Rob's mom and skip money was in the house as well. So all are supporting [email protected] Join now five bucks a month or $50 annually. If you want to be a part of the community, we have an amazing group of people there. We had an awesome monthly locals meetup this past October. Uh, we're still in October. This past Saturday was a lot of fun, but our next one is coming up Saturday, November 6th , seven to 8:00 PM. Eastern time. It's a lot of fun. I hope you come and join us on the next one, but that my friends is it for me for the day. I want to thank you so much for being a part of the program. We are going to do it again. Same time, same place tomorrow. I hope that you join us 4:00 PM . Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central and 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .