Rep. Bennie Thompson and the January 6th Select Committee shift their focus to the financials of the “insurrectionists” while the Rolling Stone reveals new “anonymous” MAGA insider witnesses. Kyle Rittenhouse is back in Court in the final days before trial discussing expert witnesses and motions in limine and we review the hearing. New details emerge in the Alec Baldwin shooting case and we review the recently obtained arrest warrant that implicates the assistant director and armorist on set.
And more! Including:
🔵 Rep. Bennie Thompson appears on Face the Nation and explains the January 6th Select Committee’s new focus on the financial inquisition of their political opponents.
🔵 Rolling Stone claims to have two witnesses with insider information on Trump’s planned takeover of America.
🔵 Rolling Stone keeps their sources “anonymous” to protect their identities due to the ongoing nature of the investigation.
🔵 Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar are two of the suspected insurrectionist insiders.
🔵 Rep. Pete Aguilar continues to warn about the dangers of democracy while promising a full report for the American people.
🔵 Kyle Rittenhouse back in Court as the trial date nears.
🔵 Review of defense and prosecution expert witnesses Dr. John black and Mr. Robert Willis.
🔵 Prosecutors move to limit evidence about Kyle’s conversation with police during the night in question.
🔵 Prosecutor Thomas Binger says government has FBI video showing Kyle chasing Rosenbaum.
🔵 Judge Bruce E. Schroeder scolds Prosecutor Thomas Binger over his characterization of arson.
🔵 New information in the Alec Baldwin shooting case as search warrant revealed.
🔵 Review of the Alec Baldwin search warrant filed in the New Mexico Magistrate Court.
🔵 More information about Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the 24-year-old armorer who was responsible for the deadly weapon.
🔵 David Halls, the assistant director, has a history of problems with firearms on various movie sets.
🔵 Your questions, comments and live chat after each segment!
NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:
COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS:
🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler
🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246
🕵️♀️ 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
Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. 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've got 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 the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. In this episode of watching the Watchers, we're going to be talking about the Kyle Rittenhouse case. He was back in court today. The government's turn this afternoon to present their expert witness that is going to be testifying about use of force and other permutations about what went on in Kenosha, back in Wisconsin in 2020. And it was a very interesting court date. I've got several clips of this turns out that expert witness that the government was going to be calling may not even be used anymore. And so we're going to take a look at some of the motions in lemonade. Some of the arguments that they're having about jury instructions, because trial is right around the corner. We're also going to be talking about Alec Baldwin. Alec Baldwin of course, was in the shooting. He shot and killed a person. And now a lot of people are sort of pointing fingers all over the place. The blame game has started, and we're going to take a look at two people who were on set that may be responsible for this in particular, an armorer, a young 24 year old gal, who I believe this was only her second movie that she's ever worked on. And then , uh , an assistant director who may have actually handed Alec Baldwin the gun. And so we've got a lot of different sort of a finger pointing happening in different potential suspects. That may be a part of the investigation. We have some insight into what some of the warrant language sounds like because although I don't have a copy of the warrant today , uh , a lot of this has been leaked out to the media. And even though the public documents are not public yet, or they're not available yet, we are getting a hint about what really would happen on the set of rust. And then in our first segment, we're going to go in reverse order today. We're talking about the January six select committee, and we're talking about this new rolling stone article that claims that they have some inside baseball, that they have somebody who is a mega supporter or two individuals actually corroborated by a third person that we're coordinating the January six insurrection. You remember the day that America almost evaporated right before your eyes. They were communicating with allegedly some of Trump's inner circle. People like Mark Meadows and other Congress, people, people like Paul Gosar here in Arizona, shout out and also , uh, who , uh, Marjorie Taylor green. So we're going to get into that story and a lot more, this is being recorded as a live stream. And so if you want to be a part of the show, when we record that takes place [email protected] and we take questions at the end of every segment. So if you want to participate in that, here's a form. If you are over [email protected] And of course, if you are watching this on replay, we'd love to hear your comments, your thoughts in the comments down below. If you're looking for clips of the live show, this all is available over on the Robert ruler , Esq clips channel, which is growing nicely. Thank you for your support. That's a really good place for you to share in any one of these different segments. I know it's a long hour and a half or so show. And so sometimes you just want to send a family member the good stuff, and you can just go over to the clips channel, send that over to them. All right. And so, without any further ado, let's go ahead and get into the news of the day. The January 6th select committee is still driving this train forward. We're beating the horse to death or whatever analogy you want to use, but they are not letting up Bennie Thompson and other people who were part of the select committee were making the airwaves ring over the weekend. On Sunday, Bennie Thompson was on face the nation talking about what the select committee is intending to do here. And remember, this is sort of a, another committee that was created. It's allegedly, bi-partisan , it's comprised of mostly Democrats with Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and I think some other, you know, technical, Republican. And so they've been investigating the January six events for about 10 months now because we already had an impeachment. We have a number of criminal proceedings taking place with all of the individual defendants. The individual people who were charged with trespass essentially is what it comes down to, but not to let a horse not be beaten to death, Bennie Thompson was out. And so we're going to listen to it , to see what he has to say on this is face the nation on CBS. And then we're going to jump into this rolling stone article that also came out and is hinting, that there are some very, very, you know, curious witnesses that have made contact with this January six select committee, people that have inside baseball, that they , they know what Donald Trump was orchestrating along with Mark Meadows and some other people in the secret cabal. And so we're gonna break all of that down and , uh , see what the select committee ultimately intends to do. Where are they going with this? Are they going to indict anybody from Donald Trump's team? Is Steve Bannon going to ultimately be indicted while we're going to see what the January 6th select committee says about it and what they hope to get out of this? So let's start at the top. Here is Bennie Thompson on face the nation over the weekend, talking about really going after the funding. They really want to dive into where the money is. Where is it going here is Mr. Thompson.Speaker 2:
You said this week, you want to know who financed the March, who chartered the buses, who charted the airplanes that day. Do you have any of the questions regarding the finances yet?Speaker 3:
Uh , yes, we do. Uh, we have , uh, one of the teams on the committee , uh, whose sole purpose is to look at the financing , uh , of January 6th. Uh, the people who , uh, spent money , uh, whether it's their money or other folks money, it really doesn't matter, but we want that , uh , to go to the work product or the committee. Uh, we think , uh, the potential for co-mingling , uh, restricted funds for this purpose might be there, but obviously we'll look at it. Uh, it's just interesting to note that a lot of people came to Washington , uh, by bus, by plane , uh, by charter , uh, vehicles. Uh, they stayed in hotels, motels, all of that. Somebody had to pay for it. And we want to look at whether or not , uh, that paying for that participation was legal and whether or not it contributed to what occurred on January six .Speaker 1:
Yeah. So what you can see, what they want to do of course is if they can crack sort of the shell, then maybe they can get two additional layers. We're going to hear another committee member talk about different layers in this whole thing. And so right now, you know, a lot of what you see with these prosecutions are, you know, the low level protesters are the people who are there. There are the people who were carrying the signs and actually physically present at the Capitol that day. But what about all those other Republicans out there? All of those other Trump supporters that maybe weren't there, but financed it because if we're going to be , we be waging war on our political enemies, we got to go after everybody else. We just can't, you know, go after the soldiers, the foot soldiers in the insurrection, we have to go and weed out the rest of the insurrectionists, wherever they may be hiding in their little disgusting caves, those antidemocratic villains. And so they're going to then use the gigantic weight of the federal government to go and peer into people's bank accounts and see where transactions have been, you know , moving from one area to another and the inquisition will never stop. So you can just brace yourself for that. Adam Schiff has made , made the same arguments that they're going to be, you know , probably asking for warrants or whatever, to get into people's bank accounts, to see who was funded. Then they can go after the Coq brothers or the Koch brothers or whatever their name is. They can go after the , uh , the billionaire who funds Veritas, you know, whatever her name was because all of those people are now part of the enemy. And so it's turning into financial financial world because there's a lot more people that they can go after there. Now, another very interesting article came out. We talked about this earlier this morning, we had a , uh , a locals only live stream this morning. And chairman of the board recommended this article and I've seen it posted all over the place on Twitter and elsewhere. People are very excited about this is specially. If you are a anti-Trump or if you're somebody who thought that America almost ended on January 6th , you're looking at this article and you're saying, oh my goodness, finally, finally, some vindication in America, people are gonna come to justice now , uh , because the rolling stone has undercover sources. They have an exclusive, they posted this over the weekend. October 24th says, is that January six, protest organizers say they participated in dozens of planning meetings with members of Congress and white house staff. Oh my goodness. That is just a shocking, shocking. I say title headline. You can see that actual organizers from the rally were actually coordinating with people who were part of the federal government. What a, what a shocking article. I can't even think of a word to better describe this. It says as the house investigation into January 6th , attack heats up. Some of the planners of the pro Trump rallies that happened in Washington had begun communicating with congressional investigators, meaning the January six select committee sharing new information about what really happened there. Two of these people have also spoken to rolling stone extensively about these new explosive allegations that multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning, both Trump's effort to overturn his election loss and the January six events that turned violent. And so you can see anytime we're going to get into these articles, right? We have a lot of just really, really sloppy language that you can just see, right? Trump's effort to overturn his election laws. It's like, okay, well, that's a very loose definition because that can include a ton of people that can include lawyers that can include campaign activists that can include people who were, you know, on the ground doing audits and recounts, anybody who just said, maybe we should double check some of these things, right? If they're trying to do anything that might reverse the election or battle on behalf of Donald Trump, that's not an illegal thing. That's not an insurrection you're allowed to do those things. You're allowed to fight to overturn an election, right? Didn't Al gore do that. Uh , wasn't Hillary Clinton complaining about that. Stacey Abrams complains about it. Every single politician complains about it when they lose, oh, it was not fair. It was rigged. I, you know, I'm not really a terrible candidate or a horrible person. I'm just , uh, you know, I got, I got Rick , this whole thing w was stripped out from under me. It was all rigged. So this happens all the time. And they say that they're sort of conflating one argument with another, if Donald Trump was, was trying to overturn the election, that may be true. That doesn't necessarily mean it was illegal. If Donald Trump is trying to seize the podium of Congress and install a new dictatorship, that's a whole separate issue, but I haven't seen any evidence to that. So by, by, by sort of putting it in one bucket bucket and then labeling them all the same things, you're , you're not doing justice to act , to actually distinguish one argument from the other. All right . And so let's get into the rest of this article. We can see here that the rolling stone says that they have separately confirmed. There's a third person involved in the main January six rally that has communicated with the committee. Nice. This is the first report that the committee is hearing major new allegations from potential cooperating witnesses. While there have been prior indications that member of Congress were involved. This is the first account detailing its purported role in scope, two sources claim. They interact with Trump's team, including chief of staff, Mark Meadows, Wilde , who they describe as having had the opportunity to prevent the violence. So again, it's like, well, how, in what way? In what shape, manner or form? What, in what capacity? Because he's the white house chief of staff, I suppose if he had , uh, you know, convinced Donald Trump to not be there on January 6th , maybe none of it would have happened. You're right, right. He could have prevented violence, but how far removed from the chain of causality? Are we talking about here? Who knows, but it's it , he could have prevented the violence. So there's sort of indicting the man for not doing something. It's sort of trying to prove a negative to some degree, the two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity. Don't you just love that. So we have all this juicy information, all this information that these two individuals are going to be able to communicate to us. Finally, some answers America. And I would love some answers. Honestly, if this, if these people have, you know, text messages from Mark Meadows to Donald Trump and Donald Trump says, authorize the insurrection, get that podium. And mark meadow goes, yes, sir, we're on it. And then he communicates that over to the cabal of , uh , of mega insurrectionists around the country. And they just seized the Capitol , like a virus conquering democracy. Right. If that happened, I would love to know about it. True . I mean, I , I mean that dead seriously. I would love to see it. If there's any actual evidence here, I would love to see it, but I just haven't seen it yet. Somebody please provide it to me. And so we're getting, we're getting very excited about this and suddenly they're anonymous. They've been granted anonymity due to ongoing investigations. Yes. We know. Yes. We know there's an ongoing investigation. That's been going on for 10 months, nine going to be 11 months here soon. So we know it's an investigation. You already done an entire impeachment. You have this, another fake select committee. You have the FBI literally dragging their feet at the U S attorney's office, making disclosure to hundreds of people who were being charged in criminal proceedings as Capitol hill prisoners , defendants. And you're still you're , we're still doing this. We're still here. Okay. So , uh , nothing. So as far as I'm concerned, nothing at this point, they say that , uh , dozens, they were granted anonymity. They were describing participating in dozens of planning briefings. So again, what the hell does that mean? A planning briefing? Is that like, oh, we're going to go, you know , March around the Capitol with some signs or does this mean that you're going to be the new secretary of defense? When we take control of the Capitol building your secretary of defense, your treasury, you get labor, you get educate . No , you don't get education, you get education. What are they talking about? I don't know, but neither, neither does the rolling stone apparently. So they say, I remember Marjorie Taylor green, specifically talking to a dozen other members at one point or another, or their staffs, which again, it's does that make it illegal? You're allowed to talk about what happened at elections. You're allowed to organize and create groups to file lawsuits and to contest elections happens all the time. So I don't know what is so illegal about that. So they pointed here to Paul Gosar, he attends a house oversight committee. You can see that's what he looks like. He's from Arizona. And