Garland Grilled in Congress, NIH Funded Gain of Function, Bannon in Criminal Contempt

Attorney General Merrick Garland is asked hard questions about public schools, January 6th, and Hunter Biden. National Institutes of Health admits to funding gain of function research in a new letter. The January 6th Select Committee and U.S. House of Representatives holds Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena.​

And more! Including:​

🔵 U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee today regarding a range of issues.​
🔵 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) from the House Judiciary Committee asked Garland about Loudoun County schools.​
🔵 Rep. Thomas (R-KY) asked A.G. Garland about undercover federal agents at the January 6th protests.​
🔵 Merrick Garland was asked about artwork and Hunter Biden.​
🔵 Newly released letter from Dr. Lawrence Tabak with the National Institutes of Health discusses experiments conducted with EcoHealth Alliance.​
🔵 Fauci previously told Rand Paul the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research.​
🔵 Tabak’s letter to Rep. Comer seems to show that viruses being studied by EcoHealth Alliance did gain function.​
🔵 Republicans demand answers from Fauci, even suggesting prosecution.​
🔵 Steve Bannon is held in criminal contempt by the January 6th Select Committee.​
🔵 Republicans previously circulated talking points about valid legislative purposes in opposition to voting to hold Bannon in contempt.​
🔵  Reps. Liz Cheney and Matt Gaetz deliver their arguments from the House floor.​
🔵 Your questions, comments and live chat after each segment!​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

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

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​

🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​

📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​

👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

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

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

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

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

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

#WatchingtheWatchers #MerrickGarland #JudiciaryCommittee #AGGarland #NIH #WuhanLab #LabEscape #FauciLied #GainOfFunction #RandPaul #Fauci #SteveBannon #J6 #J6SelectCommittee #Contempt

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called a justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system. With a hope of finding justice. We're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into on today's show. We're talking about us attorney general Merrick Garland was in front of the house judiciary committee today. God asked a lot of interesting questions for a number of different representatives, including about schools, particularly the Loudon county public school system. The school system that we've talked about on this channel, where there was allegedly a rape of a 14 year old students that Merrick Garland never heard about. So we're going to talk about that. He also got asked about undercover federal agents on the January 6th day. And he got, also got asked about our friend hunter Biden and some of his artwork. So very interesting non-productive type of judiciary hearing, but it's fun nonetheless. So we can just take a look at what these clowns talk about all day. Then in our second segment, we're going to turn our attention back over to the national institutes of health, because they may have been hiding the ball a little bit, turns out they sent a letter over to another Congressman saying, yeah, you know, uh, you know, the gain of function funding, some of those conversations that Dr. Fowchee was having with Rand Paul, it turns out they're maybe a little bit more to it than that. A letter went from a doctor over at the NIH over to a Congress person talking specifically about a complex issue that may or may not be gain of function depending on how you want to interpret it. So we're going to read through the letter and then you can be the person who decides what to take from it. But, uh, yeah, we've all, all sort of suspected. There was a lot more going on here. And I think this cracks, that shell open a bit. And then in our last segment, we've got to talk about Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon just got held in criminal contempt today, or voted to be referred over for criminal contempt, recommending the charges over to the justice department. Steve Bannon, there was a house vote today and they said, you're in trouble, buddy. You didn't show up. We issued you a very important subpoena from a very important January 6th select committee and you disregarded our important documents. And so they voted and you know, there's a little bit of a spectacle. We have Liz Cheney who was out there talking about it. We have Matt gates as well. And so we have a potential new criminal charges for Steve Bannon, depending on what the justice department wants to do with it. And so we've got to analyze that and more, if you want to be a part of the show, of course, we're broadcasting all over the internet, but we're taking questions from watching the watchers.locals.com where the live stream is our home base over there. We've got soul Viking, rata, see, I'm not gas, we've got monster one just joined in tos forever, uh, all chatting away. And so if they want to ask questions, well, this is the place to do it. If you're a part of the community, you get to use this form and you can ask a little bit more substantive questions and we can really sort of dive in to some meat and potatoes and have some fun from time to time as well. If you're looking for clips, if you can't ever stick around for the full show, there's another YouTube channel. That is my name plus clips. And that's where all the individual segments are. So we sort of skip the intros, skip the transitions, get right into the heart and potatoes, the meat and potatoes of the content. So definitely check that out if you're interested in those clips and we appreciate the shares. All right? And so without any further ado, we need to get into business. Don't we, us attorney general Merrick Garland was called in front of the house judiciary committee today. And in ordinarily, these things were supposed to be serious where you come in and talk about important issues and get some answers. So you can start working on solutions. That's what a functional government would do, but we don't really have that. So what we have instead is about, uh, what we're about to see where we're going to have a lot of very interesting questions, being proffered by a lot of Congress people, and we're going to have a government bureaucrat. And this happens. It's not just because it's Joe Biden and this is Merrick Garland. This happens with most bureaucrats and most congressional hearings in general. Doesn't matter who it is. You can haul in mark Zuckerberg, the Google people, Jack Dorsey in whoever you want in front of Congress. And they just sit there. I don't know, I don't know what to say about anything. I'm such a dummy. And so that's how these things go. And so it really kind of turns into a spectacle where we just get to watch our elected officials just kind of backhand. These people left and forth and they all deserve it. Obviously a peacefully and political backhands, of course. So we're going to start off now. A very important issue that we had been talking about on this channel has been schools and the federal government's continual encroachment onto local communities. And just saying, it's our business. Now, whether it's the CDC saying, oh, those are our houses. Whether it is the school boards saying, well, uh, FBI's in charge of how these things work. Now, you know, the list goes on and on where the feds come into the local local state governments and they just step all over it. And so a question came up from an elected representative, somebody named rip, uh, chip Roy from Texas, ask Merrick Garland about a school issue. Given the fact that the feds have been jamming their noses in the schools everywhere you turn, if the schools don't mask, while the feds will step in and deal with that, they'll call it a civil rights violation or they'll file something under the American with disabilities act. They'll go after you on that regard. And we've covered that here with the secretary of education, Dr. Miguel Cardona, we've talked about them refunding through the department of treasury, any schools that are being defunded for failing to comply with state law. We talked about this with Ron DeSantis. He passed a Florida, legitimately passed a law school, said we're not going to comply with those laws. Rhonda Sante said, that's fine. We're going to go ahead and defund you federal government said, okay, well, we're going to go ahead and refund you. So they're stepping in and encroaching all over the place. So the feds do this very regularly. They get into the schools, but we have a very new, interesting new case involving the Loudon county schools. If you rewind the clock, we talked about this, there was allegedly a transgendered students or a male student wearing a skirt or something to this effect. And we don't know much of the information here because these are all juveniles. We were just talking about what has been presented to us in the stories that we've covered. Allegedly raped and sodomized. A another student, a 14 year old student father was brought into this. No formal charges were pressed until about two months later, this student, the alleged assaulter got re re sent over to a different school. Allegedly assaulted somebody there. If you sort of connect the dots on this thing, and it's a big problem, school was apparently investigating this not much happened there. Father comes back during a school board meeting and is angry as hell. Obviously wants to make a point to, to everybody in public and say, Hey, my daughter got raped. I'd like somebody to do something about it. What do you think? We talk about it. They didn't let him take the stage. He was, uh, arrested later, not charged turns out after the investigation went forward. Daughter was in fact taken to the hospital. She was examined. A rape kit was done. Turns out. Yeah, she in fact was raped. Thank God the father threw a fit about it. But the, the, the question here is, did the school board cover it up? Because they were talking about this specifically and the board, the people who were the presidents of the board said, no, we had never heard about this at all. That happened in our schools, are you serious? And they just were never made aware of it, but they were at the same time, communicating all about passing a new transgender bill that includes some modifications to the bathroom policy. So how could a competent school board be literally contemplating new legislation that directly is going to impact the, you know, the students in that facility by opening up the bathrooms and sort of being more accommodating when at the very same time, like right in that same timeframe, right? In that window of time, somebody got raped under those same conditions. You'd think somebody would go, Hey, that's a red flag. Maybe we should talk about this again. But they didn't turns out that they were hiding all this stuff all over the place. And so it might be a good idea that the us department of justice remember the same department of justice that has been shoving their noses and everybody's local business for the last 10 months or so if they're going to hold that same standard, wouldn't they be investigating that? Yes or no. And so chip, Roy had some questions for Garland about that today.

Speaker 2: 9:07

[inaudible] are you aware that because Louden county prosecutors confirmed that the boy who assaulted this young girl in broad run high school is the same boy who wore a skirt and went into a girl's bathroom, sodomized and raped a 14 year old girl in a different Loudon county high school on May 28th. Are you aware of those facts that the boy was, are you aware of firmly? Are you sorry? Are you aware of further that the boy was arrested and charged for the first assault in July, but released from juvenile detention

Speaker 3: 9:33

At, it sounds like a state case, and I'm not familiar with it. So I'm

Speaker 2: 9:35

Sorry. You agree with Louden parents? You said it is not okay to allow a child that has been charged with a rape to go back into a school in that public school system.

