Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Abbott Bans Mandates in TX, Fifth Circuit Abortion Case Update, Petito Coroner Says Strangulation

October 12, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Abbott Bans Mandates in TX, Fifth Circuit Abortion Case Update, Petito Coroner Says Strangulation
Show Notes Transcript

Texas stands up against vaccine mandates as Governor Abbott issues a new executive order that targets all entities in Texas. The Fifth Circuit is set to issue a ruling in the Texas abortion lawsuit and we review the government brief in opposition to the Court’s stay. The coroner who examined Gabby Petito’s body reveals new details about her death and shares his categorization of her death. And more! Including:​

🔵 Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a new executive order banning vaccine mandates across Texas.​
🔵 Abbott also added the vaccine mandate issue to the Special Session of the legislature.​
🔵 Jenn Psaki at the White House blames the decision to ban the mandates on “politics.”​
🔵 Review of Abbott’s executive order and referral to the state legislature.​
🔵 The Fifth Circuit issued an administrative stay of the injunction in the Texas abortion case.​
🔵 Review of the Fifth Circuit docket, which shows a lot of recent activity in USA vs. State of Texas.​
🔵 Justice Department lawyers submit a brief in opposition to the Fifth’s Circuit’s stay of the injunction.​
🔵 Review of the DOJ brief, submitted by DOJ Civil lawyers Daniel Winik and Kyle T. Edwards.​
🔵 Gabby Petito’s manner of death is found to be strangulation caused by homicide. ​
🔵 Who is the Petito coroner Dr. Brent Blue and what role will he play in the trial? 
🔵 Review of Dr. Blue’s testimony during a press release today, including where he indicated that Gabby’s body was left in the wilderness for 3-4 weeks.​







Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE -​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. -​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto -​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group -​
✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel -​


📌 November 6, 2021 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to community supporters – learn more at ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals!​
🟢 Podcast (audio):​
🟢 Facebook:​
🟢 Instagram:​
🟢 Twitch:​
🟢 TikTok:​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts:​


Or visit to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more!​



#WatchingtheWatchers #GovernorAbbott #VaccineMandates #Texas #FreedomFlu #FifthCircuit #Abortion #SB8 #TexasAbortionBan #GabbyPetito #Petito #Coroner #CauseOfDeath 

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert [inaudible] . 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 politician . 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, of course it is early it's Tuesday. And you might be wondering, Rob, what's going on here? This is unusual. It's a couple hours early. Well, the reason being folks is because they moved my afternoon meeting. I was supposed to be a four. They moved it back to five. And so I've got a jet on over to the Scottsdale city council today at five. O'clock make my pitch and we'll see how it goes. See if they like it or not. But that means I would be back here by six, which would mean the show probably wouldn't start till seven. I mean, it's bedtime at that point. So it would be very late. So we're going to squeeze it in before I have to get out of there. What are we talking about today? A lot of legal news, a lot of activity. First and foremost, we've got Texas. The great state of Texas is now banning vaccine mandates across the entire state. Governor Abbott came out, issued a new executive order. We're going to go through that, take a look at it. We're also going to check in with Jen Sakhi over at the white house because the white house is not happy about this. Now you have a direct opposition to the federal mandate. Federal mandate came out from Joe Biden, said this was going to be applicable to everybody. Even private businesses. And governor Abbott came out and said the hell it is got an executive order, and we're going to read through it and see what it says. Then in our second segment, we're going to turn our attention back over to the fifth circuit, talking about another Texas case SBA . We recall we went through this. This is the new Texas abortion statute that the us government didn't like. So they decided that they were going to Sue Texas. And then Texas went into federal district court. They said that abortion law needed to be put on hold. Then Texas said what's and they appealed it up to the fifth circuit. And so we're going to take a look at what's happening there. A lot of activity today, a lot of parties are jumping in filing different memos for in the fifth circuit. We're going to take a quick look at what the government lawyers are saying. We have two DOJ lawyers, Daniel Winnick and Kyle T. Edwards. They submitted a UN , uh , brief in opposition. And so we're going to see what their arguments are. Texas has the , the deadline to respond by, I think this Thursday. So we're gonna break down what's going on with the abortion case. Of course, this is going to be a lot of , uh , meat and potatoes. Legally speaking, we're going to be going to the Supreme court. We're going to hear a lot of political battles taking place around this issue. And so we've got to make sure we're up to speed. And then lastly, the last thing that we're going to talk about in our last segment is Gabby potato. We haven't talked about her on this channel. You may recall that this was all breaking back a couple of weeks ago when my voice sounded like there was a bag of cats being strangled in my larynx. So we didn't get to talk about that. But some new information came out and really there wasn't a whole lot to talk about anyways, because a lot of it was still sort of in the investigatory phase, a lot was speculation. Didn't hear much about it, but now we do. We have the coroner who came out today and is telling us what the cause of death was, what the manner of death was. And so I've got about five different clips of Dr. Brent blue. He came out today, had testimony and answered some questions from the press. And so we're going to able to glean out a little bit more about what is going on with Gabby potato . So if you want to be a part of the show, I know it's early, but if you're [email protected] and you're here, of course, ask a question using the form might be a little bit short on questions today because I know a lot of people are not expecting us to be broadcasting right now, but that's all right. We'll make do. If it's a shorter show than it's a shorter show. If you are looking to find any of the clips, any of the segments that we have after the show, those are all over at a different channel. Robert ruler, Esq slash uh, or, or it's not slash anything. It's Robert ruler clips, just look that up and then you'll be able to find those would absolutely appreciate a subscribe, a like over there so that we can get that channel up over a thousand subscribers. That would be very helpful, very useful for us. Okay. So let's get into the news of the day. Texas governor Abbott came out and issued a new executive order that is going to ban vaccine mandates across the entire state of Texas. So we're going to break this down. We're going to take a look at the executive order. We're going to take a look at the white house response because they are unhappy with this. This is now a direct challenge to the Biden. Mandates federal government came out and said, we have a mandate for you states. The states are now saying we don't want those at all. And we have our own laws that say, mandates are now prohibited. So we have this clashing of the federal government versus state governments. And we're going to see where this goes. We're going to kick this off with a tweet over from Greg Abbott. You can see he said this. He posted this yesterday, says I issued an executive order, prohibiting vaccine mandates by any entity in Texas, any entity, you see that there, there was a prior prohibition saying that he was not going to allow public entities to install vaccine mandates, but now he's extending this. He's basically doing the exact opposite of what Joe Biden did. Joe Biden said, vaccine mandates for the military and for public employees, and then use this it , this bizarre, you know , extension of OSHA rules to sort of in mesh the rest of private enterprise into that order. Abbott did the opposite of this, or it was actually responding directly to what Biden did. Biden said, public officials have to get the mandate. Abbott said, no, you don't bind said private entities now have to get it. Governor Abbott says now, no you don't. And so it's sort of a cat and mouse game between what the feds are doing and what the states are doing. He says he also added this issue to the special session agenda. So he's sending this over to the legislature to get their perspective on this. And he also says the COVID vaccine is safe. It's effective. It's our best defense against the virus, but, but, but should always remain voluntary and never forced, which I think is a pretty dang reasonable position to take kind of, kind of sounds like a lot of other people out there that have made the distinction between the vaccine and between the government's dictate, a dictatorial totalitarian mechanisms of doing whatever they possibly can to get that jab in your arm. It seems pretty reasonable to me. He posted this statement over on the governor's website. We can see over here, governor it's used the executive order. It said today, he issued the executive order stating that no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or consumer who objects to the vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19 Abbott sent a message over to the house and secretary of the Senate saying that they want, he wants them to address it in the third special session. The executive order will be rescinded upon passage of the legislation. And so what that means of course, is it's a temporary executive order. He's asking the legislature to make it a permanent order. And at which time that happens, he's going to then revoke the executive order. And so he just delineated here, a whole slew of objections that the feds are not recognizing that many different private businesses have not been recognizing. We've gone through a number of them here, different airlines, different nurses, different hospitals. We even were talking about , uh, the , uh, what do they call it? A, when you take a kidney from another person and you give it to another person, a transplant, that's the word? So transplants, even those hospitals were saying no exemptions at all right? You either get the vaccine or you don't get the transplant. And so they were not allowing for religion or anything. This one gives us everything. Religious exemptions, medical reasons, prior recovery from COVID even your personal conscience, just because you might be sort of angry as hell that the feds are now making these mandates mandatory. You might just say, well, no. I mean, I'm just going to oppose the vaccine because I don't like tyrannical governments, pretty reasonable perspective there as well. Now, this, as I mentioned, the start of the show is in direct opposition to what Jen Psaki and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and all the people over there in Washington want. And so she got asked today during a press briefing, Joe Biden didn't do much today. If you check his calendar, he did basically nothing, same thing he did yesterday, basically nothing but Jen Saki of course goes out and actually communicates what the administration wants to say. And so she got asked about this and said, Hey, why is governor Abbott doing this? This is either a direct slap in the face to you, people over there in the white house. Here's what Saki had to say.

