Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Maxwell Fallout: Prince Andrew Panics, Dershowitz Spins, Ghislaine Appeals

January 02, 2022 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Maxwell Fallout: Prince Andrew Panics, Dershowitz Spins, Ghislaine Appeals
Show Notes Transcript

More reaction in the immediate aftermath of the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict, as the multi-million-dollar defense team charts their path. Epstein and Maxwell co-conspirators get nervous, as Prince Andrew’s lawyers hold emergency talks and Alan Dershowitz hits the airwaves. Will Maxwell flip? Will any others be prosecuted? And more, including:

🔹 Mindmap:
🔹 Poll Form:
🔹 New sketches show the aftermath of the Maxwell verdict, as Ghislaine receives the news with steely resolve.
🔹 Maxwell defense lawyer Bobbi Sternheim addressed the media and notified them of their immediate appeal.
🔹 Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer who represented Epstein victims, speaks about the verdict.
🔹 Lisa Bloom, another lawyer representing Epstein accusers, reacts to the verdict.
🔹 Lawyer Jonathan Turley discusses the difference between transportation vs. destination.
🔹 Turley wonders: will anyone else be prosecuted?
🔹 Government agents adjust their sights to Ghislaine’s massive fortune, and the Daily Mail compiles a list of her properties.
🔹 Reports say Prince Andrew and his legal team are scrambling after the Maxwell verdict.
🔹 Lawyers are apparently in “emergency” talks with upcoming court documents set to be released.
🔹 Review of the latest court order detailing the release of the Settlement Agreement in the Virginia Giuffre lawsuits against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.
🔹 Despite being a party to an active lawsuit, Alan Dershowitz goes on Fox News and the BBC to discuss the outcome of the Maxwell trial.
🔹 BBC issues a statement after the Alan Dershowitz interview.
🔹 Have any Ghislaine Maxwell memes? Drop them in the Locals chat.
🔹 Former Southern District of New York Prosecutor Elie Honig analyzes: Will Ghislaine Maxwell Flip?
🔹 What do you think? POLL FORM:



MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):

Channel List:
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group -
✂ Clips Channel -

📌 January 2022 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.
🥳 Events exclusive to community supporters – learn more at 

Connect with us:
🟢 Podcast (audio):
🟢 Twitch:
🟢 Homepage with transcripts:

Or visit to schedule a free case evaluation!


#WatchingtheWatchers #MaxwellTrial #GhislaineMaxwell #JeffreyEpstein #PrinceAndrew

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert grr . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona. And today we're talking about Maxwell. There is some serious fallout happening as a result of her guilty verdict. Of course, we talked about this today . Goind Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein's number two, found guilty, five out of six counts, carry some pretty serious sentences, provided that nothing strange happens like goind Maxwell works with the government or outs some other people or catches a bad case of the bid or, you know, something happens. And so we're gonna go through and analyze a lot of the fallout because on yesterday's show, a lot of this happened very quickly. It was kind of a big surprise to us. We were bracing ourselves for a lot of jury deliberation. We were thinking that this was gonna go on for quite some time because the jurors wanted highlighters and office supplies and post-it notes and all of these things. And the judge was talking about extending this even through the new year holiday. And so yesterday afternoon, the jurors came out, boom, they had a verdict and everybody was like, what? And so we didn't really have much time to piece together any of the reactions. And of course, Galin Maxwell's defense attorneys, people like Bobby stern Heim. We didn't get a statement from them because they were dealing with the aftermath in court. But Abby stern Heim is gonna be the subject of one of our segments today. And really the aftermath you can see, this is one of the scenes that was , uh , seen out there when she left the courtroom . And so a lot of activity, she gave a statement and we're gonna talk about it today. We're also gonna talk about some of the fallout, right? This is, this is a , a big verdict Glenn Maxwell , Jeffrey Epstein. They piled around with some pretty high profile people. And many people are speculating that because of this guilty verdict, that there's gonna be some serious implications for some of those , uh, let's call 'em co-conspirators. If you want to use that word, there's a headline that looks like this. We're gonna dig into this story today. Royal crisis prince Andrew's lawyers are quote in urgency talks, amid fears that Glen Maxwell could quote name names after the guilty verdict. So emergency talks, prince Andrew is , uh, you know, feeling the heat a little bit. And then we also have to talk about another lawyer who was in close proximity to Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell, and somebody named Virginia gore . We're talking about a Deitz now he's on YouTube. He's a lawyer and he's a defense lawyer. He's somebody who is very astute at the law . He's I think the , uh, somebody at Harvard's, you know, very, very , uh , sophisticated fell . And he was out yesterday after the verdict, making the rounds on the old news channels. And he showed up on BBC news. And after the interview, they issued this statement. BBC said, last night's interview with Alan Dershowitz did not meet our standards. He's not a , a suitable person interview as an impartial analyst, and we're gonna figure out how he showed up on our network for this. So a little bit of drama there that we're going to unpack. And then we have one final question that we're gonna ask is will Golin Maxwell flip? We have a former prosecutor, somebody who actually used to work at the Southern district of new your keys on Twitter. I happen to find a very interesting thread that he posted asking that very question. And so that is the subject of the poll form that we have that is available. It is linked and pinned in the chat section. It is also pinned in the description wherever you're watching this. And so the big poll form, the big question, the first question that we have here is the biggest danger to Golin Maxwell. We can see no nobody's really , uh , responding just yet, but take a look at the poll form . We're gonna be checking back in with that a lot today. Also, if you're a, we have another form that looks like this, where you can ask questions. If you're a member, a supporter over there, we certainly would appreciate that. And I'm getting a heads up from VECA saying that maybe Rumble's not working. And so rumble is still having some kinks that we're working out there. But if you're a, this is the form to use. We also have a Clipse channel where we break up this show into various clips that you can share with friends, family loved ones, pets, animals, fit , whatever. And we appreciate it when you do that. So let's get into it. Shall we go in Maxwell, lot of fallout as a result of the verdict, five outta six, guilty. This is what it looked like in court. And so we can take a quick minute and just observe what's happening here. You can see the sketch artist is really putting some detail in the headlines. The response that I've been reading all over the place is that Galin Maxwell received the verdict with a steely reserve, that she was somebody who just was not even affected by this ice cold. And you can kind of see that in her facial expression, you kind of have this droopy left eye, which is like , uh , great. I knew this was coming. And so this is what the scene looked like. Of course, federal court, we haven't been able to peer inside and yesterday as the verdict was being read, I'm, I'm imagining the sketch artist is just sketching away. And so now we finally get to take a look. So she's masked up. You can see, we start to see some facial features and some I eyes and ears and noses of these jurors while not the noses they're in masks, but they are socially distanced. They are now separated. And it looks like we maybe are identifying the foreman because he has a microphone, or we're not sure if he was just handed the microphone, but this looks like it's the very scene where judge Allison , Nathan, you can see her up there on the bench where she is saying, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a verdict? And the gentleman or, or person down there on the first row says we have your honor. And then she opens it up. And so here we see a close up of this. I don't know if it's a , a , a gentleman or a woman or what we have here, but we have a, you know , maybe the bleached hair actually looks sort of like a younger person relative to everybody else just by the clothing and things. I would presume that, but not real sure, kind of full head of hair might be, it is bleached on top. So he might be the foreman. We don't know much about these jurors at all. So who knows? We see that now the other interesting thing from inside the courtroom is this photograph, because this is judge Nathan <laugh> . And I thought this was very interesting. You know, the sketch artist drew this. And if I was , you know, if I had the opportunity to ask this sketch artist about this drawing, I would say, did you, did you draw that facial expression true to form here? Because judge Allison , Nathan looks like she's kind of shocked here. We've got the furrowed brow raised up like, woo , what the heck? And so I don't know what she's thinking is she thinking Maxwell was just found guilty. I am in deep duty <laugh> or is she saying , um, how the heck was she acquitted on anything? Acquitted on count two? Who the heck was on this jury? You know, I don't know what's going on here, but she certainly looks shocked to me. They're like, oh goodness, I don't know what I'm looking at here. I could be in big trouble or, oh , I don't know . I , so I'd ask , I would ask the sketch artist about that say , is that accurate? What was going on there? And so the rest of it happens, right? The verdict is red Maxwell is escorted out of the courtroom. And so we've got the us marshals who are , you know, walking her out. She's been escorted by two, I think email us Marshall officers, the , the entirety of the trial in case some intelligence agency decides to blow the roof off of the courthouse and helicopter her out of there. So she is now being Whis way back. She's going to be held in detention. Of course, she's gonna come back for sentencing whenever that's scheduled. And so that's it, right? That's the end of Maxwell she's gonna go through were the entire sentencing procedure. And there's gonna be a lot going on with this case because of the quality of her legal representation. She's going to have her lawyers, you know , uh , splicing and dicing every which way as we're going to hear they're already working on it. And so we know that we talked about this, I think this was yesterday or earlier in the week, we specifically were watching Christian ever Dell , even when the, or asked a question when they submitted a note, they said, we want that note because we think that there's a problem with that note. And we saw, we went through a letter yesterday, identifying exactly why this could be an appealable issue. He's saying the jury is misinterpreting the jury instructions. This is legal error, judge. Hello, unless you correct it, we're gonna be raising this on all . And so you can see every splice of the way they were planning for this. This is not something that they were not expecting. I mean, I think that most people were, were, you know, I , I , if you could sort of erase the cynicism that I had, and I know many people had about this case, you know, sort of like, oh gosh, what a throw away prosecution, this was what she gonna get convicted. I mean, the evidence has , has been pretty, has been pretty consistent over the years. What we saw in court didn't match what I think, you know, a lot of the evidence actually showed. Obviously we have a whole mind map of a lot of other data that we didn't hear about at all in this prosecution insanely. But so you , you can see here, you know, the defense knew this was happening. They know that the mind map exists, they know that there's hundreds of women who've been implicated as a result of Maxwell and Epstein. And so they did very well. I mean, they narrowed this thing down to four people that came into court and it was like two of them who were already . And so this is what we've got. They've been planning for this for a long time and Soly Maxwell and her family are leaving the courthouse yesterday. You can see we've got Christine she's on the left, Isabelle in the middle. And then Kevin, over here on the left, they've been attending most court , uh , Mo most days I think Isabelle, or I'm sorry, Christine joined them a, a little bit later, but they were exiting the court building. And , uh, this is what this looks like now, Bobby stern Heim was also leaving the courthouse and she runs into the media. And so this is the first time we really hear much from her that I, I , I'm not even sure we've even really seen her speak quite quite frankly, but here she is. She comes out now. And of course the media, everybody is just, you know, hoarding around this location because they need a statement from her. And so do we, here it is Walking down the courtroom steps, lots of flashing lights to the media is very, very excited to hear what she has to say. We just found out that Maxwell is guilty. Five of six counts

Speaker 2:

A comment, okay , knock it all . We firmly, please . We firmly believe in Glen's innocence. Obviously we are very disappointed with the verdict. We have already started working on the appeal and we are competent that she will be vindicated. Everyone, be healthy, have a happy new year. How are doing?

Speaker 1:

Can you deny it ? That's it. Boom. So it throws the mask on, you get like four sentences out of her, but it's the obvious and right . Bobby stern Heim gonna come out. We're very disappointed already working on an appeal, gonna be vindicated. It's like, it's like in , it's like in the manual of what to say, right? That's that's it, no other comments put the , put the face mask back up, and then she scoots on out of there. Now you can see, right, this is the other angle of this. This is what she was looking at. Uh , and I think we recognize some over here. Is this a shout out to Addie ads over there? I think that's him right there. Uh , just getting, getting right into it, which is just outstanding. So a lot of people there paying a lot of attention to what's going on. Bobby stern Heim is, you know , now exiting here's another angle, just so you can kind of see how it was , uh , How many people were out there waiting for her to , to find the exit, the field

Speaker 3:

It's like 70 . I mean ,

Speaker 1:

So a lot of media there and there's a lot of reactions. A lot of people are sort of you, this is a big, this is a big case. We've been following it for a long time. It was, I would say unsatisfying is that fair, pretty unsatisfying, but it, you know, but it is still something that, okay, another , another bad person who's been a wrecking ball in society for a long time is no longer out there. That's a good thing, but is that it? Well, we'll find doubt. We have a lot more to dig into, but let's check in with the winning side. The government is very happy about this us prosecutor from the Southern district of New York. He's the us attorney outta there. Damian Williams gave an announcement yesterday, a press release. He gave a statement about this. Haven't heard from Morine Comey , Allison , Moe, Roach , or Horan , but we are now hearing from D and Williams. He is the head us attorney out of the Southern district of new New York. And here's what he had to say.

Speaker 4:

A unanimous jury has found Glenn Maxwell guilty of one of the worst crimes imaginable, facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of children, crime that she committed with her longtime partner. And co-conspirator Jeffrey Epstein. The road to justice has been far too long, but today justice has been done. I want to commend the bravery of the girls. Now grown women who stepped out of the shadows and into work their courage and willingness to face their abuser made today's result in this case possible. I also want to thank the career prosecutors of the Southern district of New York, who embraced the victim's quest for justice and have worked tirelessly day in and day out to ensure that Maxwell was held accountable for her crimes. This office will always stand with victims, will always follow the facts wherever they lead and will always fight to ensure that no one, no matter how powerful or well connected is above the law. Thank you.

Speaker 1:

All right . So that's dam Williams, us attorney Southern district of New York. And you , you know, the kind of the standard prosecutor statement as well. We heard the standard statement from the defense, disappointed, gonna continue to fight appeals coming away. She's gonna be vindicated. He comes out, we stand with the victims, shout out to the career. Prosecutors is what he said, you know, career. I think, I think that's supposed to be a compliment . You need like, this is your career, your career pro . I think that's what he meant, but alright . So he says stuff like that. And you know, we didn't hear much from him at all throughout this entire thing. He says they worked long and hard tirelessly, which I'm not real. So sure of that. I mean, to be candid, they did do a lot of work in the pretrial proceedings. I mean, this case, you know, like I said, at the beginning, the outside of this, there was a lot of work that went into this case. A lot, the pretrial proceedings did not match what we saw in court. In my opinion, we got eight days out of a prosecution here, eight days, that's it. They told us it was gonna be a six week trial. It was like two weeks less than that. Wasn't it ? Yeah , it was about 13 days maybe. So they said it was gonna be six and then it turned into 13 days, less than two weeks. So all of that, that rigor and that real, you know, working hard tirelessly day in day after all that stuff, it's like, did you, did you really, why did you, why did it take less than a third of the time that you estimated it was going to take? I don't know. Don't know now that's part of the problem of being a , of being a ultra sideline observer in a lot of this stuff is that we are reading reports from people who are observing something through a screen that is highly redacted and that they can't even see. And this is part of the problem with, I think, you know, some of the, some of the, the older systems of just, just that we have with the, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency, we really can't see what's going on. And so we are commenting with a little bit of a blind spot, but that's Damian Williams. They're celebrating, they're happy about this. And as I said, right, didn't, didn't, you know, hear too much about we're gonna go after any of Maxwell's co-conspirators and we're gonna make sure that everybody else who was involved in this case brought to justice and Jeffrey Epstein, his, you know, wreckage is not gonna be left to stand. We're gonna continue on. Even though Maxwell is now convicted, our work continues. Didn't hear any of that just said, we're always gonna stand with victims. Justice was done long time coming, big pat on the back, which is exactly what we predicted was going to happen. Put a nice bow on it, wrap it up. We're done. Thanks. Thanks for playing. So we get that statement from him now, you know, to be fair, right? This is, this is good conclusion for a lot of people out there who were harmed by Maxwell and by Epstein, we have this victim's attorney, Spencer Covin says , uh, he's the lawyer who represented several of them says that the , the verdict here , the guilty finding of Maxwell was seen by my clients as an absolute and unmitigated victory. And so, you know, it's, we're , we're gonna see a distinction here. Let me just sort of preview this conversation here, you know, an absolute and unmitigated victory. And it's like, okay, like I can understand, but, but , but this wasn't just Golin Maxwell was it. And we're gonna see an article here from Jonathan Turley that I clip later on in the show where he gives us this distinction between travel transportation and destination arrival, Glenn Maxwell . Yeah. Maybe she was involved in transporting a lot of these women, these conspiracies that were happening. She was involved in all of those things. But even if she was just transporting them, what happened when they got there? Huh? That's weird. Why Maxwell taking them anywhere? It's because when they land, they engage in something. And so the question is, why are we only focused on the transportation, not the destination who was receiving these services when all of these women were being trafficked all over the world. And so, you know, I hear statements like this from the victims. It's like, well , this is an absolute and UNT victory. Okay. Maybe it is. But is that, I mean, are , are you done like, is that you should put a bow on this thing? You know, presumably hundreds of men have abused women and the only person who's going to prison for this thing is Maxwell. What <laugh> does that work? How does , how is that a win for victims of , uh , you know, anyway, I don't know . So here's this guy, here's his , uh , amen . This is a

Speaker 5:

Victory for all of the victims of Ms . Maxwell and Epstein. Moreover, I think this is a victory for all young children, boys, girls, women, and men who are victims of abusers like this. It will give them the needed push to step forward and to speak their truth and to hopefully get justice like these young girls have with respect to Ms . Maxwell. And hopefully this is not just the end of one saga, but the beginning of another. And that is for all abuse victims to come forward and hold their abusers accountable in court. So this is definitely seen by my clients as an absolute and unmitigated victory. This fear that we was ingrained in them, not only by Jeffrey Epstein, but also Ms. Maxwell was that they could be destroyed. Their lives could be ended. Their families could be destroyed, their reputations, their futures could be destroyed. So it takes an incredible amount of bravery for the young women to come forward and tell their truths and tell their story and to see others step forward, just empowers victims around the world, hopefully to set forward and speak their truth.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Cheers to that. And , and I , you know, hopefully he is right about that and that, and that the , the pressure continues. I don't think anybody has been , uh , you know , advocating that, that stops. I think that's what everybody's been concerned about is the idea that now all the pressure just dissipates. Oh, what's done. Oh, well, good. We got, we got rid of it. Yeah. Jeffrey Epstein and the Maxwell sag is over. I guess we're just gonna , you know , conclude at that. So he did there say that, you know, with respect to Maxwell, they're finding peace. And so I think that's a nice little way to, to synthesize these two things, right? The people who are abused by Maxwell, they're satisfied that their , that their abuser go Maxwell is being dealt with, but they're not satisfied about the other abusers who can , who continue out there and he's doing, you know , he's, he's advocating for that. I hope this is the start. I hope this is the spark that lights this thing up and other people come forward to continue the pressure. And we didn't hear much of that from the , uh, us government though. We'll see, we'll see what they do. They're the ones with the , the power that attorney doesn't have much say in who gets charged or not. That happens at the DOJ. What are they gonna do about it? We have another lawyer. This is Lisa bloom . I believe we have her on the mind map.

Speaker 6:

I can't overstate how profoundly courageous it is to walk into a courtroom full of strangers and to open up the most horrific and humiliating parts of your life and to speak about it. And then to be cross-examined about it and have it all picked apart by paid attorneys who say that your memory was wrong or that you're lying, or that you're doing it for money. Of course, nobody gets any money , uh , out of a criminal conviction, but that was the argument that was made. But the four women, they stood up to it. They answered the questions they got through it. And they are heroes. I think, to millions of people worldwide today

Speaker 1:

Though , is dirty defense lawyers asking those hard questions. <laugh> well, look, she's, you know, she, she's sort of right, saying that you don't win. You don't win money at , in a criminal case. You know, there are things like restitution and stuff, of course, that come in in criminal case. But the argument that those defense attorneys were making is that these criminal charges were filed. They were brought, they bolstered so that the women could get claims, paid higher compensation out of the Epstein victims' compensation fund. And we know, because we looked at those documents from the Epstein victims' compensation fund that they will award higher payouts if there's active litigation, or if there's active consideration of prosecution, the , because that's a bigger, more valuable claim, that's a bigger threat. They'll make it go away. It's like a car accident. The more injured you are, the more you get paid out, same concept here. So that was the line of questioning that the defense was using. But of course she's a victim's lawyer. And so she's gonna beat up on defense attorneys. I'm okay with that. And I agree with her. I think that it is, it is good that that people who are hurt are feeling closure and they're feeling like they can move past this. And I hope that's true, right? I mean, I really hope that there is healing that comes outta this for everybody that was involved. Speaking of somebody who was involved, we are now hearing from Annie farmer, the only woman here who actually testified with her full name, she was appearing on GMA. I think that is that good morning, America, something , uh , on ABC news. And the news anchor is saying, look, Annie , good Lord. You've been through a lot here. I mean, this has been going on for a long time. You , uh , just testified. You got cross-examined. Those scumbag defense lawyers were , you know, splicing and dicing all over the place. Here, you survived, you got a verdict. How do you feel? Tell us Annie,

Speaker 7:

It's a tremendous relief to be here. I , I , um, wasn't sure that this day would ever come. And , uh, I just feel so grateful that the jury believed us and sent a strong message that perpetrators of sexual abuse and exploitation will be held accountable, no matter how much power and privilege that they have.