Speaker 3: 9:43

Again, I don't know any of the facts of this case, but, uh, but, uh, the way you put it, it certainly sounds like I would agree with you, but I don't know the facts,

Speaker 2: 9:51

The FBI, or the department of justice investigating the Loudon school board for violating civil rights are under authority of say the violence against women act. I don't

Speaker 3: 10:00

Believe so, but I don't know the answer that,

Speaker 1: 10:02

Yeah, just a national case that everybody's been talking about this guy. Oh, it's just a state case. No, I mean, well, I don't know. I have no idea what's going on there. I mean, I came out with a memorandum the a couple of days ago, specifically talking about the, uh, you know, the lawlessness, the domestic terrorists that were invading and inserting the public school boards. But aside from that, he's just, uh, out of the loop because the justice department, they just don't get involved in state cases. He's just not familiar with the facts, their congressmen don't, you know, anything. He's the United States attorney general. He's not a state attorney general. It's a different level. We have a different system of government, the federal government and the states, except that the us department of justice has no problem getting involved in state business. When it involves, let's say, African-American students in the state of Utah, then they're ready to go. They're actually spring loaded. They've got no problem talking about it or getting involved as they communicated today, Thursday, October 21st, the very same day that Merrick Garland was testifying. They posted this press release over on the justice department, government website. You can see that on Thursday, October 21st, they say the justice department reaches a settlement to remedy severe racial harassment of black and Asian American students in Utah. Okay. So there you go. So they shoved their noses in a, in a business when it, when it fits their particular agenda, obviously department of justice, their civil rights division, the same one that chip Roy asked about, uh, and the us attorney's office. They entered into a settlement. This was opened a long time ago, civil rights act. The investigation revealed persistent failures. Somebody used the N word, racial epithets, uh, hundreds of different documented uses, right? And so they go and investigate this stuff when it is appropriate, this was going on for some period of time. I'm not saying that this was not inappropriate, right? This very well sounds like some seriously bad stuff going on, racial epithets, none of that, all bad, all appropriate to go and make sure it's not happening in the schools. That's not what I'm talking about, but I am saying that Merrick Garland's garbage response. I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, you do. Yes. You do. You are the attorney general. How do you not know what's happening here? And it's not the fair excuse. The idea that you just get a, we don't pay attention to state business. Yes, you do. You posted about it on your government website today. All right. So here we go. So it's just constantly, the standards are changing. We're just going to selectively enforce the rules because we have a weaponized politicized justice system. Now this is an actual copy from the settlement that happened. You see this September 15th was 2020. One was the date of the settlement DOJ department. They entered into this disciplined black students, more harshly formed different groups, title a four here, we've got a race, sex, origin, religion, eight requests for information by the DOJ. So they get involved in this stuff all the time is the point of this. And a Merrick Garland, I think, is being very disingenuous when he says he doesn't know anything about it. Well, maybe in fact, he doesn't, which is part of the problem. All right. And so that was just one question. We have another question here from a different representative. Somebody, the name of, by the name of Thomas Massey asked him another very important question about the most serious, the most gruesome tragedy in American history, January six. Hello. And so he said, Hey, you know, since this is the most broad sweeping most, you know, gigantic investigation that has ever happened under any administration, got a question for you about the feds and the undercover agents that are still, uh, at the top of everybody's mind, were they involved in this here's Thomas Massey? Interesting question. There's a

Speaker 4: 13:37

CERN that there were agents of the government or assets of the government present on January 5th and January 6th, uh, during the protests. And, uh, I've got some pictures that I want to show you if the, uh, staff could bring those to you. Um,

Speaker 5: 14:07

[inaudible], I'm afraid. I can't say that at all. [inaudible][inaudible]

Speaker 4: 14:37

All right. You have, you have those images there and they're captioned. Uh, they were from January 5th and January 6th, as far as we can determine the individual who was saying, he'll probably go to jail, he'll probably be arrested, but he wants every, but they need to go into the Capitol. The next day is then the next day directing people to the Capitol. And as far as we can find this individual has not been charged with anything. You said, this was one of the most sweeping investigations in history. Uh, have you seen that video or those frames from that video?

Speaker 3: 15:11

So, as I said at the outset, uh, one of the norms of the justice department is to not comment on an impending investigations, particularly not to comment about a particular scenes or particular individuals. This,

Speaker 4: 15:27

I was hoping today to give you an opportunity to put, to rest the concerns that people have, that there were federal agents or assets of the federal government present on January 5th and January 6th. Can you tell us without talking about particular incidents or particular videos, how many agents are assets of the federal government were present on January six, whether they agitated to go into the Capitol and if any of them did. Okay.

Speaker 3: 15:53

So I'm not going to violate this norm of, uh, of, of, uh, the rule of law and a comment on an investigation that's ongoing.

Speaker 1: 16:00

Okay. So, you know, when it's, when it's one of those answers, when it could easily be just a yes or no. Well, you know what that means? It means yes, there were definitely FBI or undercover us agents there. Uh, clearly because we know this, uh, why, well, it's pretty obvious because the FBI and, uh, the U S justice department, the U S attorney's office, a whole cascade of us bureaucrats have been playing where's Waldo for 10 months now, and just identifying faces and circles and calling everybody and going into, you know, under, you know, in the gutter and looking up, uh, every single person's minor crevice to just go and identify every single person humanly possible on their Twitter account every day, where's Waldo, where's Waldo, where's Waldo, where's Waldo. But for some reason, a us congressperson couldn't find any information about that person that he played in that video being arrested or charged with a crime, which is very interesting because his face is pretty clear. We can see right here exactly who we're talking about. This is the video that they played. This was exactly what Thomas Massie played, and you can get a pretty good, clear ID on this guy. You can see his face. And if you can't see it in this video, well, this guy with the actual camcorder, like, you know, six inches from his face, pretty sure he's got a clear line of sight there. So let's see what this guy who is definitely not a fed. Let's see what, uh, what he was doing. And look, this is a congressperson who played this video today and they've looked into it. So we're going to play it here

Speaker 5: 17:36

And back tomorrow. I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested. We need, we need to go. I'll say we need to go in

Speaker 1: 17:46

And turn that volume down a little bit.

Speaker 5: 17:48

Then[inaudible]

Speaker 1: 18:40

Agitating everybody who was that guy. You know, we've seen a lot of news coverage from all of the proud boys and the old keepers and, you know, Jacob Tansley and the Q and honors and all that, who was that guy? Very curious, sounds like an, uh, Thomas Massey, a congressperson who's on the judiciary committee. Some people who might have some pretty keen insight into the prosecutions, people who have access to information that we don't have access to, they looked into it. They couldn't find him being charged anywhere. Interesting, big, giant, tall guy, somebody who can get above the crowd, somebody who's spending a lot of time there going around person to person whispering in their shoulders. Just like that to say, Hey, you know, what's going on over here. So if mayor Garland, it'd be very easy to say, listen, I can unequivocally say no us agents were undercover inciting anything, right. If there were there, they were there doing, you know, security. But I can't talk about that. Cause the rest of the investigation is ongoing. Okay, well, there you go. That's an answer, but he just blanket, you know, takes the whole thing away as you would expect, because they're not going to talk about any of this stuff because they just don't have to because they have these little weasel words, I'm a lawyer. I know how it works. We made them for that reason so that we don't have to answer questions. All right. And so our last question from the, uh, the esteem steamable Congress, people was about our dear friend hunter Biden. That's right. Hunter Biden, the artist, the newly amazing artist. We've talked about a lot of his artwork here. Pretty impressive stuff. Now I have not been able to afford it, unfortunately, because they sell for$500,000. But, uh, a congressperson did a very nice job today comparing and contrasting the two. Very, very interesting. And so let's listen into this question and, uh, and see how U S attorney general Merrick Garland talked about it. Here. It is in general,

Speaker 6: 20:28

Direct your attention to the easel behind me. Uh, the first painting is a Claude Monet. I'm sorry, I can't, I can't read any of the words you don't need to. You just need to look at this great painting. Right? Very beautiful. It is beautiful. And it is listed at Christie's for$700,000. Now, Claude Monet was the founder, the impressionist movement, something I didn't know until I researched it. Um, the second painting is that they got it. Uh, another world renowned artist, and this painting sold for$500,000. The third painting you may recognize this name is a hunter Biden

Speaker 3: 21:06

Paintings recognize the

Speaker 6: 21:07

Painting, the hunter Biden painting sold for$500,000. Also. Now you may think that's such an exclusive, um, that, that when hunter Biden is in such exclusive company, that he would have a background, you know, artistic training, for example, um, but you

Speaker 1: 21:23

Would be rubbing his eyes.