Speaker 2:

Jen, clearly, governor Abbott knows that federal rules supersede state rules. So why do you think he did this politics? Can you elaborate?

Speaker 3:

Well, I think it's pretty clear when you make a choice that's against all public health information and data out there , uh , that it's not based on what is in the interest of the people you are governing. Uh it's perhaps , uh , in the interest of your own politics.

Speaker 1:

Oh, blaming this on politics. Hmm . Yeah. As though nothing else that has been even remotely related to COVID has been political. Of course. It's all been about the science. Yes. Okay. Jen , let's take a look at the order here from the governor that you can see. This was filed October 11th with the secretary of state says here to the deputy secretary of state, dear deputy secretary Esparza , pursuant to his powers as governor of the state of Texas Abbott has issued the following executive order, GA 40 relating to the prohibition of vaccine mandates original executive order is attached to this letter of transmittal over from the executive clerk to the governor. Here is what the executive order looks like. Now you can see it's signed off on by the governor of Texas down here, Greg Abbott, before we get there, let's take a look at what it says. It says here I am. Governor of Texas. I issued a disaster proclamation back in March 13th, 2020 that's when all this garbage started, whereas in each subsequent month effective through this day, I've renewed the COVID-19 declaration for all of Texas. I've issued a series of executive orders aimed at protecting the public health. Whereas COVID-19 vaccines are strongly encouraged for those eligible to receive them. One must always be voluntary for Texans. He says he issued executive orders, 35, 38, 39 to prohibit. This was the first order I was talking about to prohibit governmental entities and certain others from imposing vaccine mandates. That was the one that only applied to the government. And he's saying now, whereas in yet another instance of federal overreach, the Biden administration is now bullying many private entities into imposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates causing workforce disruptions. That threatens Texas's continued recovery. Hmm . So maybe Jen Saki , didn't read that paragraph. Many other reasons why governor Abbott wanted this thing to go through, including the idea that his constituents also want it to go through. Whereas he says countless Texans fear losing their livelihoods. Another good reason because they object to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for reasons of personal conscience, based on a religious belief or for medical reasons, including prior recovery. Another good reason there that Jen Saki missed, whereas through the Texas health code, the legislature was established the primary role over immunizations and regulations stem from Texas law saying that, Hey , uh , you know, we get to decide what to do with our bodies here in Texas. Whereas the legislature, it says, has taken care to provide exemptions, to allow people to opt out of taking the vaccine. They've already decided you can opt out of certain things. He says, I'm also adding this issue to the third session of the legislature and I'm going to resend it as soon as it gets passed . He says, therefore, now I am by virtue of the power and the authority vested in me by the constitution of this great state of Texas. I do proclaim effective immediately. That number one, no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 by any individual employees, consumers, nobody. If they object to a vaccination for any reason, as I mentioned, personal conscious religious belief, medical regions, anything I hear by suspend all relevant statutes to the extent necessary to enforce this prohibition. Very interesting. Right? So now you're starting to see the distinction here between what governments are doing. You've got a lot of people who might come out and say, whoa, wait a minute. You're a governor. You can , you can't just go in there and suspend all statutes. What are you talking about? And other people are saying, well , uh, Joe Biden has kind of already done that in many, many different ways has taken over a bunch of power that he was never delegated. And he's doing a bunch of things that are extra constitutional, like using OSHA to force different companies, to inject their employees with the jab. And so many people might say, well, wait a minute . I thought we were small government conservatives. And I thought that if you start using the executive power for anything, maybe that's a problem. So for example, right, you might have a situation where you have a governor come out in a state and a governor says, well, I'm petrified of the Corona virus. It's been two years. I'm hyperventilating. I really can't take it. So I'm going to just go ahead and impose a vaccine mandate across my entire state, right? Many people who are conservatives would flip out about that. And they'd say, well, wait, that's not a proper use of the executive power. You don't get to go in there and just decide through executive order that this is what the new law is. What kind of lunacy is that? This is not far off from that to some degree, right? This is the same exercise of that power. This is now a governor coming out and saying, well, guess what? You know, what, how about know the people in my state and want me to do this? And so I'm just going to oppose it 100% and I'm going to issue an order using the same power to prohibit the mandates. But a lot of the conservatives start to cheer about that. Hmm . Is there a conflict here? Maybe it depends on where you look and how you interpret this issue, but you could also always point back to the fact that the feds started this garbage Joe Biden came out and said specifically that many times before he actually imposed the mandate that the feds don't have the power to do this. It wasn't the appropriate role of the federal government. You have Nancy Pelosi on record saying that I think you have Chuck Schumer on record saying that you have Dr. Fowchee on record saying, we are not going to cram these vaccines down your throat. It's not appropriate. It's not useful and productive. They're all on record saying it there's videos. We've played them on the show and they backtrack on that. Didn't they? And so what we're seeing now is sort of this race to codify the laws. The feds are coming out and saying specifically, Nope, we are now in charge. It's your property there . Those are our kids. And you don't even get to go to the schools and protest any of that. And so they're passing all sorts of rules and new regulations through executive order, executive mandate, executive Fiat, essentially. And so many people now that are left in the states are wondering, what the heck are we supposed to be doing about all this? What are we supposed to do? And so governors like Abbott governors, like DeSantis are finally saying, all right , do you want to play that game? No problem. You want to pass your executive orders. We'll pass them and throw it right back in your face. And so we're fighting over these lines. We're seeing this burgeoning conflict matriculating that exists between the feds and the states. And so we've got this dueling executive order battle. That's going back and forth. Now, when this actually goes into the courts, we've got a lot to decipher. Is this going to be found to be constitutional or is the U S government going to be able to use the supremacy clause? That's guaranteed under the constitution to crush states like Texas or to crush states like Florida. We don't know we're going to have to find out, but the good news is, at least from my perspective is a lot of these governors are doing something it's their state get tired of all the complaining and no action. It's their state. If the feds are going to be encroaching on local state governments, well, it's about time for the states to push back on this. Texas is doing it. Number two, it says the maximum fine allowed under the statute under the emergency manager management plan is going to apply to any failure to comply with this order . So it will find people if they are not , um , not complying. Also note here that confinement in jail is not available penalty for violating this order. So nobody's going to jail over this also says this executive order is going to supersede any of the other prior executive orders and says that this executive order does not proceed. Some of these others. He says that this also may be amended, signed this into law, October 11th, 2021. And as I mentioned, right, this was something that was supposed to be temporary. He was going to send this over to the legislature and ask them to codify it permanently in the law. And this is where , uh , this is what that looks like. So he sent this over to the secretary of the Senate, Ms. Patsy spa says , uh , dear Ms . Spa pursuant to this, I'm submitting this message over that. You call this into the third special session so that we can take care of it. He also says here that he wants this for consideration. This is the particular language says, legislation establishing that no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 by any individual, and then gives us those same distinctions. Anybody can object to personal conscience, religious belief, medical reasons, prior recovery of COVID and those things. So he's sort of handing the football off to the state legislature. He's saying, okay, look, I pass this executive order. You guys have a special session coming up. Why don't you just do this? I'm recommending you do these things. Put these provisions in there. These are the appropriate exemptions. That's going to mirror my executive order. And then you're gonna be able to codify it appropriately, right? That that's really how these things should go into effect goes through the legislature. We don't live in monarchies. At least we did it. And until 2020 to 21, where now all of the executives just get to do whatever the hell they want for anything. So this is a big slap in the face to Joe Biden. I mean, this is not very unifying behavior. This is saying directly to the feds. We're not going to comply. Thanks. Thanks. But no thanks. It's very interesting because there are a lot of federal agencies that happen to exist in Texas. Aren't there military bases , federal prisons. You've got companies like Southwest that have headquarters there. You've got a lot of different entities in the great state of Texas, including people who are moving there, like Joe Rogan , Elan's over there. Tesla's moving their butts over there as well. And so they're all prohibited now from imposing those vaccine mandates what Southwest gas or Southwest airlines going to do about that? Hmm . Very curious. Now, Jen Saki over at the white house is not happy about this. She talked to Joe Biden, she woke him up from a nap and said, Joe , Abbott's , you know , getting ordinary again over there in Texas. And he mumbled something. And so she came out in front of the white house, press Corps today. And she's saying, oh , oh no, yeah, we're going to push back. We're the federal government. We run stuff here. Here's Jen Saki

Speaker 4:

Ministration going to Sue , uh , Texas over the , uh , opposing the order for the vaccine mandates. And is there a risk that , uh, kind of , uh, the OSHA efforts essentially get tied up in litigation rather than having the UBB, the effect ? Well,

Speaker 3:

Josh, these requirements are promulgated by federal law. So when the president announced his vaccine , uh, mandates for businesses, that of course we're waiting on OSHA regulations for us , the next step , um, that was pursuant to federal law and the implementation of federal law, because it's an executive order. So our intention is to implement and continue to work, to implement these requirements across the country, including in the states where there are attempts to oppose them. I will say, since you gave me the opportunity , um, governor Abbott's executive order , uh , banning mandates, and I would also note announcement by governor DeSantis this morning, essentially banning the implementation of mandates , uh , fit a familiar pattern , uh , that we've seen of putting politics ahead of public health . Over 700,000 American lives have been lost due to COVID 19 , including more than 56,000 in Florida. And over 68,000 in Texas. And every leader should be focused on supporting efforts to save lives and end the pandemic. Why would you be taking steps that prevent the saving of lives that make it more difficult to save lives in ?