so that's the image they use. He looks like he's meddling. He looks like he's up to something. He's got those squinty sort of little BDI is just running around all over the place. So yeah, you know, that's a face of an insurrectionist as far as I can tell. Now, these two sources anonymous sources that also helped plan a series of demonstrations that took place in multiple states around the country, in the weeks between the election and the storming of the Capitol . All right , again, is that illegal or problematic at all? You're allowed to protest and demonstrate in this country. We saw a lot of it in 2020, even though they were fiery, they were still considered to be mostly peaceful. According to these sources, most multiple people associated with the March for Trump and stop the steel . And you remember that was Allie Alexander and there was a big movement there. We covered a lot of it here on this channel says that they took place during a period, communicated with members of Congress throughout the process. So again, who cares all perfectly legal, along with green, there were pro conspiratorial pro-Trump Republicans, people that go SAR, Bo Bert , Mo Brooks, Madison, Cawthorne , Andy Biggs . They're all just salivating on getting their hands in any of their business. And they'll be very excited if they can crack one congressperson. Can you imagine that if they crack one person, one congressperson, if they get one text message or one email from one of these people, and it says something like, yeah, wouldn't it be nice if, if we could , uh, you know, change the outcome of the election or something like that, everybody's, you know, collective heads will explode because they'll consider that to be, you know, an, an actual COO and they're driving so hard for that. It's like a needle in a haystack. They want that so badly. And they're going to continue to just beat this horse to death. So they , they let's see a couple, couple more things that I wanted to mention here. Oh yeah. That's right. Turns out , uh , both sources. They say also describe Mark Meadows as someone who played a major role in conversation surrounding the protests . Again , nothing illegal about that. Among other things they say concerns were raised to Meadows about Alexander Ali Alexander's stop. The steel rally. Meadows was subpoenaed by committee last month , uh , from the select committee. And somebody says, one of rolling stones , article , uh, sources says that Meadows wasn't 100% aware of what was going on. Again, whatever that means. A hundred percent aware of the insurrection who knows. We also have here, Marjorie Taylor green, you know what? She looks like. She is somebody else who they're claiming was a part of this whole deal. Now this is very interesting. They say these sources, they say heading into sixth , both sources say that they had discussed with other organizers, comma Trump's allies and members of Congress was a rally that would solely take place at the ellipse where the speakers, including the former president would present evidence about issues with the election. Do you see what that just said? Both sources say that the rally would solely take place at the ellipse, not the Capitol building. This demonstration would take place in conjunction with objections that were being made by Trump allies during the certification on the house floor that day, what it was in a variety of calls, some with go SAR and go SARS team. Some with Marjorie Taylor green and her team Mo Brooks, the organizer says that capital was never in plate insist the planner . So why did , why did they write a whole article about that then? Because this is buried at the very end of the article, just like it's buried at the end of this segment. We're 20 minutes into the show. And as you can see, it is a very at the end of the article. Oh, so they were having a lot of conversations about just presenting evidence at the ellipse. And then the people who were actually in the congressional building would be able to file their objections. So what it sounds like is Marjorie Taylor, green, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks, everybody else, Madison Cawthorne, they're all actual representatives. And so they're going to be inside the building. When they're going through the objections, raising their objections, you need one person from the house, one person from the Senate to go and formally lodge an objection. And so that's what they're organizing. And they're communicating with people who are outside Trump and maybe Meadows, and maybe some of these other people like Ali Alexander and stop the steel about the evidence that maybe has come up outside from their private investigations that never took place that never was able to happen because of what happened at the Capitol building that day. But that does not mean that Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, or any of these other individuals in particular, Moe Brooks go SAR , Marjorie Taylor green, or anybody else was involved in an insurrection, or is encouraging criminality in any way, shape or form. They are smearing the entire organization because it is politically useful, but even their own articles describing conduct that is not criminal, a senior Republican staffer and a member of , for a member of Congress was also granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation. So again, who is it? Come out, brother, if you think that this is such a, an assault on America, stand up, let's hear from you. The staffer says their member was engaged in planning. That was quote specifically and fully above board. Oh, okay. So actually this person is just defending their representative. So he's not even saying anything, a whole host of people led, led this, let this go a totally different way. He says they ended up for a lot of people were at everything that happened. Two sources claim. There were early concerned about Allie Alexander's event saying that there were other, you know , quote paramilitary groups, the first amendment Praetorian also the oath keepers and others Alexander was filmed. Yeah. Uh , yeah. So there, there, there really isn't, there really isn't anything there. It turns out that the rolling stones own sources are , uh, sort of proffering forward. It was never about seizing the Capitol. It was about going and having a conversation during the counting of the electoral votes inside and presenting the evidence outside. And it turned into this whole attack on the Capitol, which has, we're seeing that there there's some pretty strong indication that there were a lot of federal provocateurs who were a part of the entire operation in the first place. We talked about some video yesterday, also on this channel, showing the police, opening the doors and standing down, allowing protestors to just waltz on, in to the Capitol building over 40 minutes. So there's a lot more to this story. Let's see what you have to say about it [email protected], taking some questions. Let's see if we got any on this topic. We have a couple of them says grouchy old cat lady is here says, is that background real on your video? It looks fake as if paste it in this. Oh yeah. It's all real. Those are books. There's a light. That's my sign. That's a , yeah. I mean here. What, how can I prove this to you? Okay. Watch this. See this box of tissues. Watch the depth. See that it's not fake. It's real. It's the real deal. All right. I'll pick those up later. Let's see what else we got. We got another question over from hyper Patriot says, how about investigating the DC mayor? Not accepting more security in Nancy P turning away, extra support when presented with info about how big the rally was going to be. Let's start with those two. I'm so tired of January six and the COVID lies. I am also sick of it too. I think hyper Patriot. If we had a real investigation, there would be a lot more here, right? I want to know from every single security personnel , uh, who , who was involved in the planning, not these four fake cops that they just brought out in front of the whatever committee that was to talk about how horrendous this whole thing was. I've got some more work that I'm doing on , uh , officer [inaudible] . And I think that there are some more funny business going on with that fellow . We have VNT , cause prime says didn't the FBI say that there was no pre-planning to January 6th is rolling stone saying that we can't trust the FBI. So I think they, I think they've had it like three different ways. I think it was, there was no planning. Then there was planning. Then there was no planning, maybe four ways. And there was no planning again. Then there was, and we're all going. Um , okay. Well, if there wasn't any planning, how was this an organized insurrection then? I mean, how was it going to be one person who takes control of the country? Or what are we talking about? So why are we using the insurrection phrase? If there's not going to be a new power coming in and seizing control of the country, that doesn't make any sense to me, you would have to have an incoming insurrectionary force. Right? So , uh, so that didn't make any sense, but then we're also, we're also saying that it was planned. If it was planned, then the FBI, how did they miss this? How did they forget? Or how did they not secure the most important building in the entire us government where all of our elected officials are at the same time. Oh yeah. So, okay. Well they're sort of damned either way, aren't they good to see you? The anti cus we have Jacob chancellor says help me, Rob. Can't take it anymore. All I did was trespass and take some selfies. I want to go home. I want you to go home to Jacob. Hopefully you are out of there soon. Uh , we have monster. One says, can someone ask Benny who paid for the BLM riots? The same people attended multiple riots across the country who funded that one? It's a good question. You think he'd be willing to answer that? I doubt it. We have another one from Sasha. Shisha is back. Oh my goodness. This is a , this is a name I don't remember. I do remember, but it's been a long time. Good to see you. Hello, Rob. Hope you're doing well. This does not pertain to a particular segment of yours. This is more of me asking for advice and guidance. One of the few YouTubers, I look up to a big pressure. I have religiously followed your existence. It has been such a game changer for me, fellow watching the Watchers fans. If you have not watched the video, please do my , uh , of the existence system. Got it. Yeah. My, so I made an existence system video sometime ago. My question is how do you keep going, pushing with your personal goals while maintaining a positive mindset while the world around us is crumbling? Oh, that's a good question. This is something I struggle with. And for some of the follows your news religiously, I'd like to know how to tune that out. When focusing on yourself once again, thank you for all. You do keep up the great job, Sasha shisha , man. That is a good question. And that's a heavy one. Probably not one that I can get into too deeply here, Sasha, but I will record a separate video on locals, sort of about this. Now I will tell you the long and short of this is it is, it requires nurturing, right? That is part of what the existence system is about. You know, this is not something that comes without maintaining your, your energy, your motivation. And so you have to actively participate in your own happiness and your own wellbeing . Just like you brush your teeth, just like you eat, right? Just like you go to the gym, you've got to be training this puppy every day as well. And you gotta , at least doesn't have to be hours at a time, but even 10 minutes, right in the morning I wake up and I do my, my existence system. I do affirmations. I read a little bit, I'm constantly sort of , uh , exploring and listening to lectures on YouTube. And it's, it's something that I was not born with, right? I'm not sort of this, this freakish person who likes that stuff naturally, I've developed into that largely because of, of good coaching, good mentorship, listening to other people who are further ahead of me. I have a men's group that I meet with and I built all these little different systems in that, that work for me, but it is, you know, it is a difficult thing. And I will tell you this, I feel it a lot. I feel what you're talking about in terms of watching the world crumbling. You know, there are times when I have to unplug from the show for, you know, for the weekends. And sometimes I feel badly. It's like , uh , you know, it , it's, it's a , it's a show and we have a lot of fun on here, but sometimes it can be a lot of pressure. It can be a lot of emotional weight that sort of, you know, you just cover these stories and we have these conversations and I'm watching people get fired from their jobs and I'm watching the world crumble, as you say. And it is a lot of stress, but I, I make an active part of my day to clear as much of that out as I can. Great book that I'm reading right now is called the happiness hypothesis. And it talks about this idea of our minds being very complicated. And what's happening up in here, the, the self dialogue that you have, the talking to yourself that exists on a regular, but you wake up and you say that guy's an idiot or this story's horrible, or I'm worried about this, or I'm hungry now. Or I should probably take care of this person, that inner dialogue that you have. It's not really you. Right? And in happiness hypothesis, it's by a guy named Jonathan height. And he talks about the, this metaphor of an, of a , of a , of an elephant. And he says that you, in your existence, you were like the writer on top of an elephant, which is really your subconscious and all of the other operations that are happening in your brain. And so what you're, what you're trying to constantly battle is being a writer on top of this, this elephant, it's your conscious mind on top of this gigantic unconscious mind. And there are ways where you're never going to be able to totally control that elephant, right? You can't really force an elephant to do what it, what you want it to do. It's going to go where it wants to go, but you develop this relationship between your conscious mind and your unconscious mind, and you're constantly massaging and practicing that relationship. And there are things that you can do to help guide this elephant around kind of put these guardrails up so that when you start to feel desperate and in despair, when you start to feel like the world is crumbling, like , like what's the point of all of this garbage. You have some techniques and some tools. So that, that elephant that it's under, you doesn't start to, as you know, it, doesn't start flipping out and spiraling out of control. It, doesn't drive itself off a cliff and make you start feeling like you're in the throws of depression. And so it's , it's these little tools. And when you think about it that way, when you think about it as being, you know, just a , a rider on this elephant, it takes a lot of the pressure out of it, right? You're not always going to be happy. You're dealing with this really complicated structure of the human mind. And so, as long as we can continue to develop this relationship between these two working components, you're going the right direction and it's not going to change overnight, right? You're not going to wake up and be that person who's running through the television television commercials, you know, running through fields of flowers. It's not going to happen that way. So when you start to recognize that relationship, I think you can take a little bit of pressure off yourself, recognize me. I've got to wake up and I got to go train that beast, man. I got to go make sure that I am nurturing my mind. Just like I'm nurturing my body. Just like I'm nurturing my relationships, just like I'm working on my business. And so that is a lot longer answer than I was expecting, but it is, it is something that I think is , is very important. I think that if more people just took 10 minutes out of their day, they would realize how much happier they are. Just, just by sort of calming the mind to some degree, man. But I could talk about that stuff all day. I'm super passionate about it. It's changed my life, right? And for anybody out there who says, oh, that's just great. You're a lawyer or whatever. You've got all this free time. I was an alcoholic and somebody who was at the very bottom of my own despair, right. I was at the rock bottom and by the grace of God and some very amazing people in my life, I was able to pull, sort of work myself out of that with a lot of help, you know, shout out mom and many others, but it was, it , it was a journey. Right. But , but it is possible. I guess if I can leave this question with any less semblance of hope, amazing question, Sasha. I hope that helps. Please email me if you have any questions or about anything. Right. I love these conversations. Okay. So next question from Sergeant Bob says, hopefully in a little, over a year, the new 2022 select committee will follow suit and delve into where all the BLM and Antifa money came from. That's from Sergeant Bob. I wouldn't get your hopes up there. Sergeant Bob, I don't think that they're going to be looking into any of that co Kamala Harris was bailing them out. They burnt down the third precinct in Minneapolis and oh , get them out of custody. We have another one from monster. One says rolling stone, the same outlet that made up a fake story about horse dewormer and gunshot victims. Sure. They are credible. That was for monster one. Yeah. Rolling stone. You know , look and it's anonymous. So we have an answer on that. Former Leo says in discovery, would it be possible to obtain a list of all law enforcement officers who were detailed to the capital work in plain clothes and a full listing of all you see officers in all CIS? I don't think so. I don't think that you would get that. They would say it's over-broad right. And they they'd probably say, you know , at this point , uh, it's not available. I think they're still organizing it. Payroll records of all law enforcement, military detailed might also be helpful. Also what the F is the ACLU doing to protect rights. The ACL OU has changed dramatically since the seventies. I really don't know what they're doing anymore, but I get your point former Elio , right ? It, you know, in , in a, if my, if I were representing a defendant, somebody who was charged in January six, and I said, I wanted information about everything. They would only give me what is relevant to that particular case. I'd have to make a good case as to why I needed all of that other stuff. Otherwise, a judge would just say, no , it's not relevant. Uh, Jeremy Murrieta says, Rob, but rolling stone is a tabloid. They are known for writing opinion pieces and pushing them as factual. They aren't even good at writing about musicians and critiquing music. In my opinion, one would learn more from an actual stone rolling on the ground. And from the publication of the same name. I love that Jeremy, you have a rolling stone over here and you have a stone that is rolling. Which one is more valuable to you in your life? Obviously it is LA PA drug . All right, we have, that was a great comment, Jeremy. That's funny. We have excess Rob, call me crazy conspiracy theorists , but is it possible that the J six hotels used by the J six protestors were funded by the J six? I , you better be careful tonight because I think you may have cracked the case. They're going to have some, a SWAT team coming after you. But yeah, that sounds sensible to me. Monster one says, been saying that for a while , this committee is all about seizing power. Democrats are not going to stop because they know they're likely to lose in 20, 22. They have to move before then if they drum up fraudulent charges against us , one Republican in the Senate, Republicans won't be able to block their agenda. Yeah, I think it's it's . If they can get that, they can get just one, one juicy story. They're gonna be able to milk this thing for another, probably two years, we have pili . Wally says, Hey, Rob, hope you had a great weekend. I did pili . I hope you did. Also regarding the January six madness with me being in the UK, I hear nothing of it, but is it covered off on mainstream news? And so on in the U S or the general public kept in the dark regarding the committee and their investigations. I just don't believe that the average citizen would support the ongoing nonsense and frankly, corrupt investigation into political rivals and so on pili , Wally . Yeah. That's a good question. You know, it is all over the news here. I would say , uh , whenever I go out, I've had conversations with people who , uh, I had a conversation with a woman, very nice woman who , uh, who was asking me about YouTube and what I talk about. And she said something like, won't it be great. When , when we have finally have law and society and people have to comply with their subpoenas talking about, you know, Steve Bannon. And I just said, yeah, the law's a fickle thing. Isn't it left it alone. Wasn't the appropriate time. But right. Some people are seeing this PLE as a battle of good versus evil, right? If you think that what happened on January 6th, it was almost the seizure of American democracy. You want justice on that and why wouldn't you, if you, if you really believed that, that we almost lost America, that you know, that narrative, that CNN has been pushing. If you watch CNN every day and MSNBC, every day, you're going to hear people like, oh, you know what? I didn't even finish the segment. I forgot. We didn't even finish the segment. You're going to hear people like this guy, this guy is over , uh what's what's this guy's name? Rep Pete Aguilar. Yeah. So he's talking about all the different layers of what's going on here. So we have, now we're going to finish the questions. We're going to get back to those, but we have two other clips. This is Pete Aguilar. He's over on the January 6th select committee. And he is asked by this astute host Velshi on MSNBC. How is this different than impeachment? You guys have been beating this horse endlessly for the last 10 months. How , how is this any different than what we've already done? What are you going to find out? And he talks about the layers, all the layers, just like Benny Thompson was talking about the financial layer. So this there just want to go rip out all of their political opponents at every single layer. Here he isSpeaker 4:
So far is just how layered this is. And a lot of the , uh , impeachment, the second impeachment work, you know , stands up, but we're going to have a lot more conversations and a lot more time to do the analysis that's necessary to connect the dots and to make sure that we tell the full and complete story of how close we came to losing democracy. And that's what we want folks to know is how important and impactful a peaceful transfer of power is. That's a hallmark of democracy. What steps do we need to take? And what steps will others take? Who don't want us to do that? What steps can they take in the future in order to close these , uh , put up roadblocks in our way. And so we need to make sure that we acknowledge those and that we do everything we can to protect democracy.Speaker 1:
You see that pili Wally . So that's what he's talking about, right? It's all about protecting democracy and he's framing it as this good versus evil thing. He says, look, we're on the side of righteousness. We are going to go and make sure that these insurrection is never almost seize control of America again. And he says, we have to be ultra vigilant on this because if we're not identifying how we can plug those holes to stop future insurrectionists, then they're just watching and waiting. They're plotting. They're trying to identify how they can put as he called it more speed bumps in our way in protecting America. So this is not like a situation. If you're on this side of the argument on this side of the conversation where this was just a one-off thing, this was just a January 6th insurrection. It was a riot. It was something that was probably caused largely by government , uh, you know , incompetence or negligence. But it's the opposite of that. It's this is a repeatable thing. There's an orchestrated organized movement of Trump insurrectionists out there who are going to come back and do this again. And we have to make sure that it never happens. And so we have to just continue to save democracy, protect democracy, protect democracy is what he said. And in the last clip of him, he talks about this. What are we going to get out of this entire committee? That's always been my question. What are you going to give us? Are you going to give us a nine 11 report? Are you going to give us a , you know, some big, you know, stinkin set of paper that you're going to , we're going to read. And it's going to say on January 6th , America was in a moment of peril, right ? Something like that, right? The same garbage we've been hearing for the last 10 months, what's going to come out of this. We already know that they sent this over to Steve, to the justice department to indict Steve Bannon. We'll see if they do that. History is not on their side, right? That we've gone through it. I think that it's never really been, I don't think it's ever been found that somebody was convicted of what they're trying to convict. Steve Bannon on ever as far as I, as far as I looked into. So what are they doing? What's going to happen here? Well, here's what this , uh , representative says.Speaker 4:
And ultimately we want to produce a report to the American public. We feel that we owe them that. So we're going to let this process play out, but you know, we're not going to have a ton of patients . And so we're going to continue to have these interviews. We're going to continue to chase down every lead, but we feel the department of justice will follow the law. And the federal law is very clear that once it's certified and reported to the district, to the , um, uh, us attorney, that they have a duty to bring it before a grand jury. So that's all we're asking and that's our expectation.Speaker 1:
All right . So he says , we're going to write a report. We're going to refer this stuff over to the DOJ. DOJ is going to have to decide what to do with it, but they have a duty to bring it to a grand jury. He, which is, which is, you know, yes, it's in the language, but they also have a duty to bring charges that are warranted that have enough probable cause that would , uh , sustain a conviction. Don't they? And so they're being very careful here, but you heard him say, well, we owe the American people, our report. So I think that, that , um, that , uh , sort of that child predator enabler over at the Lincoln project, he might've been onto something. He was saying things like this whole thing is probably not going to go anywhere. I think I agree with that. All right , we got it . Let's go back to the questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com . It was a nice little segue pili , Wally . Good question. We have former Elio says can't confront your accusers, what we have turned into and what have we turned into. And it turns my stomach. Yeah , it's the confrontation clause here in this country. Former officer has been evaporated eviscerated monster. One says, so Marjorie Taylor green was only in Congress for three days. It was involved in all these plots. This is obviously a fake story using the left villains to get clicks from the smooth brains . Uh , yeah , because they don't have enough information. So there's no folds in the crevice of the, or in the , uh , in the, in the brain matter three girls , he says, they're speaking on anonymity seems like a lot of gas lighting . So that means there's no cross-examination , uh , examination as well. That means there's no due process for anybody like Mark Meadows or any other person. There is no way they're cracking the Congress persons that they have listed. This is exactly like the Russian collusion crap all over again. That's from three girlies and shout out to the three Gurley's family over there saw that , um , everybody's healthy. And on the up, love that the dark says, yo, yo, yo, Justin FYI. I usually won't see your stream under the live section on rumble. If I'm not logged into it, but today it was there without being logged in. So maybe that's a good sign. Now it seems to me like Benny is an avid fishermen because you've done a lot of fishing lately. Unfortunately for Benny, he isn't too good at catching. He can fish all day long. No problem, but just can't get one real dent . Oh, well sucks to be Benny that's from the dark, just fishing away, just trying to get whatever he can, but it's not too good. Excess . It only took a couple of weeks for the U S government to link nine 11 to Osama and Al Qaeda . What's taken so long with J six. And where is the CIA? That's a good question. Next . I think that they've just identified a big bucket of people that they call domestic terrorists and there's little subdivisions of that. Homegrown domestic terrorism, homegrown, violent extremists, a homegrown, whatever, a racial epithet, probably going to have a pronoun category any day. Now, you know, it's, it's complicated business. Kareem says, I'm not sure if it is just me, but lately I've been unable to watch her videos live on YouTube. It's not just you Corinne . If it weren't for my local's account, I would only be able to watch the videos later. That's exactly how it's supposed to be. Now, Kareem , I apologize that you didn't get the memo. Maybe I should have been a little bit more clear about the rollout , but yeah, so we're changing it. So we're going to be recording live and that we're going to be premiering it on YouTube, Kareem . And the reason for that is because YouTube penalizes our live streams. So we're just not going to do many live streams on there anymore where we are. But the regular show is just going to be sort of prerecorded. We're going to do the interactive portion of this here on locals. And then we are going to premiere it on YouTube. And look, it's not something that I want to do. Okay. I know a lot of people are unhappy about this on YouTube. I'm sorry about it. I'm sorry. It's more work for me. I have to stop and sort of edit everything and then re-upload it rather than just streaming one-time and being done with it. But the channel is literally dying without any , uh, recorded videos. If it's just live streams, the channel is not, is not growing because as soon as the live is done, it pulls it out of everything. And so , uh, so I have to make the change. I know it's super frustrating, but it's for, you know, it's like you got to cut off the, the gangrene in order to survive. That's what we're doing here. YouTube, desperate times, my friends we have. Okay. Thank you for that one, Kareem . Couple more. Before we jump into the next, we have a lot to get to today. It's going to be a long show. Hunter Biden says, I wonder if the same person who stole Pelosi's laptop is the same person who stole mine. I wonder if she had sex tapes on them. Like I did, if she did, I want to see them. That's from hunter Biden. Hunter wants to see them. I don't want to see them ever. In fact, I don't want to be in the same room as them. We have speech unleashed says, this is just more proof that people should be , uh , should make sure to protect their ID when dealing with, or posting about political things on social media. You never know when it's going to come around to bite them in the rear. That's from speech unleashed. You know, you remember after January six , there were people who were making websites about us and me on this show and saying that I was there on January 6th . I'm like, hello, dummies. I was recording from Scottsdale. I was broadcasting here. So yeah , you gotta be careful. People will associate you with all sorts of stuff. Uh, wants to know lady. She, her and hers says, so can we ascertain more about the anonymous testimony that they are collecting? Who are they, are they associated with? The FBI don't know the rolling stone knows though. And they're not going to tell you, thank you for the pronouns, just so I can make sure about that. Uh, Kincaid says good evening, Rob thoughts on their breakdown. Let's see here , uh, fabricate behavior and guide citizens on how to navigate while also publicizing general intent B this creates unruly masses with control. Unlike most historical events that have both been about contesting on the floor in 2020 elections had support from members in Congress and the Senate. And both until that was until that very planned drama were very well-planned drama. At least three states would have likely changed votes question. Do you think that the 2020 election down in Georgia have UCLA lawyers , superseding town clerks was fair. So, so I don't know about that story. The Georgia, UCLA lawyer's superseding town clerks. I don't know that story Kincade , but I will say this. There was a lot of stuff that we covered here on this channel, specifically talking about all the multiple lawsuits that were taking place all over the country before the election took place. Okay. I have slides that cover it. We made charts talked about who was winning. In each case, we went through a lot of lawsuits. A lot of people were interested in this and they were all about changing the rules. All of them, they are all about moving the election date back or , uh, you know, allowing more sort of ballot harvesting, giving people signature verification waivers so that they don't have to prove any of this stuff all on the back of COVID. And so I don't know what happened with Georgia or UCLA, but yeah, all of the rules changed all over the place all in 2020. And so you can't even say, you know, I've never even said that it was stolen because that would mean that they were not entitled to something, but they changed the rules and then they won under those rules. So you can call that, you know, label that whatever you want, but you know, Joe, Biden's the president, a lot of rules changed. There was nothing, you know, not , not much else to say about that other than the Republicans got their rear ends handed to them in court all over the place. Okay. Couple of other questions we got to move on. So let's pick up the pace here, Rob, what are you doing? My Google's is loading. There it is. Now it's back. Yeah. Sergeant Bob says, I told Ms . Lucky that for Christmas, I want a podium say hello to your new leader in master America, Sergeant Bob and miss lucky that wouldn't be so bad. I'd be okay with that. Steve Baldwin says, would you play Russian roulette with Alec Baldwin? Uh, you know, you know, I would not, I would not. I have to say that my mom watches the show, Sasha shisha says, hi, yes, typo there. I meant to say existence systems would love to watch a separate video on this. Okay. I can put, I can definitely put more of that together, Sasha. Yeah. I think, you know, it's a big part of what I do. I am sort of , um, obsessed with some of that stuff. So I'd love to talk about it. We can definitely set up another even live stream . Kincaid says great author. Another book from the righteous mind is great as well. Is that from, I was at Jonathan height. Let's see here, the right. Yeah . So I've not read that one . I'm just experimenting with some Jonathan height. Love it. I think it's quite good. We have , um, somebody asked, do you still drink socially or completely given up zero alcohol? Nothing. I don't drink at all. Not even socially. Uh, I'm not, I'm not in the category of people who are , uh, you know, 100% abstinent from everything. Like there are some people that they won't even take pain pills or they won't even drink coffee or anything like that. I'm not like that. I don't have a problem with really anything else. Other than alcohol. It was a , uh , it was just not good for me. And once I just decided that I don't need it, I stopped sort of craving it. I stopped wanting to be in environments that habit and everything got a lot better, but it takes a lot of work. You know, I still am active in my recovery. I meet with my men's group every Tuesday and we talk the 12 steps and we talk a lot about humility and powerlessness and God and all of those things. And it's been transformative in my life. And so, you know, I know sometimes for, for some people, it is scary to talk about it's something that still has a stigma, but I think that it's worse to not talk about it and suffer from it than it is to , to just talk about it and stop suffering from it. Just crack that shell, if it's something that you're contemplating , uh we're Hey, by the way, we're always looking for new guys who want to come and join our men's group. So it's a, it's a Saturday, I'm sorry, it's a Tuesday men's group five 30 Arizona time. And if you're, if you're somebody who is really, really hurting and you want to make a serious change, this is not sort of a , like a Patty cake men's group, send me an email. And I mean that sincerely , uh , at Robert, at our law, easy.com and we'll have a conversation about it. And if you need some help, let me know. And I mean that sincerely, right? So let me know. All right . So a couple other questions here is from a grouchy old lady says they should end the committee as quickly as they ended the research into where the COVID virus came from two different standards. Totally. Uh , and they , they canceled you right off the internet. If you were questioning any of that, all right , we have, I'm not gas as a , they want to bury Steve Bannon. He was key to Trump's win and really embodies the grassroots right of 2016. If they could take out a couple of the top generals, it will be very significant. Those were great questions and conversation over from watching the watchers.locals.com . If you want to join in our community, please head on over there. We have a lot of amazing people there as you can see. Okay. So we're going to jump into the next segment. Let's see what else we've got. All right. Oh yeah. Kyle Rittenhouse is coming up next. Good stuff on this one. All right. All right. Okay. Kyle Rittenhouse was back in court today. You recall the last time we talked about Kyle's case, he was presenting his expert witness. We're called . We have a number of different people involved in the case. We're going to flush out what happened today in court. I've got several clips. It was an interesting day. No question about it. Before we dive into everything, let's make sure we're caught up to speed. Here is what the board looks like. Kyle Rittenhouse, his case is scheduled. I believe the trial date is November 1st. Anyways, it's coming up very soon. We've got to make sure that we're familiar with all of the different individuals who are going to be a part of the trial. You can see here in the middle. We've got judge Bruce Schroeder going to hear from him today. He got a little bit ornery with Thomas binger. Thomas binger over here is the lead prosecutor on the case. And he is somebody, you know, that is an interesting fellow . We also have James Crouse . He's an assistant prosecutor. They are representing the government, but they're also sort of, you know , advocating on behalf of gauge gross. Kreutz he is the sole survivor of the shooting. He was shot in the arm. And so depending on how you categorize him, he's either the assailant who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse and Kyle Rittenhouse was the , uh, was actively defending himself. Or he is the victim. If you're the government, Thomas binger was calling gage gross. Kreutz of course the victim, we have Anthony Huber. He was, he's no longer with us. He's deceased. You can see him. This is from the scene where he was sort of on top of Kyle Kyle's down here in the bottom. We have Joseph. Rosenbalm also deceased going to hear a little bit more about him today. We have Mr. Robert Willis who was brought into court today, but I don't think we're actually gonna see him in the , uh, in the future , uh, with, in the future trial we have on the right-hand side with the defense, we've got Kyle Rittenhouse. Of course, we all know he is. We've got two of his attorneys, Mark Richards was there today, along with Corey chief of recei , Chira , feces, how you say it and cheer Feesey was just entertaining as hell today. We're going to take a look at , uh , his testimony. We also have Dr. John Black, we didn't hear from him. He is the defense witness going to be talking about use of force. And my understanding is he's still going to be in court , uh , in court to testify, but only on a limited narrowed, a line of questioning. And so a lot is happening right now. Remember that trial is scheduled for next week and we're flushing out the final issues. We've got a lot of things to figure out. Two of the big issues are about expert witnesses. And so you remember that Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with these different violations. We have reckless homicide, reckless endangering society, recklessly endangering society down here. We have possessing a dangerous weapon. We have intentional homicide, two counts of that use of a dangerous weapon, a three counts, and one count of attempted homicide that's for gross Kreutz . And so we're talking about these different concepts, recklessness, right? Talking about what is recklessly mean? Hmm . And what , what about stuff about self-defense and use of force when it is, when is it appropriate to use force against somebody? When is self-defense something that pops up in a given context? And so we were listening to expert witnesses opine about this last week or the last time we talked about this case. I think it might've been the week before that we heard from this fellow, John Black, Dr . John Black, and he testified and qualified himself as an expert witness in what's called a Dobber hearing here. We have this fellow who is a doctor. He's not a doctor. He's actually somebody who is a, did I have a clip of this? I think I have a clip of this guy. So my , my slides are a little bit out of order, but I think I have a clip of this guy. This is Mr. Willis. And so today was kind of a train wreck in court. I really don't like how this is all being organized. You're going to see that a lot of the issues are conflating themselves with one another. Typically the way that a criminal case will work is you'll have some very clear delineations on certain issues, right? An officer can testify about X, Y, and Z, but not about a, B or C. And it's very clear, you know, exactly what's happening. And the cases progress through a very cleanly, delineated and articulated process. You talk about certain things at certain time. So an example would be you wouldn't be talking about a Dobber expert witness at the same time that you're talking about motions and eliminate. Okay. Now these are two things that probably sound like foreign language to you. But a Dobber hearing is about, is a conversation about an expert witness. Is this expert qualified. We're going to call him in here and put him in front of a jury. Is he actually an expert? We got to haul him in court and talk about what he can talk about, make sure he is actually who he says he is. And he is actually qualified. There's also a separate issue called the motion and eliminate, which is you're , you're trying to limit certain testimony from coming into court. And so you would do certain things in , in the correct order, right? You would talk about that expert witness, whether they're actually an expert. Then if you decide that they are, they come into court, then you might want to limit what they can say. So you do things in that order. You bring the expert in he's qualified. He comes into court. Okay. What's he going to talk about? We're going to limit some of that testimony with the motions eliminate this judge kind of is not really doing that. He's kind of just taking all of these issues on the fly, or we're sort of talking about this expert witness, but we're also going to be talking about the motions in lemonade , or then we're going to sort of see, well, what's he going to testify about that? Is he going to test, is he going to talk about that while he might? W is that, and what are your emotions eliminate ? So you might limit yes. And it's all being conflated together. And so you're going to see some actual frustration from everybody in court today. Uh, it was very interesting. I don't think it's a , a very appropriate way to manage a case flow. If I can be candid about this. Uh, you know, the , the judge has a style that is just not something that I necessarily understand or appreciate, but judges are entitled to run courtrooms. However they want to do that. So let's listen in. This was Mr. Willis. So this was going to be the, the, the prosecution expert witness. They may not even use him. We're going to take 10 seconds on this clip, cause he's probably not even going to be used. We spent about two hours preparing for this, and then it turns out they may not even use this witness. So this is what the government was going to bring inSpeaker 5:
Doctor at the Northeast, Wisconsin technical college. What subjects did you instruct them?Speaker 6:
A huge variety actually had some through utility man. Um, I taught in the police academy and my primary responsibility with use of force , uh , defensive tactics, control, tactics, pepper, spray, taser of the time , those sorts of things, firearms. And I also taught professional communication skills. Crisis intervention, got a vehicle contact, people stops , uh , emergency vehicle operation, and then a host of academic subjects ranging from , uh, ethics to a constitutional law to criminal law, juvenile law , uh, how to testify in court and again, a host of other academic topics.Speaker 1:
All right. So that's , uh , Bob, as you can see, and he's talking about, you know, a lot of experience, he's got a huge variety of topics that he can cover. Police academy, primary responsibility, all that stuff. We spent several hours talking about this guy and he did not even , uh , it turns out that he's probably not even going to get called into court. So , uh, the prosecution, basically the end of this says, well, judge, if we would have addressed a prior issue about what expert witnesses were going to be talking about in a prior motion, that that was before the courts , if we would have delineated this, I wouldn't have even called an expert witness in the first place. And so the judge is like, well, but I wanted to see everything before we decided what to do. And so it's just a stylistic thing, you know, it's, it's confusing to me, but , uh, you know, the judge apparently has some, some method to the madness. Can you see this, this , uh, sunlight peering through the window, going to have to do something about that? I'll do that tomorrow. The sign is changing and I , I've never, I've never seen this , uh, the shadow coming through. Okay. So, all right . So let's get back into the Rittenhouse case and what we can see. I've got a couple of clips and I want to start off by talking about, so expert witnesses are probably, you know , going to be very limited, not going to be the crux of the case. What we're now talking about are things called motions in lemonade again. So this is where we're limiting testimony. And there's a very, very interesting motion that the government submitted that I want to share with you. You probably remember this video. We're going to play that here in a quick minute, but this is from before any of the altercation took place in Kenosha. This is when Kyle and some other individuals that he's with are walking around and they're interfacing with police. You see, police are all over there in the background, see the sirens or the , uh, the flashing lights. And if you recall, we talked about this a year ago when we were talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, but he is walking up to the police with his, with , with his, all of his gear on with his gun. And the police say something like, we really appreciate you guys. We really do. And they also give Kyle some water bottles. And so what the prosecution is asking for here, they don't want this video or any of those conversations to come into court. They don't want the jury to see Kyle Rittenhouse interfacing with these police officers. Because if they do that , the jurors might think that the police were endorsing Kyle's behavior because they said, we really appreciate you guys really do. Right? And so how can Kyle be a reckless person? Who's this maniac running around the streets of Kenosha with a gun. If the police are like, yeah, good job. Hey, well done. We appreciate you here have a water bottle, right ? It doesn't serve them. So they're trying to limit that from coming in. It's called a motion in lemonade . They don't want the jury to hear about it. And we're going to see what the argument looks like in court. Before we do let's refresh our memories, refresh our recollection to use legal terms about the video itself. This is from last year, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking around in Kenosha.Speaker 7:
If you can keep people from putting their guns at the crowd.Speaker 1:
Yeah . No laser planers either. No laser pointers. They think that's guns too . Okay . These are cell phones, cell phone video. Very grainy. You see Kyle is right there walking by the gas station. Again, somebody else's walking. Kyle has his firearm. They're talking about not pointing guns,Speaker 8:
Water, water, water.Speaker 1:
Now says, we need water.Speaker 7:
Get out of here.Speaker 1:
Police are over there.Speaker 8:
So a lot of police see Kyle walking around with his gun.Speaker 8:
Yeah . You're resilient in areas, close to your truck passing .Speaker 1:
He gets , it looks like some water.Speaker 8:
We got a couple, we got save a couple of, we'll give you a coupleSpeaker 1:
Here thatSpeaker 7:
I need a step .Speaker 1:
I'm sure they have a lot of bottles of water. All right . So you get the gist of it. So Kyle goes, you need some water. Yeah, we can . We got some water despair . Here's a couple of them. He goes cop . We appreciate you guys. We really do. Thanks for being here. Keep up the great work, all of that. And so the prosecution, they do not want the , the jurors to see that if they see that, that the cops were sort of tacitly, endorsing that activity, it's really hard to make the claim that Kyle Rittenhouse is some sort of crazy reckless maniac. Isn't it? Here is Thomas binger making that argument that this should not come into court. Here he is.Speaker 5:
Um , it's the motion eliminates, talks about , um , whether or not anonymous law enforcement officers made statements earlier in the evening , uh, regarding the defendant's activities , uh, or whether or not they , um, talked about their plans in terms of crowd control or things like that. Um, and this is not a trial about the police activities. It's not a trial about police tactics. It's not a trial about whether or not law enforcement that night , uh, took action or didn't take action. This is a case about what the defendant did that night. Um, and I'm concerned that this is going to be turned into a trial over the, what law enforcement should or shouldn't have done that night. And I don't think that that's what this court or this trial should be deciding .Speaker 1:
Okay. So my audio was a little , I'm gonna have to change my audio settings. I think you heard that, but I don't think that I heard that. I know that I did not hear that. And so I'm going to have to make a quick audio change, but if I recall what he said in there , uh , it's not gonna impact the show. Don't worry that. But what if I recall what he said in there? He's talking about provocateurs and he's talking about jury selections and he's in particular, he's saying, look, we have this sort of disagreement about who was the initial aggressor here, especially when it comes to the Rosenbaum case. Rosenbaum was the first person who was shot. And if you remember, it was the guy in the red shirt, the guy who's bald that we talked about at the very start of the show on our diagram of everybody who's involved in this case, Rosenbalm was running sort of, it looked like to me when I set it towards Kyle and then Kyle turned around and shot him. And so from, from the video that we saw that we analyzed here on this channel, Rosenbalm was the aggressor. Now what binger is saying is that they've got video of , uh, FBI footage showing that Rittenhouse was the ultimate aggressor who sort of aggressed and provoked Rosenbalm. And so Rosenbalm responding to Kyle is not justification for Kyle to use self-defense. We covered that statute at some moment in time, but here's the, here's the , the, the short and dirty concept. If you are going to be using the self-defense standard, you don't get to go and provoke the initial assault, right? If you're standing in the middle of a, of a bar and you walk up to somebody else and you smack them in the head and you say, Hey, dippy book , and you pop them in the head and they spill their beer and they attack you, and then you shoot them and you say, oh, that was self-defense. They were going to kill me. Right? You don't get to use that self-defense you started it. So that's what we're talking about being, or saying that Kyle started it and he's the provocateur. And if we bring in, is this, this clip? I don't, I can't, I can't tell. And let me show you the other, the other argument here. Let me show you. This is, this is the Kyle Rittenhouse, his attorney now who is now sort of just a guest at what he is hearing from the prosecution. Let's listen in. All right . I know you can't hear that now. Cause I changed the audio. I'm changing it backSpeaker 5:
That no one is saying that because the police, whatever, however, they reacted that Mr. Rittenhouse was waffle and justified. That is not a defense to a charge . What Mr. Bigger has chosen to charge reckless conduct. Okay. He's made that decision. Now he has to be able to show the defendant's conduct should an utter disregard for human life. All I've done is looked at the jury instruction. I know what a fact finder is supposed to consider when making that determination, your honor. And if you look at that instruction, they are to consider what the defendant was doing, why he was engaged in that conduct, how dangerous that conduct was, how obvious the danger was, whether the conduct shows disregard for life and all other facts and circumstances related to that conduct. And I would submit to you conversations, interactions that he has with law enforcement go to his state of mind as to whether or not a how obvious that danger was. Um, and whether it was actually dangerous conduct, those are relevant factors to determine reckless behavior. And when he has conversations with police officers and they let him go about his business. And when the police say things like they've said on that tape, both go to his state of mind. They are absolutely relevant to the charge of reckless . He is charged with three different counts of reckless behavior in this case. So the way that Mr binger has chosen to charge the case has opened up in our view is opened up the facts and circumstances surrounding what had happened, because the totality of the circumstances go into play in determining whether or not behavior is a chosen or disregard for human life. And that's what we're saying. It wasSpeaker 1:
Okay. So you, you could , you could hear his, his argument in response and he's making the argument that what if you're going to talk about recklessness, then you have to, you have to sort of prove that. And they opened the door. They alleged recklessness. Kyle was walking around the entire night with a gun on multiple police, saw that activity. Didn't consider that to be reckless. And so they had their they're tying this back to Kyle Rittenhouse, his frame of mind . Did the police tell him to, you know, young, young boy, young man go on home or anything like that? No, they didn't. They just said, Hey, we actually appreciate you. Thanks for being here. Here's some water. And so it goes to Kyle Rittenhouse, his mental state did Kyle Rittenhouse, did he rise to the level of recklessness or not? I think it absolutely is relevant to this because it frames everything in context, right? It wasn't a madman running around a street with a gun it's Kyle Rittenhouse with a group of people that seemed to be endorsed by the police to some degree. So here's the judge. Now the judge tells you a little bit more about him. He says , um, well, let me tell you more about me. I want a lot of stuff to come in. And so I'm probably going to allow the evidence that we just heard come in. It's probably going to be coming in. And we'll probably hear that in the trial. Here's the judge,Speaker 5:
As you know, you've tried cases in here , uh , I'm the one who always wants to hold back until I see the whole field of evidence, a big choirs . I just hate being up here after making a ruling and saying something will or won't come in and everyone's planning on that. And then suddenly say, whoops, I just changed my mind. So I don't want do that. So I give you in many instances, what I'm thinking about as far as part of what's going to be the ruling . And I would tell you at this point, I would think that that probably is admissible in this case. Understood. Thank you. Okay. So then,Speaker 1:
All right. So the judge, you know, the judge is saying I'm probably going to come in and the judge does this and it really sort of bugs me. Like his rules are not hard. Um , I'm probably going to let it come in, allow more to come in. It's like yes or no, judge, is it, is it coming in? Yes or no? So he's, he's going to be an interesting judge. Uh , very, very interesting. Okay. This is the other clip. I think I was explaining a different clip. This is the clip that I was talking about previously. Uh, the audio, just so you understand what's happening. It's , it's only coming through a one earbud and it's the earbud that I don't have in , so I can't hear it, but I watched it all earlier. And so I think I know what's happening, but they're talking about now provocation. So this is that conversation I was having about Rosenbalm being the primary aggressor versus Kyle Rittenhouse, being the prior aggressor. And in this clip, Thomas binger alerts us to the fact that the, they , they actually have FBI video. It sounds like of Kyle chasing Rosenbaum first. So this was news to me. Uh , we haven't seen this anywhere else to my knowledge, but apparently Kyle was chasing Rosenbalm first. We'll see what that looks like. You know, I doubt it. I don't really think that changes the analysis anyways , um, provided it. Wasn't like immediately, you know, before that, w we'll see, let's take a look and see what a binger had to say this afternoon,Speaker 5:
In terms of the elements of self-defense provocation only comes into play in the jury instructions in that narrow scope of whether or not the defendant. If he provoked the attack, therefore would not have the right to claim. Self-defense none of these elements or jury instructions talk about whether or not the victim or the decedent here, whether he provokes it, or whether that somehow affects the decision of the defendant here. So I disagree with the court. That provocation is the key issue in this case. Now we're going to talk about it. I understand that there's going to be some evidence about that. The defense is going to argue has super who provoked it , and we're going to respond with an FBI video that shows the defendant chasing down Mr. Rosenbaum and confronting him first, but legally in terms of the elements here. And again, Jackson stands for whether or not this evidence is relevant to the elements of the crime. I don't see any element here where Mr. Rosen bombs , provocation, or being the aggressor , um, changes the jury's decision pursuant to the elements of self-defense.Speaker 1:
Okay. So there's Thomas binger and he's talking about provocation, FBI video. I've not seen it. Don't think it's out there on the internet yet, but allegedly showing Kyle Rittenhouse chasing Rosen mom. And if you recall, right, that's why the self-defense statute evaporates. You don't get to go and initiate something to provoke somebody, be the initial aggressor and then claim self-defense, which is where most of this has, has latched in my mind, from what we saw, right? Everything that we went through, we went through frame by frame. We saw a lot of other people with guns and other guns going off in the air. It looked like a clear case of self-defense to me . Now, if this, if this comes out differently, right, and Kyle's chasing everybody around shooting, you know , or threatening to shoot them, that changes the equation, but I'm not so sure that I, by being hers , a characterization of that based on what we've seen. So , uh , you might see another video from the FBI, you know, of Kyle running through, and maybe Rosenbalm will be on there, but this is a factual issue that they're going to have to , um, to flush out. Now here's Corey Chira , FEC. This is the defense lawyer now. And just take a look at the body language here, alone, right? This is Mark Richards, who is Kyle's primary lawyer, and he's just lounging, man. He's just lounging back, just having a good old time, just kind of soaking it all in. And , uh , Corey cheer Uffizi is about to just , uh, just drop it. Now. He is very, he's like shocked that he's even having to deal with Thomas binger, but let's listen in on what he has to say, showing that, you know, all the provocation stuff is just not, not a good argument.Speaker 5:
If I attacked you and you use self-defense , the jury gets to hear that, because that goes to your reasoning , the reasonableness of your action . It'sSpeaker 1:
Look atSpeaker 5:
That. Does it say provocation if uses it all in terms of the reasonableness of what the defendant believed ? And if someone else in Rosenbaum is the aggressive , it goes directly to the issue of whether or not someone would believe that Mr. Rittenhouse , his actions were reasonable. They're not reasonable. If he walked, if , if we're having a prayer circle and he walks up and shoots Mr. Rosenbaum, not reasonable. If Mr. Rowan bomb is, and he is waiting for him, chases him after telling him that he's going to kill him. That goes to whether or not Mr. Rittenhouse, his actions were reasonable. It's that simple, that's it? The aggressor go to the reasonableness period,Speaker 1:
Looking at his face, watch him look, watch them clear it, but it's his glasses on. He's so mad zoom in on Kyle. Get it. Yeah. And so , uh , I saw a comment over on , uh, on our secret YouTube chat saying, yep . Fad him up a little bit, puff that face up a little bit, get a little bit more of the pimples going young, young him up a bit. I think it's very astute observation. Uh, all right. And so our last clip I believe is here. Got Thomas binger. Once again, I think closing this out, I think we've got one final clip. Now. I'll be honest. I don't know where a lot of these issues have settled yet because the judge is sort of running things haphazardly. I think that there may be a final order that the judge writes that gives us some more clear guidelines before the trial starts. But there is a, when , when I came in to do the show, I was still finishing up the rest of the hearing . So I did not finish it entirely, but this is where I sort of left off. And the judge is scolding the prosecutor here because the prosecutor is getting frustrated with the judge. And it's just not, it's a train wreck. Let's listen in.Speaker 5:
Does that affect all we're talking about is arson. We're talking about being loud and disorderly. We're talking about, you know , being a camp lift . Some of the things you're seeing Ryan about is our son come on, our , our son to a dumpster, your honor. Yes. Well pushing towards the gas station, they claim they or not. It didn't push it towards the gas station. This idea , there's a, there's a zone where it's, it's okay. That it's unsafe , uh , south of Sheridan road because the police are only going or a 60th street because the police are only going to , uh, that far south. So I guess everybody lives at his risk , uh , past then . I don't know what you're saying. That's not what I said, your honor. And Mr. Rosenbaum did not push the dumpster towards the gas station. I don't think .Speaker 1:
All right. So you can just see, they're kind of going back and forth. The judges gets just getting fed up with the whole thing. And w what's your point, get your, get to your point. All right . I'm tired of it. And it , it really was kind of a messy hearing. If I can be perfectly honest, I've not, it felt very disorganized to me. It felt like we were talking in circles. It felt like a lot of it was unnecessary. Like we shouldn't have even done the Dalbert hearings and qualified the expert witnesses. If we had already settled out the scope of their proposed testimony in the first place, but the judge just didn't do it that way. Strange, strange proceeding. I honestly don't have a lot of hope for the trial in , in , in terms of being run competently. Right. We did see with Garrick Shovan that you may not have liked that outcome, but that judge ran a competent trial, right? It was not, it was not Lucy . It was very by the book. And , uh, that , that there's something to be said for that. I'm not sure we're going to get that same precision in the Rittenhouse case. All right . Let's see what we've got over from watching the watchers.locals.com. We've got a Kareem responding back to our prior segments that , sorry, I missed the memo about YouTube. I was busy traveling in the states one more time. Now I'm back in the mandatory 14 day. Quarantine sucks , but it was worth it. So I guess this means super chats are no longer available. That's unfortunate. I thought they were good. And also another source of revenue for your channel. So it is true. It is true. So first of all, we can get super chats in our secret YouTube unlisted, cabal chat, which , uh, you , which is nice, but I'm not really in it for, for money, right? For the revenue. You know, I, I want the channel to be something that continues to grow. I want our community to grow. I want to make sure the message gets out. And so I'd rather have a premiere go. And even though we're going to lose a little bit of the live chat functionality, we are going to reserve that. We're going to move that off of YouTube, onto locals, and we're going to continue to make changes, but I want, I want to use the platform the way the platforms are built, right? YouTube is not really a live stream platform. It's a recorded video platform. And so we're going to try, we're going to try that. If it doesn't work, then we'll, we'll revert back. But you know, it is , uh , it is a change. I know it's frustrating, but we'll see where it goes. I think long-term , it's going to be a better format for us. So news now, I'm not sure though . We'll see, it's an experiment news. Now I owning says, I know that lawyers can find experts to say whatever they want, but I'm curious to know how many experts the prosecutors had to go through to find one that says what they want him to say. He also seems a lot less qualified overall. When I watched the clips this afternoon, how many experts each side had to talk to should be disclosed to the jurors. Interesting defense found their expert. First try prosecutors went through 20 people before finding one seems relevant. It is, you know , it , it is, it is relevant, right? It's like trying to find that needle in a haystack sometimes. But I think it's a good point. You know, turns out they're probably not even going to be using that guy, but I Al I ultimately agree with your analysis on there. I think that Dr. Black was way more qualified than Mr. Willis, which is probably why they're not in a real rush to introduce an expert witness. The prosecution is like, well, we don't even really need to call him. They didn't want to call expert witnesses in the first place, because I think they are probably recognizing that an expert is going to testify the way the defense wants news. Now, Wyoming says, I know that lawyers can find, oh, I already read that one. Sorry about that. Good to see you though. Thanks. Good question news. Now, former Leo says, I don't see how the assailant victim can avoid prosecution for various gun charges. That's gage gross Kreutz and I'm not sure if he is a convicted felon in possession of a handgun and a concealed weapon. I think he was right. Didn't he have some , uh, some sort of assault charges or something like that. He , he just gets a walk or if Rittenhouse is not convicted, that means a self-defense claim stands. And he was only protecting himself from an assault with a deadly weapon. I agree with you on that. Former Leo. Yeah . Gage gross. Cruz had a gun and he had his, most of his elbow shot off through Kyle, but he's sitting there on the side of the road with a, you know , seriously injured arm with a handgun in his hand. So it seemed like self-defense, to me, thunder seven says, please help me understand something. Uh, during the Shovan trial, you spoke about the BLM activist juror who lied about his background to get on the jury. How can the defense really discover that no potential Rittenhouse juror is involved with Antifa BLM and other lunatic left mobs. And if the juror lies and gets onto the jury and then uncovered will , there'll be a mistrial. I look forward to your legal analysis starting on November 1st. I'm looking forward to it too. We've been waiting a long time for Kyle's case, and I really am looking forward to hopefully seeing the justice system function as it should. We'll see, but it is, it is a gigantic problem. Isn't it? And we're going to see what happens with Kyle's . I'm sorry, with Chauvin's case. He, my understanding is he finally found a lawyer. Who's going to take his appeal. That should be appealed up. I think that what we saw with that guy's name was Brandon Mitchell. I think if I'm not mistaken, Brandon Mitchell, that secret juror who was going to George Floyd rallies and actively speaking out on behalf of George Floyd made his way onto the juror. I think he lied on the juror questionnaire. I think that is a mistrial. Personally, you have a bias juror who lied to get on the panel. I think the whole thing should be redone personally, but we'll see you. If the justice system agrees, I'm not guest says , uh , 10 25, 20 21, Rob discovers the sun changes positions. Is it, is it true though? Aren't we living on a flat disc ? Hmm . It's probably all part of that secret conspiracy, probably Joe Biden's fault is what I think it is freaking Joe Biden, putting the sun on me in the middle of a show outrage monster. One says, did anyone see the people trying to compare Kyle to Baldwin? They claim it's apocrine to want Baldwin held accountable, but not Kyle. I'm sure you're going to see all sorts of those analogies. Sergeant Bob says that Bob has too broad, a self presented resumes statement was an alphabet soup should focus on the relevant that's from Sergeant Bob. You know what they say about some people like that, right? If you are a , um, what do they call it? Jack of all trades master of none is what Sergeant Bob just said there . Monster one says, I don't like the fact that the prosecution can withhold evidence. This is how innocent people end up in jail for life. It's true. A lot of problems with this, I rage often about discovery and about non-disclosures I'm not gas says , just send the defense, your frame by frame breakdown analysis, and build them for 50 hours open and shut case. I thought so too. You know, we did a real lot of deep dives on the Rittenhouse case some time ago. It's kind of how this channel got. Its start honestly, grouchy old cat lady says, did they ever take your frame by frame episode on Kyle? They did. They, so they, yes. They took that down. It is available. I think it's on rumble. Yeah. Yeah. It's deleted. It's not on our YouTube channel anymore. Flagged it had to go. Can you believe that I will up , I will re upload all the Kyle's stuff, maybe to a Kyle Rittenhouse channel on locals . We can't have it on YouTube. It's over 18. It's deleted. It's a graphic content, even though it was on there for a long time, I got flagged. I'm not guessed as this judge is as scatterbrained as Biden. I think I might possibly think that I will maybe agree to the circumstances if it suits my mind. Yeah. It's exactly what it sounds like. I think I might possibly think that I will maybe agree to the circumstances if it suits my mind exactly how he sounds, I'm not gases . And he says , um, like every other word , um, stop that I know I have my fellow words. We all do, but it's a lot news now says the judge. I don't like as much as Alita or K hill . Yeah, he's he's a little bit rough. No question. Thunder seven says, well, the criminal history of the victims be allowed into court. They were truly the scum of the earth with one of them being charged with , uh , underage sex crimes. The other's domestic abuse , a reckless use of a handgun attempted strangulation to me, it's important for the jury to understand the criminals who attack Kyle to get his gun and shoot him, but legally can the defense bring their rap sheets in. So it's a good question. You know, I don't know the answer to that just yet, but it is something that is being contemplated by both sides. What the prosecution is trying to do. Allegedly I listened today. They have some other indications of, you know , Kyle I think got into a fight on a lake at some point in time. There's another, you know , fight or something that Kyle got into at a high school that they want to bring in. So it's sort of like that game that's being played. If, if they're going to bring in the victims , criminal rap sheets, they're going to try to bring in anything that puts Kyle Rittenhouse in a bad light. And so you have this battle of, you know , uh, extraneous evidence being, trying to sort of being crammed into court to conflate the issues and both sides are going to do that, which is natural. And you should, but I don't know how the judge is going to rule on this because I didn't finish the hearing today, but I will finish it tonight. And of course, we're going to know all of that in more before the trial ultimately starts because they're going to be flushing out these motions, eliminate Sergeant Bob says, timestamps on aggression will be a big factor. Totally. Right. And so if the allegation is Kyle was the initial aggressor , aggressor was, was the time distance in between the two activities between Kyle's aggression and Rosenbaum's aggression. Was that enough to dissipate or was it to dissipate the one sequence, the causal chain of events? Or can we split that up into multiple incidents? So that, that one event was over. Kyle was the aggressor that ended. And then Rosenbalm was the aggressor and Kyle responded as a separate incident or are these all tied into the same series of events? It's going to be interesting. Former Elio says I viewed a video from earlier in that day, Rittenhouse was threatened with physical injury by Rosenbaum had to be physically removed from the interaction with Rittenhouse by bystanders. Did you see that? I did see that. I think that was, you're talking about Rosenbaum. I think the bald guy in the red shirt was , uh , get, was very aggressive that whole night and was having a lot of conversations with people. Uh, Bowie, John DOE Lero says, do you feel like the prosecutor was kind of slimy? I sure did. I enjoyed watching the judge spank him. No homo. That's from a Bowie jandal arrow. I did see that. I don't like Thomas binger. I don't think that he's a up and up, you know , prosecutor. I've watched a lot of his , uh , and it's not to make it personal. Right. But , uh , what I have seen out of him as a prosecutor, I don't know the man from, from anybody, but he is that type of prosecutor that, that will take a case and it's gonna be the most important case. And he doesn't even think about it. It's just on his desk now and he's going to do everything he possibly can to get that conviction. And I've watched his language in a number of these different court proceedings where he gets out there and he's a little bit too aggressive for my liking. He says stuff like , uh , well, judge, you know , the victims are all here and the victims got this and the victim Vic and the judge scolded him on that. So they don't call them victims because they have not, they have not been adjudicated as victims yet. This is a self-defense case. They may be the assailants. Kyle Rittenhouse may be the person who is ultimately victimized. If we find that there was in fact self-defense here. And so a prosecutor that does that I think is sort of crossing certain lines. It's , uh , it's not, you know , an ethical violation or anything like that. It's a stylistic problem. It's a stylistic way of handling things. And I just don't appreciate working with people like that, that, you know, that's all , uh , just like they wouldn't appreciate a defense attorney who came in there and started, you know, being overly and unnecessarily aggressive over certain things. I just get that sense from, from the guy. But again, I'm a defense lawyer. Okay. I'm sure he doesn't like defense lawyers either. So it's probably mutual. So I'll rest the fine tonight. Let's see what else. We've got couple others before we jump into our last segment, Jenny tall says a little off topic, but do you think that the Mohamed nor re sentence of 57 months was the right move? This was a case also out of Minnesota, this was sort of the companion case to some degree to the Derek Shovan case. And Mohammed , Nora was another police officer who I think got a massive sentence and was convicted. This case went up on appeal. And I don't remember what the basis of the appeal was. Jenny. So I can't comment too intelligently on this, but I do know the framework was that the, I think the Supreme court came out and dramatically reduced his sentence down to 57 months, which is obviously, you know , a lot better than whatever it was. So people are speculating that the , uh, the, the same court might come back and modify Chauvin's move. In other words, Newark might carry over into Shovan and Shovan might see a reduced sentence. Uh , later, later down the line, do I think it was the right move? I haven't read the court , uh , the court of appeals or the Supreme court opinion. I just saw the headline Jenny talls. So I'm not sure what the basis was, but it was a similar type of situation. Police officer used too much force kill. Somebody got convicted, went up on appeal coming back down. And so I'd have to dive into it a little bit further, but it's, it's going to be good for Shovan . I'd say former Lao says this trial is starting to look like illegal lynching. If you can't use the facts, just use emotions. Kind of seeing a lot of that trending around the country. John Hal grin says Brandon on the jury bad year for Brandon's. It is a rough year. Yeah, there was that one year. That was really, really hard to be a Monica . Remember that now it's Brandon. Yeah. So , uh , the last villain says, at least the judge stopped the prosecutor for continuing to BS statements. It was just arson. One of the non-violent crimes. They won't be prosecuting anymore. Dow wouldn't brought it past go. The earth changes. I think not the son . Oh, so the spinning disc of the earth moves since it's flat. Right. So we've got that now. That's good to know. All right . We have monster one says wouldn't want people knowing the truth, got to block Rob's YouTube videos. Yeah. Well I think it looks to be fair to YouTube. I think that it's just live streams. Like live streams just don't get engagement. They , they it's it's for live it's for being alive. If you're alive, then it's great. YouTube is happy about it. But as soon as you're not live anymore, it's dead. That content is dead and it just goes, goes into the archives essentially. So we don't want that. Right. We want people to find the show and come back and, and be able to sort of, you know , scroll into the segments they want to see. So we're just changing some stuff. Monster one says, come on, man. I just wanted to sniff written houses . Hair . Is that, was that monster one or was that Joe Biden news. Now Wyoming says I uploaded the warrant for your perusal. Whoa. How did news now get , how did you get that? I was looking for that today. Let's see what we've got here. Cause we're going into Baldwin next. Uh, let's see. Oh, he did get it. Oh, this is great. Thanks news now. Oh man. That's amazing. So we'll be able to look at that. Okay. That's great. We'll save that for the next segment. Monster one says last one was from Joe Biden. That's what I thought I figured it was. I knew it. You didn't even have to tell me. I already knew it. Be brave. Says barn said the D is considering using input from outside defense attorneys as the trial progresses, but no decision made yet. I think it's uncharted territory. How would that play as attorney, client relationship? Um, well I don't, I don't know. I mean, I think if you had a formal engagement letter and you were actually acting as an attorney, that the attorney client relationship should be extended, as long as you're a licensed lawyer. I don't think that there would be any problem with that. Uh, you know, now as a, as a practical matter, as a lawyer, right? You may want to be careful about how many people you bring into how many cooks are in the kitchen, in other words. So, but I liked the idea of , uh, of sort of outsourcing or at least at least crowdsourcing some data about the trial. You know , I'll be watching it. If I have anything that I can add, that's useful, I'll happily do it. Right. I'll tweet about it. Or , or , or funnel it onto Barnes or whomever. But yeah, I think, you know, trial is a weird thing as, as a lawyer, you know, you almost get tunnel vision to some degree and sometimes you can't see certain things that other people can see because you're so focused on this one issue. I want to get him to say this, this is my argument. This is critical. And he says something that you just built thing . It just kind of bounces off, but other people watching might be able to say, get them on that and get them on that. So we'll see. But yeah, it's going to be interesting. A lot of eyeballs are going to be on this case. Former Elio says felony murder was balanced. I thought felony murder charge was for just piling on this isn't felony murder in California is what former Elio says. And our last one on this segment is I'm not gas as wow news. Now coming in clutch with a warrant, give this man an extra internet point for sure. Cause I couldn't find that I was looking around this morning and I couldn't find it. So that's amazing. Thank you for that. Those were amazing questions and thank you for all of your support from our great community [email protected] Okay. And speaking of the Alec Baldwin stuff, we're going to jump right into that final segment of the day. Let's see where we're at on this. Oh , it's going to be a longer show. I had a feeling, a lot of good stuff to talk about though. Today don't always get that. Sometimes we come on here and it's like supply chain problems. It's like, oh , I know it's a huge problem. And I get really angry about it, but I can only talk about shipping containers so much. Okay. So let's get into our final segment. More information coming out about the Alec Baldwin shooting and the warrant from the scene of the rust film is now available. Somebody on our amazing locals, community news. Now Wyoming also on YouTube sent over a copy of that warrant. So we're going to take a look at a lot of different things today about this shooting. And I want to show you the board. This is what we're looking at. Now. We recall that we have Alec Baldwin. He is the shooter, the person who actually pulled the trigger. Now he shot and killed this woman, Helena Hutchins. She was the cinematographer on the scene of rust. And so she is no longer with us. Unfortunately, may she rest in peace? We also have the bullet, went through her and hit the director of the film. This fellow, Joe Salza or Sousa he's the director of rust rust of course is no longer in production because there was a death. And you know, it's, it's a tragic catastrophe, but a lot of people now are starting to theorize about how this happened. Put the pieces back together, again, to identify what went wrong so that it doesn't happen again in the future. And uh , the first thing that we're seeing is a little bit of the blame game happening. Alec Baldwin is now pointing fingers back towards other people who were involved in the production of the film. Specifically, we're going to hear from a couple people today. Number one, we're going to check in with this person. This is Hannah Gutierrez Reed. She is the armorer on the set. She's 24 years old. My understanding is this was her second film and so interesting that she would be in charge of that. We're also going to hear from this fellow or hear about this fellow . Neither one of these people are speaking to my knowledge, but nor should they, since they they're presumably involved in federal, I'm sorry, criminal investigations in the state of New Mexico, but we also have Dave halls . He is the assistant director. We're going to learn a little bit more about him as well. We are going to take a look at the actual warrant since that just came in hot, literally in the last segment, which I'm excited about. But before we get into all of that, let's listen in on the nine one one call because we're trying to piece together. If there's anybody else who could be involved in this, remember we're talking about, you know , multiple people, multiple systems, multiple checks and balances. We're supposed to have a sequence and people who were in charge of guns . So this stuff doesn't happen. And so when we're talking about criminality, right? How can you necessarily blame Alec Baldwin? If he's not responsible for the gun at all, how can you blame him? If somebody says to him, this is a clean and a cold gun and it's perfectly ready to use and he uses it and it's not okay. Right? Some people might take a look at that and say, well, you know, it's not his fault. Somebody who is smarter than him, somebody who's an armorer. Somebody who's an assistant director, somebody whose job it is to check that gun and told him it was good. He's just an innocent person who pulled the trigger. Quite other people who have some training in guns knows that you don't ever trust anybody with a gun. You always check it for yourself and you don't point it at anybody unless you intend to kill them . Kind of one of the first rules they teach you. I think I learned that when I was like five years old. So it's one of those things, right? You're going to see a split of opinions on this. You're going to hear people that say Alec Baldwin is a totally innocent person. You're going to hear other people that say, ah , it's always up to the person firing a gun to make sure that it's clean, especially if it's a real gun and not just a prop gun. So we're going to see a split of opinion here, but I'm seeing a lot of the finger pointing start automatically as it should in a criminal case, right? Nobody wants to go to prison for killing somebody or for criminal negligence. And so Baldwin and co are starting to point their fingers around other people who were part of the Russ production team. And we're going to see the police are going to be investigating all of the different elements of the production. We're going to start off by listening in on the 9 1 1 call. So this is about three minutes. I broke it up into three separate clips and we're going to be able to walk through it to some degree, to get a first reaction of what happened on the scene of filming first clip. This is one woman I don't have identified who is calling into nine 11 immediately. After the shooting here, you can listen inSpeaker 9:
Santa Fe, fire and EMS. What's the location of emergency. Now Bonanza Creek grants has had two people accidentally shot on a movie, set by a prop gun. We need help immediately. Okay. Bonanza Creek ranch. Come on, stay on the phone with me. We're going to get some help. Okay. Don't hang up. Okay. Hold on. Just one second. It sounds like somebody else's calling for two ambulance only better mesh. Good. Everybody should be. They need some help. Our director and our camera man is camera . Woman has been shot.Speaker 1:
Okay. So , uh , several people shot. I think that's the end of that clip. Several people shot. You can sorta just hear the very beginning of that. Uh, and it's, it sounds like pandemonium, right? She sort of ran out of the building. 9 1, 1 caller asks her specifically says, was that loaded with a real bullet? What the heck happened here? Here's what she says.Speaker 9:
Was it loaded with a real bullet or I cannot tell you that. Okay. We have two injuries from and movie gun shot. Okay. We're getting them out there already to stay on the phone with me. Okay. No, no, no. I'm a script supervisor. I ran how many people have been injured? Two that I know of. I was sitting, we were rehearsing and it went off and I ran out. We all went out. They were jumbled over the ID and the camera woman. And I'm a director . They're clearing the road for you to come back. We're back on the rest . So back in the town, they called me in the back in the Western town. Is there any serious bleeding? I don't know. I ran out of the building.Speaker 1:
Okay. So a couple things there ran out of the building. Right? Gun goes off. Sounds like they weren't like expecting that. Like the guns shot, you know, they weren't, nobody was anticipating a big boom if they were , uh , you'd imagine that. No , excuse me. That nobody would be running out of the building. Okay. Well loud noise. Okay. Scared me a little bit. But a gun went off and everybody just scattered and there was a shooting. There's a shooter. What's you know, what's happening. So a total pandemonium also hear from her that we were rehearsing. Right? So , uh , some people asking where they recording was this during a live shots . Right? Don't see any of that from the nine 11 call, just here , they were rehearsing. A couple people killed over. Didn't even see any additional injuries or anything like that. Literally just ran out of the building. So she hands the phone over to somebody else who hops on nine 11 . And we don't get much more information out of him either. But just for context here is what he said. So nine 11 caller passes the phone over to someone else. Here's what he says. Hello?Speaker 9:
Hi. I have a protocol of questions I need to ask. If you can just answer them the best account . Okay. Are they completely alert? Um, yeah, they , they are, they're one part of the body was injured. Uh, I'm not sure I'm not in there. Okay. Is there more than one wound? Uh, I think there's one on, on, on to an individual. One, one on two individuals. Okay. Yeah. Kim sending the ambulance help you now stay on line. We'll see exactly what to do next. Okay. I'm gonna tell you how to stop the bleeding. Listen carefully. Make sure we do it right. Um , we do , um , uh , we do have a medic onset, the medic onset. They're already doing that. I believe so. Yeah. It's the bleeding controlled. I'm about to get it on 33 ? No.Speaker 1:
Okay. So it just kind of fades out right. The rest of it's there, everybody called nine 11 , number of ambulances are skidding on in there. And so , uh , it kind of just, you know, Peter's out there now. We have a , um, a little bit of a last minute change. Let me see how I can organize this. So NPR telling us that Alec Baldwin was practicing for a scene when the gun went off, affidavit's now show. So we're actually going to go through it because , uh , news now Wyoming sent that over to us, but it says Alec Baldwin was practicing on a stunt. When a prop gun he was holding was fired, killed 42 year old cinematographer, Helena Hutchins, injure director, Joel Sosa already talked about all that new affidavits for search warrants were released by Santa Fe county Sheriff's office. New documents are based on interviews between sheriff detectives and several members of the film crew offer the most complete accounting. So far of Thursday's shooting in New Mexico. So we have the documents. I was going to just read through this puppy, but literally before we started this segment, our good friend news now, Wyoming, who has a channel over on YouTube. So please go check him out, sent us the actual search warrant, which I was not able to find earlier. So this is great. All right , so let's go through it. Not going to be in PowerPoint. So you won't see any of the, the , uh, the slide or the , uh, the red lines, but here's what we've got state of New Mexico plaintiff and the search matter regard, fixed wooden structure facing northbound. So that's the Russ location, search warrant, proof of the affidavit give us access to all this stuff. Okay. Let's see what the affidavit says. So they give us a residence, which is, you know , the fixed structure out there in New Mexico. The person drafting this as a full-time certified peace officer in the state of New Mexico. So what do they want? They want photographs of the structure. They want video cameras, anything videotapes, anything that was recording. So DVR'd DVDs, all that stuff. All the computer drives, computer hardware, routers, mouse, keyboards, anything PSP players, floppy disc SD cards, all firearms, all components, ammunition, all that digital cameras, clothing, a scan of the scene, which measures the room by laser prints on everything. Fingerprints, palms , bodily, fluids, including blood, which is very interesting. So this is just for a search of the premises, but I wanted to see if they were going to be , um , taking Alec Baldwins blood. That's gonna be outside the scope of this puppy, because this is just for , uh, for property. But I'd be curious if they got a warrant for anybody's blood residue, discharge of firearms, trace evidence, the investigation to be conducted. Let's see 5 45 Bonanza Creek road. We heard that in the nine one, one call gunshot trauma advised a male was accidentally shot by a prop gun. It was unknown. If a live round had been used upon arrival, we have a deputy Nicholas LaFleur advise one female had been shot in the chest. One male in the shoulder area. Female was a cinematographer. She was flown to New Mexico died, sustained a gunshot wound. And the other director survived upon arrival figured out where this was located during the filming of the movie. All right , assistant director, Dave halls , who we talked about at the start of the segment grabbed one of three quote prop guns that set up by the armorer. Hannah Gutierrez talked about her as well, which was on a cart. The cart was, is a gray rolling table. With two layers was left on this side of the structure due to COVID-19 restrictions. Officer learned one of the prop guns was in grabbed by hauls the assistant director. He took it to the actor, identified as Baldwin who was inside the structure. As the assistant director halls handed the gun to Baldwin halls yelled cold gun indicating the prop gun did not have any live rounds. The prop gun was fired by the actor, Alec Baldwin striking the cinematographer Hutchins and Joel who was behind her , uh , later learned. The officer says that hauls did not no live rounds were in the prop gun. We need to give him the prop gun to actor Alec Baldwin. Okay, well, whose responsibility is that? The check for that, a Fiat learned what had happened was the prop gun. What had happened to the prop gun? Once it was fired, it was handled by armor Hannah Gutierrez , given to assistant director, Dave hauls , armorer, Hannah Gutierrez was given the prop gun after it was fired by Alec actor , Baldwin. She then took out the spent casing of the prop gun. When the deputies arrived on the scene, the prop gun was handed to arriving deputies by the armorer . Alright , so after it was fired, then it goes back to Hannah and she takes out the spent casing. Okay. A fire later learned that actor, Alec Baldwin was wearing old Western style of clothing, changed into street clothes prior to leaving the scene. And those items were turned over to the Sheriff's office. That's an interesting thing to note, he was wearing old Western style clothing, changed industry clothes. Interesting. Right? And so the reason, you know, I don't know how actors are, but if you, you know , if you want to be like a drunken, a drunken person, do you actually drink alcohol? Do you actually use drugs? If you want to get into character on set ? I don't know. And so you might change out of your clothes so that you get rid of some of that smell or the evidence know , I don't know. I'm not, I'm just speculating. Right? That's what I would be looking into. If I were a police officer, not saying that Alec ball was drunk or anything, but you're , that's what they're looking for. These clothes , uh , appeared to have bloodstains Santa Fe Sheriff's office learned the Western style coat was left inside the structure, reporting that any trace evidence, residue, biological specimens that might be related to the incident are categorized . Which of course, this is why they need this warrant. The incident occurred in close proximity, which led to a transfer of evidence. So they were, they were pretty close by some of the blood spatter went onto Alec Baldwin's clothes . A fire was informed. The prop gun was properly secured in a marked patrol unit. Along with other prop ammunition. Gray is at cart two tier cart contained Western style belt and additional prop ammunition was secured by responding deputies, Hutchinson, Hutchinson sustained a gunshot wound, died, Joel, visible injury. He was given the opportunity to give a statement. He stated work started at 6:30 AM that day. He went on to say, the crew usually meets and has breakfast on the property. During the morning hours, the day started off late due to a camera crew that had quit. They had to find another camera crew to help film the movie bad morning. Joel said once they hired another camera crew to assist the day was taking longer than usual because they had one camera to do the filming. Joe was asked about the employee's behavior said everyone was getting along. There were no altercations that took place, maybe no alternative , but that doesn't sound like, you know , an ideal environment. Really Joel stated that because of his job, he was more concentrated on the monitors of the cameras did state that no film was being recorded because the crew was working on getting the scene ready for the movie and how they were going to set up. Once the one camera that was available, Joel said he was standing behind Hutchinson viewing the camera. The rehearsal took place inside the church building were actor. Baldwin was sitting on a wooden pew facing south toward the camera. And the crew Joe said that rehearsal entailed actor, Alec Baldwin, cross drawing his weapon and pointing the revolver toward the camera lens. According to Joel, it was his belief. The gun being used in the rehearsal was safe and use the term cold gun. When explaining it. He remembered the phrase cold gun being said while preparing for the scene. Joel explained what he knows about firearms. He said, what he knows is three people had been handling it or for the scenes. He said, firearms are checked by Hannah, who is the armorer ? And the firearm is checked by the assistant director, Dave halls , who then gives it to the actor using the firearm. Joel said, as far as he knows, no one gets checked for live ammunition on their person before or after the scenes. The only thing checked are the firearms to avoid live ammunition. Being in them. Joel stated there should never be live rounds whatsoever, near or around the scene. Well, there were let's see what else? Joel explained prior to the discharge, they had been working on preparing for a scene before lunch. They broke for lunch around 1230 had to be shuffled to an area from the set to have breakfast, lunch and dinner. Joel said that they returned back after lunch, although he's not sure if the firearm was checked again. Joel stated that they had Alex sitting in a pew in a church building in the S in the setting. He was practicing a cross draw. Joel said he was looking over his shoulder of Helena. He heard something that sounded like a whip. Then a loud pop Joel remembers Helena complaining about her stomach grabbing her midsection . Joel also said she stumbled backward assisted to the ground bleeding. He was bleeding from his shoulder. Once I completed my interview, I made contact with Reed Russell , another camera man, while speaking to Reed , he said he arrived early. That day. Camera crew was having issues. Reed said he was working with the camera in the setting for the movie. They stepped out for five minutes from lunch. They returned back onto the setting of the scene. Alec Joel and Helaina were already in possession of the firearm. Okay . He was not sure if the firearm had been checked due to the absence of the five minutes. Ooh , there you go. Read stepped out for five minutes before returning from lunch. When he got back Alec , Joel and Halena all already had it read , went on to say that while setting up the camera, there was no video or audio being filmed. They were preparing for the scene while preparing there was a shadow coming from outside, they tried to move the camera. He said, Alec was trying to explain how he was going to draw out the firearm where his arm would be, where the firearm was pulled from the holster, where he was not sure why the firearm was discharged. Just remember the loud bang. He remembers blood on the person injury. He was asked about Alec and how the firearm, how he handled the firearm. He said he had been very careful, brought up an instance where the scene was being filmed earlier. Reset . Alec had made sure it was safe and that a child wasn't near him when they were discharging a firearm. During that scene, detectives executed a search warrant. They did find blood in the area. They found an incident. Okay. A fine is aware that additional evidence might be located on the prop gun used while filming of the movie. We'd like to confirm the incident took place or that it wasn't recorded. That's why they want to go and take access at get information about all the cameras and surveillance, training, and experience. Let's see unknown. If there are any additional weapons in there. All right , there, it is signed off on by detective somebody, Joel Kaino out of the Santa Fe Sheriff's office. So that is the full warrant. Some interesting stuff in there. We have a five minute gap of time. We have Very interesting. Okay. So thank you to news. Now. I oming for sending that over to us. Very interesting , uh , interesting stuff there. Now I want to see what else we were going to cover. Yeah. And so we just covered a lot of that. Now here's a scene. The New York post gave us , uh , as you know , some of this, some background on this gal, this is Armour Hannah Gutierrez read . So we heard, we heard from the search warrant that this was either Alec Baldwin got handed the gun by this woman, Hannah Gutierrez, Reed , or , uh , through David Hall. So it went from Anna to David in Alex hand. And that's all we got. Like, we don't know who checked what at that point , a moment in time. So the New York post calls her a rookie armorer. She's 24 year old, former model. She told the voices of the west podcast about landing the quote, pretty sweet gig as the first armorer. She said on that podcast, quote, I think the best part about my job is just showing people who are normally kind of freaked out by guns, how safe they can be and how they're not really problematic unless put in the wrong hands. Oh no . Whose hands like Alec Baldwin's hands? Oh no, that's terrible. She said her dad, a well-known Hollywood, armorer, Thiel Reed gave her some direction, but she quote, figured out most of the job requirements on my own board girl. That is a horrible way to , um, uh, to, to be written about in a news article. Isn't it? She gave a podcast. It was pretty sweet gig. How did you learn to be an armorer at 24 used to be a model? Well, my dad is also an armorer. He taught me a couple things and I just figured out the rest of it on my own. Yikes. Okay. So that's no good. Here's another image. She told the podcast how she learned by herself to make sure the dummy rounds were in the right spot of any weapons being said, quote, you have to like look at the front of it and determine which one is the blank. If it's dummied up. That's how I tell at least, oh, that's terrible. Read also called how she had previously been a model, but then wanted to be either an actress or a director of photography. The position held by Halena Hutchins when she was shot dead by Baldwin last Thursday. I mean, it looks like, I don't know if that's a real gun or not, but it looks like she's got a little trigger discipline going on over there. How about this one? I've got some trigger discipline going on here. That's good. It's good that she's got that going for her. So yeah. So you can see how these things can kind of just compound, right? So not, not, not good. So you've got Alec Baldwin. You've got also this guy, the assistant director was also the subject of a number of other complaints. This is David halls . He was fired from previous movie after a gun incident, injured a crew member. What? Yeah . CNN says that he , um , the same guy who handed a prop gun to Alec was serving as the assistant director on a film called freedom's path in 2019, when a gun unexpectedly discharged onset causing a sound crew member to recall from the blast halting the production crew member saw medic, it was all good, but halls was removed from the set and then fired from production company. The production company said halls was removed from the set immediately after the prop gun discharge production did, did re did not resume until he was off the site. So they just threw him right out of it. And we had another quote here from another person named Maggie gall . She's a local prop maker. She says that back in 2019 and another movie that Hulu created called into the dark, it says that hauls neglected to hold safety meetings and consistently failed to announce the presence of a firearm onset as his protocol goal said, the only reason the crew was made aware of the weapons presence was because the assistant prop master demanded Dave acknowledged and announced the situation each day. So you've got just a series of bad potential individuals, not necessarily, you know , actively malicious or criminal, but you have a 24 year old armory armrest . You have David halls who looks like he's had problems with guns in two other movies. And you're S you two work together. You're in charge of the firearms here, not ideal. Okay. Let's see what you have to say about the Alec Baldwin story. And one final shout out to news. Now, Wyoming for the clutch delivery of the warrant at the last minute. Amazing. So go check out his channel. Let's see what you have over here from watching the watchers.locals.com. We've got our first question is from Sergeant. Bob says, I bet the armor or never took an NRA, weapons, safety course, her training resume while she used to be a model. And her dad is also an armorer. So I think that's all you need in America. These days. I'm not gas as I'm extremely biased against Baldwin based on his politics and personality. But I will say, I don't think he is 100% responsible though . We should bear some responsibility since he ultimately pulled the realistically, if this was an accident, we were dealing with multiple layers of criminal negligence, but Baldwin is rich, connected and famous. The worst that will happen to him. He's going to cry on TV and write a book. Yeah. That's why we're talking about this story, right? Because he is in a different category of people. He is in the rich and famous and the elite and they operate under a different system of justice. I wish it wasn't true. But at this happened to anybody else, they'd probably already be in jail with a $2 million bond, right. It's a different system, but I agree with you. I'm not gas . You know, I like to, I don't agree with Alec Baldwin either. And it , there are a lot of people that are sort of, you know, rubbing his nose in this, which we've done a little bit of that. I acknowledge a little bit of it, but really right. This is a tragedy. This is a horrific thing. It's not in my opinion. You know, PR particularly , um , interesting content to just, you know , rub people's noses in it day after day after day, he is an anti-gun person. He's somebody who has been very aggressive against his political enemies, but is he a murderer? I don't know it's to be seen, right? So we don't want to jump the gun on that. We have, Sergeant Bob says that safety protocol always must be followed several years ago, Oregon state police bomb tech responded to Obama at a bank. There had been two or three bomb incidents earlier that morning, which had been phoneys. He took shortcuts, did not follow protocol this time. It was real. He paid with his life. Oh man, that's a terrible story. Sergeant Bob, but a valuable lesson in there did that, like it brighter back there. I think it did. When did that happen? Yeah, it did get brighter. What's going on with that? All right . So that's now adjusted. Thank you for that Sergeant Bob. I think that, I think that you're absolutely right, right. Protocols are there for a reason can't skimp just because it's the same thing that you're used to a former Lao says at one time I was involved in a video that showed a head in view down a barrel of a live round being fired. We set up a Ford , a mirror at 45 degree angle and position the camera about 20 feet away from the mirror. Easy. It seems like everybody dropped the ball in competence kills. I see what you're saying. Yes. So you don't look down the barrel of a gun is what you're saying. And she said that she did. In other words where Leo says, I hope they did a blood draw on Baldwin. I hope so too. I really do. I think that they would for anybody else, if that was your son or daughter out there that accidentally shot somebody's blood draw immediately. I'd like to know if Alec Baldwin got one thunder seven says there are so many coincidences that it's beyond belief. I'll talk just about two of them. The woman shot and killed grew up in Murmansk Russia, where they keep nuclear subs. Baldwin started in a movie hunt for red October, where he was searching for a Russian nuclear sub that doc in Murmansk Russia. Second one was the fact that the man who handed the prop gun to Baldwin also worked on the movie with Brandon Lee who was accidentally shot and killed with a blank while filming the Crow in the eighties. My Raider tells me there's a lot more to this story, whether we will ever know the truth is not known. Whoa, what a comment from thunder. Those are very interesting coincidence . Isn't it? What's happening here. Is this like a secret satanic cult ritual? I don't know. Hollywood has some sinister stuff. Don't they thank you for that three girls . He says Hannah Gutierrez read the armor was probably hired on at low budget on her dad's name. Her dad is a well-known Hollywood armor called Thiel fell Reed . She was way out of her depth, but it was responsible for the weapons and ammunition and maybe the death of another person. As a result of her incompetence. We have a no name says of course the fake news is blaming Trump claiming it's possible that a mega supporter put a real bullet in the gun to frame Baldwin for parodying Trump and the SNL skits. Are you kidding? Nevermind that the woman he killed was beginning a documentary on pedophilia in Hollywood. Whoa what's okay. This is getting weird. This story is getting weird. Now she was going to create a documentary on pedophilia in Hollywood and Alec Baldwin took her out. I like where this is going. Now Deb says, are they filming this movie with cameras and equipment from the era in which the movie is set because for Hollywood style film, one would think all of this on film for them to see open and shut case, you would think so, but they didn't have a camera crew. Isn't that convenient. They all walked off. Steven Crowder says Alec Baldwin has a strangled. At least two hookers changed my mind. Hey, Steven's on the show. He's a big name. That's pretty cool. Shout out to Steven monster says, where did the live ammo come from? Seems like intentionally done sabotage. So there's other stories out there that these people actually were. So it wasn't, I think it was a prop gun, but , but I real gun. And so they actually went out and had other problems with this gun. They were shooting it previously. So I think they actually had real ammo there. And um , the 24 year old arborist who looks down the barrel of a gun, I think it's good. I think it's good. Yeah, we good. She , uh, she just checks the top of the guns of the bullets. She just takes a look up . Oh no, we're good on that. It's dummied up whatever she means. I'm not gas. As one thing I don't understand, I show a live round, even got in the chamber. I thought prop guns were modified to not be able to chamber full length live rounds. I don't think it was an actual, a prop gun. I think it was actually a real gun. That was a prop in a movie, but it wasn't an actual prop gun that doesn't function as a gun. It was a real gun being used as a prop monster. One says, Baldwin said people are not responsible enough to own guns. He was just proving himself. Right? Yeah . God , you know, some of these have to stick. No question. Former Leo says, did they get a warrant for the records from the place they eat lunch? How much alcohol was or was not consumed during the lunch? I didn't see that former Leo , but I would love to see those other search warrants. If anybody got a blood draw warrant, monster one says her career is over now. It's probably over. Yeah . She's probably Gutierrez. Probably not going to be an armrest on any other films, but I know she's young. You know, you never know what happens in 20 years news. Now, Wyoming says, you're welcome for the link. I found it this morning. Then during your intro, you said you couldn't get ahold of it. Figured it'd be good for the show. And your analysis is obviously smarter than mine. Well, I don't know about that news now, Wyoming, that's being a little bit presumptuous here. I think that , uh , you know, we can both read through a PDF. I'd encourage people to go. If you're going to make a video about that, I'd encourage you to do that news. Now, Wyoming is on YouTube. Check him out and thank you for the link. You know, I couldn't find it anywhere, which is a frustrating for me Beto. O'Rourke says I'm coming for prop guns next, which is just a good point. And probably children's guns too . You know the ones with the little red dots to make sure that it looks fake. Those are probably dangerous. I'm not gas . So call me out for being a misogynist if you like, but I have a sneaking suspicion. This Gutierrez lady was given a job above her, standing based upon something that's not, you know, skills and experience from, I'm not gas implying. You know, some female privilege. Former Elio says 24 years old. And this is the case of political correctness of qualifications. Monster one says she was probably a diversity hire. Does she have any experience? No, don't be sexist. Sorry. Uh , hand of nod says it's a hot mess. Complacency kills every day. The only answer is the weapon is hot. Must do your own brass check when exchanging weapons. It seems there were a lot of problems that were preventable. Semper vigilance , hand of nod signs off on that. And you got to check it right? It's the first thing they teach you. You always check it. You never trust anybody because they don't know news. Now Wyoming says personally, I don't see any criminal liability to Baldwin. If it's a con , if it is common on a movie set for two people to verify the weapon is unloaded, it would be hard to prove that he didn't actually have a good expectation for two people to do their job. Common training . Of course he was wrong, but negligent the other two, I can see easy case for negligence, civil liability. Her family is going to make a lot of money. Yeah. Especially if there was, you know, massive blanket insurance policies and things like that. Be brave says, this whole thing is insane. My gut instinct says hall needs to be checked out further. I think that's good. Instincts be brave between the two of those guys, a guy and gal looked like there was a lot of incompetence mashed into one very important chain, which is the weapons chain. Not good speech unleash says there was a judge that used to say the cheap comes out expensive. Sounds like they were operating on a thin budget. We're looking to save money by not hiring professionals. I know the union came out about the fact that they were not hired to handle the gun management on the movie. Yeah. The union is absolutely dunking here for sure. They're saying well I've yeah, they weren't with our union. They didn't work for us. So that's what you get for hiring amateurs. They released several statements to that effect. Having fun with it. Three girly says, so what's the likelihood that Hannah Gutierrez Reed will be taken the full fall for this when halls is just as culpable, really don't see anything coming to Baldwin. He should be arrested for hiring substandard people for his film, which is really the negligence on his part. Yeah. It'd be very curious to see, you know , if there was a standard operating procedure that they were supposed to follow and they didn't, you know, you could probably analyze some of this to like a , uh , uh , you know, like a police shooting to some degree with different standards of care. But you have, you know , you have safety protocols that you follow. If you don't follow those things, maybe they charge you with a crime like they did with , uh , Derek Shovan, you know, some analogies. They're not exactly because cops kind of have a higher duty more training, but you can see the , the analogy you've got rules of engagement. You've got rules and protocols that you're supposed to do. If somebody dies as a result of you failing to properly adhere to your protocols , uh , that might be criminal negligence to some degree smart. Alec Baldwin says, I thought safety protocol means double masking and being double vaccinated. That's all we've been talking about for two years. Oh, guns are dangerous too, but, but Fowchee is not talking about those yet. CDC is though Rachel Rochelle Wilensky . We have speech unleash says, I'm wondering how easy it is to tell the difference between a blank and a live bullet with someone , be able to tell the difference just by looking at the bullet in the gun. So, so on, on an actual bullets, you , you have the head of the bullet, right? It looks like a piece of, you can see it in there and I'm not sure what she was saying, what she was looking at. Like if that's removed, she said it was dummied up. So maybe there's a, you know, something that she, I don't know. I don't know what she's talking about, but if you look at a bullet, you can see the breasts or you can see the , the , the head of the bullet, literally visually right there. Jeremy Machita says, Rob something interesting about Hutchins, Hutchins supported the international Alliance of theatrical stage employees. I a T S E the labor union that represents Hollywood's crew and technical workers in plan to strike over dangerous working conditions. Days before her death speculating there . Are you saying she was taken out by Alec Baldwin? The last villain says, I don't think the prop person handed the gun to him. Did I miss that part? So several people said that they heard him say cold gun, right? So the way I think about that is he's he's, he's got it and he's going cold gun and handing it to Alec Baldwin is sort of how I'm visualizing that that happened, but I could be wrong. Uh, VNT kiss says, given that the shooting happened during a rehearsal and not during actual filming, I put the responsibility totally on Baldwin. On the other hand, I'm always cautious to go hardcore on punishments for situations like this. Our legal system is to punishment, happy for the regular people for my taste accidents do happen, but people also take advantage of the fact that accidents happen. Is that enough nihilism for you? Yeah, I think that's fair. VNC kiss , right? I mean, I'm not, I agree. I don't think that that , that you should just automatically throw people in prison, even Alec Baldwin. He should go through due process. I just want to see , I just want to see, I'm just curious if the same standard investigation that would apply to anybody else is also going to apply to him. We'll see. I have my doubts about it, but we'll see. I hope I hope so. Right. I hope the justice system is blind, but I know that it's not Jay . He says as tragic as this is, hopefully this will bring about change to the movie industry. So this never happens again. There's something true about that, right? It's called anti-fragility . It's the idea that if something bad happens, everything gets stronger as a result of it, right? You have something that is fragile. You have the opposite of fragile, which is robust. So you can have a tea cup on a desk that's pretty fragile. You can have something robust, like a safer computer, a diamond that is very strong and you have something that's the opposite of fragile. It's called anti-fragile . It actually grows from disorder. In this case, a movie sets are going to grow in their safety. As a result of this death, same thing happens with airplanes, right? Every airplane that crashes terrible for everybody on board, that airplane, but as a whole, the entire air structure, the entire industry gets a little bit stronger because they lost something and they respond and they become more anti-fragile as a result of that. So I think JE through you're right, there will be some, some changes that, that ultimately save lives. It's a tragedy that this happened, but it won't be entirely in vein three. Girly says the gun was real because it was a period piece. That means it was a revolver. She should not have had to look down the barrel of a gun, but the live ammunition should never have been anywhere near the blanks for her to try and figure that out. Yeah. I agree with that. And the gun should never, ever, I would imagine be used in real live fire and you just sort of get a different gun for that stuff and a different ammo and different places to store. All of that would be my thought Perry masonary says proper training in weapons and handling should be the rule in all movies and using guns. I think that may be common sense, but just saying, yeah, there's not that much common sense anymore. Any unfortunately news now Wyoming says just fact check. The deputy director was on the set for the CRO . He was the assistant director for the SQL , but I can't find anything that shows he participated in the original. So just fact, okay, so that's interesting news now, Wyoming, maybe he was younger and he's just not on IMD , maybe who knows very interesting stuff. Now, squid game says this would make more sense if it was on our show, you know, I've resisted watching squid games. I haven't watched it yet. And , um, I just heard it was really, really violent and I'm sort of trying to get less of that in my life. We've got enough of that here. Former Elio says maybe she didn't know that it revolver fired. The round that is next up in the cylinder rotation. A period piece would be a single action because the hammer has to be manually cocked as that happens, the cylinder rotates and brings up a fresh round. So that's former Leo saying that there was a revolver and maybe she put the blank dummy in one chamber, but actual live rounds in the other five or , or , uh , oh no, he's just going to it on this one. So it's gonna be fine. It's going to be perfectly safe. My dad said, so maybe that's what she said. Those were great questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . Thank you for all your support. So we had a , uh , a new follower over on Twitch, shout out to disobedient civilian. Uh, yesterday we had a Boldy Dave and many others over there. So shout out to my friends over there on Twitch and on rumble. Somebody was asking elucidation station, I think, and sledgehammer the telescreen , uh, they were asking about that right back there that my friends is the Capitol building. It's a Lego set. So , uh, as you can tell now that that has been revealed. The FBI will be breaking my doors down any minute. Now , uh , last question came in and says, Baldwin took her out because she's a Trump supporter. All right. So that's a good, another good one way to end the show. Uh , and that my friends is it for the show. Let's check out some new supporters who joined up over on locals. This is a last, week's a new list. We're gonna , I'm gonna update this tonight for the rest of this week, but a girl signed up along with Michael N bill givens, our guy too. So flow red Maxim , 15 T with the big join , sir , Darren fire dat and V dub Shani all joined in this amazing community where we get a lot of these questions and have some really insightful conversations. Quite frankly, if I do say so myself , uh , we also had max 9, 2, 2 tsunami, Tommy in the house, sugar britches add Mila . You're a pretty darn nice sovereign lion Lynn fish, germs and sniper 2 7, 5 all [email protected], which I'm trying to get a little bit more active on. You're going to see a little bit more of that today. We had a , uh , uh , a semi early morning live stream. It was, I think about half hour, about 11:00 AM. Sometimes in the morning, I knock out a lot of my early meetings and I need to get started recording. And so I'm going to start by kind of getting warmed up a little bit from time to time over on locals. And I hope that you don't mind that. So come check it [email protected] this weekend. My friend is it this weekend. Let's check the dates. Is it this week ? I think it's next weekend. It's not this weekend. It's next weekend. This weekend is Halloween. Oh, we got two weeks. I got ahead of myself. I got super excited, but next the following weekend on Saturday, November six, seven to 8:00 PM. We have our monthly locals meetup . It's a lot of fun. We do it all over zoom. Camera's on, camera's off. Whatever you want. Come check it out. If you're a member, a supporter [email protected] , you can join in on it. And before we wrap up out of here, final shout outs to my friends over on locals. I see in the dark is over there. I'm not gas Jack Elia . We've got Mustang Jeff in the house. We have VNT KIS prime, shout out to news. Now, Wyoming for giving us that warrant love it. Jack Aliah and many others are chatting away. And that my friends is it for me, for the show for the day we are going to be back here. Recording live at 4:00 PM. Arizona time. That's 7:00 PM on the east coast. The show is premiering. Live on YouTube. I'm sorry. Premiering not live on YouTube at 7:00 PM. Eastern 10 , I'm sorry. 7:00 PM. Arizona time. 10:00 PM. Eastern. My time zones are all screwed up. If you want to be a part of the live show, 4:00 PM Arizona time on locals watching the watchers.locals.com. And thanks for , uh , being a part of the show. I'm going to see everybody right back here. Same time, same place tomorrow. Have an amazing evening sleep. Well , my friends until tomorrow bye-bye .