Speaker 6: 21:25

And you might think that he had some sort of apprenticeship with a world renowned artists, but you wouldn't be wrong again. If you thought that, or perhaps that he has been selling his works for years. And again, unfortunately you would be wrong. It turns out that in 2019, hunter Biden couldn't find a gallery to list his art. And what happened in 2020 that changed all that his dad became president of the United States. Now a single piece of art from hunter Biden's sells for more than the average American home. This art arrangement is so suspicious that the Obama administration ethics czar Walter Shahab tweeted on July 10th of this year. Hunter Biden's should cancel this art sale because he knows the prices are based on his dad's job. Shame on POTUS. If he doesn't ask hunter to stop by the way Mr. Turner.

Speaker 1: 22:19

All right. So you get the gist of it. It's like, all right, guys, ask you a question. What's your question. Yeah, we got it. It was funny. Nice joke. Okay. Well, not going to get any answers on that one. I don't even know what Carlin said. You know, it's outside of my purview, talked to Jen Saki about it. He's an artist. Okay. And art is dynamic and value. Some people, you know, one man's trash is another man's treasure. As they say, hunter Biden has accumulated a lot of the former hasn't he? All right. Let's take a look and see what you have to say about any of this over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Let's see what we've got here. There we go. We've got, oh, that was from random Graham yesterday talking about the Dave Chappelle segment that we did. We have an FBI agent just joined. The house, says what's going on in here? Somebody else says Garland is just mad at the world because he's not a Supreme court justice. Yeah. You know that, that I'm sure that leaves a sour taste in somebody's mouth. No question about it. He was very close to that seat and didn't get it. I'm not guessed as with the Loudon county stuff. I think that it's a good time to remind everyone that public school teachers sexually abused students at a higher rate than Catholic priests. Ooh, let's see. Psychology today. Article what do we have here? Oh, six myths about the clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic church. So it's, you know, I don't think really in an ideal world, we have zero sexual abuse, right? None of it, zero. Um, and so it's, it's, I it's good for the Catholics that it's less sexual abuse than Loudon county, but still not a real big win there. And I say that as a Catholic, we have another one from thunder. Seven says I would have enjoyed watching Garland's squirm when being asked serious questions for wants. Did anyone mentioned his conflict of interested with son-in-law's ownership and the CRT program? They did actually, but I just didn't see the clip of that. Uh, they were in there for a long time. He's getting a wealthy from it. Right. And that was the idea that his son-in-law actually is a part of the, uh, part of an organization that I guess develop CRT programs that are being placed in schools. But thunder seven says silly me. There's no accountability with the Beijing Biden administration. They break the law like continually, nothing has done. At least not yet. I can only hope and pray that justice will drop a huge gavel on the entire corrupt lot. One day. Meanwhile, let's go, Brandon. That's from thunder seven. Good to see you thunder. Thanks for the nice comment. So Viking says if Garland doesn't know anything about the boy and address or raping the girl in the girl's bathroom, he's ignorant and derelict. I'm not sure he doesn't. I'm sure he doesn't want to know us sick. He says former Elio says, did the Agee issue a memo about domestic terrorism at school board meetings? Or didn't he? Yeah, he did. Yes, he did. That's my point is they, they invest themselves in all sorts of local school issues all the time, including a press release that was announced today. So I'm not really accurate, but okay. Look, two G says, wow, Garland whose son-in-law has a business interest in CRT is so interested in justice being served to our citizenry, that he would have the FBI protect a board of education members against the parents. But interestingly, he has no knowledge of a child and a father who was mistreated by similar board. It seems like he may be biased. That's from look to gee maybe, or maybe he just doesn't know, you know, he's confused. Him and Joe Biden had breakfast in the morning. And by the time they finished their oatmeal, everything's gone. VMT, antique prime says, and people used to think, I looked like a narc, but this guy that was from VNT kiss. Did people say that about you? If you had to kiss? I would never say that D rod says, Hey, Rob, totally off topic. But Trump has gone IPO on a social media company. Ticker symbol is D whack DW AAC, which is a parent company of the Trump media group. Website is truth. social.com can sign up when it's in beta apps available on app store and iTunes wanted to bring this to your attention, send it since it will include video sharing and chatting, oh, another, uh, another set of options to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, special acquisition company. That's going to merge with Trump media company, check it out. It's selling well interesting D rod. Well thank you for that. I saw some hints of that. You know, I'll keep my eye on it. It's always interesting to see sort of the ebbs and flows of social media. Trump has tried a couple of different iterations of this. And so we'll see if one of these sticks, but definitely something to continue to watch. Thank you for sharing that we got monster one says, yeah, I smell a fed. Yeah, that guy, clearly I fed, we have another one monster. One says, just think guy was almost on the Supreme court talking about Merrick Garland. And we have another one, a couple more coming in. I have questions says, who are those two guys sitting behind Garland? One of them is talking to someone. You can see his mass moving. Could they be there to watch Garland? They could, yeah, there could be assistants or aides or just congressional staffers, who knows. But they did kind of look shifty. I didn't, they kind of like, they were doing one of these things, you know, watching out who knows chairman of the board says, I'm the, uh, it's the most sweeping investigation in history. As in sweeping, under the rug agents, what agents was the crowd shouting fed, fed, fed, because they knew and were outing him or was that being chanted in some other contexts? Yeah. I mean, I think there was, I think they were calling him out, right? He, they were saying, this guy is an undercover fed. Like he wants us to go in there and actually ransack the Capitol and they were calling them out. Like this guy is a fed, get outta here. Right. Stop trying to agitate us because that's a legitimate methodology and protests. That's why, you know, I'm not a really big fan of them because you never know who the agitators are. Who might cause wreckage. We have another one from, I'm not guest as I have it on good authority that hunter Biden has information that could lead to the arrest of Clintons. Just putting that out there. Well, that's, that's like a, uh, like a death wish I'm not guests. That's serious business Clintons versus the Bidens. Whew. It's like a Shakespearian tragedy. Soul Viking says, I know you're keeping your ears open for news about John Sullivan, the fake journalist whose behavior was way worse than those languishing in jail. But why was Sullivan never apprehended in jail? Maybe he's friends with the guy in the video. Yeah. Sullivan was the guy who sold his footage to like set for like$70,000 to CNN and some other news agency. They were like, oh yeah, no, we'll buy that for you. From you. You're a danger to our democracy. You're an insurrectionist but here's$35,000. Yeah. Okay. They wanted the footage because they want it to push a message. Former Elio says, I guess that video is what inciting an insurrection. It looks like it wasn't anything like what they impeached. Former Trump for insurrectionists are funny like that. Uh, that was from a former Lao. We have another one look, two G says, I want some hunter Biden art. I heard no one knows who the buyers are. It makes me feel good for our government that there, that they aren't looking into it all anonymous. Right? It's sort of this, a private handshake deal. And Jen Saki just said, well, you know, he's an artist. And um, we, we, we incur, Joe loves hunter very much. And we encourage him to continue his career. Even though a Monet doesn't sell for anything close to that. But I'm a lick. It says another geriatric on the loose. Why kit? And listen, we, I have a lot of respect. I love old people and respect for, you know, our seniors. I have it, but he says another geriatric on the loose. Why can't these over 70 year olds just retire, make their remaining time be productive somewhere else with their loved ones and give way to the next generation to lead. So selfish or too senile to recognize they're dragging the country down with their sunset moments. I'm not disrespecting old folks, but at least know your limits. Oldies is what Bumble look it says because you're not just a disgrace. Whoa, but you tarnished. You have accomplished during the prime of your success. Still love and respect to your senior citizens. Thank you for your sacrifice. You did us for the young, but rest and chill. Now let the young ones take charge. We got this right. Robert that's from Bama. Lick it, you know, by Mullick it, you know, that's pretty aggressive. I mean, I understand your point, but that's pretty aggressive. Uh, but I can understand your frustrations as well because I watch a lot of these Congress people and they're like, well, what's a Facebook out there. Uh, Mr. Zuckerberg, what's a Facebook. Well, that's our entire online company. Well, can you remove the inappropriate faces from your book? And Zuckerberg goes, oh my God, this is like the worst thing I've ever sat through ever. And so we're all of us. And so how are you supposed to run a country where you have, you know, some boneheaded Republican? Uh what's uh, what's uh, what's a tweak there, Jack. All right. Bummer. But I love seniors. I love the elderly. I S I really do like, most of my best, most of my best friends are over 50. No question about it. Because a lot of people, my age don't really know what they're doing with themselves. Not that I do either. Uh, but I, you know, marginally the dark says, so that clip of a fed man cuts off another questionable instance when they were pushing back on the cops with that fencing, you see the guy who was whispering with the fed man knocked down a cop, hurry over to the cop, help him off the ground. Like he was sorry, or that he knew the guy sus AAF says that clip is from a good documentary on January six, created by the channel. Stop hate on Odyssey and rumble. Awesome. Well, shout out for that and a dark. Thank you for that. Yeah. And I actually see some links are being posted over on rumble. So thanks for that one. We have former Leo says, this makes you kind of doubt the system what's being done by this lawless administration might never be fixed from former Leo and Mustang. Jeff says, Rob, I watched the hearing today, felt quite sick, watching Garland repeat the same answer. When asked multiple questions regarding his daughter and his son-in-law's business dealings with CRT definitely feels like he is beyond accountability. He is the attorney general of the United States. He sort of is to some degree, who's going to get mad at him, Joe Biden, no, uh, a Hitler. The artist is here, says that clearly in money laundering scam with hunter, I could have drawn a better painting blindfolded with a paint brush between my butt cheeks, which is probably true. That is from a Hitler, the artists, not the genocidal murdering lunatic, the artist. So, you know, people can change. We have, John Halligan says, just stepped in some cat vomit on sale for 350,000. That's it? That's a smoking deal, John. I mean, look, if Hunter's going for 500 K and your cat vomit looks better than that. I think 600,003 quarter mill. I think you can get more for that, John. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's a better product, candidly. So, all right. Jeremy Murrieta says, Rob, Rob, how can someone so clueless be in such a high position? He, something common in justice department is not to comment on impending investigations. He has an impending investigation. And do you think it's impending because this Intel is new to him? Nope. No. Jeremy, I think that he just doesn't want to talk about it if I can be honest. Right? Look, it's fair to say that the U S attorney general should know about every single case all over the place. Right? Right. You know, I run a law firm. I know about every, I know about everything that goes on in the firm, but not the details about every specific case. Right? So, cause we have, we have more than, than I know what to do with, and we have an amazing team of people who are more highly qualified than I am for that particular task. And so I understand the hierarchical structure. I don't expect every, every person who is running an organization to know every single detail about everything that they do. But we're also talking about a story that's been in front of the national media for, I don't know, the last two weeks or so. Something that is pretty gigantic. They're all paying attention to Virginia. They're all looking at the schools. Merrick Garland specifically issued an order against the schools focusing on we've. We've talked about schools in various contexts in terms of Corona virus for months now. And the justice department just settled on another case and they posted a press release about it today. So it's just nonsense. He just doesn't want to talk about it. Cause he, they don't have a good answer and he can't say anything. That's going to step in it. Otherwise we'll have to sell his painting. Like hunter Biden's artwork. Let's see, Jeremy Murrieta says, speaking of Facebook, do you see they're rebranding themselves to the metaverse? Yeah, I did see that, you know, we are live streaming over on Facebook, but I actually don't use it. Honestly. I know some people watch it over there. Not, not many people, but uh, but it is, you know, it's one of those platforms that I feel like is it needs a change because it feels like it's slowly dying. They probably recognize that as well. All right. Those were great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for being a part of this amazing community and this live stream. Appreciate your support. Okay. We're going to move on into the next segment and what are we talking about next? Oh, that's right. We're going to get into some Corona virus business. Yeah, I know. But this is important stuff. The national institutes of health, did they fund any gain of function research in Wuhan in China? Well, according to Dr. Anthony Fowchee, the answer was no. He said it many, many times. We've got a clip from him. When was scolding Rand Paul for not knowing what he was talking about. Turns out may have been a little bit dishonest because we have a very esteemable professor, somebody named Richard E. Bright, somebody who is a biomolecular biologist, a chemical biologist, a professor of chemistry, somebody on Twitter posted this. He says the NIH. This is where this is the organization that Anthony Fowchee runs says that the NIH, this organization corrects the untruthful assertions by NIH, director Collins and NIH director, Fowchee that the NIH had not funded gain of function research in Wu Han telling you, in other words, Fowchee lied. They were untruthful. It says that the NIH states that EcoHealth Alliance violated terms and conditions under a national institutes of health grant. And remember how this structure goes. It went from the NIH through the NIH ID, which was Fowchee organized, which went down to EcoHealth Alliance, which was run by Bach Dr. Peter[inaudible] or however you say his name, which was the organization that helped to write the letter in the landset. That was the original article that said, this wasn't a lab leak because it was all natural. So the, the circle sort of completes itself. And when this little circle of corruption became uncovered and people started asking questions about it, ran Paul hauled in Dr. Fowchee in front of the Congress and asked them some serious questions about this. What about gain of function funding? Has the NIH ever done it ever through EcoHealth through Dr. Barrick, anybody in Wu Han specifically, this is what it sounded like back from May 11th of this year. Let's listen in on Rand doctor