Speaker 1:

Oh, I can't even take it. Okay. So that's Jen Saki . You heard her there, right? Uh, excuse me. Uh, Jen , what's the justification for the white houses posturing on the , the governor Abbott stuff. Are you going to be suing Texas? And what do you have to say about what Abbott did? Well, Justin it's federal law and this was federal law that was passed by executive order, which came directly from the president. And so since it wasn't executive order, that makes it federal law and therefore they've got to comply. And what we're going to be doing here since it is federal law is just continuing to implement this no matter what we're doing. And by the way, did I mention that this is very political. This is, this is political. What they're doing, they're killing 700,000 people. That's the next statement that comes out of her mouth, that they're making this all political. And then they're doing a bunch of things that she is basically saying are our political critiques that they're killing people, their own constituents. And nobody's pointing out the fact that, Hey, Jen , under Joe Biden's leadership, we've got more COVID deaths this year than all of last year and the year isn't even over yet. So it sounds like your track is a little bit worse. I know it's the Delta variant excuse, but that only goes so far when you come out in July, July 4th, and you say it's over the pandemic's over mission accomplished. So Jen has been making this political all throughout her entire tenure because that's exactly what Joe Biden has been doing, but she wants to blame Abbott and DeSantis for pushing back a little bit on the white house as federal political encroachment, disgusting behavior. Let's see what you have to say about this over from watching the I suspect we're going to have be a little bit light on some of the questions today because we've got a smaller crew here since we're a little bit early, but let's see who is in the house. We have be brave says, it's great Abbott did this, but it wasn't soon enough for those healthcare workers at that Houston hospital that were fired a month or two ago. Yeah. A lot of people I think have been , um , been waiting, you know, I would have liked to see some, some people stand up, you know, 18 months ago. Nobody did we have Joe Biden says that governor Abbott is a true American in Patriot. Thank you for issuing this executive order. Oh wait, nevermind. I was just informed. This is bad shame on you, governor Abbott for making this political and not following the science. Yeah. It's all about the science people who make it political people who make it political , uh , are basically everybody at this point. Isn't it? We have the 10th amendment that we've never had the 10th amendment here on the show, but they're here. They have a comment. They say, dear Jen, Saki , am I a joke to you? Did you feel that comment? I felt that 10th amendment. I feel what you're saying there. I don't think you're a joke. I would never treat you as a joke. I, in fact, I think you're pretty important. You mean a lot to me , 10th amendment, but I think, I think Jen , doesn't appreciate you. Like we do here, hang in there. 10th amendment. We have another one from be brave, says not a fan of an executive order by anyone, but if it's good for the goose, you know, and th this is the great debate, right? Be brave. I'm watching a lot of this stuff happen. I'm like, ah, I don't like how this tastes because it is a governor just mandating something. And I don't like that as a general principle. And so I made this argument back when we were talking a lot about critical race theory, right? We saw a lot of states come out and tell us that they're going to ban critical race theory. And everybody who was doing cartwheels over that saying , this is great . Finally, somebody's standing up and taking action. And my critique, there was, yeah, but wait a minute, folks, as soon as there's a Democrat in there or the , the liberals take control of whatever in your state, as the pendulum swings, right? These things go back and forth and you gotta be cognizant of that when you're gaming out your political theory, when they take control, they're just going to look back on your executive order, that mandated a bunch of stuff. And they're just going to reverse it with the stroke of a pen, just like Joe Biden did. When he came into office reversed, a bunch of Trump's stuff, just like Trump did reverse a bunch of Obama stuff. And so the pendulum swings either way. And so what happens if we go back to the critical race theory analogy, if the governor just makes sure that that is banned, somebody else comes in and says, it's mandatory now, critical race theory for everybody. Let's talk about how awful white people are for 24 hours a day. And now you're sort of sitting there going , uh , they can't do that. And the, the legal analysis is surely can because you authorized it. There's precedent on the underlying executive order that your side past . And so now we have this sort of back and forth that goes on. Now, the, the con the, the opposite opinion there, or the, the alternative way to think about that is to say, yeah, but Rob, this is where a lot of stuff is. People are carving out lines in the sand. Joe Biden has thrown. I talk about the hula hoop, right? We talk a lot about the hula hoop on the shelf stuff. That's inside the hula-hoop , that's my business stuff. That's outside the hula hoop. None of my business, a lot of that can apply to the feds. Joe Biden is taking that hula hoop stuff that is not his business that should be reserved to the states. He sort of throwing his hula hoop around these states and saying, oh, well, I'm going to use OSHA. I'm going to use the CDC. I'm going to use the civil rights division of the department of justice. We're going to go and just refund a bunch of stuff with the department of treasury. He is extending that. And so what are the states left to do other than to respond through their own executive orders to push that back to some degree. Now, there are legal things that, you know, that I think really would , would be more legally feasible, like invoking that , that the 10th amendment and suing the governor or suing. Once these OSHA rules are in place where there's gonna be a whole slew of lawsuits. And so a lot of this could probably have been dealt with on the backend, but what Abbott is doing, what the scientists are doing is they're making affirmative statements. They're drawing lines in the sand and saying, all right, listen, we're going to do this. And to governor Abbott's credit, he is also trying to get this through the legislature, which is the appropriate way to codify these things, right? If Joe Biden pass through vaccine mandates in Congress, there'd be a lot less argument that this was something that was dictatorial or tyrannical, or that he was abusing the constitution, because that's a legitimate way to pass this stuff. But he can't do that because he knows it's politically untenable, isn't it? Why don't they pass this in Congress? If they really want to make this thing permanent, because he knows it's not politically good, which is why they're doing it. So you're seeing a very interesting debate. We're seeing a lot of lines being drawn in the sand, and it's exciting stuff. Angie is here says, Hey, Rob, happy you did an earlier live stream because of the time difference. I usually don't get to see it live. I'm glad to see you well and healthy. Have you thought about putting the episodes on Spotify? Ooh , it's a good question, Angie. I don't think we have, are we on Spotify? So I think our audio is on Spotify. We have a podcast by the way, links are all in the description. We clip the audio and we upload that. And I think it's syndicates over to, to a Spotify, but not the video. It's a good question. Hmm. I'm going to have to look into that. Thank you, Angie. Hey , you know, go where Rogan is. You got to go where the big dogs are, gotta put it where Rogan is. We've got Jay. He says, marijuana is also illegal. According to federal law, yet more states are making this legal each year. Sakhi excuses will never stand up. The only control which they choose to. They only control which they choose to Democrats win king of the hill when it comes to making everything political. I agree with you. They are, we have another one from look to G says, hi, Robert, good luck on your pitch later. I'm curious what thank you. Look to G I'm curious, what are the limits of a religious exemption? I'm assuming there is a legal definition though . I may be wrong. What did it include? Issues of conscience, general belief, or would it be limited to specific pre-identified religion or religious belief? So the really, and I'm not , uh , I'm not up to speed on this , uh , conversation or , or the, the , the , the latest, constitutional interpretation of all of this. But basically the idea is that you have to have a legitimate belief in, in a religion. It needs to be something that is not, not something you're just making up, sort of as an excuse. And they're not going to pry too hard, right? They're not going to give you like a quiz. Like if you're a Catholic, right. Who's the Pope, or where is the holy city? Or , uh , what's the name of the Vatican's main cathedral, right? They're not going to do anything like that. How often do you go to church? They're not going to give you a religious test in order to be somebody who , uh, who qualifies for this exemption, but it does need to be legitimate. It can't be something that you just , uh, you know, you make up, I believe in the spaghetti monster. Therefore I am now exempt. Right? They'd look at that. And they'd say, Hey, come on now. Right. That's not a real thing. So they , they, but, but it's sort of like a , um , it's a difficult standard to articulate, but it's sort of, if you know it, when you see it, they're not going to ask you to , to , to dig too deeply, but there is some specific language about making sure that it, that it is an actual, legitimate justifiable belief, not something that you just made up on the fly. Good question. Another one from dead mal five says, so Sakhi wants to blame it on the politics. How would she explain this earlier statement by Fowchee? I don't see it on a national level, maybe mainly because of all the situations you have upon encroaching upon a person's freedom to make their own choice on their own. So let's see, is this a 5g quote from the RNC? Let's pull this one up. Yeah. So he said this, and I think, I think we probably have played this one here on the show. GOP has a quote here from Fowchee. Let's see what we've got on this. Make sure that this is, are you