Speaker 8:

A and siegrid, what was your reaction? A and what does this mean in the bigger sense for the many other women who have alleged their lives were also damaged by Maxwell.

Speaker 9:

It's really a historic moment in the history of sexual trafficking. What you've seen here is a jury who took it upon themselves to believe in these victims, hear their voices and render a verdict that told the American public that regardless of, of power privilege, whether you're a president or a prince, you will be held accountable. If you engage in sexual trafficking, you

Speaker 1:

Will , you will , whether you're a president or a prince, you will be held accountable. If you're engaged, what are you taught ? What Golin , Maxwell's going to jail. Nobody else, nobody else who's involved in it. Nobody who, who participated in her services goin Maxwell's the drug dealer, but none of the drug users are in trouble. You just pop the drug dealer. Okay. Uh , historic. She says it's historic. All right . I guess. So it sounds like it's a pretty standard case somebody's charged with crime government. Doesn't look into it at all. Wraps it up easily. Oh , all right . Done with that one. Okay. I got , I , if they say it's historic, I guess it's historic now. I'm not so sure about it. I previewed a little bit earlier an article from Jonathan Turley , very smart attorney. He, I , I have a snippet from a blog post over at his website. Jonathan Turley dot would recommend you go check it out, follow him on Twitter. But he gave us this interesting distinction. I like how he phrased this. I like clear lines and strong , uh , delineations. The idea about transportation versus destination. Here's what he says. Maxwell's conviction leaves , glaring questions over the lack of prosecutions. It's what we've been talking about. This entire time. Maxwell becomes scapegoat. They decide that they have enough with her. They don't have to go after anybody else. Charlie says there is concern that the justice department has previously worked to scuttle rather than to pursue the underlying wrongdoings, including a disgraceful agreement. And we talked about this. This is at , we spent all, you know , 10 minutes on this yesterday. This is in the mind map. It is the 2007 plea agreement. I agree with him. It is disgraceful. Jonathan Turley says, and I'm a defense lawyer. Okay? I agree says I was an early and vocal critic of that deal with Epstein. Despite a strong case for process back then, Epstein's lawyers were able to secure a ridiculous deal with prosecutors. He was back then accused of abusing more than 40 minor girls with many between age 13, 17 Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida state charge of felony, solicitation of underage girls. He served a 13 month GL sentence. Okay ? That's like insane folks. Insane. If that happened 40 underage abusing between the eight 13, that alone would be basically a life sentence for anybody else. He got a 13 month jail sentence in Arizona. We have what's called dangerous crimes against children. They are extremely amplified sentences because they are young children. And so some somehow by some way, shape or form back in 2007, I was not even a licensed lawyer yet. This deal happened Epstein at the time was facing a 53 page indictment that could have resulted in life in prison. Right? As I just said, the charges are insane for that age. 40 times, somebody who's 13, 4, 14, 15 insane. However, he got a 13 month deal. He says, moreover to my lasting surprise, former Miami us attorney Alexander Acosta . This guy was made labor secretary under Donald Trump. He later resigned. Now this deal was done in 2007 . Donald Trump was not the president then not even close. And so this guy has been a government prosecutor, basically bureaucrat forever. So I went and looked him up. He's an American attorney. He's the guy who entered into this plea deal. Labor secretary resigned. Uh, at some point he was confirmed by the Senate in Trump's cabinet , 2017 member of the Republican party originally appointed by Bush served as the assistant attorney general in 2007 and 2008 as a us attorney Costa approved a plea deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to plead guilty to a single state charge of solicitation in exchange for a federal non prosecute nuts after Epstein was arrested again in July, 2019, a cost of face renewed and harsher criticisms for his role. And he resigned in July 19th. So he is been around forever, right? He was an office us attorney for the Southern district from 2005 to 2000 under both Bush and Obama stuck around in office, got promoted, or he was the Dean of an international college of law. And then he was the secretary of labor for Trump for two years until the renewed prosecution of Epstein. And then they booted him out. So this guy entered into that non prosecution agreements , 13 month jail sentence, 40 underage minors. I repeat myself, tur says while the FBI aggressively and correctly pursued Maxwell, there is no evidence of such a concerted effort to investigate the men. The men who may have been involved in the trafficking, given the all out effort on Ashley Biden's diary might be nice to see an equal effort on Epstein's alleged co-conspirators okay . Maxwell was the transporter, but she was bringing people around for a reason who was using the services, who were these people, if Epstein, allegedly transported women and girls to his islands for visit with himself and these men, there was ample reason to interview them. We have entire flight logs from Visco Viki and from David Rogers, lots of names on there didn't hear any of them called at trial. Other than the victims says, it's not clear if Maxwell has further evidence to offer. We don't know, but this is the time to produce it. If she does, while she is not practically looking at 65 years, she could easily receive around 15, even as a first offender, that sentence could be reduced with cooperation credit. What is not clear is how focused the SD N Y is on developing cases that focus not just on the transportation, but on the destination of these flights. And so that's the question. How interested is the SDN? Why in making any of this go forward? Do they want further prosecutions? We did a poll yesterday and the answer to that largely was no from everybody. Very obvious. That seems like they're not interested in that. We see here. If we take a look at the poll form, biggest danger Golin Maxwell looks like it is the poll form is pinned into the chat. We got a 50 50 split on this intelligence agencies versus us government incompetence, not too concerned about any of the , uh, <laugh> any of the pandemic concerns us government incompetence or intelligence agencies. So if there is a , uh, if there's another possible suggestion there, maybe I'll add that into the poll and we can reset it. All right . We have more to get to now. So the question that lingers is the us government is the Southern district of New York. Are they done? Are they gonna be investigating this any further? Are they going to be digging into this and identifying anybody who was at the destination where these women landed, who was actually using the services? Yes. Maxwell was the drug dealer, but what about the addicts? What about the people who paid for it and allowed this orchestration to continue unimped for decades? What about them? We gonna dig into them. Probably not, but they might go after the money. Glenn Maxwell had a lot of it. Us government now has their hands on her and maybe we'll see something. If they start unraveling where the money goes, we see the daily mail did a nice job, assembling a couple of the different Maxwell properties. When she was obtained. She said, I just had 2.6 million, but previously that year she wired 22 million by Epstein to her husband, her tech, CEO , husband, Scott Berson . So she knew member Glenn Maxwell was on the run for quite some time when she was arrested, she claimed he wore a 2.6 million despite buying and selling 16 million of mansion since 2015 and 22 million wired to her by Epstein to fund her lifestyle. And we heard about some of those fun in trial . We've got a lot of different details that have come out. So Golin Maxwell now is 65 facing , uh, is facing 65 years behind bars is what this says. Forensic accountants have now gotten involved. The us government. They want that money says she has a net worth of about 15 million or about 22 point 20.2 million in 2015. But she claimed she was down to just 2.6. By the time she was arrested, these forensic accountants found mysterious transactions between Epstein and Maxwell and offshore funds, as well as buying and selling homes, using private companies that made it impossible for the FBI to fully gauge exactly how much cash and how much assets the now convicted trafficker has . And do you remember this? I mean, she was on the run. They were looking for her every which way. This is where I believe she was actually arrested. Justice finally caught up with go Maxwell. She bought a 156 acre ranch in New Hampshire called tucked away. She reportedly bought in secret using one of her aliases before her arrest in 2020, you know which property that is 156 acres, huge it's called tucked away because I mean, it really is tucked away. And this woman is one of the most wanted women in the us government. I mean, back at the time when she was on the run and she was able to buy a property using secret names and not just any property, right? She's not renting a hotel room somewhere. This is a huge property. They also saw , saw that she transferred. This one sounds like there was a new house in that Belgravia, that was a property somebody bought for 1.7, 5 million in August. And she had to sell this to pay for her legal bills. So some people have asked and sort of speculated about what her legal bills were. I've heard that the court allowed something like six, 6 million bucks to be set aside. We can see that she started sort of fire sailing. Some of her properties, this sold for 1.7, 5 million. So what I would guess happened is she sort of di started to divest assets. She started to transfer stuff that was liquid, you know, immediately liquid. She just got rid of it. And then the stuff that was not liquid that was gonna be used as collateral, or she was gonna sell that once she got permission from the court to use some of that stuff for legal fees, right? The court is gonna say, okay, you can use some of your funds for what you need. Some of it's legal. We're gonna seize the rest of it . If they think it was ill gotten gains or anything like that. So all of the liquid stuff she sends over to her husband, this guy, Scott Boger is allegedly, this is what's happening. So she sold her house also in the upper east side, disposed of the five stories , 7,000 square foot townhouse banking, 15 million bucks Maxwell also reportedly transferred 15 million to her husband. This guy, Scott Berson , after they married in a move that could protect the majority of her wealth from being claimed by the alleged victims of Epstein. So all the money now is being moved to around . So, you know, this is all , this was all orchestrated, all plays , all play she's on the run, moving assets around. So, oh no, I've only got 2.6 million in my bank account. I'm gonna need that from my legal funds. Well, we're gonna seize it. And you know, well , like you can't seize it. I need that money. Well, you're gonna have to get it from other, other things. So some , some of the properties that she's identified, she can start to liquidate those. If she already had a big liquid amount of cash, the court may had not have , you know , those transactions may not have been able to go through or that the funds from those transactions may not have been available to her without some sort of court, you know, interference. So they, they were divesting a lot of this stuff, probably married this guy, Scott Berson , you know, who knows what, what his story is, but she marries him. He holds on to 15 million, 30 million bucks. Since they're married, you get all these privileges that attached to that, that, that money is held in nice escrow while Gill Maxwell appeals her verdict and maybe reconnects with it later down the road, British socialite also hid. This was a $3 million mansion surrounded by private trees at along private road in Manchester, by the sea. So even though she was on the run, she was living lavishly and the us government of course, is gonna go start tracking those things down if they haven't already and seeing what they can do to , uh , continue to punish goly Maxwell as a result of her conviction. And so Maxwell is now gonna be waiting for sentencing. We're gonna find out when that data is, but there's a lot of other things happening as a result of the fallout of the convictions. Prince Andrew is one example of that fallout prince Andrew and his attorneys are allegedly in emergency talks. After the guilty verdict hit the airwaves, the you us son is reporting. This says that they are concerned that Galin Maxwell could in fact name names after a guilty verdict. And so we've got two sources on this one. We've got this one. And then I have an article from the mirror in the next slide over, but it says a legal source connected with Maxwell's case, told the mail on Sunday that a guilty verdict could spell trouble for the rule oil. You can see, this is a picture of prince Andrew with his arm wrapped around the small of Virginia goof, rays back lower back at the time Maxwell standing there, smiling away. We have somebody taken a picture with a big, nice flash right there. Curious how that works. Isn't