Speaker 7: 37:28

[inaudible] do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab and Wu Han

Speaker 1: 37:34

Turn that volume back up,

Speaker 8: 37:36

Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely, entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wu Han Institute. Do they fight Eric? We do not fund your

Speaker 7: 37:57

barracks gain of function research.

Speaker 8: 37:59

Dr. Barrett does not doing gain of function research. And if it is it's according to the guidelines and it is being conducted in North Carolina now

Speaker 7: 38:10

Concerning a bad virus, spike protein that he got from the Wu Han Institute into the SARS virus is gain of function. That is not in the minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge working group saying that it is gain of function. Well, it is

Speaker 8: 38:25

Is not. And if you look at the grant and you look at the progress reports, it is not gained a function. Despite the fact that people tweet that. So

Speaker 7: 38:36

Support sending money to the move-on virology

Speaker 8: 38:39

Institute, we do not send money now to do one hon

Speaker 7: 38:43

And sending money. We did under your tutelage. We were sending it through EcoHealth. It was a sub-agency and a sub grant. Do you support that? The money from NIH that was going to the move-on Institute led,

Speaker 8: 38:54

I explained to you why that was done. Tell us the saws[inaudible] originated in bats in China. It would have been irresponsible of us. If we did not investigate the bat viruses and the serology to see who might have been infected,

Speaker 7: 39:16

Perhaps it would be possible to send it to the Chinese government that we may not be able to trust with this, uh, knowledge and with this incredibly dangerous viruses.

Speaker 1: 39:25

Okay. So what's going on here is they're they're mincing words, right? They're playing this game over what gain of function means, and, and Fowchee has been doing this for a long time now, but there's a lot of different ways that you can think about this. You you're talking about a virus. And one of the things that, the entire reason that we have EcoHealth and the NIH and the NIH ID, so that they can investigate infectious diseases and they can prepare for it so that we can don't have to suffer through a global pandemic. They have failed pretty largely. In fact, they may have been the people that caused it, but we'll talk about that in another video, of course, in this context, what we're talking about are viruses and how these things are supposed to be investigated and researched and studied and all this stuff. And so they're having definitional problems with gain of function. What does it mean? And so we've seen it sort of postulated a couple of different ways. We've seen one idea being that you take a regular virus that exists in nature and you copy it and you copy it and you copy it and you copy it and you copy it. And then you sort of see if it changes at all and you get, okay, this one changed a little bit like this and this one got a little bit bigger and this one got a little bit smaller, and then we just copy it and copy it and copy it and copy it. And you create all of these different sort of, uh, you know, branches of mutations and you keep copying and copying and copying it. And you see if it gains a function, you see if one virus evolves into something else that might have additional functionality, it might be more deadly. It might cause some other physical reaction, but that's one methodology of doing it. Another way that you could do it would be just actually take two separate viruses and just smash them together. Right? We talked about this with the foreign cleavage sites under the Nicholas Wade article. I made a whole video about that on a separate channel. But the idea here being is you take virus, a virus, B you cut the head off virus, a, you cut the head off of virus B and you just swap the heads. You put the head on virus B on virus, a and vice versa. And then you sort of monitor those viruses. And there's good evidence that this is something that happened with the Corona virus. If you go back and read the Nicholas Wade article. And so there's a lot of different ways that this can happen. You can also go out and look at natural bats, right? Or natural bat viruses, bring those in. And then you can sort of test them against a subject that has been modified. So you're not actually modifying the virus, right? Unlike the Frankenstein virus where you're taking the head off of one and putting it on another, you're not really doing that. You're taking a natural virus and you're modifying the test host. So in this case, it could be mice. It could be, you know, a mouse that is modified to have some humanized components. And so you're not actually changing the virus. Now you're changing the host. You're making the host more human like to see if this natural virus could potentially infect the host the same virus that has not gone to humans yet, just to see if this new virus might have adverse impacts on humans. So that was just three kind of simple ways that this might work. There are a lot of other different ways, but let's go and just take a look at the definitions that come over from the U S department of health and human services. You can see right here, it tells us gain a function studies or research. What is it? What's the definition it's research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, right? Pretty simple, pretty simple ability of a pathogen to cause disease help define the fundamental nature of the human pathogen interactions, thereby enabling assessment of a pandemic potential for emerging infectious agents, informing public health and preparedness efforts, right? So it's taking a particular entity and then improving the ability of the pathogen to cause disease pretty simple here. They must entail. Biosafety must consider biosecurity risks and the list goes on and on. So public health emergency, the U S department of health and human services, the same agency that just nominated Admiral, uh, Rachel divine is now talking about, you know, they're giving us a definition that we know that we can trust here is where this all gets interesting. We just heard from Dr. Fowchee that they're not doing this type of work well, somebody else over at the NIH kinda has a different story to tell this fellow, Dr. Lawrence H Tabak PhD DDS. He is the principal deputy director over there at the NIH, and also the deputy ethics council agency previously served acting a deputy director in 2009 for the NIH done a lot of work. You can read his bio here helped to develop the NIH wide strategic plan and so on. And so he's got a lot of worry if somebody who's been with the NIH for a long period of time, and he's a he's up there, kind of, you know, maybe, maybe Fowchee is number two or something in there. So he writes a letter and it just came out yesterday, very brand new letter in light of all these investigations that have been taking place investigating Wohan and EcoHealth Alliance, all the questions that we've been raising here. He sent a letter over to this congressperson. This is James Comber. He's over from the Republicans Republican representing Kentucky's first district. And he is on a number of different boards, you know, with the house, uh, in particular, the one that we care about is the house committee on oversight and reform. So they're checking out other government agencies. And so he asked for some information from the NIH and I H sent this letter back to him. Now let's dig into the letter. We've got our framework in place. We know who is talking to whom we know what they're talking about. We have Komar up here is the person receiving the letter. And we have the doctor who sent the letter down here. He says, dear congressperson, thanks for your interest in NIH. Appreciate it. Sending you that information that you requested about NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance. We'll talk a lot about both those entities here on this channel. Coomber sends a letter. I want this information doctor from the NIH sends it back. Doctor says also, while you're looking at these documents, a couple of important things I need to make note of here. It says it's important to state at the outset that the published genomic data demonstrate that the back Corona viruses that NIH allowed EcoHealth and the sub award to Wu Han, they are not, and they could not have come become SARS COVID tube. Okay. So that sentence right there, he says, listen, he's basically acknowledging right here that there was funding of, of something that went this direction, right? You can follow along, just follow the bouncing ball. And I H granted money to EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth Alliance, granted a sub award to Wuhan Institute of virology. Okay. So we know that there's that funding chain. We know that if there's gain of function here, that NIH funded it because it went through EcoHealth Alliance. But that being said, the doctor says, but it wasn't COVID we've, we've looked into it, both the progress report and the analysis confirmed that conclusion as, as the sequences of the viruses are genetically very distant until they're too far apart. All right. He says the fifth and the final progress report on this particular grant that was awarded the EcoHealth Alliance. It's attached. We redacted a couple things, but not much. He says this progress report was submitted to NIH in August of 2021. Hm. So that means EcoHealth just sent that over a couple months ago. And why did they send that? Well, NIH asks for it and I H was asking for it in their compliance efforts. So the report that EcoHealth sent back includes data from a research project conducted during the 2018 and 19 grant period using bat Corona virus, genome sequences, already existing in nature. See that they're already existing in nature. So these are natural viruses. They're not, you know, splicing and dicing these things. They're not doing anything funky with it. These are already existing in nature, right? So how could it possibly be gain a function is what Anthony Fowchee would say, but we're not done yet. It goes on, he says the limited experiment described in the final progress report that came over from EcoHealth. What they were saying that they were doing was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses that were already circulating in China, whether they were capable of binding to human ACE, two receptors in a mouse model. Hm. Okay. So it sounds like they're going to be taking natural viruses and then moving them into mouse models. That can be, it can be studied to see whether the natural virus connects to a human ACE, two receptor in a mouse. Okay. All other aspects of the mice, they say, including the immune system remain unchanged, which leaves you, it begs the question. Okay. If everything else is unchanged, what did they change? It sounds like maybe they changed the mice, the mice to have this ACE two receptor so that they could inject the natural virus to see whether the modified mouse responds to the virus. So we see, we see what's happening now. They're not modifying modifying the virus per se. They're modifying the host so that they can see if this new virus impacts the host that has human human analogs, like an H two receptor. And if it shows up positive in the mouse, then it, you can sort of speculate that it might have a similar impact in the human. Okay. Now we have that granted sort of fleshed out there. It says all other aspects of the mice, including the immune system remain unchanged in this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with, and you can see this detailed for us laboratory mice infected with[inaudible] the bat Corona virus became sicker than those infected with the w I V one bat Corona virus. And so you'll notice a couple of things here became sicker. So what was the definition of gain a function? Yeah, the underlying study, the thing that you're trying to determine whether it was bacteria or virus in this case, whether it contributes to a more severe disease here, you can see it, it became sicker. Okay. And so something must have happened between these two permutations of the virus. We have[inaudible] versus w I V one, one results in more sick mice sounds like gain of function to me at some time. And remember, this is the definition. Remember of gain of function. The ability improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease. Now, it sounds like they did that right there. They had a WIB back Corona virus. It made other laboratory mice sicker when they modified it, doing whatever they did as sometimes occurs in science. They say, though, this is how they sort of escape this. This was an unexpected result, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do, regardless that the, they both are genetically distanced from the Corona virus. So what he's saying here is, yes, we of did give this thing some additional functionality, but it was by accident. Okay. It just happened naturally as sometimes researchers find when they're doing these studies, but this wasn't intentional. And even if it was regardless, either way, unintentional, intentional had nothing to do with the coronavirus. It's just too far distant from that. But there are two permutations of the natural viruses. One made the laboratory mice sicker. It actually gained functionality there. Okay. So it says, uh, the research plan that came from EcoHealth was reviewed by NIH, in advance of the funding. So they knew about it. They got the documents, they approved it. And I H when they reviewed it, they determined it did not fit the definition of research involving in half enhanced pathogens and pandemic potential. Didn't meet those standards because these bad Corona viruses had not been shown to infect humans. They were natural, even though they were trying to insert it into mice that had modified to have that ACE two receptors cell. So whether it's going to infect humans, yet we got that. It has not been shown to infect humans, but you're testing it to see whether it does. In fact, in fact humans. So it went through a different process as such the research was not subject to departmental review. However, out of an abundance of caution, we included some additional oversight and conditions of the grant before they ever awarded it to EcoHealth. If they see some changes, they were supposed to report it. They have a requirement that the grantee report immediately, if they see a change like that, like they just observed, guess what? They didn't do that. Eco health failed to report this finding right away as required by the terms of the grant EcoHealth is being notified. Now they got five days from today to submit to NIH, any, and all unpublished data from experiments and work conducted under this award. And he says, additional compliance efforts continue. Okay, well, there you go. Right? So EcoHealth Alliance, they failed to report it. They were doing something that was borderline. It wasn't technically human virus, human infectious viruses at the time that they didn't know, they didn't know that. And so they lowered them. It's not EPP. It's not anything that requires that extra level of scrutiny, but they have to report it. If something comes up, they didn't do that. So now investigation will continue. Now, they'd go on now to tell you that, okay, look, even though we kind of screwed up with this EcoHealth thing, even though yeah. There was kinda some gain of function stuff. Here's why we didn't cause this entire global pandemic, they say the second document here is showing that the natural occurring Corona viruses that were used in those experiments at the NIH are, are just they're they're too far removed from this current version of the Corona virus. They say they've analyzed SARS, cov one, and the SARS COVID outbreak in 2003, they analyze the current version of the virus. They've analyzed w I V one, which we already talked about different versions of different things. They've studied all over the place. And they say, well, it looks like some of these different versions of the virus might be close B it's just not that close. And they give us an analogy here that says that human beings are, you know, 96 to 97% close to chimpanzees, but you wouldn't say that we're the same thing or even close in functionality. So, uh, so that comes from Dr. Lawrence Beck kind of just smashes and shatters, uh, that whole big fraudulent lie that we've been hearing from Fowchee and many of his ilk. Uh, and we have some more clarity here from Richard, right? He says the NIH received the relevant documents in 2018. They reviewed them in 2020. And again, in 2021. And so he's calling them out. He says, uh, specifically that Collins, Fowchee, tobacco, they lied to Congress. They lied to the press. They lied to the public. They did it knowingly willfully and brazenly. Now I had some thoughts about this. I was thinking, well you know, if, if the objective here was to just determine whether, you know, one particular type of virus is worse than the other, why would that be considered gain of function? And he says, Paul specifically, he says the NIH funded the construction of the novel Kemira Corona viruses. They combine the spike gene of one SARS related Corona virus with the rest of the genetic information that yielded viruses that exhibited 10,000 fold, higher viral load than any other HIO pathogenicity in humanized mice. Right. Which sounds very complicated, but, uh, sounds pretty, pretty smart. So he just is calling them weasels, just saying, you know, they're just trying to splice and dice this definition of gain of function. And it's all pretty evident. Exactly. What's going on. Ran. Paul did a victory lap today says, I told you, so doesn't even begin to cover it here. And some other senators are saying that, man, you know, there should be calling for investigations and calling for prosecutions on this for willfully lying to Congress. And so, uh, yeah, many, many people saying like Mark Meadows, that this was, he claimed under oath that they didn't do this stuff. And it's pretty obvious that they did. Let's see what you have to say about this over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com interesting stuff going on there. I know it's some heavy reading, but it is, uh, you know, shows you really what's going on on this. Let's see a couple of questions here from the world's most interesting man says I don't always fund potential bio weapons, but when I do I follow all safety protocols, of course you do most interesting man in the world. Uh, we, uh, I'm not gas says, I believe talking slow. Like this is to appear authoritative, even though you are inventing BS on the fly, talking about Fowchee, very clear Senator and stern monster. One says if the Republicans win in 2022, when don't immediately arrest the Keebler elf should be a clear indication that nobody should ever vote for a Republican again, which you know, might be the case. Anyways, thunder seven says, wow, a Pinocchio has been caught lying to Congress. What is the charge he could be indicted for? Well, maybe they should form a select committee and, uh, issue with subpoena. What is the charge he could be indicted for? The NIH has turned against their St. They're exposing Fowchee only a matter of time before. He's not only charged with perjury, but with crimes against humanity, maybe he'll run away to Wu Han to escape a death sentence. His gig is up. Believe me, his day of reckoning is coming well. You're pretty optimistic about that. Thunder seven. I think that he's probably just going to, you know, ride off into the sunset, probably get a job on CNN speech unleash says. So now that it's been confirmed that Fowchee did commit perjury can ran Paul call for Fowchee to be charged with that. Well, they could do sort of, they, you know, they could, yeah. I mean they could send, basically they could do the same thing that's happening right now with Steve Bannon, which is what we're going to talk to in the next segment. They could formally, you know, formulate a, uh, committee, investigate it and then, you know, recommend, uh, uh, you know, criminal charges to the U S justice department are the, is the U S justice department going to do anything about this. Remember even with Steve Bannon, which we're, we're sort of premature, we're going to talk about that next. There's still a bunch of stuff that needs to happen before he actually gets charged with a crime. And even if he does, there's still a whole lot that happens after that. So, you know, Fowchee right now is just going to probably sort of hide behind a qualified immunity type of an argument. No, it was, you know, doing the best I can. And, uh, we'll see where it goes. Do you expect any of our spineless bureaucrats anywhere on either party to do anything? I don't unfortunately look to G says, I find it interesting that Paul asked Fowchee if he supports NIH funding of the lab and UConn voucher, he responds with that's incorrect. We do not fund gain of function research, which wasn't really the question he was coached with answers to questions. They assume Paul was going to ask dog and pony show on foul cheese. And yeah, no question about it. And that's, that's how this whole game works right there. They're just sort of playing verbal Patty cake with each other, asking questions that they want to ask, answering questions that they want to answer. Not much of a conversation is happening there. Uh, Jeremy[inaudible] says, so the government is into money-laundering. They sent the money to the NIH who sent it to the Wu Han lab with the goal of killing humanized mice. The truth is maybe the COVID jumped from the rats with wings. That's from Jeremy. We have another one from three girlies is here, says, uh, Dr. Francis Collins is leaving the NIH. I wonder if he decided to leave before this came out, he had to have known that EcoHealth Alliance would be pointed to having done gain of function. Perhaps he decided to step down before his own head rolled. What else? Yeah. So it looks a link to the NIH website. Fowchee is in a department called the NIH ID. It's a subgroup within the NIH, which I think I misstated that is accurate. I think I misstated that earlier to book is a dentist DVDs with PhD. But to book under Collins is the NIH not Fowchee. Peter[inaudible]. The head of EcoHealth Alliance was also on the world health organization team that went into China to find out about the origins of COVID one dirty slimy person. He was in an interview before the pandemic saying that they have to use gain a function. He wrote an article for the landset was on the who team most likely so that he could cover his tracks. And what's worse. He's hidden over 40 million from the Pentagon and the pandemic science funding. How in the world is he even still walking around as a free man? Yeah. Another link to independent science news with some more info on Peter Dak. Yeah. Yeah. He is a very, uh, very interesting person on this whole thing, right? He was the first person out of the gates. I think back in February rounded up a bunch of other fellow people got the land set, a very reputable journal to just cram it out there early on and say, oh no, it's totally natural. Had nothing to do with any of the, uh, virology chemistry lab projects that we were concocting in the back of our basement. But, uh, you weren't allowed to talk about that until very recently, monster one says I didn't murder that person, but if I did, it was self-defense. We have a sweet potato says, Rob, can you make us a sick Vizio diagram to show the gain of function dollars flow? I think you showed a chart in a previous show, but you need more charts to share. So we can use laser porn is when we tell our friends and family about all the corrupt issue going on. Also your science segments are, yes. I kind of geek out with the sided stuff. I like it. You know, I, I probably don't really know. There's probably some sort of, um, you know, epidemiologist, who's listening to this, just going what a fricking moron, but that's okay. I'm enjoying myself. I feel like I'm learning things. And so I hope, uh, I hope you don't mind it, but it is, it is interesting stuff. How they're hacking these things together. It's almost like a little science kit that's going on over there. Yeah. I like charts. I do like charts. There's no question about it. What I've been thinking about a different sort of segment only for locals, which is going to be sort of, you know, deconstructing arguments and then sort of reassembling arguments, maybe with more charts. I got the idea off of the, the, um, the other chart that we had for schools and the virus and the vaccines. Remember that? So it's a good idea. Sweet potato potato. Love it. A couple more. The last villain says we paid for a different bad virus in Wu hands. Please stop spreading this information. I can't wait to see them start to fall. We'll see a Mustang. Jeff says it appears that St. Fowchee is a fraud and a liar. No worries. He won't be prosecuted. We have speech unleash says, I want to hear Rand. Paul tell Fowchee, uh, with all due respect. You have no idea what you're talking about. Fowchee did the head Bob on that one, remember that you don't get the head Bob out of Fowchee too much, but he was like a bobblehead ran. Paul, you don't know what you're talking about. I was like, well, man, he's really upset. Uh, we have, uh, Greg Murat says, Hey, Rob, do you see the documentary on Fowchee? Rotten tomatoes has a critic score of 90% with 40 reviews. Audience score 2%, 500 reviews, pretty much an inverse of a Dave Chappelle special. Always interesting to see the disparity between the public and the elites and their propaganda. Yeah. I mean, rotten tomatoes is basically a dumpster fire. I stopped, you know, you go there and you're like, oh, let's move is probably horrible. If it's like, you know, 98%, especially with stuff like this, that's amazing. So hilarious, 90%. Yeah. Well look, it's there. He's their guy, you know, it's like, oh, we love Fowchee. They're there. They're doing dances on the Colbert Cole bear show, whatever that show is called. The dark says if only there were a person whose job was to make sure that people like flip-flop said ethical thing and honest things. Oh yeah. That person is Dr. Flops wife, Dr. Christine Grady, AK the chief of the department of bioethics at the NIH clinical center while all beat. That's what a new DARPA says. It's interesting. How sort of incestuous the whole scheme is. Right? All the, all the elected bureaucrats have like their spouses in the mainstream media, isn't that beautiful or in some lobbyist group or some bank or some hedge fund somewhere, it's all just interconnected. And it's a very nice club to be in. Guess what? We're not in it. Sweet potato says, I submitted a question for this gain of function section in the Garland in Congress dropped down on the form because I'm a loser. Can you still see it? Yeah, I think so. If it comes in order, let's see. Yeah. So at VNT, because prime says donuts to dollars, it says Dr. Fowchee is really just a mouthpiece fall guy. Figured I'd put that in there. We'll see. Well, I don't know. Three girly says ran. Paul has already sent a criminal referral to the DOJ regarding Fowchee lying under oath. He sent it over to the DOJ after foul, after Fowchee was testifying in the Senate. I think I remember that now that you mention it. Yeah. And so, you know what Merrick Garland did right in the shredder here. And then he goes back to not reading the news apparently. So, uh, nothing's going to happen. We'll see. Uh, maybe it will. I, you know, I look, I like to be a glass half full kind of guy, but I doubt it. If the auntie kiss says, uh, anyone else know we're in the age of denial by admission, I didn't murder that person. I just ended his life. Most people stop paying attention at the fifth word. Good one from the antichrist to wrap us up on that segment. Great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. All right. We've got one final segment before we wrap up for the day. Oh yeah. What are we talking about? Steve Bannon criminal charges. The January six select committee just held a vote today in front of the full house. And they voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt for fusing to comply with one of their subpoenas in their fake investigatory committee. So we're going to dive into the story and see what's going on here because Steve Bannon, well, he might be facing some criminal charges from the us justice department. Washington post gave us a headline this morning. You can see that they were really excited about this. They said the house is poised to hold a vote on Bannon in contempt for failure to comply with the January six subpoena. And you know, the January 6th select committee was investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. They've been doing it for 10 months now, every day, the worst thing that's ever happened. And so this move comes after bipartisan members voted unanimously in favor of this resolution. It's going to be pushed forward to the house. Bannon has been using the term executive privilege saying that Donald Trump holds the executive privilege. And since Donald Trump holds the privilege, I am not required to testify. Donald Trump wants to revoke that privilege or waive that privilege, happy to come in and do it, but he has not done. So. And so now the house voted today and keep in mind that they voted to actually hold him in contempt of Congress. That is a misdemeanor offense. Criminal offense can result up to one year in prison, fine up to a hundred thousand dollars. And so we see here, attorney general, Merrick Garland. We had a segment on him earlier in the show, but they asked him about this specifically in front of Congress at the house judiciary committee, they said, Merrick, Garland, what are you going to do about this? He said, well, we're going to do what we always do on these situations. Just apply the facts and the law. All right. So, uh, again, an absolute non-answer from a government bureaucrat lawyer, which is exactly what you'd expect because that's their job. It's like, it's like in their job description, a us attorney general, you're going to run the justice department and not answer any questions in Congress. Can you do that? I'd be great at that. Yeah, no problem. Check that one. Check that one. No problem. So I think that's how it works when you get that job. But the house Republicans, they were opposing this select committees, mostly Democrats, but it is bipartisan. We got Liz Cheney from Wyoming. We have crying Adam. Kinzinger, who's very emotional. They're on this committee as Republicans. And they want to see justice done because they're still very upset about this thing. But other Republicans are saying, yeah, this whole thing is just kind of a dog and pony political show. So how about don't vote in favor of holding Bannon in contempt. They sent out this memo, Ben Jacobs posted this over on Twitter, saying that they're formally sending out this whip notice urging members to vote against holding Steve Bannon in contempt. And you're seeing this big political divide, right? Sort of Republicans are like, this is all a political show. Democrats are like, we want justice for January six. And so the Republicans are coalescing around Donald Trump around stopping this select committee for moving forward. So they pass this memo around. They were talking about it specifically. Let's see what their arguments are. Leadership coming out of Congress recommends a no vote. So not holding Bannon in contempt. Why they say for the past 10 months, several non-partisan entities interested in investigating this, they've worked diligently to determine what went wrong. Non-partisan sounds like it might be reasonable. Unfortunately, select committee speaker Pelosi established on a near party line vote a partisan agenda to politicize January six. And there is no legitimate good faith investigation happening here. So they note that Congress does have significant and important oversight over this process. However, Congress does not have a numerated constitutional powers to conduct investigations or issue subpoenas outside of that scope, right? It's stuff that is needed to secure and legislate issue before the house is not whether Congress should conduct oversight. But whether Congress has the authority to conduct investigation for a legislative purpose, we've talked about this Congresse Congress's oversight does not include law enforcement power. Those powers belong to the executive and the judicial branch. The FBI us attorney's office are the people that investigate January six, obviously Supreme court has also agreed. Congress has no authority to issue a subpoena for law enforcement purposes. Congress believes a crime has occurred. Send it over to the justice department. Congress has no authority to compel exposure for the sake of exposure. That is not a valid legislative purpose. And Congress may not issue a subpoena to an attempt to quote, try somebody before a committee for any crime or wrongdoing. Cause that goes through the justice department, speakers Pelosi select committee does not get to step into the shoes of law enforcement because it's politically expedient, which is true. It's absolutely true there. Their whole trying to make this a pseudo criminal thing. If Steve Bannon shows up, what are they going to do? He's going to say something and they're going to refer it over for criminal charges anyways. Right? So they're, they're sort of using this as a political tool. The whole thing is embarrassing. It's a shame, you know, it's, it's, it makes a joke of the justice system, but that's where we're at today. So, uh, here's Liz Cheney, right? She's been very upset about this. This is her new issue. As soon as she gets beaten in the primary, she's going to retire off into the sunset. She'll also be on CNN soon enough. Here she is today in the house,

Speaker 9: 1:10:26

Madam speaker, a year ago today, the election was still a couple of weeks off. We knew it would be a tight race, but most of us did not anticipate that president Trump or any president, frankly, would ever simply reject the outcome of the vote. President Trump had the right to challenge the outcome in our state and federal courts, which have an appropriate and constitutional role in resolving election claims. But what he did thereafter has no precedent in our history. He rejected the court's rulings in dozens of cases, including the rulings of judges, president Trump, himself appointed. He rejected what his own department of justice officials told him over and over again that they found no evidence of widespread fraud, sufficient to overcome the election. He rejected the conclusions of both the department of justice and the intelligence community that the dominion voting machines had not secretly changed. The election outcome. President Trump had no factual or constitutional basis for his claims and the lawyers he found who would carry his false claims forward have paid the consequences. Rudy Giuliani's licensed to practice. Law has been suspended and Sidney pal has been sanctioned by a federal judge, but Donald Trump persisted, attempting through every manner he could imagine to try to overturn the outcome of the election. And we all saw what happened. The people who attack this building have told us on video, on social media. And now before the federal courts, exactly what motivated them. They believed what Donald Trump told them that the election was stolen and that they needed to take action today. Madam speaker, we are here to address one witness, Mr. Steve Bannon. I urge all Americans to watch what Mr. Bannon said on his podcast on January 5th and sixth, it is shocking and indefensible. He said, all hell is going to break loose. He said, quote, we are coming in right over the target. This is the point of attack we have always wanted. Madam speaker. There are people in this chamber right now who were evacuated with me and with the rest of us on that day, during that attack, people who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on the constitution, the assault on our Congress, people who you will hear argue that there is simply no legislative purpose for this committee, this investigation, or for this subpoena. In fact, there is no doubt that Mr. Bannon knows far more than what he said on the video. There is no doubt that all hell did break loose. Just ask the scores of brave police officers who were injured that day. Protecting.

Speaker 1: 1:13:38

Yeah. All right. So somebody, somebody asks a good point. Why are we watching this? Who is this person? What is her point here? Well, you just heard it, right? The reason we're watching it is so we can show you what a speaking joke it is. She comes out, what is she doing? What is her point? What is all the point of all this? She says, well, you're going to hear the other side argue that there is no legislative purpose here. Uh, and so she goes off to start rambling on again about the constitution and how hard this was and being evacuated. And the list goes on and on, right? There's nothing substantive here. She takes Steve Bannon's were over. The target were over the mark where, you know, winning America or whatever he said, which is exactly the same language that we've covered here from many other democratic politicians. I'm sure if you comb through Liz, Cheney's record everything she's ever said at a rally, we're going to win. We're going to take back that house. Um, we're going to go win this seat for the people, whatever she's saying, it's all political language. It's all aggressive. You can't talk in politics without saying something overly aggressive. So all these people do is they just go back and they pick and choose these little issues. If she thinks that there's a crime that happened here, she should refer it over to the justice department. They have, they've looked through it all every which way from Sunday, if they had enough to then go and dite Donald Trump or Steve Bannon or cash Patel or any of these people, they would do it. And if they've got questions about it, that's what the law enforcement arm of the U S government is for. It's not for Congress to form little select committees and then beat this issue into the ground indefinitely. Until the end of time, we've already had an investigation. We already had a full stinking, impeachment proceeding to try to impeach Donald Trump, but they cannot let it die because this has to carry over because it's a political tool. They've got to bleed this thing out well into 2022, you better believe Trump runs again every single day. You're going to see images of one six until the end of time. So all she's doing is getting out there. It's just a political, you know, it's, it's a political spectacle that goes out there. It's really hard and sad and scary. And I'm still scared. And I wake up in the middle of the night with PTSD. I'm sure. Why are we here? Here is Matt gates who, you know, it mad gates, but he had an interesting little thing on the floor today. Uh, most of this hearing was a joke, as you can expect a Steve Bannon didn't show up, or that was last week. So we all knew what this was going to be. But Liz Cheney sort of on the one side of the Republicans, Matt gates come out, he's on the other side. Here's what he says.