Speaker 5:

Going to suggest it's mandated for Americans to get,

Speaker 6:

You know, I don't think we've ever had , uh, a situation where you mandated for the general population. So let me give you some example of mandating. So I'm a physician. I see patients in my hospital, right? Literally out the window here, across the hall at the NIH clinical center, during the flu season, the administration of the hospital mandates that I have to get a flu vaccine. Otherwise I won't be able to see patients the way I usually do that has not happened ever to my knowledge at a national level or even at a state level. So I can see the individual institutions mandating a vaccine. I don't see it on a national level merely because of all the situations you have upon encroaching upon persons , freedom to make their own choice of their own health.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, well that was something that was nice. Uh, in July, 2020, obviously we're living in a different world and the science has suddenly changed. All of these opinions have changed, which is a very interesting, let's see what else. We've got some other questions [email protected] Pull this form back up. That was from dead mouse . Five says we've got Jeremy Matree that says, Hey, Rob, just want to say hi. I'm glad Twitch notified me. You were live , threw me off a bit. And I was ready to adjust, ready to go. Jeremy, you're a man of action sprung right into action. As soon as you got that notification, sorry, I didn't give anybody a little bit more prior notice, but I was just able to squeeze it in today. I wasn't sure what my schedule was gonna look like. Uh , V antique is prime says, did anyone else hear Jen Sakhi slipping ? The notion that executive order is federal law. She said it four times. It's federal law. Well , we've already decided this. We are in charge now, is it, is it federal law? Where are the OSHA regulations? Where are these standards? Does anybody pass this into law yet? Nobody's seen anything yet. So , uh , no , uh, it's, it's an executive order, but Congress didn't vote on it. No court of law has determined that it is in fact constitutional. In fact, the OSHA regulations are not even out yet. You heard that from her herself. She came out and said specifically , um, those are coming and we're going to be implementing this across the board. We'll see if that happens. But yeah, it's federal law. According to Saki, if it's federal law, you can stop thinking. You don't have to think about anything else that comes after that statement because it just is federal law. It's just how it is. Sorry. Right. It's like, it's like when you're in an argument with your brother and you're like, well, we should go do this thing. And he's like, we can't mom said, and you go. Yeah, but we should go. Mom said we can't do it. But what mom said, don't ask again. Right? That's just how it is. All right. We've got a couple other questions. The bounty man says I got a father's day card from Jen last year. I suspect it was from the rug under my computer keyboard. I don't know what that means, but it is, it is , uh , a strange statement, which makes it hilarious. Monster one says funny how it's only bad to defy federal law when it's the Republicans. Pretty sure marijuana is still legal at the fed level, but it didn't stop the democratic states. How about sanctuary cities want to have that conversation? Democrats? There's a lot of federal laws that the , I think the distinction here though, monster one is that it's the feds who are imposing the law. And it's the Republican states that are in opposition to the law . And they're unhappy about that. If the feds, if the states are doing something that violates federal law, but they're okay with, nobody cares about that. They just turn their eyes there . They just, oh, oh, oh , uh , 16,000 Haitians coming across the border. No. Well , we don't care about that law. So do whatever you want to do there. Oh my gosh, we have another one from former Elio says, why are we even listening to this non elected political hack? It's so I can make fun of her. And so we can keep a certain contingent of the chat , uh, happy. Very, they they're very happy with , uh, with the gen Saki clips says , uh , get Biden off of the heart lung machine, wake him up so he can hear who holds somebody hear from somebody who holds the elected office. Let's go, Brandon, we have Greg Morat says, Hey, Rob are the unemployment rates negatively correlated with the COVID COVID prevalent states. Good question. It seems like the blue states got the policy wrong, including the federal government. It makes me wonder if it's just down to virtue signaling at this point and not solving actual problems like the unemployment rate. Yeah. I, I think you're onto something there, Greg. It's sort of, you know, it's , there's a phrase called putting good money after bad. Right. You make a decision and it's kind of not the right decision, but you're already invested in it and you got to go, oh , you just got to justify it. And so you just keep investing and investing and investing because if you retract it a little bit, if you reverse course, if you had to come out and say, ah , you know, yeah, sorry about some of those policy decisions we made. There's really no evidence that they worked at all. Given the fact that COVID this year seems like it's worse than COVID last year. And a lot of these things are seeming like they have a lot of unintended consequences, supply chain, shortages, worker shortages. Uh , one of the biggest airlines in the country can't seem to get flights off the ground for four days. Now, a lot of unintended consequences there . Right. Uh, but you have to get them to admit that you'd have to get them to backtrack and you'd have to get them to acquiesce, to gobbling up that power that they have gobbled up. There are trillions of dollars that are unspoken for that have all been justified on the back of COVID. And there's a lot more that they want coming down the pike. They're still battling over three and a half trillion dollars for Biden's , you know, build back better agenda. How do you have a build back better agenda if you don't have a wrecked economy. So it's sort of like, you kind of need that to some degree. And now at this point, it's like, it's like football teams. You've got everybody who's on team vacs , team mandate, and they are psycho fans. They're going to do everything they can for their team to win. And you're just like, Hey, just want to go to the football game and enjoy the game. And they're like, put your mask on or you're going to get murdered in the parking lot. And so that's where we're at now. And those people will never change course. They're never going to go. Yeah. Maybe this is wrecking the entire country. They're just going to say, well, at least we're not killing grandma, even though there's no evidence for that. We have bald . I I'm , I'm scared about this one. I can't, I can't say I can't think of what this is, but I can't say it. Uh, we have, I wish harm upon myself every time I hear Jen Saki talk, don't do that. Don't wish harm upon yourself. It's just Jen. Psaki , it's only temporary. I try to keep it at like two minutes or less. We have former Elio says, when is Saki going to be challenged on the disinformation? She quotes very regularly. Not regularly, unless doosies in the room. The antichrist is here, says I'm waiting for oil change mandates instead of a mechanic, just replacing my engine and charging me lots of money because I was a dumb. The last villain says when I worked in a major hospital, the flu vaccine wasn't mandatory. People who refused would just have to wear the mask. That's why Fowchee said, can't see patients in the same way. Not he couldn't keep his job. That's a good point. A lot of stuff has changed. Hasn't it? A lot has changed. That was the last question over from watching the . Let's see what we have from YouTube. We've got Josh. Oh my gosh is here too . Superchat says, I think Sakhi was projecting what the Biden administration has been doing back to you. Boberg yes. That's a Bob . The Butler reference funny movie. That's from Josh . Oh my gosh. He also says theory. China is making bio warfare , weaponry, U S intelligence picked up on it, released it so people can gain immunity against something similar that's being developed. That could have been more deadly. Ooh , very interesting. That's a , that's a nice conspiracy theory. So the idea maybe that why they're so , uh , vaccine enthusiastic is because they know something we don't. Hmm . Very curious. Take there . That was from Josh. Oh my gosh. Very interesting that my friends is it on that segment. Thank you for all the amazing questions and your support. Okay. So we've got another segment that we've got to get into. What are we talking about here? The fifth circuit court of appeals is hearing the Texas abortion case. Remember this, the state of Texas passed SB eight. This was a , an abortion statute that made it possible to file a claim against doctors who were performing abortions after it was possible to detect a fetal heartbeat. So once this law went into effect was legitimate in the state of Texas, everybody across the country who was part of the pro-abortion lobby, lost their collective minds and did everything they could to try to stop it from going into effect. It did courts let it move forward. Even the Supreme court at the last minute said, no problem. You guys can implement that. And they did. Then we turn around and the U S government decided that they were going to Sue the state of Texas. Here's what that looks like. This is from the docket, from the U S court of appeals for the fifth circuit. You can see here that we've got a nature of the suit. This is a constitutionality of state statutes. So this is why us Sue to Texas. You can see here, the USA versus the state of Texas. And this is an appeal from a case out of the Western district of Texas. So the U S government then to add a little bit more meat to the bones here, the U S government sued the state of Texas and said, this is unconstitutional. We talked all about that lawsuit here. In this case, they said, well, you know, this is impacting federal civil rights, federal constitutional protections. We have military bases in Texas. We have federal prisons. We have a lot of different federal agencies that are over there. And your new SBA law is going to adversely impact our employees and the U S citizens. And therefore we've got to do something about this. So they filed suit. It went into a federal district court and this guy, judge Robert L. Pittman , remember him, we talked about his opinion. He was very unhappy about the Texas statute said that it was, you know , unconstitutional on its face and all that stuff. And so he put a halt on it. He said, all right. Yeah. Until we hear from the higher level courts or even the Supreme court, no more Texas SBA , no more ability to prohibit abortions from taking place in the state of Texas. So now Texas just passed this law. It got implemented. Then boom, federal courts said, no, sorry, you're on hold again. So then Texas said, wait a minute, we're going to take this up to the fifth circuit. How dare you tell us that we can't conduct our business. So there was a federal court of appeals, Texas took it up above them. And now we're at the fifth circuit. Let's see what the fifth circuit had to say. So we have here a couple orders that came out. You might recall the first order that caused a lot of news. Back on October 8th, there was a court order that says that appellant's emergency motion to stay. The preliminary injunction is temporarily held in the bands . So what this means is that we have a , just a hold. Court's not going to be doing anything on that first issue about a preliminary injunction. They're just going to put it in a band. So I'm just going to hold onto it. They also tell us that the appellee is directed to respond to the emergency motion. By Tuesday, October 12th, we have that response. We're going to go through that today. And then it's also ordered that appellant's alternative motion for a temporary administrative stay is granted, okay. This is the Texas emergency motion. So Texas is the appellant and we can see, and we can see. So where am I? Okay. So Texas is the appellant. And what we're seeing here is that the court now granted that temporary emergency stay, which means that the Texas law can go back into effect again. And we talked about that previously on this channel, then we have on 10, nine, we have another court order. We have different people who are trying to jump in on this lawsuit. They're intervening. Now we have, the appellee is directed to respond by 5:00 PM on Tuesday. And then we have another order. This is a court directive issued requesting that the appellee respond. All right , so let's go. So we've got three different orders on October 8th, October 9th, and then October 12th. And we've got a ton of activity that took place today. This is also from the court docket out of the fifth circuit, a lot of activity over the last two days on a yesterday, October 10th, we have lead counsel appeared this guy, Alan SRO field. We have an unopposed motion planned Parenthoods in the house, planned parenthood, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Who else, Texas, we've got planned parenthood, greater Texas, south Texas, planned parenthood all over the place are jumping in on this lawsuit. There's a motion there. We have a response opposition to the motion filed by some other lawyers. We've got motions for stay pending the filing of the appeals. You can see a lot of activity here that was all yesterday. And so we're going to take a look at one of these motions, but then we have look , a bunch of people are jumping in. We have an appearance form. Jonathan Mitchell , Eric Graham. We've got myth. Miss Beth Ellen. Klusman, she's a for the state of Texas, another one, Andrew Bowman Stevens . We've got a court order and some other appearances. And so, okay. You can see a lot of activity. A lot of people are piling in on this. The abortion case is going to be, you know, landmark case when the Supreme court does give us some insight as to what they want to do with this whole thing. But let's take a look at what the fifth circuit had to say. So this was, as you can see here. So let's, let's, let's talk through some of these , um, some of these terms, because these can be confusing. So appellant K . So right now the state of Texas is the appellant. They are appealing this case because the lower level district court found in favor of the United States. They said, oh, you can stop the abortion law from going into effect. So, so Texas now they are appealing to the fifth circuit they're appellants . And then we have the us of America. They're responding to the appeal. So they're the appellee. Then we have Eric Graham, Jeff Tulley , and Misty sharp. These are intervener defendants. They're also appellants. Okay. So they're also jumping in to intervene in this lawsuit and then join in on the appeal. They want to sort of insert themselves. The United States of America didn't Sue them directly, but they're trying to get in on the lawsuit. And so the court ordered that the appellant's emergency motion to stay is temporarily held in advance. So that's the first part of it. We're talking about two different issues. We've got the preliminary injunction, which would be a different justification for stopping or for putting the hold in state. So this is where it's confusing. The law went into effect. The district court put a hold on. The law said you cannot enforce the law. And so what the courts are now are discussing now is putting a stay, stopping the hold, which in effect would allow the law to go back into action. Okay? So we're, we're putting a hold on a hold. We're staying a prior hold, which was implemented by the federal district court, which has lower level than the fifth circuit. So I know it's confusing, but that's how it works. So as to the preliminary injunction, no, go on that says, no, we're just going to hold on to that. We've got some more motions . We got to hear some more activity. We got to hear from the U S government. The feds were going to put that in hold, but down here, the motion for the temporary administrative stay is granted. Okay. And so that's what was sort of lifting the district court, hold on SBA. And so now that is, is what is going into effect. Everybody's losing their minds over that. We also have , uh, the intervener's motion. We're going to skip over that. Now let's take a look at what the U S district, I'm sorry, what the U S department of justice is filing. Okay. So now let's break this down again. We have the state of Texas implemented this law law went into effect. Federal district. Judge heard a lawsuit. USA sued, Texas federal judge says, okay, the hold is now in effect. No more abortion law in Texas, Texas says we want that to come back into effect. The court issued a temporary stay for the administrative purposes as we just read. But now the us government is responding to that first PO portion of what Texas was requesting saying, there should be no preliminary injunction at all. This is an opposition to motions for a stay pending the appeal. So Texas filed a motion for a stay to stop the lower level district court so that SBA could go back into effect. And now this is the government opposing that stay, I'm sorry, opposing the motion for a stain so that the state re so that the original limitation at the district level can go back into effect. Okay? I know it's topsy turvy as hell, and I know it's difficult to explain, hopefully that made a little inkling of sense. Okay. So here is what we see. Now, this document, as we can see, this is an opposition to a motion for a stay pending appeal. This is being drafted by the U S attorneys general. We can see we've got , uh , Brian Boyton , Sarah Harrington, Mark Freeman, and many others who are all with the civil division, from the U S department of justice. This is their motion. They're saying we don't want the fifth circuit to stop the federal courts from getting rid of the abortion law. This is on appeal from Texas. You can see here, this is the outline, right? We're not going to read through all 21 pages, but it says, this is why they say, listen, fifth circuit, Texas is not going to win on their appeal. Anyways, also SBA it's unconstitutional. There's a proper vehicle. First for stopping the enforcement of SBAC . The U S government has the authority to maintain this lawsuit. We're going to look at that argument. And they're also saying that the lower level court, the district court was proper in saying what they did in making sure that this never goes into effect. So they're saying whole the status quo of the lower level courts introduction here says more than two centuries ago, chief justice Marshall explained that the American union rests on a quote constitution of supremacy, of which all acknowledged imposes limits to the legislatures and the states. He says here that SBA flouts, the principle says that it blatantly violates constitutional rights and severely constraints. Judicial review. It's why the U S brought this lawsuit in the first place and why the lower level court stopped the enforcement of SBA. He's saying the motions to stay, that injunction should be denied. So Texas wants a stay of the injunction. They want that lower level district court opinion stopped the U S government doesn't. They want to stand by that lower level federal court. They go on, this is the government speaking says, Texas defends its novel scheme, referring to SBA by invoking state sovereignty. But state sovereignty does not encompass the authority to defy the federal constitution. And you notice how here, these are underlined, right? State sovereignty, but over here, it's the federal constitution, right? Because one is more important than the other. If Texas is scheme, they call it is permissible, no constitutional right is safe from state sanctioned, sabotage of this kind, right? And so he's calling it a scheme because it is a very clever manipulation or , or different mechanism for creating a cause of action. And remember the way that the SBA works is it doesn't empower Texas to go in there and do anything about abortions. But what it does do is create a private cause of action. So if , uh , a birthing person goes in and gets a abortion, then that individual in violation of SBA, because they have a fetal heartbeat. If they do that, then Texas really can't do anything about it, but somebody else can Sue the doctor. Somebody else may be the father who didn't want that to happen. Can Sue Texas and , uh , or I'm sorry, Sue the abortion provider and then get compensation, I think in the amount of $10,000. And so very new dynamic. It's not Texas doing anything, but they just created a cause of action between two private parties. And that's what they're upset about. He goes on. He says, because SBA is unconstitutionally, obviously and because Texas sovereign immunity poses no barrier to the suit, Texas, they say is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, he says, Texas will suffer. No cognizance will harm. If the enforcement of its unconstitutional statute is enjoined. In other words, what they're saying here is if we limit this, if we just allow the district court levels , injunction to stand, Texas is not going to be harmed at all right. This, this was sort of the status quo before the law went into effect in the first place. So we're just returning back to the status quo. He says, if Texas is to be believed, the state has no responsibility for the law at all. All it does is create a cause of action. And the public interest, he says weighs heavily against the stay because presumably there's a lot of women who want to abort their fetus. The month the motions he says should be denied. And also the administrative stay should be lifted as quickly as possible. Want to lift that stay so that the underlying injunction from the district court can go back into effect, which again is going to stop SBA from going into law , Texas, he says does not even to defend the constitution ality of this in court. Instead they crafted the law to hinder judicial review they're disclaiming enforcement powers. They're countering all of the judiciary's constitutional pronouncements is what they said. He says by defining the constitution, Texas is not merely protracted its assault on the rights of citizens. It has repudiated its obligations under our national compact, in a manner that directly implicates sovereign interests of the U S . And so he's talking again about this concept of federalism, federal government versus state governments saying that the state here has actually done everything it can to manipulate around the constitution so that it can infringe on a woman's right to have an abortion, which there they're telling us here is a, a constitutional protection because they're relying on Roe versus Wade. Lot of people don't find that to be a legitimate case and are of the mindset that there is no constitutional right to abortion