it? Yeah. And so after the verdict came out, source who's close to the Maxwell case said, this could be bad news for prince Andrew, another high profile men who hung out with go and Epstein. It's possible that she's gonna begin to cooperate. Tell what she knows an attempt to lessen her jail term. We know that prosecutors are looking at other co-conspirators in connection with Epstein's ring, undoubtedly possesses information, which could assist prosecutors. In other cases, if she decides to cooperate, her testimony could be devastating. The source says she was at Epstein's right hand woman for years. Can you imagine what she knows? Yeah. That , yeah, we can. Yeah, we can imagine. Yeah. That's why we're interested. We would like to know that and flesh out the rest of the scum out there, we have prince Andrew lawyers now also being reported from mirror say that they are locked in emergency talks. The Maxwell verdict is likely to have sparked fear in his legal team. So the mirrors reporting that his lawyers were locked in emergency talks last night, following the conviction of his Powell , Galin Maxwell, as they considered calling on one of her victims to help him in his us civil case, talking about Virginia goof, right ? Guilty verdicts left the British socialite convicted looking at 65 years. But the jury's decision sparked fear in the duke of York's legal team. Given the burden of proof in a criminal case is far higher than that is needed in a civil case. Like the one Andrew is facing. So do you see why her lawyer, his lawyers are freaked out a little bit. They're making the case that there's no evidence of any of this abuse prince Andrew and his legal team are saying there is nothing here to support any of these claims. He's being sued civilly in a civil case. We think about it as a much lower stand cuz it is a much lower standard . And what happened is in order, when we think about beyond a reasonable doubt, we think of sort of, you know , over 80%, if it's, if it's beyond any reasonable doubt, if it's like over 80% that somebody you're feeling pretty good about it, I think that's low. I think it should be like 99%, but this is an analogy that they teach you. It , if it's like over that, then that's enough. When you drop down to a civil standard. Now we're talking about preponderance of the evidence. We're talking about a much lower standard. And so the way that we kind of say that is it's 51%. And so prince Andrew's lawyers and those are not perfect analogies, but broad strokes, prince Andrew, as lawyers are saying, they just got Maxwell on the 80% standard. Uhoh meaning they convinced a jury that there is enough there to get her and we know what they have against you. And based on the fact that the jury believed that that was enough to get her, we might think that they will be very easy to convict you at a lower standard. They don't, they're not Guffy . Doesn't even have to get over that 80%. All she needs is a nice little 51%, more likely than not. And so you can see prince Andrew's face. He's not happy about it looks a little bit backed up. It goes on lawyers over there for the Royals, say that despite their concerns, they say that Maxwell's trial was disastrous for his accuser of Virginia gore , who the prosecution refused to call despite being Epstein's longtime teen slave. Now look at this pattern. Look at this language, we have the prince using Glenn Maxwell's trial, his legal team. This is public relations. This is PR saying, we know now that Virginia gore , as we're gonna learn soon is suing him for several different charges. And he's saying that the us government didn't even call her. They didn't think that she was a good witness. They think she's a terrible witness. That's why they didn't bring her in court. So therefore her case against me is also bad because the us didn't use Virginia against Golin . They thought she was bad, which means she's also bad against me. And so you're gonna see this pattern happening. We're gonna hear from Alan Deitz next, who says the same thing, because he's also being sued more telling his legal team believe testimony provided during the disgrace socialite criminal trial, they think has left the lawsuit. Seriously, if not fatally, weakened. And why are they panicking? During the Brits case? One of her four victims testified how she was introduced to Andrew's billionaire friend, Epstein the woman known back then as Carolyn revealed that it was not the Brit who recruited her, but it was gore <affirmative> . So the, the story being that Carolyn went through, Guray not that Carolyn went through Maxwell Maxwell would be the connection to Andrew versus Virginia, who would be the connection to Andrew. So it's sort of breaking the chain there already in a controversial effort to prove the Royal's innocence, the Duke's attorneys have portrayed the accuser as a criminal. So they've been sort of smearing gore saying she's a criminal. She was part of the ordeal. She's a co-conspirator. She was rounding up all these women for Epstein. Now following the conviction, they're saying that bringing Carolyn back to court will show that gore was involved abuse. So do you see what they're saying? They're saying that this gal Carolyn came into court testified said that Guray was a problem. Guray was the person who recruited her. And so prince Andrew was just happy as a clam. He's just smiling ear to ear. He's saying, oh perfect. So now I get to go back into court in my case and say, Virginia is a monster. She was somebody who was bringing other women in particular, Carolyn , over into this entire ordeal Andrew's defense team says that this is the smoking gun says that Virginia played a role in the pyramid scheme. Andrew's lawyers. They say have convinced him that if , if he is to stand any chance of preventing her case from going to court, they need to fight with fire and nothing should be off limits. They believe Carolyn's evidence seriously weakened the case because Carolyn said Guffy introduced her to Epstein. And that undermines Guffy. Now Guffy is also somebody who is suing these two people here and there's been a lot of activity. So on the same day, we got a guilty verdict out of the Maxwell case. We got another order out of this court. And I for , I apologize as somebody brought this up yesterday on the stream, but I broke this down a little bit further here, so we could take a second. Look at it, Virginia gore . She is the plaintiff she's suing Alan Dershowitz here. He's a lawyer. I believe he's like , uh , tus , uh , emeritus over at , uh , Harvard, a Dershowitz . He was in the Netflix series , uh, covering about this. He's been talking a lot about this. He is a defendant in this civil lawsuit, a very similar lawsuit that gore is filing also against Andrew. Okay. And we just heard what prince Andrew was saying. He was saying, oh, this lady was a part of the hierarchy. She was a part of the entire scheme. She was just as bad as Maxwell, just as bad as Epstein. And so any of her claims against me says the prince are useless because she's a monster, right? She was a bad actor. She's suing me. Carolyn from the Maxwell trial says that she was the recruiter. And now he wants to bring a claim against me. He's saying that's unreasonable. So very similar claims coming against both these guys. And you can see they've been consolidated here. So this looks like it is a 20, 21 case. You can see this 21 number here. We've got a 19 case. You can see that here. And if we zoom in and take a look at the actual order that was signed off on by the two assigned judges, Loretta press and Lewis Kaplan , here's what it says, tells us that a document entitled as a settlement agreement and a general release. So a big agreement is said to have been executed by the plaintiff in these action. And by the late Jeffrey Epstein filed under seal . Okay? So let's, let's break this down. We have the plaintiff. We know who that is. It's right here. This is Virginia goof freight . She entered into a settlement agreement, be with Jeffrey Epstein with his estate. So we'll call this the settlement agreement here. And that settlement agreement is being referenced. In this case, you can see 19 30, 3 77. This is the case of Virginia Guray versus a Deitz . So a Deitz , uh , Alan Deitz is filing that settlement agreement. In this case, it was filed under seal . Okay . It has been executed by the plaintiff and it's been filed under seal in Dershowitz's case, the same document, that same settlement agreement. So it's we see it here. That same settlement agreement has also been filed by the defendant, which is prince Andrew in 1 67 0 2 . So he's the defendant over here, prince Andrew. And he filed that because Virginia gore is suing him. He filed that settlement agreement as a response to her as a motion to dismiss. We can see that here. So in light of the ceiling order, in the first motion, it was also filed under seal. But the judge says, even though this was all filed under seal, I asked you to tell me why we cannot make it public. I said back earlier December that we're gonna make this public, unless you give us good reason about why we shouldn't be making it public. And they didn't tell the court anything that would support it, not being made public. And so the court said accordingly on Jan , February 3rd, 2022 , we are gonna be unsealing this document. We're gonna place it on the public record. And we're going to take a look at it. And so you can see that this was a settlement agreement between Guray and Epstein, the late Epstein estate. And so the question is why would prince drew be , be submitting that as a motion to dismiss? Why would a Dershowitz be submitting that settlement agreement that presumably has nothing to do with them as a motion to dismiss while it's obvious it's because they think it shields them from some liability. So many people are speculating. They're saying, well, what does the settlement agreement have? Have ? What does it hold? What can we glean out of it? Is it gonna identify anybody else's name? Is it going to identify broad categories of people who are protected? So is it going to be like the 2007 non prosecution agreement where it says we have names that are specific in there, but we also have a broad bucket of other people who are covered. Is it gonna identify a list of 35 people who are all specifically covered? Is it gonna be bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey , Chris Tucker, you know, is it gonna be that list of people in there? Probably not, but that's what it looks like. And we know there's active litigation between all the parties year . And so let's pause for a quick moment and take a look at the poll in the poll form. There is a question that is asking specifically, do you think that on January 3rd, that we're gonna get anything useful out of that settlement agreement when they release it, the Virginia goof Ray versus prince Andrew versus a Dershowitz , are we gonna get anything new out of there? Let's see what you have to say about that. 67% say no, no new names , no new materials. No new evidence is coming out. Let's drop that poll form one more time. Uh , wait, I don't have that saved up here. Let's grab it over here. And we'll drop that in there. There it goes. Nope . I think I, yeah, there it goes. I think it it's in there. And so you can drop a , a vote on the settlement agreement, no new names or no new material. And then the next question that we're going to get to of course, is prince Andrew about prince Andrew. Did he do it? Didn't he do it? Or don't, you know, and it's a solid 90% say yeah, he did it <laugh> so I , I shouldn't have even put that question on there I suppose, but , uh , it's pretty , uh , yeah , I mean, he look , yeah, that picture looks like it's, it's pretty damning, doesn't it? Uh , 'em in agreement, any new names or material. So looking at still about 68% saying, Nope , nothing new is gonna come out of that. Gonna be largely the same. Some people are still optimistic about 32% say , uh , maybe that will be useful. We've got COVID is not an issue for, for , uh , it doesn't look like any other complications or their intelligence agencies might be a big problem though. 4700% say could be a trouble for, we also have 67% say us government incompetence, like, you know , uh , falling asleep at the , uh, job, making your cameras , uh , malfunction or not making them work something happening there. Very, very curious. Now let's go back to the litigation because we have one or two final questions on this poll in particular about the pattern that we have been seeing about the pattern of prince Andrew. Now who's involved in litigation who is going after Virginia goof Ray saying, well , Caroline implicated her during the Maxwell trial, and now I'm gonna do the, the same thing. We're, we're playing with gas now, folks, right? Nothing is left off the table. We heard his defense team make that same argument. And if we check back on our diagram, we also know that a Deitz is highly involved in this case, he's in litigation and he filed a copy or somebody filed a copy in his case, that is back from 2019 in the , the litigation that is filed against him. He is a defendant in this case, a civil lawsuit. So I was very curious that he was sort of making the rounds yesterday, all over the place. And he showed up on the BBC as an independent observer to give his opinion <affirmative> on the Maxwell outcome, cuz he's a very smart lawyer, very astute scholar. And he is supposed to be opining about the verdict as an independent analysis analyst. And here's how that conversation went with the BBC. Let's see if he's talking about Maxwell after

Speaker 10:

A long , uh , set of deliberations, spanning Christmas with a , a break , uh , suddenly the , the , the , the jury , uh , reached a verdict.

Speaker 11:

Well, I think the most important thing, particularly for British is that the , um , government , uh , was very careful who it uses witnesses. It did not use as a witness. The woman who accused prince Andrew accused me accused many other people because the government didn't believe she was telling the truth. In fact, she, Virginia goof Ray was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse. And so this case does nothing at all to strengthen in any way , the case against prince Andrew, indeed it weakens the case against prince Andrew considerably because the government was very selective and who had abused . It used only witnesses who they were credible , credible , and they deliberately didn't use the main witness. The , the woman who started the whole investigation of Virginia gore , because ultimately they didn't believe she was telling the truth. They didn't believe that a jury would believe her and they were right in doing so. So it was very smart for part of the governor .

Speaker 1:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. There, wait a minute there buddy. So he gets called on to British BBC, the British TV over there. Uh , I think they have more channels than that, but they he's on there to talk about this. And so he jumps right into the sort of analogy of the prince Andrew Case and saying, I'm gonna be applying my opinion to the prince Andrew Case. And in my analysis of the prince Andrew Case, we're gonna have a conversation about what a loser , Virginia Guray is. Uh , the government thought she was a terrible witness. I mean, she didn't testify. They said that she was implicated in this thing. She was a part of it. She was involved in this scheme. I mean, she really is like the worst witness at , and prince Andrew has nothing to worry about because as you know, he's being sued by her, I'm also kind of being sued by her and she's just, you know, the , the worst witness ever. And you're going, yeah, but brother, you're also being sued by her right now. And you got an active case going on here, like, is the BBC aware of this? Like, do they know that the , this is a conflict problem here, are they gonna give her equal time and her a lawyer to come back and respond to your claims here, you're brought on as an independent analysis and you're trashing the , the person who is actively suing you for claims that are directly connected to this case, because the testimony that came out is being used by , by prince Andrew and now by you to undermine the plaintiff in the case. Whoa. Okay. So that happens. Now BBC catches some grief about this thing. Rightfully so they fired up this morning at 3:52 AM. They said uhoh , uh , here's a statement on the interview with a Dershowitz <laugh> so they posted this, they said , uh , sorry, folks. Last night's interview with Alan Dershowitz . After the Glen Maxwell verdict did not need the BBC's editorial standards as Mr. Dershowitz was not a suitable person to interview as an impartial analysis analyst. And we did not make the relevant background clear to our audience. We will look into how this happened. Yeah , it's gonna be a , it's a good question. It'd be very, very good. Now, Alan was still making the rounds here. He was on Fox news doing the same thing until ,

Speaker 11:

Uh, and , uh , I don't, I only met Maxwell a handful of times with my wife, with my daughter. We , when we met her, she was just Jeffrey Epstein's, you know , girlfriend or former girlfriend. We had no idea that any of these things were were going on, but , um , uh , you know, I feel, I feel bad for everybody involved in this thing. And , uh, uh, I , and I hope it will discourage others from , uh , doing , uh , actions of this kind women. Young women have to be protected and the court and government has to go after people who are, who are perpetrators, but they have to distinguish the true from the false . And that's what I think they may have. Mm-hmm <affirmative> tried to do why they didn't call Virginia gore a as a witness. And that helped them if they had called her as a witness. I think this case would've very likely gone a different way cuz the jury would've doubted the credibility of the government's case.

Speaker 1:

Oh , you see what he said there? Oh , so he's being very sly about this. He's saying, look you , she got convicted. But uh , and , and that that's the right decision. But, but if the government would've called Virginia, Guray her, credibility's so bad. She's such a moron and a horrible person that if they would've put her on the stand, they would've lost because the jurors would've just seen, she's just a liar clearly. And they would've come out with a different decision here. And so he's sort of calling her a liar without calling her a liar, see how clever he is . Very smart Harvard education right there. Can't compete with that. So you can see what a sly dog this fellow is. And so he just makes the media rounds . I think I've got one more clip of this fellow .

Speaker 11:

As far as lane Maxwell is concerned, the , uh , government put on witnesses, the witnesses were believed. The jury did come to its conclusion and there will be an appeal. Uh , appeals are always uphill, but there are some issues. There's a statute of limitations issue after all , some of these things occurred , uh , almost 30 years ago was back in 1994. Yeah . So there'll be concerns about the statute of limitations, some other issues. But right now she faces , uh , a significant , uh , uh, per is in sentence .

Speaker 1:

Can you believe it? It's amazing. So he's like identifying all of these problems with the case as though he's like a neutral, impartial, unbiased observer, you know , all this stuff happened like 30 years ago anyways, including my case also happened 30 years ago. So, you know. Okay. So, all right . The question on the poll of course was what do you think about that? Do you think that's an ethical thing to do? Do you think that's an unethical thing to do? Do you think that it is something that is really not even consequential kind of doesn't matter either way or whatever he's out there talking about a case who cares? Uh, let's see what you have to say about this , uh, DHA , which TV appearances. So, you know, actually several a , a good chunk about a , about a fourth of , of you say , uh , it doesn't really matter. Not a big deal, either way, not ethical, not unethical , uh, maybe it's improper form, you know, maybe it's like kind of not, not the best thing to do, but you know, not a big deal, not unethical, not ethical. We have , uh , 20 , uh , 8% say, yeah, it's totally ethical, no problems there at all. But the large majority about two thirds say, no , that is unethical. And so for the last segment of the show, and we're gonna be previewing, this question is Maxwell going to flip answers are , are yes, no. And unsure. Yes, no. Or unsure. We're gonna be , uh , previewing that because we're gonna be going through a very interesting Twitter thread from somebody who used to work out of the Southern district of New York. But as we saw, you know, a Dershowitz was making the rounds. We know that prince Andrew and his lawyers are sort of gearing up. We know that Maxwell, there was a headline yesterday that she might be meeting with somebody from ABC, her attorney, Leah Sapian or one of her family lawyers or a friend or whatever she happens to be was , was maybe in the courtroom. And there , they might be setting up some media stuff. There's been a lot of stories about that happening, but the Babylon B is reporting that after this conviction now Glenn Maxwell is announcing a new job at CNN. So she got convicted for a number of different crimes. And so now she's gonna be working over there at CNN. There's several different, I think, openings that are available now and the Babylon B is reporting that one. And so that was a , you know, that's a good story. So there is hope for the future, both for CNN and for Maxwell. Another very good meme that came out , uh , was this one we talked , we took a look at this photograph. This was allegedly the photograph of the Maxwells who were , uh , apparently at the , uh , uh , the Epsteins in the Maxwells who are also , uh , apparently at the, the cottage that the queen used to go to or something like that. And so Marty McLoughlin over on Twitter, he said this, he said, love is finishing each other's sentences. Isn't that nice love is finishing each other's sentences. And it's true. It's a beautiful, beautiful photograph here of Epstein and Maxwell. And they are now gonna be finishing each other's sentences. Isn't that beautiful, happy endings folks. And so the final question that we have, of course, the big question brought to us by Eli Honig says, will Golin Maxwell flip. Now that she's been convicted by a jury she's gonna flip, you know, she's looking at like Turley told us, AP told us many people saying 65 years. Obviously I don't think it's gonna be that, but a long time. And she's not, you know, not a spring chicken anymore . This guy is asking that question. Why should we listen to him? Why does he matter? Well, first of all, he's a blue check mark. So brace yourselves for wisdom incoming, but we also have credentials. I flipped dozens of people at the Southern district of New York. Well , this guy's a prosecutor. He was the co-chief of the organized crime unit taught new prosecutors, the course on how cooperation works. Ugh . I'm gonna read a thread from a prosecutor here. All right , let's do it. So this is Eli Honig . He wrote the book hatchet, man , how bill BARR broke the prosecutor's code and corrupted the justice department, which I'm sure has been restored to , uh, it's honor. Now that Merick Garland's back there. <laugh> okay. So as you can see folks, look, he's a prosecutor. I'm not gonna try to beat it up on him too badly. Doesn't mean that he doesn't have some good insight into this process. Of course he does work over at CNN. So take that for what it's worth. He's a senior legal analyst over there, former federal and state eight prosecutor bestselling author. And so I'm always gonna dunk on prosecutors a little bit, but with all due respect to , to Eli, really, I appreciate his thread. He actually put together a really good thread here. And it, it's very interesting to see how this works from the other side, right? He's a prosecutor over there. And, and thi this is , this is a, an interesting reveal. So here's what he said. First will Maxwell want to flip. He says that's an intensely personal and complex decision. Let's consider incentives. One she's 60 years old, likely facing much or all of her life behind bars. No real hope on appeal. I would disagree with that. I think that she probably walks on an appeal. That's just me though. Cooperation is her best and perhaps only chance to get out. So I , so I would say I would disagree with that check bar that with that box, I think that she's got a ton of appealable issues. I'm not an appellate lawyer, but I think that they're gonna , they're gonna rerun the Cosby playbook. And I think they've already set it up. So , uh , Eli also says, why might she not want to flip ? Maybe she doesn't want to give up others. Maybe she's afraid. Maybe she's afraid of the incompetence of the us government doesn't wanna get Epstein. Maybe she's resigned to her fate. She's just given up. I doubt that one. Maybe she hates the prosecutors. Maybe she thinks she's innocent on paper. She should want to flip, but this isn't always about paper. So could those incentives, you know, what would make you, if you're putting yourself in go Maxwell shoes, what would make you not flip? Well, it'd have to be a better deal. It'd have to be a prospect of getting out. It'd have to be the prospect of winning on an appeal. And if you cooperate, the harm is worse, right? The costs are worse. He continues. He says, if Maxwell does wanna flip, then the Southern district of New York also has to want her cooperation. Do they care? Are they even offering her a deal? If, if Maxwell all went over to Comey and said, listen, Maureen, let's, let's just get down to bras taxi here . Can't we I've got the names of everybody that you're gonna want out there. Who's a part of the global elite. And I'm gonna give you everything that you need to go get them. What do you think she's going to do? Say perfect. Let me make a career out of this. Let me go talk to my former FBI father and see what he has to say about taking out bill Clinton and the Clinton foundation. Do they want this to go anywhere else? I disagree. I think that they want this all wrapped up. So you would take that factor and you would weigh it against that. Are , is the government offering her a deal? Why would they offer her a deal? They don't want a pro . They didn't even wanna prosecute this case. They did it for eight days. He continues. He says a related side story. I once convicted an old school , Jenna VII , Coppo of murder. He gets life. When we, we then had the FBI agent go talk to him in prison to try to flip him, figuring a mobster, had nothing to lose. Mobster politely told the agent, no thanks. I'll die here. Guess what he did in Southern district of New York, Cooper is all or nothing Maxwell. And so he worked there, right? So this is where, why his insight is very valuable. Maxwell would have to give up everything she ever did and everything she knows about anybody else. Okay . So it's not like she can just give them a bite at the apple. They want it all. No hedging, no holding back. No half truths . If the SD, if the Southern district of New York of New York is convinced, she'll do that. Well, then cooperation is possible. Note that the S D N Y wouldn't be cooperating her first and then hoping for the best they fully debrief her first and decide. She's entirely honest on board before giving her a deal. They don't flip people on a hope and credit. They make sure first prosecutors to cooperate up the use cooperators against more powerful players. Not less. This is a preference, but not an ironclad rule here. Maxwell was number two and Epstein was number one and he's dead. So who else is there to get? It's a good question. Well , uh , I don't know the prince. It's a pretty good one. Prince is a pretty good one. Trump, if they want that right. If they think he did something, why wouldn't they go after him? Why wouldn't they go after Clinton? We heard from Annie farmer's lawyer SI . And she said , uh , you know , no , we're , we're , we're, we're on a war path here. This is one step, but we're gonna make sure that no president, no prince can ever do this again. Well, you need to do something about it. Don't you S D N Y . Are you gonna, so Eli says, which brings us to a little bit of an unusual wrinkle Maxwell might be able to give up information on others who are less involved in the conspiracy, but were otherwise major powerful players, like men who knowingly engage with Epstein and is underage girls, Southern district in New York might in that scenario, decide it is worth it to flip her, but only if there's a realistic way and a prosecutorial commitment to charge those others, whoever they might be says , that'll depend on the willingness of the DOJ. And perhaps even the state prosecutors to go after these powerful people and whether relevant laws like statute limitations would even permit it, which would probably be at the fake because right, bottom line Maxwell's cooperation is not particularly likely, but it is possible you Eden Maxwell to be willing and fully on board SD, N Y to be fully convinced of her truthfulness and a realistic plan to use her information versus the others . So three, three good criteria there I think is very, very, very, very , uh, interesting. So we'll see. What do you have to say about that? You think that Maxwell would flip. Do you think she's gonna flip? I don't think so. Let's take a look at the poll on the poll form. We've got Nope . Looking even more like a, no, we've got 72%. Now this is now up says no unsure. We've got 45, 13%. We've got 14% say yes. Maybe she will in fact flip. And so we can see, we've got a lot of responses here today. Up at the top. The biggest danger to go in is intelligence agencies. 51% to 42 us government incompetence taking on a second. All right . And so that my friends is it for this show. Let's take a to see what we have here today. Oh, first and foremost, we had a nice comment from VICA prime. So Viti kiss sent over this book, amazing book it's called , uh , electrical concepts for everyday people written by Charles Kovacs here. And I've never seen anything quite like this. I'm the , not an electrical person, but you can see the level of detail that is in this book is like insane is like jaw dropping. Uh , Viti kiss has says, people say knowledge is power. I say, knowledge is freedom. I hope you enjoy the book. Rob digital is fine, but I always get, say, get things that are town tangible, but I always say it's most important for people to be as self-sufficient as possible. So midnight tomorrow, Eastern time, I'm putting a link to the PDF of my book free for members of your locals. That's from VICA prime. So what he's saying, folks, very generous, very nice of VicU . If you wanna learn how to electrify things, this book is gonna be available. And VICA prime is gonna be your teacher, the educator inchi to really make sure that you're electrified as can be. And you know, the ins and outs of electricity. It's not complicated. It's for everyday people. Thank you for that. Ticus you're very generous and I appreciate you being a part of our community. It's it really is an amazing book. And I am gonna be flipping through it. Thunder seven says, well done, Rob you called it said she would be convicted. You'd have a very good chance with the appeal due to the 2006 prosecution agreement. How long would the appeal take? Reason I ask is because the entire trial was conducted to produce a very weak case with no names named , however, Maxwell will flip. If she doesn't get outta G soon on her appeal, you know, appeals can take a while . There's no question about that. I don't think it's gonna be wrapped up. Uh , anytime soon, I think she's gonna have to buckle tight, but I, I, I think she's got a ton of appealable issues. In fact, I think that this entire defense was really built around creating as many appealable issues as they possibly could. And so , uh , thank you for that. Thunder seven, we've got another one here from locals says , uh , thunder seven says I looked at all 46 pages of the flight logs. GM always flew together, but I already see fake news trying to make her out to be another victim. Once again, bill Clinton was the frequent flyer, but no, not Trump, not once. Naomi Campbell flew on the plane too . Lynn Dubin, his wife, Eva gates, Bezos. None of those names popped up at trial. What a dog and pony show the judge could have really shocked with the guilty verdict could really have been shocked with the guilty verdict. Yeah, maybe she was shocked. I don't know. <laugh> I don't know . Um , it's good to see you thunder. Let's see. What's what's over at YouTube. We've got Laguna beach bunny says you rock. Thanks for an awesome coverage on the Maxwell case, all the cases enjoy watching you. You make me giggle happy new year from Claudia. Well, thank you, Claudia. Thanks for being here. I I'm glad that you have fun. I have a lot of fun here also, and I, I couldn't do it without you. Of course we have not applicable says we only need quote the truth though. Not subjective truth. In other words, the, the objective truth. And , uh, yeah. And so that is ideal, right? Everybody has their own versions of, of truth, but you wanna make sure that you adhere to the actual objective truth when you can. Some guys burner account has super chatted says, please talk about Jack Murphy. Oh , I got a glimpse of that thing going on there. And you know, there is a dog pile of epic proportions going on in that whole story. And I'm not entirely up to speed exactly what's going on here, but , uh, there's some interesting things happening with that , uh, that situation. And listen, I don't like people who are fraudulent in any way. I don't like people who are not authentic. I think that is a , uh , very reprehensible thing to do. But I also understand that people make mistakes, man, I'm a criminal defense attorney. So I understand that people do stupid things and they make dumb decisions and they don't think right all the time and people might have other things going on in the life and their lives that we can't wrap our heads around. And we just don't understand. And so, you know, when I, when I, when I don't understand what's going on and stuff like that, I don't, you know, I , I , I don't wanna be a part of the , uh, the slamming of , of, of any of that. I don't , I follow him on Twitter. I was sort of surprised by his rise. He kinda sh started showing up all over the place. It was just kind of a weird, a weird, a weird thing going on there with , uh , with that story. But thanks for asking about it. Uh, I know a lot of other people are talking about it, but I'm probably not going to comment anymore than the that cuz I just don't. I don't really know exactly what's going on there. Marza pan says , uh , no, no question there. Just a nice super chat . Thank you, Mar Z I Mar Z . I appreciate that. Mar Z we have Mark Owen says support from Atlanta, Georgia. Well , shout out Mark Owens from Atlanta. We're gonna be talking about the Garrett Wolf case at some point, if they decide to do anything with that, we have ZMA my God, this is awesome. LOL says, well, Maxwell even be offered an opportunity to flip. And so that's a good question. That was kind of the last segment of the, of the , uh , analysis from Eli, right? He said, well, they may not even give her that, like the prosecutors have to want to do something with this. And if they don't want to do anything with this, and there's not even gonna be an offer there, Chris w says, Rob, in regard to the question of the intelligence community to Maxwell, I'll say the same thing as I would about the white house citing national security to push back on the J six committee. There are no true checks, balances or oversights on the intelligence community and national security is the most abused color of law. Anyone has ever heard of ignorance is bliss for anyone who is not aware of or intimidated by these facts. Yeah. I mean, right. We , we , we absolutely have, you know, sort of super governmental structures. I think that influence a lot of what happens in our country and the , the IC is one of those. Uh, let's see, Jeremy, Jeremy Madrea is here and I saw a chat from Jeremy. I don't think he's happy with my DSU witch conversation says, Rob, not sure if you listen to the other 9 1, 1 calls from the officer involved in LA in Burlington. One of those calls asked if the assailant had a gun. Caller said, yes. Op asked if there were shots fired. And caller said, yes, that's why the lap went in with guns blazing. They thought he was an active shooter. Yeah, but there was another nine one, one call that said no, there wasn't. So I can understand that, but I think it's a close call. And I think that we'll continue to talk about that one for the foreseeable future. Good to see you though. Jeremy Alexander Acosta says , uh , I'm sorry, is the prosecutor who signed that 2007 plea deal with Epstein says , uh , he should have to serve the rest of the two time that Epstein should have gotten from the jump. I think I'm willing to sacrifice him as a good warning to the rest of his corrupt buddy prosecutors out there to make sure this doesn't happen again. Leafy bug is here, says if anything, this trial demonstrated that the rich and powerful presidents and princes are clearly above the law . I'm sure some of the worst people in the world are sleeping more soundly tonight. Yeah. It's it's done. Maxwell's done their name. Didn't come out at trial. She's gonna get sentenced. They'll appeal it. No more public spectacles and that's it. So yeah, I'm sure they're very happy. Oh, Alex Acosta here, the 2007 prosecutor says don't blame me. I was ordered by several alphabet agencies to back off prosecuting too heavily on Epstein. By the way, I am not suicidal, which is really good news. You can't imagine the pressure on these people, right? Why did he get that deal? Full 40 minors , 40 ages , 13 to 17. The us government gave him 13 months sentence that he basically served at a country club. Why is that? John Dolar says she is scapegoat. I know that some of those ladies are just lying and they see dollar signs. I'm 100% sure. Alan Durst Reitz didn't do anything. I knew. As soon as that one woman made the claim, she was lying. Prince Andrew. Isn't that stupid either. Yeah . We got some, some, some defense over there for a Dershowitz . I think he's a smart attorney. I think he's doing what he thinks best, but I think that he should have known better to not try to act as an impartial attorney E and an independent analyst on the news that wasn't appropriate. Kincaid says evening, Rob, this is the question about the other day, the shooting at the coats , uh , store troubled me. The guy was not moving much with either direct side profile to the officer. Additionally, the injured woman on the ground was moving and looking around would not a hip or femur shot have wore worked in the situation considering it didn't want any non-lethal methods. Intuitively I think being bag counters worked out. It is less costly for the agencies to deal with a quick death. Well, I don't know about any, I don't know about that Kincaid , you know, I'm not sure if there's been sort of a financial analysts on , uh , analysis on officer involved shootings, but I can't imagine that they're cheap. I got , I gotta imagine it's it's very expensive to go through a , you know, an OIS versus a non OIS . So I'm not sure, I'm not sure about that, but yeah. And I don't think, I don't think it's appropriate to ask people to, to for hip or femur shots. Right? If you're good at shoot, you should be shooting to kill. I mean, that's why you shoot is to , to eliminate somebody. You shoot them in the hip or the, you know, the thigh or whatever like that. Then they bleed out slowly in pain and agony and you just, you just killed them anyways. But it was just very bad, very horrendous. Ticus says things just got a little uncivil in the chat. Shout out , shout out to uncivil law. Who's here, go check out his channel, everybody. My , uh, my headphones just unplugged. So I gotta plug those puppies back in one second, says a shout out to uncivil law. Who's here, go check out his channel. Everybody shout out to uncivil. Oh yeah. And, and I , I know we still have to have that moderator conversation. We'll do that soon. We have enough other , uh, chat here from Kincaid says these cases. Hm . A gift tons of layers with a pretty ribbon in the end, a towering box that ends up being a broke fidget spinner. That was from ADE . We have a few more Nikki dragon is here, says, do you believe that the arrest over at CNN tie into this case or because Cuomo spilled the beans because CNN refused to pay out his contract. It's a good question. You know, I'm looking into that story. I may do a video on that. Uh , maybe over the weekend, but yeah, there's some interesting things. That's kind of like this domino effect is happening. Governor Cuomo, Andrew qu , uh , Andrew Cuomo, Chris Cuomo, then you have the Cuomo. I think producer, then I think Jake Tapper's producer, there's like this snowball thing happening over there at CNN, which is why Maxwell is gonna be a new anchor over there. I think she's replacing , uh , Chris, we have John Dolar says is Virginia goof for a , a supposed to be Pollyanna . Get real. She's a liar and a grifter. As far as the picture with prince Andrew, there was nothing going on. But what you want to see, it's just a nice pick. You want a big scandal? This is conspiracy land. Virginia is not a credible witness. She just sees dollar signs. There's nothing going to stop her from getting it because people want it to be true. That's from John Dolar , John Dolar , 52 is in the house. It's valid perspective, right? I , I think that there is a lot of criticism for a lot of what we heard out of this. Robert Johnson is here. <laugh> Robert, I'm coming to yours next ha tight . <laugh> Robert Johnson. Uh , let's go to Robert Johnson right now. Your next up Robert Johnson's here says if she gets 30 years or she flips Israeli president and the us president, if she gets 30 years or over, she flips Israeli president and the us president. But here's the problem with that. Robert Robert, if she gets the, that sentence, then she loses her ability to negotiate. So see, this is part of the deal she's running out of time. She's gonna be sentenced at some point. And then the sentence is what the sentence is. And so she's gotta , you know, they gotta come do a deal if she's gonna negotiate between now and the sentence, cuz if she's sentenced to 15 years and then she starts spilling the beans all over the place, unless they've worked this out before that, she's still going to be serving that 15 years. It's a good question. Not applicable says don't think Durst did stuff, but I think he knows that bill did that's from not applicable. Yeah. Look, I don't know about, about the Durst stuff. I just don't think what he, the way that he carried himself on the news was appropriate. It not applicable says you have a bunch of feds in your locals. Apparently you have a bunch of feds in there. Uh , probably Robert Johnson says, why do you have super chat when you do not answer any of mine? I think I got, oh, we have another one here. Robert Johnson. <laugh> Robert says, Robert Johnson says, great coverage. Happy you a year from Sweden. Robert it's cuz they're coming in so fast. I can't see. 'em all. I'm thankful that you're here. Shout out to Sweden. My friends over there, Robert Johnson says, why are the videos from the New York estate not shown? And I , I think, I think what you're talking about, it's a good question. But a lot of that, a lot of that stuff was redacted. Remember he had, he had , uh , images and paintings all over the wall that had big blacked out marks on him . And we didn't see much of that, but we did see the video that was recorded out of Palm beach, but you're right. We didn't any video out of New York. And I would be very curious to see that. So hopefully we got all of yours. Robert Johnson. Thank you. Sorry about the mix up there. <laugh> uh , we have another one from Ralph Peterson says with regard to LIS AI being smart or clever, the bar of intelligence per P Cassidy and critical thinking is so effing low , uh , key such kudos mean not up critical thinking is so low here. Kudos don't mean anything liberal AI is being smarter. Clever, thank you for that role . Peterson is in the house. And so Robert Johnson is here again says, so she needs to have a deal in place before or sentencing. So, so like, like the outlines of a deal, right? Because then what they could do is push sentencing back or they could , uh, you know, make it contingent on some other things happening and , and then the government, yeah, you , you could have a deferred sentence for a long period of time. And then the government could come back out and say, listen, you know, she gave us six of these people and we've got convictions out of all of these. And so as a , as a result of this, we're gonna recommend a , a , an absolute minimum sentence. You could , you could, they are separate se they are separate processes for that reason, right? She's gonna go and she's gonna be interviewed and they're gonna do a pre-sentence interview and her attorneys are gonna be there. And there's gonna be a lot of stuff that goes into this. And so the , the point here is that the government makes a recommendation. The defense makes a recommendation. You have an independent third party that sort of makes a recommendation. That's sort of supposed to be representing , uh, the court more or less or probation department. And then they all give their opinion and the judge makes the sentence, but the prosecution, right? They still have some leeway. We talk about these sentence and seeing charts, these ranges, presumptive terms, upward departures, downward, departures, deviations, all those things. A lot of that is gonna be taking place. Now this is that argument. When you take a look at the sentencing charts and, and moving things, and the , we did an I'm trying to think of the case that we went through this on, oh, Kim Potter, we looked at the, that was state court, but this is federal court, but same type of concept. We're talking about charts and analyzing where she might fall into place. And so, so yes, Robert Johnson, there needs to be some sort of a , a framework or a deal. Now, now keep in mind, right? This whole thing may not be wrapped up like before sentencing happens. She's not going to give them enough information and then go out there and be able to prosecute those people and get them convicted and it's not gonna be resolved. So my point is they , they would need at least a framework in place before the sentencing went into effect. Okay. Roll Peterson says libelous Al Dershowitz was my intent. So we can read that again with regard to libelous Al being smart or clever, the bar of intelligence perspicacity and critical thinking. So effing low here has no meaning. Thank you for that Wolf . Magna says, why would she be negotiating a deal now she's been convicted. So she has just lost any leverage she had please elucidate. So the only, the only reason she would do that is to, is to get a , a more minimal sentence, right? That's the leverage Golin Maxwell information governments asking for the maximum, if Golin is willing to give some of that up in exchange for a reduction of asking for the maximum, asking for the minimum or the absolute mitigated sentence or a departure or what , whatever, right. That's the leverage she gives up. She gets a little bit, the question is, does the government, what she has and are they willing to give her what she wants? I doubt it, but that would be the incentive structure there. Ralph Peterson says, yeah, Al Dershowitz was my intent. So thank you for those. We also have leafy bug says I would have chosen don't know for prince Andrew, but for that interview, it is a case study in how not to conduct damage control. Shes . I found DIA's denials made over the last couple years to be more compelling, but he should probably stop flapping his gums at this point. That's from leafy bug . Yeah. That interview from prince Andrew was very bad. Right? Not good at all. Ghost gunner says, I wonder what kind of interest and owner the Royal family has in the BBC. If they have any, it would make sense to bring on Alan , to smack talk the plaintiff against the prince. Andrew. Yeah. You don't know. Right? You don't know any of those things. There's a book that's on my cue . It's called the gray lady. Something, the gray it's about the New York times, the gray lady winks, the gray lady wink something that the gray lady winked . This is a story about New York times and their misreporting. Okay . And I didn't realize this, this , it is getting really good reviews. It's brand new this year. How New York times misreporting distortions and fabrications, radically alter history. And so that's kind of on the , on deck, but apparently the New York times is owned by like one family in New York, which I didn't know. And they like control the whole thing. That's the, the , the long and short of that. But yeah, big question is , is same concept in the UK who owns these places and who sets that up? I mean, they're supposed to be a reputable news organization. Kincaid says DHA it's wow, brilliant move. He uses the road, laid down by the prosecution and his prestige to defame and help his buddies, even his verbiage and his key points are masterclass, spin BS. I am not trusting, but I am impressed. That's from Kincaid. Another one from John deun says, they're saying Alan DHA , which is unethical because of the way you are framing things. Okay. So I was certainly, certainly was biased on that one. Yeah. I mean, I don't think I let my opinion hide on that one. Uh, we have another question says , uh, oh my gosh, Murphy, the BBC must have had to budget out their people or something with all that ho feedback. Imagine if they had their, if you had their budget would have a way better product. Jesus Murphy is , is what somebody said. Uh , Sergeant Bob says, if Maxwell can reduce her time in the big house significantly sure she will, but she may wait to see if she can win an appeal first. We'll not give anything if she does not have to, but ALA you covered all this and that's from Sergeant Bob. Thank you, Sergeant Bob for, for being here. Yeah. I think that, I think that you're onto something there. You know, if she can, if she can, if she can create a structure that will, I will. Uh, well, we'll see what happens. Anti kiss prime says I left out word until the link is up. Now I'll be taking the link down at midnight. So that's from Viki . If you want a copy of his book, it's called electrical concepts for everyday people. Brilliant. Electrify your life. Folks, go get the copy That's from kiss prime. And it really is an impressive book. Can't believe you wrote all of that. Honestly. It's like incredible leafy bug says the prosecutor is a funny guy, pretending not to realize that the last thing the government wants is for Maxwell to flip. I wonder what kind of deal they'd offer her, tell us all, you know, and we'll only ask the judge for another 65 life sentences on top of what you're already serving. And we'll also move you into Epstein's former cell with the Dodge GCC TV system and the sleepy guards. Great deal. That's from leafy bug . Yeah. We'll see if there's gonna be anything that comes out of it. I doubt it. VICA says, by the way, did the sound post fall out of the package or did you get it the sound post ? Oh, is this a, I think, I think this is what you're talking about. Viant kiss all so said this sent this, watching the Watchers and I think it's a sign post . So you put it on a sign and you and you and you, and you thank you for this Vient kiss . So I got a book I'm electrified and I'm identified because I have a sign post . Thanks to Vient kiss prime . Appreciate you. My brother monster one says rumor has it. That Epstein killed himself because he couldn't handle being on the BBC every day . That's for monster one, one more time. Rumor has it Epstein killed himself because he couldn't handle being on the BBC every day . Not the news channel we have Kinkaid says thank you for the explanation. I was trying , trying to be cruel . I think perhaps some of the newer tech out there needs to be utilized that's from ADE . Yeah. I see what you're saying there. Uh , PWS, M K a Z says a quote from Ronald Reagan says we must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the law breaker . It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. It's for RO , from Ronald Reagan. It's from PWS, M K a Z . Good quote, smart man . Thank you for that. We have a few more before we wrap it up for the day we've got monster. One says before the Burlington shooting, there was several 9 1, 1 calls about an active shooter. Those cops were fully expecting a man armed with a gun, completely justified shooting. Sure sucks. The girl lost her life and the family should get a nice paycheck. But this officer shouldn't be charged. We have some, we have some hot opinions still about that case. We're gonna have to revisit that one. Aren't we Sergeant Bob sent me like two other emails afterwards, addendum, addendum. <laugh> cause I love you Sergeant Bob, very thorough, very good police officer a , you know, supplemental reports is what he's filing and , and I appreciate the disclosure. Thank you for that. Sergeant monster. One says the only deal they are interested in is Trump Maxwell could try to give up everyone. And the prosecution would say they only want Trump Maxwell could say Trump never did anything. And the prosecution would say, well, you better make up something or you're gonna die in prison. <laugh> Trump or death. Pick one. I wouldn't, I wouldn't put it past SD. N Y for a minute, monster. One says anyone interested in the Jack Murphy content can go check out the quartering. Jack got the quartering suspended on Twitter. They are going hard at each other. Uh , all right . So yes, the quartering is making videos on it. That's actually a really good place to get caught up. If you wanna get caught up on the drama and it is drama folks, I mean, good Lord. It's like a slow motion train wreck happening in real time . Uh, and so , uh , proceed accordingly. Remember that there are human beings on the end of everything that we do, even on the internet, even that people are trash, they're still humans and they deserve a little bit, you know, a little bit, just a little bit, not a lot, just a little bit. Pete hill hill is here, says BBC is a taxpayer funded, British chartered public corporation. Taxpayers pay $180 per year in a tax or a fee you had to pay for that. What do we pay for ours? We pay for public PBS, but I don't know that it's actual a fee that we attach anywhere. Oh , <laugh> that sounds terrible. But we probably have that here. What do I know ? All right . My friends, I think that is it for the questions for the show for the day. Let me make sure that I got everything. I don't wanna make Robert Johnson anymore mad at me. Robert Johnson out there. I hope you're still, I hope we're still friends. And I think that's it. My friends and let's, let's take a quick look at the chat for just a few minutes over at YouTube. You know, rumble is not working, but we're gonna get that started back up here in a minute. We've got Bob Jones over there. That one that got away, sea Reed says, are you accusing me of being a human Rob ? Huh? Are you? Yeah, I am. Yeah . You specifically in particular sea Reed, we've got Glen Maxwell followed the family that is from Debbie hall. Happy new year. All from citizen. Happy new year to everybody. We need a license. We've got lean says, Rob, check this chat. I'm look , I'm looking at it. I'm looking at you. Lean . I'm reading you right now. Steve brick says, Hey Rob, nobody is going to jail. That's from Jeremy Martin. We have Vous prime saying I identify as a meat Popsicle. That was from the fifth element, which happens to be one of the best movies of all time. We have Mike Brady says a Democrat equals Amelio . Somebody Vijaya is here, says happy, New York, happy new year citizen. Happy new year to you. Also we have Mickey. Who's being here. Who's being a little punk. The one that got away. Love you. Love you back. We've got sta on the case, L M a O the Maxwell history is all a lie. Rob is annoying, but he's a tenacious defender. Well, that's, that's true. I know. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's a nice compliment. Annoying is a nice compliment. I want to be that tho finally, you know, I wanna be that I wanna be that defense lawyer that finally the prosecutor goes, all right . Yes. Here. Take it. And I'll say yes. Thank you. It's about time. Hopefully we don't have to go through this again, but if we do, I'll be back <laugh> . So , uh , shout out to the breaches mom. We've got , uh , we've got you do annoy me a lot . Yeah. That's from DFO brown. Yeah . I , I don't, I don't blame it. Somebody says Joey is greater than Rob, which is a hundred percent true. Not even offended by that. Absolutely. Right. We have , uh , 20, 22 BBC has nothing to do with the UK. <laugh> somebody's confirming for us. The BBC has , uh , is not the , the news station and the , uh, in the UK Maad calls the shots over on locals. Leafy bug says we're still chatting away over here, which is true. Jumping . Jeff says humans being humans. And so miss Danny says, Robert, didn't get my message. Where , where , where did I miss it? Miss Danny? Did I miss it on the chat? That was from two days ago. Miss Danny , did I miss it? Where is this? Oh, man. I apologize if I missed it. Well, we'll have to reconnect and get it back another time because I'm not seeing miss Danny over there, but that my friends is it for me for the day. Jeremy Madrid is over there. We've not the great art chatting jump in Jeff leafy bug. I saw miss Danny in the house, but I missed her question and we're gonna leave it there. My friend. So tomorrow it is new year's Eve and tomorrow we have a premier that's scheduled at the same time that this show goes live. And so it's going to be the why Alec Baldwin must be prosecuted. Premier scheduled for 4:00 PM Arizona time. And I think miss Danny just sent a question in here. Let's see here, RA . Uh , Raey says, yeah, we need to listen to Joey and ignore the drama. That's the lesson from Joey. Very smart, man. We have , uh , PWS, M K a Z says, can you look into the recent Alec Jones, recent lawsuit loss? Uh , yeah, I can take a look. I have not heard of that one, but I will , uh, I will look at that one. Yeah. Miss Danny says I it to say thank you for a whole year of good presentations, happy new year, by the way, I sent you a previous message, but seems you didn't get it best for the next year. If it's over on locals, I have to check those and I will do that. Miss Danny , but uh , happy new year to you. Happy new year to everybody else out there. Uh , tomorrow it's going to be a premier. So it's 56 minutes. It's a pre-recorded video. It's a present that I did on the three reasons. The three big overarching reasons why Alec Baldwin must be prosecuted. And so there is a premier that's taking place tomorrow . It will not be live, but , uh , it's gonna be a full hour. And so come by and chat around and I'll certainly be swinging by to say hello. And so that's gonna be it for the show. The first video, I think that I'm gonna publish in the new year. Well, we still have a little bit of time on that is probably gonna be an existing system video. That will be a premier that goes live on new year's day. It's it won't be live. It'll be a recorded existing system video. We did that long time ago earlier this year. And so be on the lookout for that. And then I'll just be, you know, releasing stuff sporadically in between here and there planning a lot for 2022, got a whole big vision for the future of this channel and the type of content, the type of time I'm gonna be able to invest into it. And so I'm pretty excited about it. And I wanna say thank you to everybody for being so supportive and such a , a fun part of this , uh, of this experience for me and a part of this community that we're building, doing the good work that we will continue to do God willing and with your support. And so that my friends is it for us for today. Be back here tomorrow for the Alec Baldwin must be prosecuted premier. And if I don't see , uh , before then or after then, or whenever have a tremendous beautiful, happy new year, be very safe. Make sure to Uber everywhere you go, take the law enforcement interaction training. If you want a risky, if you wanna be risky, but seriously, be very safe out there. It is a very, very busy time , uh , around the year law enforcement is out in full force. And so that will be the last of that now without anything else to say, everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. And I will see you right back here soon. Bye-bye my friends.