Speaker 10: 1:16:05

Why are we here on the floor of the house of representatives, listening to the Democrats and socialists and their Republican puppets reviewing Steve Bannon's podcast. Can't imagine that that would be the case. If they actually had a bill, a reconciliation deal legislation to help the American people. We're not here because of democracy. Save me the alligator tears on that. These are the folks who assaulted our democracy for two years under the specter of the Russia hoax. And sure not about violence because they didn't seem to give a what our country was being engulfed in flames during the riots in the summer of 2020, it's not about congressional process. If it was about congressional process, Democrats would be doing what they have done. In other cases, they would go to court, but the reason they haven't gone to court like they did for Trump's taxes in the Deutsche bank, subpoenas in the maze RS matter or in the Don McGahn matter is because in each of those circumstances, they did not prevail in court. The courts realized that their, their subpoenas were overly broad. So instead of using the real process here, we are just enduring this politics. And because they can't build back better, they've just decided to build back meaner. I yield back, oh,

Speaker 1: 1:17:22

Built back meter, Matt gates, you slide dog. You clever little pony. You, well, you know, this is he's exactly right. Whatever you think of the guy, he's exactly right. They, they, they would not be able to get away with any of this garbage in an actual court of law. So they're making up their own. They're just, they run the house now. So they just take, we're just gonna make a committee. What for, I don't know, January six. Why? Well, cause we hate Trump and uh, we're pretty much getting slaughtered in the polls because our agenda is crumbling every which way you look. And so we're just going to continue to make sure that we beat the mass. We beat the mandates and we beat this January six thing to death indefinitely. Now the house did come out. Final votes was two 15 to 2 0 2. And of course Steve Bannon is held in contempt of Congress. Vote to end the debate until two 17 to 2 0 3 was a final tally. No more time remaining on that one. And so next steps here. Okay. Well this goes over to the DOJ. Merrick Garland said, yeah, we're going to be on the lookout for this thing. They're going to take a look at it, make a determination whether they want to continue to prosecute this. Right. So they're going to take a look. Is there enough here to deliver this case in front of the grand jury, grand jury? Pretty simple case. All right. You got, was it a legitimate congressional body yet? Did they send a subpoena? Yeah. Is Steve Bannon show up? No, he didn't. Okay. So do they want to charge him with that? If so, then they're going to put it in front of a grand jury, convened them great. Presented to the grand jury. Grand jury will decide whether or not to indict. He's going to get an indictment probably. Uh, well maybe, you know, we'll see. And if he does get an indictment, then the whole criminal process just starts right then. Right. It all starts at that moment. And so we'll see where this goes, you know, long road ahead before I think the Democrats can celebrate it, but let's see what you have to say about this over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. We got a few questions on this one. We have, um, uh, G gum G Jim says, I want[inaudible] touch hot shot chia plant for Christmas. That was on the last segment. Thank you for that. Well, it was a fun thing to say. Uh, we have be brave says didn't the woke generals use executive privilege when testifying about Afghanistan, couldn't say what they told to the fake president. That's right. No, they use it when it's convenient for them. But remember this, this P this door is going to open both ways at some point. So, uh, you know, I'm sure the Republicans will have their stupid joke committee at some point, someday speech unleashed says the Republicans on the January 6th committee have personal grudges against Trump. So I don't believe, uh, it should be considered. Non-partisan having people as biased as Cheney on that committee is the same thing to me is having people biased on a jury. You're right about that. Yeah, I think, I think so. And I don't think that even many Republicans maybe in Wyoming would even consider her to be a Republican. I don't know. Ty live and says unprecedented precedent has to start with the first case. Doesn't it? Yeah, it does. It has to be unprecedented would mean that it's never happened before, right? It is the first case. Like this is the first time this has happened. This is unprecedented. That nothing like this has ever happened before. So they use that word a lot. You know, unprecedented insurrection felt more like a regular riot in the capital building, you know, rather than anything, but okay. Thunder seven says Liz Cheney is a desperate rhino trying to hold on to power over for her. And the other rhinos. The silly January 6th group will go nowhere fast. I'm sure Bannon welcomes a slap on the wrist from the region. Orange mad, bad lunatics makes him more of a hero to the mega crowd reveals to Pelosi's great fear of Trump and the Patriots let's go brand. And that's from thunder seven. Now it is interesting, right? If Bannon is indicted, if he is convicted, if he actually serves any time on this thing, he kind of becomes a martyr. Doesn't he? And remember what we've always talked about with Donald Trump. It's kind of about the story with Donald Trump. Isn't it? It's kind of about the story. What if he wins again? Let let's let's game this out for a quick minute. What if Steve Bannon gets indicted and convicted goes to prison? Let's say that happens in 2013, uh, 23, Donald Trump runs in 24, wins comes out pardons, Bannon. First thing he does, that would be like a shredding event in this country, which is why I'm so excited to see that happen. It's going to be a lot of fun. Let's see what else we have a be brave says slightly off subject, but Kash Patel is a national hero for exposing the Russia, Russia, Russia, hoax, Devin Nunez as well. We talked about them here on this channel. I think they did very good work on that. They exposed a lot there. Uh, N Y renal MD says Chinese father, uh, champion executive privilege. Liz Cheney is now against it. After seeing that fed stir up the crowd, it's pretty clear. The fix was in. How about all those officials that were in quote contempt of Congress for the Obama IRS scandal where they prosecuted? No, I don't. I don't know about that one, but typically when you're in that club, you're pretty much immune from everything. Former Elio says, number one question should be when was Pelosi subpoena issued? What was the results of her testimony? Well, you know, she's not, not a part of that fishing expedition that Bennie Thompson drafted up. The Antica says this committee is certainly much more intelligent than the committee on a nose hairs. And by much more intelligent, I mean, less intelligent. Yeah. I mean, I think a committee on nose hairs would probably get more done. Candidly monster one says a low-level crime that would probably result in probation at most. I'm sure Bannon is shaking in his boots. Yeah, I'm sure he's not. He's probably having a lot of fun with all the exposure. Uh, AOC says I'm hiding in my closet still. I'm afraid of Liz Cheney. Her daddy bombed the entire middle east to make Bush and defense contractors. Very, very wealthy Cheney has spent most of her inheritance needs or job in Wyoming because we know it's all over for her hope. She doesn't take it out on me and blame it on PTSD. Wasn't even at the Capitol. And I did not take myself out. That's from AOC. I hope she's doing okay. Ty live and says, now that it would be unprecedented, I would love to see it. That's from Thai living. I love seeing unprecedented things. Two former Leo says, how about the capital bombing that was done by the radical left in 1971? You mean like for precedent? Yeah. Like when other riots happen anywhere else in the country. Yeah. Very good questions and good thoughts and great observations over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for all your support over there. And that my friends is it for the segments on the day yesterday on YouTube, we got some super chats on the premiere. Let's pull those up. We had Dane DeWaard said, has there ever been a trans comedian? And that was on the Dave Chappelle segment that we had yesterday. And Dave Chappelle, of course, if you actually watched that special, he talks about a trans comedian in that special, a pretty moving story. So I would check that out if you haven't seen it. It's one of those. See Reed says, Hey, Rob loved the show. Why no evaluation of the David date, Dayla DND case and the ties to Camila and planned parenthood hiding the baby parts for sale. My goodness. I don't know about that. See, read. Let me see if I can David Dolly. Yeah, let's see. So I have not, I have not taken all. He's an anti-abortion activist. We take a look at this fellow here. Anti-abortion activists, child of a crisis pregnancy grew up culturally as anti-abortion case fusion GPS. Okay. So yeah. Civil rights lawsuit. I'll take a look at this. So I pulled it up. Uh, obviously I'll read through that later, but interesting. I will take a look at that. Thanks for that. And for that support, see, read over on YouTube and that my friends is it for us for the day. I want to thank you so much for being a part of the show, being a part of the program. I want to welcome our new members who signed up this week. We had a Maxim 15 T who signed up, sir, Darren fire dat 58 Vida's Shanai is here or a V dubs. Hani is here. We also have tsunami. Tommy signed up max 9 22 sugar britches is in the house. Add Millie Yara, pretty darn nice sovereign lion Lynn fish, germs and sniper 2 7, 5 all over@ouramazingcommunityoveratwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, where we record this show live 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM Eastern time. And we have our monthly locals meetup taking place. Saturday, November six, seven to 8:00 PM. Eastern time. A lot of fun. We get together as a community, as a group, and we just turn our cameras on, have conversations, you know, try to identify the FBI agents out there. Is it you? Is it you? And so we have a good time come and join us Saturday, November six, seven to 8:00 PM. And that my friends is it for me for the day. We want to thank you once again for being a part of the show. We are back here recording 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM, Eastern time. And the show premiers live on YouTube 7:00 PM. East 7:00 PM, Arizona time, 10:00 PM Eastern, still figuring out my time zones, but we are going to be back here recording live 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast here@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. I hope you can join us. Have a tremendous evening. My friends I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.