anywhere in the, in the constitution itself. This was something that was created through the idea of a pin number of rights that came out of RO and , uh , the Casey cases. So he finishes up here quick, we're going to run through this quickly, but he says, Texas is unlikely to succeed on a , on an appeal because it's unconstitutional. Supreme court has recognized the rights to have an abortion before viability, without undue interference from the state. That's the Casey case. That's where we get the undue burden standard, right? If you're going to , uh, if you're gonna do something that creates a burden on a woman's right to choose, that is problematic based, based on the language in Casey, right? If it's overly burdensome, like if you ask a woman to get an ultrasound and then get her ex to sign off on the abortion, that's too burdensome because women have a constitutional right according to Casey to have that abortion before viability. So if you have her go get an ultrasound or listen to a fetal heartbeat or wait a certain period, or go get permission from the father, those are all undue burdens on a woman's right to choose. And he says, because SB eight abortions are banned well before viability, right? This is sort of the point of the law. It's six weeks is when it, after that time, it becomes unlawful. He says that that is an undue burden. You literally cannot get an abortion after six weeks. That's when the heartbeat starts. And so now, even though that fetus is not viable, what this law is doing is encroaching on planned parenthood, because that would be considered an undue interference. He says that the undue burden defense that comes out of SBA is shallow. It does not mitigate SBH chilling effects. It's an extraordinary measure to frustrate judicial. And that's why he's saying this needs to be thrown out. He also says, we talked a lot about standing here. He says the U S has the authority to bring the suit. Texas. He says does not appropriately does not even question whether the government can bring this claim, but he says that they're just challenging this as a violation of the 14th amendment due process, equal protection, all of that stuff. So at conclusion of this motion, we're jumping into the chat and next he says , uh , Daniel Winick for the us government says that this court should deny the stay motions and lift the administrative state as quickly as possible because there is ongoing irreparable harm. Us is not oppose the reasonable expedition of this appeal. So it's a big, it's a big memo. He's he's really saying, look, we've got to get abortions back in business as quick as we can. There's a lot of women who need it out there in Texas. So we'll see what the court has to say about this. Now, there was a reply that is due. So I think on this Thursday, the 14th, I think I skipped over it in the slides, but the U S government submitted their, their position on this. And so the state of Texas has a response to what we just read on October 14th. And that's just two days from now. And so we'll see what they have to say. And then we'll get a final ruling from the fifth circuit. And then you can probably presume that this is going up to the Supreme court. Let's see what you have to say about all of this and more [email protected] We've got red pill convict in the house, says check out barns . And his explanation of the religious grounds for exemptions barns explains even the atheist grounds for denial of the vaccines, the best money I've spent on a podcast after you, Rob that is over at Barnes . Yeah. Go check those guys out. They got a bang in channel , uh, over at Viva's channel. And then he's , they've got a , uh, uh , they're our neighbors over on locals at Viva Barnes, So go check that out. Thank you. Red pill conduct convict for flagging that for us, we have the antique is prime says whether you are for or against this bill, I think it would be w where are we at? Yeah, I think it would be pruned to juxtapose a doctor performing an abortion to a firearm. How are they the same? How are they different? It's a good question. VNT cause prime, I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Now the, you know, last week we talked about some of those signs that were out there. There were a lot of abortion protesters . Remember that they had all of those , uh, uterus signs out there when they were very upset about Texas implementing SBA. And they were saying things like if my uterus had as many regulations as , uh , guns, well, then things would just be dandy or something like that. Like there's more regulations on my uterus and there are on firearms or something, which is not accurate as far as I can tell. But a interesting question, spawn dog says, what if a woman aborted the child that would cure cancer or create truly clean energy? Just saying, yeah , you'll never know. Cause that's that, that clump of cells will never become a human buttered toast. Says, could you use UNO for the explanation of the holds? I'm not following the legal mumbo jumbo. Thanks. Yeah. UNO, who knows that game, right? Reverse you reverse you reverse you. Yeah. It really feels like that. It's really convoluted and I'm not even going to try to botch botch it again. I could probably use an analogy like SpongeBob and something else, but , um, I think, I think I've botched that one enough for one day monster one says no damage. How about the tens of thousands or likely more millions of dead, Texas dead Texans that would happen. Yeah. Yeah. There's a , a lot of potential human beings that never make it into existence. Aren't there. Thunder seven also says, Rob, I'm so confused, but just want to point out how angry I am that the us federal government is trying to override the state's rights. We all know the founding fathers never wanted it to radical government dictating to the states, but that's exactly what's going on. Women can go to any other 48 states to get their babies killed. Religious majority in Texas who are against abortions are now hostage to the Democrats. They're killing agenda. It's very unfair. Red states tend to be against abortion while the blue states now sanctioned infanticide. So women are not being denied. Abortions just denied in Texas for a certain period of time for the fetus. That's a good point. Thunder seven. You know, I think there's a lot of truth to that. That maybe this should be a local issue. Maybe this should be something that individuals decide. Maybe this should not be something that was , uh , created out of thin air by the Supreme court. Pretty dumb decision. We've got joy . Bandolero says so waiting periods and signatures from an ax are too burdensome for the constitutionally protected right of abortion. But for the actual constitutionally protected second amendment, you need a Celio to sign off a background, check transfer fee 200 tax stamp, federal registration for NFA items. What? This is pure smooth. Brainery that's from joy . Bandolero I've never heard that smooth Brainery, which is right, because right, as you get more intelligent, doesn't your brain create more crevices. It's kind of packing the knowledge in there. And so now you've got a situation where you've got a bunch of smooth brainers, nothing going on, no activity at all, no crevices in their brains. Monster. One says, I must say this again. Can someone please inform me where in the constitution that gives right to the abortion doesn't exist. I've read it a few times. Also. I don't think a Supreme court opinion could tell you that either, because if you read it, it tells you that it comes from a penumbra. It comes from an umbrella of rights. It's all extrapolated out of the concept of right to privacy, which, okay. That's a good effort. We'll see what the Supreme court has to say about it. Uh, let's see. We have an a no-name here says, I want to know who drafted this Texas law. It's making them go. Does it allow the mom sued or just the duck ? I think it's just the dock . I think it's just the performer. I could be wrong about that. I think it's just the performer of the abortion. It's a very clever law. I mean, it's really, it's really twist and everybody up into pieces, they're all going, what the heck is going on. So whoever wrote that was really, really clever. No doubt about it. And it's almost designed to be like this legal bomb that goes off. It's like, all right, we're going to draft this sucker. All right. And there's a state action. Oh, well, Texas is not doing anything. They didn't do anything here. So there is no state action. So what do you want to do about that? And um, yeah, they're losing their collective minds. It's pretty fun. We have a aborted fetus says I was going to cure cancer, but yeah , now they don't have the opportunity too bad. All right. Those were great questions over from watching the Thank you for all of your support on the show. We've got one more segment left. Let's take a look at what's going on here. Oh, that's right. Yeah. Gabby potato , Gabby potato. Haven't spent much time on the channel talking about this case. You may recall. I could hardly speak for a couple of weeks, but we're getting up to speed. And today we've got some new evidence. The coroner came out and talked about the manner of death and the cause of death says strangulation. Very interesting case because a lot of people had some speculation about how did Gabby Pitino die. Now it's looking like homicide. Here is the headline over from NBC news says that Gabby's cause of death was in fact strangulation. We've got a lot of clips from this guy. His name is Dr. Blue. And he spoke today. Turf determined that the cause of death was strangulation. And so we're going to talk about this word, what was the cause of death? And we're going to talk about the manner of death and because a lot of the times these use these words can be used interchangeably. The Wyoming coroner came in and gave us a press release today. Her remains were found on September 19th. They were at the Bridger Teton national forest. We're going to take a look at that today. Dr. Brent blue came out called it a homicide 22 year olds cause of death wasn't disclosed until today because blue cited a law that limits the amount of information he can share. He said, our initial determination is the body was in the wilderness for three to four weeks. Another very interesting little piece of information there. And so we've got several clips from him today and some questions and up from many of the reporters who've been following this case along, let's hear what he, and remember the reason why this guy is so important. Okay? Presuming they find out who the killer was. Uh , many people are suspecting that his is her ex Bryan laundry. And if it's him, if it's not him, whoever it is, if they get to the bottom of this, there are formal charges filed. Well, one of the things that is going to come out in trial is the manner, the cause of death. If you've been with us on this channel, we talked a lot about this during the George Floyd case, we heard from many different coroners, in fact , uh, many different experts. One of which was the corner of George Floyd. And he was a key witness. He told us all about all the different permutations of the things that were happening inside George Floyd's body. That testimony went on for a long time. We had many people sort of communicating and interpreting his results. And so it's very big cause of death, manner of death. This is a critical witness. And so let's take a look and see what he has to say. This is Dr. Blue detailing, the manner of death and the cause of death. Here he is today.

Speaker 7:

The Teton county coroner's office is falling before for one verdict and the manner of death of Gabrielle menorah , the detail we find the cause and manner to be caused death by strangulation and manner is homicide by Wyoming state statute. Only the cause and manner of death are released. They're , uh, autopsy, findings and photographs. And that sort of material is not released , uh , by state statute. And I'll be glad to entertain , uh , some questions at this time.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So he says, cause of death is strangulation. The manner of death is homicide. And so a lot of people get these things confused. They say, well, it wasn't it, you know, murder or something like that. And the answer could be yes. Right? But it also could be maybe a case of self-defense. Maybe somebody is a , is a human being and they cause the death of another person, but it doesn't necessarily equate to murder. Right? Because it could be a situation where that one person does cause the death. But there's a justifiable reason for that. The most common example is self-defense, but they cause the death of somebody else, but it's not murder. Okay. So that's why we're talking about these different conversations. Homicide means that another person was the manner of killing Gabby potato , which is different. For example, than her starving to death in the wilderness, or falling off a cliff or succumbing to the, the, the, the, the difficulties of nature or being killed by an animal or many, many different things. We now know that according to this coroner, homicide and the cause of that strangulation, who is this guy, Dr. Brenton blue , he's the Teton county coroner's office. He's the lead coroner. He was elected to the state of Wyoming. Current terms ends in January 20, 23 investigates all sudden unattended deaths that may be deemed warranted. He also notifies people of the next of kin. He does all of the things that coroners do. NBC gives us some more headlines or some more data here. It says that potato and laundry were on a cross-country trip, traveling around. They arrived there. September one, sorry. Laundry came back to north port, Florida arrived there on September one without Gabby Potito her family then reported her missing on September 11th. Laundry's family said that he went hiking on September 14th in Florida, never came back. They'd been trying to find him ever since he's a person of interest. There was a warrant issued for his arrest. After somebody said that he used her debit card, which has Gabby's debit card after , uh, after she was obviously passed away. And after he clearly didn't have permission to do that grand county Sheriff's office released nine 11 audio from an incident that those two had. And many people are saying that this was an emotional break. Now you'll take a look here, right? Laundry. He returned back to his parents' home on September one. They found the body and the body was out there for about three to four weeks. Hmm . So the timeline is coming into more clarity. Now there were several questions that came out of Dr. Blue today. Let's listen to some of them. He here in this next clip, he's going to be explaining how the classification process works in Wyoming. And a lot of this we talked about during the Derek Shovan case, but specifically coroners don't have an option to just go in there and sort of , uh, you know, write whatever they want. It's not a free for all. It's not a creative writing essay. They don't just go get creative with this stuff. The law says specifically, you've got these things that you can do when you're analyzing somebody's death. You've got you. Can't talk about these things. You can only classify them into certain categories. And here is where he's explaining how it works under Wyoming law

Speaker 7:

And the state of Wyoming. There are four possibilities for , uh, a manner of death. They are homicide, suicide accident and natural. And those are the four choices. Uh, when we do an investigation and we look at , uh , the crime scene are the same, the death , uh, the scene of the body, that condition , the body , uh, and findings at autopsy and toxicology. And , uh, that is how we arrive at the manner of death. So it's , uh, it really depends on lots of different circumstances.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So people were really trying to get him to open up and give some more information about what he saw and how he categorized all of this. And they said , okay, it wasn't like, how was it? Uh , was it murder? Was it homicide? Like with self-defense uh, what, what else happened here? And he said, listen, I can't talk about any of that. There's four ways that I can categorize this suicide. Wasn't that right. If it was strangulation, maybe she hung herself. Wasn't that wasn't an accident. Nope. Wasn't that either. Did she fall off something that she hit her head slipped on a rock somewhere? Nope. Wasn't that? Was it natural? You know, what did she get dehydrated? Did she , uh , succumb to, you know , uh , hunger? Did she, did she freeze out there? What happened? No , it wasn't natural. This was a man caused death and the mechanism, the manner, the cause was strangulation. So we've got homicide. It's going to fit into that one category and he can't give us any more information. You can't can't, you can't dial that in a little bit further. Was it, was it murder, homicide or not? So we have another clip. Now . This is where he says specifically that yeah. Gabby's body was out there in the wilderness for about three to four weeks when they found it here. He is,

Speaker 7:

The remains have been , uh, uh, uh, through her to the mortuary here. And the mortuary is dealing with the family at this time, as far as the disposition of the remains, as far as the , uh, time of death , uh, we are estimating three to four weeks from the time that , uh , the body was found , uh, that is actually then the , uh , uh, that our office.

Speaker 1:

All right. And so some dummy turned their microphone on during that zoom meeting. And so you couldn't really hear what he said. So he got asked about it again. Yeah. Three to four weeks out there. Here it is.

Speaker 7:

Uh, our initial determination is the body , uh , was in the wilderness for three to four weeks.

Speaker 1:

All right. So of course, they're talking about a location that looks like this, a huge swath of land out there in Wyoming. You can see lot of greenery, lot of water, lot of wildlife, a lot of moisture, you know, things are going to decompose quickly out there because there's a lot of activity, right. Seasons are changing and you're not going to see something that, you know, like a body that gets frozen , uh, or, or , uh, maintains its composition very well. So three to four weeks go by, they find the body, he does the analysis and he's being asked now, okay, now that you've done your analysis, now, you know, it was strangulation. It was homicide. Is it Brian? Did Brian laundry do this? Or if not, who can you, can you talk about anything? Can you give us some more insight? Did she have bruising? Did she have scars? Was she, you know, she had lacerations. What was going on here? Here's what he says.

Speaker 7:

Uh, we are only tasked with the determination of cause and manner of death who committed the homicide is up to LA law enforcement. And I cannot answer the question about , uh , the FBI. You would have to contact them

Speaker 1:

Lot of that today. Lot of those questions can't really talk much about any of this going to have to refer you over to the FBI. And this is all because of, oh, my light just changed. Uh it's all because of stat that you see that the lights just came on, it's like heaven just opened. Oh, did I have some sort of , uh , intelligent comment there that warranted that? Probably not, but that's all right. So what he said of course was don't ask me, I don't know the answer to that question. This is something you're going to have to talk to the FBI about. And then our last segment, or last question from him today, why did this take so long? Right? This is earlier in September, it's been about a month. Any reason why we couldn't get answers on this sooner, rather than later here is what ,

Speaker 7:

Uh, that we were a very exacting in our examination and the detail by which that examination was done. We were waiting for , uh , uh, uh, various , uh , specialist to come in and , and help us with this investigation. We were waiting on toxicology , uh , to be returned. And it was just a matter of making sure we had everything right.

Speaker 1:

So what he was doing was making sure that they did sort of a full audit so that they could pinpoint that it was in fact strangulation. What if her toxicology would have come back and it was full of fentanyl. What if they would have done a heart exam and they would have found that it was arterial sclerosis or hypertension, right? These were things that we saw in George Floyd, in his body. After the , uh , after the fact, we all saw the , the body camera footage or the bystander footage of Shovan knee with his neck, he hit Shovan with his knee on Floyd's neck, but we didn't see what was going on inside of him. We didn't recognize that there was fentanyl in there and methamphetamines, and he had arterial sclerosis and hypertension. And so that all came out after the fact, at that time, we did see some of that listed in the death certificate. We don't have that yet here in this case. But what he is telling us is that most of that was ruled out and toxicology does take some time to come back, right? There's no question about that. They can typically get an alcohol run back relatively quickly, but if you're going to be analyzing for additional drugs, it's a more complicated testing process that takes a lot more time. You've got to sort of identify what might be in there. And then once you have the , the potential, once you qualify what drugs might be in a person's system, because there's thousands of different drugs, once you say, okay, we think there's fentanyl in there and there's meth. Then you can dial in those tests and then CU , uh , quantitate, how much of that is in a person's body. So you've got to qualify it, make sure it's in there. Then you can test how much is in there, whether that's outside the therapeutic ranges or anything like that. And so that takes time because you have a lot of additional tests you need to do based upon whatever drugs you're testing for. And so that can take a month. The fact that this took a month doesn't really surprise me at all. It seems actually pretty reasonable. I think we've got one more final segment

Speaker 7:

Was quite the media circus .

Speaker 1:

Okay. Yeah, this is, yeah. This is a final clip. This was a good clip. Somebody asked him specifically about kind of his take on this whole Gabby potato thing. Right. He gets asked a number of times you've got people from insider addition , whatever. Right. They're all on this call and they're saying, so , uh, why did Brian Landry do this to Gabby Pitino ? He's like, Hey , uh, are you, I can't answer that. Right. I don't know anything about that. Talk to the FBI, but somebody did ask him about his position on this. They said, Hey, you know, how did you deal with all of this? Like personally and not talking about Gabby, but personally, how did you handle all of the media and all of the attention coming into your little town in Wyoming? Here's what he says. And we can glean something from this. See if you can pinpoint what it is here he is.

Speaker 7:

Well, it was quite the media circus , uh, and continues to be , uh, unfortunately , uh , this is only one of , uh , many deaths , uh, uh, around the country , uh, of , uh , uh, people who are involved in domestic violence. And , uh, it's unfortunate that , uh, these other deaths would not get as much coverage as this one. I'm assuming that because the deceased was a blogger that this received more coverage , uh , than others. But , uh, there are a lot of both men and women who have lost their logs that aren't covered with this kind of media attention.

Speaker 1:

Oh, did you hear what he said? Hmm . A lot of cases like domestic violence. So you can see where he's going with that already. Presuming it was Brian , right? I think everybody is , uh , basically of that position at this point in time, but it is still interesting that he's sort of bundling it up and putting it in that category. This is a domestic violence problem, a domestic violence issue. And , uh , unfortunately there's just too many of these things going on around the country. And so you kind of know how he's going to testify. He's already got in his mind that it is in fact, Brian , right? It's different because that's a domestic violence category. And remember that in many states, including Arizona, domestic violence is not really a crime in and of itself. It's a category, it's a modifier. So you could have an assault case, right? You could go out to a bar in your old town or whatever your sixth street is, wherever you live, you could go out there and you could punch somebody in the face, right. That's assault, but it's not domestic violence unless you're in a domestic relationship with that person, some sort of a romantic relationship or your blood relatives. Right. That's what makes it domestic. So you could have a, an assault case that is not domestic violence, or you could have an assault case that is you could go home and punch your spouse in the face. That's assault, domestic violence. So here, right? Gabby Potito no , she could have been a , it could have been a homicide could have been a murder. Could have been a strangulation. Could have been anybody else could have been a random hitchhiker who just decided to murder her and strangle . Her could have been, anybody could have been somebody who's not Bryant . Who's not in a domestic relationship. And that would not be domestic violence. It'd be homicide. It'd be strangulation. It'd be murder, but it wouldn't be domestic violence. So you know what the coroner is saying here? Yeah. It's yeah. It's domestic violence. Who was Gabby potato in a domestic relationship with Brian laundry. So now we know, I think where he is going on this one, let's see what you have to say on this, [email protected] . And then we're going to wrap up out of here. I got to get down to city council. Let's see, we got major here says since it was proven that the police strangled George Floyd, it makes my theory of the FBI killing her all that more plausible. Think about it. No one was letting the white house off the hook about Afghanistan until the story broke, broke, not illegal immigration, not vaccine, not COVID the fake right for the January six stuff. I'm certain laundry is going to end up dead too , to cover up this story. Ooh, that's a nice little conspiracy there. That's for major that's fun. I like that spawn dog says I would be surprised if they found him alive. I believe he committed suicide. The only thing they'll find are his remains. I think that's probably a pretty decent take monster. One says, how do we vote in your election? I got a few hundred ballots. I'll send you. Doesn't matter if I don't live in Arizona. We learned that during the presidential election. So nobody votes for me other than the city council members. There's only a handful of them. So they have their ballots pretty tightly controlled. But I appreciate the thought thunder seven says what a monster. Her boyfriend is no matter if the murder was premeditated or a crime of passion like OJ did when Nicole , either way, the boyfriend needs to turn himself in and build a defense as he deserves a fair trial, but he left Gabby's body without notifying her family or the police. They may never have found her remains. He's probably a psychopath has no remorse or guilt for what he did. I can't imagine the pain. The galleys family are enduring. No question about that, right? It's very difficult to lose somebody. No , no doubt about that. So our thoughts are with them. Joy Reed says this is a classic missing white woman syndrome. The news wasn't reported if she was black. Nevermind. I am the news and I have a major platform. Oh yeah. Dummy. How about that? Joy? We have another one from monster. One says, don't worry, dog. The bounty hunter is on the case. Well, hopefully he finds something to trust him more than the FBI. Probably. Uh , John Haugen says, Rob says FBI and the light comes on behind him. It's been nice knowing you, Rob . Thanks, John . It's been real. I've enjoyed our time together. Probably have a SWAT team right outside my room here , uh , from the FBI waiting to haul me in after the , uh, the show today. Hopefully not, I I'm a law abiding guy. I just have a lot of opinions. Geo Mancy games , subscribe on YouTube says I don't have much to say on this tragic case, just that everyone should love their families and pray to find peace in this world, evil Israel. I can only hope that we come to this realization as a nation. Thank you for everything you do, Rob, to those who haven't joined over on his website, do it. The community has some of the kindest, most helpful welcoming people I've ever met. It's true. We have an amazing group of people. We have a community. That's what I keep talking about here. I'm not just saying that. We're trying to build a community. It's at watching the so that we can support one another and have some fun and dunk on the white house. Monster. One says , uh , Rob had his first epiphany. Oh no, I have it on a timer. I recognize what that was. We're just early. We're just early. That's why it went off. We have another one from monster. One says what took so long? How about he was doing his job? People think it's like a TV show where things instantly happen. What's the computer say? Enhance, enhance, enhance, enhance, enhance. Oh, there's the DNA fiber. Oh, who , who is it? Show it's OJ. Oh, great. Uh , put him on Google. Oh, where is he? He's at, Applebee's sending the SWAT team and they arrest the guy in about 30 seconds. We have another one from look. Two G says interesting that he dropped domestic violence. Seems like public employees should learn more about how priming works may help with convicting the innocent priming and psychology. Yeah. Sort of dropping those little seeds, those little nibbles so that people can just latch onto them. Maybe that's what he's doing. Probably how he's going to testify. We have Jeremy MITRE to says, Rob, you made a good distinction about domestic violence charges. A friend of mine. Isn't law enforcement officer in San Fran. He mentioned responding to a call about a fight at a bar. The fight was between two guys. He asked if they were in a relationship, his body camera was running. He said, when he asked the question, he tried to throw them a little grace. He said, when he was asking the question, he was shaking his head to try to hint to them. He said, once they said, yes, he was required to arrest one of them. Well, I don't know what the policies are in San Francisco, but yeah. I mean, they, they arrest somebody typically it's the male, if it's a heterosexual relationship, but wasn't in that case , uh, Brian laundry says going to hire you, Rob and make you the most famous lawyer in the nation. Let's talk after the show, I'm in, let me know, let me know how I can help. I think everybody deserves a defense. It doesn't matter what the offense is because there is a bigger principle at play. It's the presumption of innocence. It's due process. It's the right to counsel. It's the right to trial. It's the right to remain silent. And if nobody is standing up for those, that most of society is willing to just throw right in the dumpster. Well , we've got a big problem because guess what? Sometime society might say you belong in the dumpster and you don't, we can't let that happen. We're going to continue to do the work that we do. Those were great questions over from watching the . And that means we're done for the day. That's it on the show early show. Thanks for hopping in here and being a part of it. We are going to have to scoot on out of here though, because I've got to go throw on a suit, jacket, tie the whole deal and go down to the Scottsdale , uh, city hall where I'm going to be appearing in front of city council. Hopefully making my pitch to stay on this board. That I've been a part of for the last three years, because we've got some work to do local governance, local involvement. I hope that we can help to sort of change things around a little bit, starting locally. And so I've got to go get to that. My friends wish me luck. Hopefully it goes well. We'll see a couple other people are running highly qualified candidates. So we'll see what the universe has in store for me. But I am going to get up and get out of here before we do. Let's remember to welcome our newest [email protected] Shout outs to Lynn fish. We've got germs over here. We have sniper 2 75 Lao , Patricia Apollo Revere, H S DNP Thai living Maxima 27 unbridled form. Aviatrix burnt to a crisp six to two, and let's be fair. Prior week, we had a lot of other amazing people come and sign up and my friends were going to be doing a little bit more locals, only content, or at least locals live stream . I'm probably going to keep them public over there, but I want to start having a little bit more, you know, casual streams where we can interact a little bit more. This is all a lot of presentation with a little bit of questions at the end. So tomorrow we're going to do a live show, a live show prep on locals , 10:30 AM, Arizona time. That's going to be one 30 Eastern time, maybe 30 to 45 minutes. You know , first thing in the mornings, I typically will come into the office and I'll get a glance at the stories of the day and decide what I want to talk about. And there's no reason I need to have that conversation alone with myself in my head. It's kind of insane. Why don't I just have that conversation with you? Because I get most of my stories and a lot of my insight from what takes place at locals. So join me tomorrow, Wednesday, 10:30 AM. Arizona time. That's 10 30 Pacific, one 30 Eastern time. If you want to be a part of that conversation, and I'm going to start off with one day a week and it's probably going to expand into two and then three, and then more because I'm trying to work myself out of a lot of the, sort of the day to day in different areas of my life. And so come join me tomorrow. 10:30 AM on locals. If I don't see you there. Well, hopefully I see you on November six at our monthly locals meetup , which of course is amazing. Sign [email protected] . And if I don't see you there either, well, I'm going to see you right back here tomorrow. Same time, same place as usual. Not today. 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast for that one, Florida man, we back on schedule tomorrow. Everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. See you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .