Biden DOJ/FBI Announce New DOMESTIC EXTREMISM UNIT at Senate Judiciary Hearing

Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen and Assistant Director Jill Sanborn release a joint statement announcing the new creation of Domestic DVE unit in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

🔹 Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen announces a new Department of Justice Unit specifically focused on Domestic Violent Extremism in the United States.
🔹 FBI Assistant Director Jill Sanborn discusses the FBI’s position on domestic violent extremism.
🔹 Senators ask questions for Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen and FBI Assistant Director Jill Sanborn.
🔹 And your questions and comments!

COMMUNITY + LIVECHAT + MINDMAP ACCESS: 
💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:
👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A

MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):
👉 https://www.mindmeister.com/?r=1185699

Channel List:
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ
✂ Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!
📌 January 2022 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.
🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ 

Connect with us:
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv
🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394
Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!

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

#WatchingtheWatchers #FBI #DOJ #DVE #DomesticExtremism

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Govea. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona. And today my friends, I'm very excited to celebrate the commemoration very first day of the new domestic war on extremism. I think it is officially the day, and I'm not even joking about that. We're gonna get into it because we had a Senate judiciary committee hearing that took place. We had two individuals who walked themselves out in front of the committee and explained what they were doing. These two individuals are attorney general assistant attorney general to mayor Garland guy by the name of Matthew G. Olson came out, talked about the DOJ, the department of justice, reorganizing and constituting, this new unit specifically for domestic extremism. It's it's in motion. They've been talking a lot about it, but it's in motion and we're gonna follow him up by FBI assistant director, Jill Sandborn, Jill Sandborn followed his testimony up to date. And she started to detail things from the, the law enforcement wing of this. So we have the government prosecutors and we have the government law enforcement, just like you might have your local prosecutors and your local law. We've got federal versions of that. And so, uh, they are rolling that out and we're actually gonna go through the memorandum that the FBI put published on their website, showing what powers they are now getting them to themselves saying that on the back of this, we are, uh, well we're, we're going to be getting more warrants and getting more access to all sorts of things. And judges are gonna be empowered to do X, Y, and Z. And so we're gonna talk about it. I mean, it's sort of the first day, and so we're gonna get used to this under this new administration. And, um, it's gonna be fun, I suppose, to be, uh, uh, of, I, I guess one of the most wanted, I guess, so we're gonna talk about that. And then we're gonna hear from some of the Republican senators, because they did ask some good questions. Even Ted Cruz asked some good questions that were very pertinent, brought up, you know, government informants. We have the assistant director of the FBI, Jill Sandborn sitting there. We better have some good questions from these guys and we did. I'm happy about it. So we've got a lot to get to, and if you wanna be a part of the show, the place to do that is over@thewatchersdotlocals.com. And I want to, uh, I wanna give a shout out to, okay, so I'm trying this new chat thing that's going on here. Is this gonna work? No, that's not gonna work. All right. So I was trying a new chat thing, but I can see everybody now. So like for example, I can say shout out to Twitch. I've got VA star over there on Twitch. Normally I can't do that, but I'm trying that out now. We've got Sheila over on YouTube coop, Suzanne. We've got Marcus Alexander's in the house over on YouTube leafy bug is there. We've got sugar britches be spec at locals. Tic is primes in the house. Jeremy MATR, three girlies is over here. And so they're all chatting away. And so if you want to be a part of the program, uh, either on locals or on YouTube, well on locals, a place to be is watching the watchers.locals.com and, uh, uh, you can see there's a form there and you can use that form. And if you use that form are very best to get to your questions. I don't think I'm gonna be able to get super chats up on the screen. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe, maybe, maybe not. I don't know. So anyways, all right. Without any further ado, let's get into the show because we've got to celebrate this horrific day, the new domestic war on extremisms coming to fruition. We're right in the thick of it. And since we're gonna be on the receiving end of, of federal suppository indefinitely, let's go ahead and meet the feds. Shall we? Here we have number one, coming into the house. We've got Matthew G. Olson, assistant attorney general. He was speaking in front of the Senate judiciary committee today, and he's going to be detailing what the prosecutors are going to do. The, the police are out there. They're gonna round up the bad guys, but once they land in the prosecutor's office, what are we gonna do with these, uh, Trumpers out there? So we're gonna have to prosecute them. The department of justice is gonna be the guy who is doing that. We also have you the, uh, assistant director, Jill Sanborn, over there at the FBI. And you can see that we've got this little perplexed look on her face. When she got asked a series of questions today, both of these people basically look like this all today. Every time there was a pertinent question about, uh, can you give us some facts or some specifics or some details? You know, we've sent you a lot of letter demanding that you give us reports and they just look like this the entire day, basically. Oh, I no idea. I didn't know. You would ask about January 6th. I had no idea. You'd ask about the summer protest. No idea, no idea, no idea, blah, blah, blah. And so of course, these are sort of the second in commands for these agencies. Matthew Olson is, you know, number two for Merick Garland over the attorney general at the department of justice, Jill Sandborn. She's kind of, you know, the Lieutenant out there for Christopher Ray, who is the director at the FBI. And so since these two people are going to be basically, you know, throwing their tentacles in all over the place, let's go ahead and meet them. Shall we Jill? Aborn she is the executive assistant director with the FBI. Not gonna read too much here, but you can see she was named that back in may. So she's a new hire in this role. She wants to defend the United States. She was previously an agent out of Phoenix, the Phoenix joint. Oh, maybe I dunno if that was in Phoenix. Yeah, it was at the Phoenix field office. So she's here or was here in Arizona, part of the CIA counter terrorism center. And so we're gonna see her now talking a lot about the domestic affairs Matthew Olson. This person was, uh, assumed office under Joe Biden was appointed in office, the director of the national counter terrorism center under president Barack Obama. So he was there for about three years, from 2011 to 2014. And we're seeing that, uh, he's, uh, political party is democratic. Three kids been a part of the national counter terrorism unit for some time over department of justice. Also, this was interesting. He joined back at 1994. He was a federal prosecutor for some time. And while he was there, he was special counsel to FBI director, Robert Mueller from 2004 to 2005. It's kind of interesting that he was under his wing. Don't know that he did anything there while, you know, under like the Mueller report or the Mueller invest, but it was sort of under the same, you know, umbrella. And so, uh, interesting thing to note out. So we're, once again, in front of the Senate judiciary committee, I've got a ton of clips today because they were just saying so many things that I want to, uh, comment on that we're going to have to do that. So let's start off with the assist attorney general. This is, uh, Mr. Olson, who is now in front of the Senate judiciary committee. And I gotta tell you folks, this was about a three. I think it was a three hour deal. The way that I process these is I, I sort of download the whole thing. I will identify what can go, that we can just not talk about. And then I, I wanna dial it down into the stuff that I think is most pertinent in to some of the issues that we talk about here. Accountability, transparency, justice, about, you know, civil liberties, about freedom from this big tyrannical government gobbling up powers and going and prosecuting everybody for everything, those types of things we want to keep and dissect the other stuff can go. And there was a lot of it. My goodness. I mean, these Senate, these hearings are just mostly garbage. They actually played a couple videos. It was like a movie day today when they came out here, they had the Democrats, they played their movie first. It was a, uh, you know, sort of a best hits for, from January 6th. And then the Republicans came out and they played their movie day. And then they played a bunch of the summer of 2020, the summer of love, all of their greatest hits. And it was like this back and forth with these two, two people who are, you know, just, just barely functional putting movies on for America to watch. So I cut all that garbage out and then we get into some actual testimony from the people who are actually setting policy. And it is almost hysterical to watch this because these FBI agents and the people who are testifying, these department of justice, people, they are marginally competent actually. But a lot of these senators are just not. And so when they're having an interface, when they're trying to talk, you can see, they're just sort of talking at odds. One is having a political conversation. The other side wants to implement their horrific policies without really much, uh, you know, micro scoping happening there. And so it's two people just kind of talking at cross at cross purposes. It's very strange. So let's get started here with Mr. Olson. Now he's gonna sort of introduce himself, uh, into the committee. Please

Speaker 2: 8:48

Raise your right hand. Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but so help you?

Speaker 1: 8:56

I, you darn. I do

Speaker 2: 8:59

Let the record reflect that both witnesses have answered in the affirmative and we will turn first to Mr. Olson, please proceed.

Speaker 3: 9:07

Thank you. Chairman ly members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity, uh, to testify today, to work with the department of justice, the threat posed by domestic terrorism is on the ride. The number of FBI investigations change the camera over the past two years since March, 2020. Okay. Listen more than double.

Speaker 1: 9:29

Okay. He said investigations at the FBI double. Now the audio is bad. It gets a little bit better cuz they get their act together. The, but this was the guy from the DOJ. Okay. Now what is he saying? He's saying this is, you know, attorney general. He's saying that the FBI investigations have doubled the investigations have doubled. And so the first question that I had, of course, well obviously when you are sort of creating the stories and you have a mandate to go out and create more stories. Yeah. They're gonna double because you're an investigating these things and, and, and like, this is not a joke. This is not hyperbole. Okay. We've talked about this here on this channel. I made an entire video about Whitmer and the Whitmer plot and all of the things that the FBI agents did in that case to essentially concoct the entire plot. I mean, it was almost a one to one agent to alleged perpetrator ratio. It was insane. And they 50,000 bucks to this informant and they were like encouraging him to, to not when, when people would rebut the demands that they go and do something heinous, he would, you know, really encourage them. So it crossed the line in many different ways. So he comes out and he uses this language. The investigations have doubled well, it's great. But I mean, what, so what, they're pretty bad because it sounds like you are setting up some of these entrapment schemes and then prosecuting people as a result of it. So if you're creating the investigations, it's very easy for you to puff up your own numbers and then come out here and declare that a victory. All right. So then he says that DVE are now a tremendous threat. Okay. Now we've spent a lot of time on this channel talking about this. What does DVE mean? And we've been seeing all of these different, uh, asterisk, VA, whatever it is, homegrown VA, racial VA, uh, you know, religious VAs, violent Extrem, all of them. And then we got domestic violent extremism. Oh, that's the one that's gonna be the big umbrella under which you've got all the racist. You know, you got the, the white guys, the anti-government guys you've got, uh, anybody who opposes, you know, any, you know, uh, COVID lockdown orders. You know, all of those people, you just identify them. You put'em all under the domestic umbrella, label them violent, right? I, if they are violent, that's your limiting principle here. Otherwise you just sort of put'em under that as we're going to see they do here he is.

Speaker 3: 11:40

We continue to methodically gather and review the evidence and we will follow the facts wherever they lead the attacks in recent years, underscore the threat that domestic terrorism continues to pose to our citizens, to law enforcement officers, to public officials and to our democratic institutions, based on the assessment of the intelligence community. We face an elevated threat from domestic violent extremists,

Speaker 1: 12:10

Elevated threat from domestic violent extremists. Okay. So, um, H how are we gonna define this? Can you define it for us? What, what are you gonna do with this data? He says that, you know, it is, it is sort of, uh, you know, hard to define some of this stuff, but it is gonna give us some additional powers. Let's hear what those are. Well,

Speaker 3: 12:28

There is no single federal crime that's labeled domestic terrorism because criminal code does define domestic terrorism. And this definition provides us with expanded authorities, including, did you hear that sentencing for terrorism offenses? Okay.

Speaker 1: 12:44

Did you hear what he just said here? Okay. There let's listen to that again. There is, there is no criminal charge for domestic terrorism, but it is defined as domestic terrorism. So you can't be charged with domestic terrorism, but he's saying that there's a different section under the law. That there's a definition of what it is. And he, he listened to him. He said it, this gives us expanded powers. We are interpreting the existing law under existing definitions to have expanded powers, including with sentencing. I don't wanna gloss over this cuz he said, he said it let's listen one more time

Speaker 3: 13:22

While there is no single federal crime that's labeled domestic terrorism. The criminal code does define domestic terrorism. And this definition provides us with expanded authorities, including enhanced sentencing for terrorism, offenses,

Speaker 1: 13:39

Expanded powers and enhanced sentences like that. Just like the stroke of a pen, why they came out and they said it, they just announced it today. And then we're gonna have a bunch of dumb senators over at the Republicans who do do, do you know about whatever, what a ridiculous thing here. He says, we're seeing an increased threat. We

Speaker 3: 13:59

Continue to methodically gather and review the evidence and we will follow the facts wherever they read the attacks. In recent years, underscore the threat that domestic terrorism continues to pose to our citizens, to law enforcement officer, to public officials and to our democratic institutions based on the assessment of the intelligence. I think we saw that one that is individuals in the United States who seek to commit violent criminal acts. Okay. In furtherance of domestic social or political goals, domestic violence extremists are often motivated mix of ideologies and personal grievances. We've seen a growing threat from those who are motivated by racial animus, as well as those who ascribe to extremist anti-government and anti-authority ideologies. You hear that

Speaker 1: 14:52

The racists and the anti governments kind of the two people who are the biggest problems here, it's all those racists out there. And anybody who is sort of upset that the government, I don't know, robbed you of your civil liberties has stolen. Maybe two years away from your kids. With this school. Debacle has prevented you from starting a new business or from traveling, spending time with your loved ones. Anybody who's upset about that, who says that, that what the government has done over the last two years has been horrific and monstrous is I guess anti-government. I mean, you can throw me in that bucket happily, I'll say it all day. But apparently now that puts you under that umbrella, this, this, uh, this, this anti-government sentiment, you have to kind of be what kind of person doesn't have anti-government sentiment at this point. Is there anybody left? I mean, even the people I know that were doing cartwheels when Joe Biden got elected are like, this is pretty bad. This is not looking good. There's no tests. Anywhere. Schools are still in disarray. What have, what have we done? It's basically what everybody is. Think as far as I can tell, maybe things are differently where you're from, but I, a lot of people have buyers remorse and the poll numbers show it. So I think that everybody is recognizing pretty, you know, pretty consistently that the go government has botched this thing pretty badly. So, uh, now if you think that way, you're, you've got one of those in Deia, domestic violent extremism ind up. And if you happen to be a white guy on top of it, Ooh, big problems. So let's see what else he has to say. What are they going to do about this now that they've been seeing this increase. Now that they've defined it for us now that we know it's the racist and the anti-government people, what are they gonna do here? Because we've got, you know, let's think about this. We've already got an entire department justice. We've already got the FBI, which failed massively on January 6th. Along with the DOJ, we can see that, uh, we've got, uh, offices all over the place. Capitol hill police are setting up, shop all over the place. We've got 50 different states with their own massive, you know, law enforcement bureaucracies there. We have this country law enforcement up. I mean, my goodness here, we've got cops everywhere, but do we have anybody to deal with domestic issues? I don't know. We probably could use another one though.

Speaker 3: 17:07

In addition, I've decided to establish a domestic terrorism unit to augment our existing approach. Yeah. Good. This group of dedicated attorneys will focus on the domestic terrorism threat, helping to ensure that these cases are handled properly and effectively coordinated across the department of justice and across the country.

Speaker 1: 17:28

Did you hear what he said? A new domestic terror unit to help support their current efforts because they don't have enough of them. They don't have enough billions of dollars. They could probably use a little bit more. L Lindsay Graham is, we're gonna hear it a little bit. E even gives them that offer, but he's gonna create a new domestic terror unit. One more time. Here he is. In addition,

Speaker 3: 17:50

I've decided to establish a domestic terrorism unit to augment our existing approach. This group of dedicated attorneys will focus on the domestic terrorism threat, helping to ensure that these cases are handled properly and effectively coordinated across the department of justice across the country.

Speaker 1: 18:10

Hmm. I have decided I'm gonna be creating this a new domestic terror unit that coordinates everything. Okay. Now that's just, he's announcing it. We're gonna go through what he says. This thing does, what powers he gets, but he announced it today. And you're gonna hear from our Congress people, they're just gonna gloss over for this. Right? And everybody's talking about who knows what else is going on in the news today? But this is like the day. And I think it's symbolic, right? One 11 kind of a nine 11 thing. There's some symmetry there. It's a few short days after January 6th. They're rolling this out. We've got a new domestic terror program. Like it's it's here. He just sent it. I am a, now the formation of boom. So what else,

Speaker 3: 18:52

If the attorney general has observed combating the threat of domestic terrorism has been a core mission for the department of justice since its founding more than 150 years ago, when the newly formed department pursued the KKK to protect the rights of black Americans under the constitution today, investigating and prosecuting domestic violent extremists is one of our top

Speaker 1: 19:16

Priorities, top priority, top priority. And, uh, David Moton sent in a super chat, says, this is now a domestic terrorist channel. W Y B I don't know what w Y B means, but I, I think it is. I mean, I don't, I didn't want it to be I'm joking. We're not that that's not official. Okay. But I mean, I think, I think that's what he's saying. Pretty sure. Cause I'm a defense attorney. I mean, I'm kind of, anti-government in my bones.<laugh> what, like my, I have a whole company built around being anti-government I've got a pretty anti-government sentiment going on coring through these veins. Okay. It's strong, but I guess, uh, that's a problem under this new administration. Now here is where he's, uh, we we've talked about this point many times here, uh, about how proud they are, you know, the DOJ, the FBI, they've got, you know, uh, field offices and all 50 states plus the terror they've got, uh, everybody, I mean, they've got billions of dollars, trillions of dollars over the years. They've got a lot of resources here and he's very proud that they were able to conduct like 700 arrests. Here. He is.

Speaker 3: 20:25

Last week, we marked the one year anniversary. Congratulations attack on the capital on January 6th. Well done in the wake of that attack, the department of John has undertaken an, an effort unprecedented really in its scope and complexity to hold accountable. All of those who engage in criminal act unprecedented as the crim, as the attorney general, uh, testified or discussed last week, we have arrest arrested and charged more than 725 individuals wow. With their roles, uh, in that attack, including more than 325 defendants charged with

Speaker 1: 20:58

Felonies 325. Okay. So we gotta, we gotta just rip on this for a quick minute. So, uh, a couple things we have to put a pin in. All right. He had those numbers down, pretty pat. He said we had 700 and something arrests 300 and something of which were felonies. Okay.<laugh> so two things, he had those numbers pretty well. Now, uh, Ted Cruz later on in the show is gonna ask about these numbers. We're gonna hear Lindsay Graham and Mike Lee ask about these numbers and then suddenly they're not gonna have any numbers. I mean, they have'em here. They're very proud of these cases, you know, 700, uh, se 700 total cases, 300 of which are misdemeanors. I mean, it's like, it's like, it's like a joke. Uh, it, it is honestly a joke. So I showed you previously, for those of you who don't watch regularly, we've gone through this, your local police department, very likely, uh, uh, conducts about, you know, 700 arrests a month. The city of Scottsdale, I show you their court docket, they've got about 700 arrests and they probably have about the same split about, about, you know, 300 of the 700 go over to the, to the Maricopa county superior court, the other 400 in the local city court. And they do that every month, 700 a month, a month, a month. These people have camera footage from the most secure building in the entire world. Supposedly if they were marginally competent, which they aren't. And they, they pat themselves on the back after one full year of prosecution and it's not even 700 felonies. Okay. It's 300 felonies<laugh> you could get, you could get a single, I bet. I bet you could talk to a public defender or who I absolutely love who would say, yeah, I could handle 300 cases. I could handle 300 cases. Uh, probably single handedly if, if it were that, if it were that, I'm sorry. Let me say that differently. Not 700 cases, right? A public Def no public defender could take 700 cases, but I'm saying you could, you could probably take a bucket of those and split those up between public defenders. You could probably split up maybe that into 10 buckets, 700 cases. So you'd have 80 different cases per public, per, per public defender. I just can't even believe it. I can't even, and, and it's like, it's like, they're doing victory laps. It's just shocking. Okay. Here. He says, he is not gonna prosecute anybody for their beliefs. If you believe

Speaker 3: 23:46

It. All of our efforts to combat domestic terrorism, the justice department is bound by our commitment to protecting civil liberties and our duty to ensure equal and impartial justice. We prosecute individuals for engaging in violent behavior, not for their beliefs or Associa.

Speaker 1: 24:07

Does anybody believe that for a minute at all? I don't believe that we're not gonna prosecute anybody for their beliefs. I don't believe it for a minute. Okay. So enough of Mr. Olson, let's go to the January 6th speech that comes out of Jill Sanborn's. Now she is the F Jill Sanborn is the ex assistant executive director over at the FBI. She's in front of the Senate judiciary committee again here today. Here's how she starts her testimony.

Speaker 4: 24:40

Good morning, chairman Durbin, ranking member, Grassly, and distinguished members of the committee.<affirmative> I am honored to be here with you today, representing the men and women of the FBI. I always enjoy being back in front of the Senate, where I began my career in public service as a Senate page many years ago. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you to discuss the current domestic threat landscape.

Speaker 1: 25:04

Tell us all right, so she's here. She knows how you know, horrible. This was and

Speaker 4: 25:10

Our efforts to advance our domestic charism program since January 6th, 2021. In that vein, I would be Remis to not discuss the January 6th attack this morning. I know many of you are present in the us capital and experience the events of that day. First hand, the FBI's investigation of the attack on the capital began immediately and continues to this day.

Speaker 1: 25:36

All right, so that's Jill Sandborn now. So her, her speech was actually a lot smaller than Mr. Olson's speech, but of course, she's gonna come out and, uh, you know, give buddy a little bit of love on the January 6th stuff. They were all there. You're all, you know, extremely, uh, appreciated and were sorry for the horrific things that happened here is where she's telling us what their number one priority is at the FBI, preventing attacks. Domestic extremism is now gonna be a part of that effort.

Speaker 4: 26:11

It goes without saying that the threat posed by domestic violent extremists is persistent and evolving, but this does not mean we have forgotten about the threat from foreign terrorist organizations, such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda today. The United States faces a complex threat landscape driven, a broad set of violent extremist ideologies. As you are aware, preventing all acts of terrorism is the FBI's number one priority.

Speaker 1: 26:39

All right? So you can see that she's flushing out the umbrella, right? Preventing attacks, number one priority. Nobody would argue with her there. She's gonna preface this by saying that we're not gonna step on any first amendment activities. We're not going to cross any constitutional lines, even though we've talked many times about what the, what they've already done. I mean, it's documented here. She is now telling us that they're gonna gonna be very, very good. Look. We are granting ourselves a bunch of power. Okay. That's what her friend, Matthew Olson just said over there at the DOJ. I have decided that I am forming a new domestic terror unit to go out and do whatever the hell I want it to. And she comes back out and says, yeah, but we're gonna use this very responsibly that we're interpreting the law differently. Now that I'm a prosecutor that has discretion to go and investigate and prosecute cases that I want. We're going to be very responsible with this thing. We're not gonna do what you've already seen us do, whether it's against Donald Trump or whether it's against Whitmer or whether it's against any of these other January 6th efforts that we've been seeing from the feds

Speaker 4: 27:51

In describing the domestic terrorism threat landscape. We intentionally use words, violent extremism, because the underlying political or social positions and the advocacy of such beliefs, no matter how vile are not in and of them selves prohibited by us law, it is important to remember the FBI cannot and will not open an investigation based solely on first amendment

Speaker 1: 28:15

Protected. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Does anybody believe that? Okay. So why, why then what are there so many people from the summer of love back in 2020 that didn't get that same. Didn't didn't get that same microscope. These people were still around back then. The agency hasn't shifted all that much. Here's what she says. The biggest threat. Now that I've communicated to you, that we're gonna be responsible about all of this. And we've been very clear about what this threat looks like. Let's talk about these DVE

Speaker 4: 28:48

And the greatest terrorism threat facing the United States today remains that posed by loan actors or small cells who typically radicalize online and look to use easily accessible weapons to attack soft targets. This includes both includes homegrown violent extremists inspired primarily by foreign terrorist, organiz as well as domestic violent extremism,

Speaker 1: 29:11

Domestic violent extremism. And if you start that clip right at the beginning, she says the biggest right, the biggest issue and

Speaker 4: 29:17

The greatest terrorism threat facing the United States today, greatest terrorism threat that goes by loan actors or small cells who typically radicalize online and look to use easily as accessible weapons to attack soft targets. This includes both homegrown, violent extremists inspired primarily by foreign terrorist organizations, as well as domestic violent extremism,

Speaker 1: 29:41

The greatest, right? She said the greatest. We played that twice. The greatest threat. So not ISIS, not anything else. It is the greatest threat is home at home equal to terror. She says, this is also equal. Basically. I want, you know, what I think is so problematic about this is the conflation of the language we're starting to see now, I, I think this is intentional. I've said as, as much for a long time here, all of these different labels are muddying. The waters. They're making something that used to be black and white, not black and white anymore. In the United States. We used to say, we're here in the United States, the ster overseas, they're the bad guys over in Afghanistan. And so what took place over there was sort of outside the realm of our consciousness as a nation, really, right. We had people upset about what was going on with Guantanamo or whatever, but nothing happened, right? Not enough fervor from America to, to change anything. I mean, Obama got in there, nothing really changed. So we see this language now continually sort of get watered down. It used to be, you know, the terrorists were overseas now it's kind of coming here a little bit and it didn't just wake up overnight where we just said, we've got a bunch of domestic terrorists here. It started off very small and smoothly. We've got a bunch of homegrown extremists and then we've got, uh, religious, violent extremists. And then we've got, you know, the, the, uh, the, the racially motivated extremist attacks. And we've got all these different conflated words, all these different labels that are being misapplied and reapplied. And we don't really know what it is until they come out and they start throwing out this, this new terror word, right? The greatest terror threat that we face is now from domestic violent extremists. And now we're gonna see that the same enforcement mechanisms, the reasons why this is problematic is because it's reframing the narrative, right? It's we're not talking about domestic policing anymore. It's somebody is out there burning buildings down. We've got crimes for that. It's called arson, right? We've got criminal charges for those things, but this is creating a new layer, another layer on there. And it's sort of trying to impose new mechanisms of governance and enforcement by conflating foreign terror, to domestic terrorism, I'm of the mindset that what we're going to see, I would estimate that we see some of the same tools that they use in that war domestically. That's why this is happening. She's going to do that right here. She's essentially in this statement gonna be equating these domestic violent extremists to terror, to terrorism, and as an FBI agent, they use certain tools to go after the terrorists. And if it's the same thing, well, then maybe they're gonna use the same tools here at home. Additionally, as we

Speaker 4: 32:39

Head into 2022, we assess racially or ethnically motivated, violent extremists and anti-government, or anti-authority violent extremists will continue to pose the most serious threats. And as such most serious FBI has prioritized anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism to be commensurate with the threat posed by homegrown, violent extremism, ISIS and racially, or ethnically motivated, violent extremism. Did you

Speaker 1: 33:06

Hear what she said? These homegrown threats what's happening here is commensurate with ISIS. Okay. We have spent trillions of dollars in the global war on terror. We have allocated resources as far as I can guess. Right? As far as anybody knows, I would guess trillions on the global war of terror over the last 25 years, got nothing for it. As far as I know now, maybe there's a Jack Bower running around saving America at every turn. I doubt it based on what the level of competency that we have seen from the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. This is a pivot where those, this is a reallocation, those resources, the eyeballs were looking overseas. She said, this is commensurate. This is equal to other terror or threats, right. ISIS. And what have you one more time here she is.

Speaker 4: 34:05

Additionally, as we head into 2022, we assess racially or ethnically motivated, violent extremists and anti-government, or anti-authority violent extremists will continue to pose the most serious threats. And as such, the FBI has prioritized anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism to be commensurate with the threat posed by homegrown, violent extremism, ISIS and racially, or ethnically motivated, violent extremism.

Speaker 1: 34:33

There it is equal to terror. And we know what that global war on terror looked like. We know exactly how much effort they put into that thing. Are you, we excited for that to come home? I'm not. So she gives us a briefly, a little bit of a breakdown. I see that Catherine B. Blair, Catherine bla in a super chat says what exactly qualifies as domestic terrorist ideology. It's a good question. Catherine. Probably people who ask questions like that, are you challenging authority? Are you a terrorist, Katherine?<laugh> I don't know what it is. I think it's anybody. Right? The real thing was sort of anti-government sentiment. People who were upset about lockdown orders and things. People who were upset about the government response to COVID. This is the problem. You nailed it exactly on the head. The question is who is defining these terms? And if the terms are, are messy, if they, if they're poorly defined, they can mean whatever you want to mean, which is exactly what they're doing. We had another one from Patricia Molina, says the KKK took my baby away. They took her from that's from the Ramones, the DOJ aren't doing nada.<laugh> I don't know. Is that a real song? I don't know if that's really from the Ramones, but, but to Catherine's question, you can see here, the, this is the FBI divides the domestic. This is how she's explaining it. The FBI divides them into five groups.

Speaker 4: 35:51

The FBI divides the domestic terrorism threat into five broad categories today, based on the topic of this hearing, I am confining my remarks to the two most prevalent categories, racially or ethnically motivated, violent extremism in anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism. When evaluating the current domestic charism threat, we assess that racially or ethnically motivated, violent extremists advocating for the superiority of the white race, race, whites anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, specifically militia, violent extremists present the most lethal threat

Speaker 1: 36:29

Anti-government militia. Okay. So the white guys and the anti-government guys. So, uh, and I guess gals too in there probably, but I would suspect that, um, there<laugh>, I don't know. I don't, I mean, hopefully there's there's women in those groups cuz you know, all right. So that's what they've got now. Also she's saying that people who were upset about this last election, you're also part of the problem. Wrecking America,

Speaker 4: 36:57

Many domestic bound, extreme miss, also plotted to conduct attack due to personalized grievances, including anger at government responses to COVID 19 immigration policies and perceived election fraud

Speaker 1: 37:09

Perceived election fraud.<laugh> did you, did she have attitude here? Did she have attitude? One more time here it

Speaker 4: 37:15

Is many domestic violent extremists, also plotted to conduct attack of personalized grievances, including anger at government responses to COVID 19 immigration policies and perceived election fraud

Speaker 1: 37:29

Perceived election fraud out there. You Trump idiots<laugh> so you can see folk. Look, if you, if look, if you take an issue, she said immigration, if you're upset with immigration policies, you might be a terrorist. If you're upset with the election, you might be a terrorist. If you're upset with any of these COVID policies, you probably are a terrorist and you are now under scrutiny of the new FBI, but don't worry. Folks rights are sacred. They're not gonna prosecute you. The

Speaker 4: 37:56

FBI holds sacred the rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their first amendment freedoms, but make no mistake when protected free speech turns into criminal threats or action, the FBI will actively pursue the individuals behind them in the fight against domestic violent extremists. As with all of our other threats, the FBI is grateful for the support and assistance of all of our partners, including this committee. Thank you for, and by me today to be a part of this important discussion.

Speaker 1: 38:24

Thank you, miss. All right. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jill Sandborn, FBI. It's not a joke. This is a real thing. This is what their memo says at the FBI. They updated this memo. They say, listen, this is how we're interpreting the new law 18 us code 23 31 5 exists law hasn't changed. They're just changing what it means. They say it covered was activities that involve acts dangerous to human life. That appear to be intended. Now see, this is the definition. This is the definition of domestic terrorism. It's not a crime, but it defines it. So according to them, this is how they're breaking this down. I intimidate or co or a civilian population. So what does that, I don't know. What does I intimidate mean? What does coerced mean? I don't know. What does influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion mean? What does influence mean? I don't know how about to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction. We kind of know what those are, assassination and kidnapping, but what are, what these words are pretty gray aren't they intimidate influence and it has to occur within the United States. So involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws. So it, I mean, look, I mean, that's very broad, right? So let's see if you had to, uh, check this off in order to be convicted of a crime or, or to be prosecuted. What the justice department is doing is they're taking this definition, which is not a crime and they're trying to turn it into a crime and create these different elements. And so if you check the elements, maybe they'll go ahead and prosecute you. So let's say, let let's say that things that involve acts dangerous to human life. So I would say involve acts pretty broad, right? Does that mean that it has to actually be an act that is currently actually dangerous or could it just involve an act that is dangerous? Does it actually act to demonstrate dangerousness or could it just be involved? I don't know. And appear to be intended, appear to be intended to who, who gets to decide what I, what appear means and what does intimidation mean? Right. Somebody might say, if you, if you walk into a store without your mask on that, you're intimidating them. So what, what the hell does that mean? Right. Very, very broad. So this is the new law that they have created out of thin air that they're going to be enforcing at the department of justice and the FBI. Uh, they give us some more guidance about the power that this now affords them. Let's see where this says, this is on the FBI's website. So go look this up. fbi.gov/news/testimony, the domestic terrorism threat. So here's what it says. Now, now that we've defined this new rule, here's what we've got. It says where incorporated into other authorities. The definition provides us with an array of expanded investigative tools and sentencing enhancements in domestic terrorism matters. So they're gonna take this gigantic broad definition. That is a definition, not an actual law. And they're gonna say this, that we now an array of expanded tools. Are you happy about that? Let's see what some of these tools are. Uh, here. They just gave themselves judges can issue nationwide search warrants in cases involving this type just as they're authorized to do so in international cases. Oh, so the same international tools are now coming home. Been saying that for a long time, here it is on this day. One 11. Typically judges can only issue warrants pertaining to their districts, but not anymore. This expanded authority reduces delays and the burdens on investigations with regional or national scope. Hope the FBI can't be burdened with all this work. It's a lot, uh, judges now under this new interpretation, uh, may grant orders. They say giving investigators greater access to certain educational and taxpayer records in domestic and international terrorism investigations. So domestic. So taxpayer records, educational records. Judges can just sign off on those now. Oh yeah, you need those, uh, tax records. Here you go. Investigative and law enforcement officers have additional authority to share intercepted communications and derivative evidence with appropriate local officials and federal officials as well when disclosing information is revealing a threat. So they can just now, uh, intercept your phone calls. They'll just go ahead and do that. Not a big deal. Government attorneys also have additional authority to share grand jury matter, including when appropriate federal state, local officials. So they're gonna be disclosing that stuff. Now, some statutes, particularly ones relating to conduct that impedes our investigations. Excuse me. I would need to read that one. Let says it says here, in addition, the federal criminal code, so they're gonna change some other rules. The federal criminal code contains a definition of federal crime of terrorism to mean F fence. That is quote is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion or to retaliate against government conduct and violates one of the enumerated statutes. Prohibiting that definition includes both domestic and international terrorism and it provides enhanced authority with respect to investigation, detention and sentencing. They're just giving themselves more powers. Day by day. Congress has extended the statute of limitations. They've created a rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention for offenses of terrorism. So they're gonna be able to hold people pretrial, right? Just hold you indefinitely. Saw some of that taking place with the J six cases. Any act that is indictable under the law, gives them some more powers for racketeering under the Rico act. We've got the sentencing guidelines provide sentencing enhancements. So if you are convicted, you're gonna go to jail for a lot longer upward departure, upward departure. So sort of aggravating the penalty will go up. Congress is also authorized lifetime supervised release for other types of, of offenses. So this is on their, their website, DOJ interpreting existing rules saying as government prosecutors, we're now gonna modify

Speaker 5: 44:59

Our policies. We're gonna sort of adjust our discretion and interpret things differently. And we're gonna be working in conjunction with the FBI to now engage in full force as a matter of and documented policy, this new war on domestic extremism. And so while all this is rolling out, we have some senators in Congress, of course, who get to ask some questions of these people. Let's see what they have to say here. ISO Senator Lindsey Graham. Thank you. Uh, do you have the resource is the people and money you need to protect the nation? Uh I'll

Speaker 3: 45:39

Thank you, Senator. I, we do at, at, from my a vantage point in, in the national security division, we are, we have resources to, to, to carry out our priority missions. Um, obviously January six is a singular event that as stretching the resources of, of our office and the us attorney's office in DC, which is handling that case, there are number of people have been detailed around the country to support

Speaker 5: 46:01

That process. Do you need, do you need more money? Uh, any changes in the law to do your job

Speaker 3: 46:07

At this stage? I, I don't have any requests for more money or more authority center. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker 1: 46:14

Great. That's our Republican leader. That's our, those are our Republican congressmen out there. They just said they're rolling out domestic surveillance and terrorism. They're coming for the people, man. Do you need any more money for that? Says Lindsay,<laugh> good. Where do I, can I cut you a check for that here? How much do you need? Just let me know. So he goes after him a little bit now to be fair, to clean, uh, the vice yeah, he says, Hey, you know, Kalo was out couple days ago. She gave us some pretty important dates, kind of equated that whole Pearl Harbor thing to this January 6th thing. What do you think about that? Um,

Speaker 5: 47:01

Uh, the vice president, uh, equated January 6th with Pearl Harbor and nine 11. Do you agree with that?

Speaker 3: 47:11

I, I, in my view and, and if I may just begin by saying, I, I, it with Senator Durban and ranking, uh, member of Grassley, that was a, a day that must have been horrific to be directly involved in or be victimized on Capitol hill. And, and I do think it was a singular event. I I'm, I'm reluctant to compare it to any prior events in, in our history, because from my vantage point, it was unique and singular. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 47:34

Okay. So it's a good question. It's a fun question. We all like to see it. We all like to see him squirm a little bit, but what the heck does it have to do with them? Rolling out this new domestic war on extremism? What, uh, all right, so here he goes. One more time. Now this is a good issue. This is a good question. This is where we start to warm up a little bit. He's asking specifically, look, the DOJ brother you've been over there for a long time. You've also been somebody who was part of the national counter intelligence, terrorism unit. You've been very, very involved in this. We already read through your bio earlier in the show today. Why wasn't there any interest from you and your people in Portland?

Speaker 5: 48:10

So, uh, the, the courthouse in Portland was attacked a hundred nights in a row. Would you consider those people, a candidate for domestic terrorism charges?

Speaker 3: 48:24

I know that hundreds of people have been arrested as we've discussed this morning. I don't have any information about whether or not in any a particular case. Um, they would be, you know, subject to,

Speaker 5: 48:33

Well, Senator Herrano said that people use violence to, for whatever purpose, uh, to attack a courthouse for a hundred nights in a row. How many people have been charged with, uh, the Portland incident? Do you know?

Speaker 3: 48:47

I, I, I, and I, I defer to Ms. Sam had that on the number Ms. Sandborn. I don't

Speaker 5: 48:53

Have the number. Do you know Ms. Sandborn?

Speaker 4: 48:56

Uh I'm no, sir. I don't have Portland specifically in front of me. I would, uh, what I was referring to is 250 arrests over

Speaker 5: 49:03

The whole summer. Well, here's my point. Um, January 6th was a bad day. It was a terrible day. And people being prosecuting, I would encourage, uh, had the full force and weight of law against those who to file the capital. But these protests went on for a year. As you can see this photo behind me, they were literally throwing Molet off cocktails, trying to kill police officers. And I didn't hear a whole lot from my colleagues on the other side for an entire year. I guess that's gets me more than anything else. Uh, I understand the scope of January 6th and I hope people are brought to justice, but this is, you know,

Speaker 1: 49:39

Yeah, but your FBI and your DOJ, you're coming out here now, and you're saying, this is now a very big, big, big, big, big problem. And we gotta make all these changes and we gotta, you know, make these new definitions under the law that expand your powers to go after or whomever you want. Why is this now a problem? And why are you identifying these two groups? When all of America saw something very differently on the TV screens for about three months last year, two years ago, right? We saw this, it doesn't compute, but they don't have any numbers on the other stuff. And so we switch gears, we go over to Mike Lee, he's from Utah. Mike Lee asks him about this same question that we've asked ourselves previously. We looked it up here. Anybody been charged with insurrection or terrorism or any of these offenses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaker 5: 50:25

Thanks Senator, Senator Lee,

Speaker 6: 50:27

Mr. Olson. Uh, I'd like to clarify, um, has anyone been charged with the crime of insurrection following January 6th

Speaker 1: 50:40

Long pause.

Speaker 3: 50:42

Hey, I am not aware that anyone has been charged with that particular offense, even if it is a, an offense. I, I just am not aware of that. And again, I don't, I, it would be inappropriate for me to speak with about any particular investigation at this point, but I'm not aware of anyone being charged with that offense.

Speaker 6: 50:58

Yeah. Yeah. I I'm not either. I've just heard it, heard that word used several times today. And to my knowledge, nobody's been charged with that. They've been charged with other things, not that one. Uh, um,

Speaker 1: 51:08

Yeah, so stop labeling it that way. Right? Every, every single Democrat today was like, oh, insurrection, insurrection, insurrection. You knower almost fell down that day. And, uh, clearly nobody's even been charged. Nobody's even been charged with terrorism. I mean, even under this new definition, would they charge anybody with this or invest anybody? I don't know, but they certainly are changing the definitions as we can seat. So we saw earlier that they had a lot of the numbers, uh, on J six, we learned that they had 700 prosecutions, 300 of which were actually felonies, which means 400 of those were misdemeanors, which is laughable for an entire us department of justice, laughable, to be proud of that. But whatever. So here, they're now talking about Portland saying, Hey, were you as a, uh, as aggressive, you know, you've been playing wheres Waldo for a, at least a year now. So did you do that for Portland when they were attacking that courthouse? Did you do that in Minneapolis when they burnt down the third precinct? Huh.

Speaker 6: 52:03

So first I'd like to note, did federal law enforcement utilize geolocation date from cell phones to track protestors associated with the unrest in the spring, in summer of 20, 20

Speaker 1: 52:18

Long pause

Speaker 3: 52:22

Senator, if that question's directed to me, I don't have any information about, about that question. Uh, that could be responsive.

Speaker 6: 52:29

I'd be happy to receive the answer from either one of you ma'am. Do you have any,

Speaker 4: 52:36

Uh, sir, without going into specifics on a specific case, I would just say that we, um, do often use geolocation data in the course of our investigations as a result of legal process that we would serve.

Speaker 6: 52:48

No, I, I understand that you do. I I'm asking whether you did so in connection with the riots that occurred in the spring and summer of 2020. And, and if so, how many times, and for which locations in riots and, and what about January 6th? I'd like to, to know the number of times and, and locations.

Speaker 4: 53:09

Yes, sir. I don't have that in front of me, but happy to, uh, take that back. Um, I wasn't aware of your questions until today. I'm happy to take your question and try to see what we can do to be responsive. Ooh,

Speaker 6: 53:19

Ooh, no.

Speaker 1: 53:21

Okay. So he let her go on that, you know, it'd be hard to not let her to, to, to do that actually, because they did send them questions. They sent them a whole big fat list of questions. Pretty sure we read them here on the show. And so we know exactly what they want. They know what the Republicans want. And Ted Cruz is gonna call'em out about it. Here is where he does that. He says, and, and they may have been setting this up kind of the one, two thing, you know, oh, set her up and get her to say that she doesn't know, or didn't didn't know that we were expecting those questions. I'll come back in and then do the backhand with the letter that we sent previously. Here it is.

Speaker 7: 53:56

Thank you, Senator Ru all Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olson, how many people have been charged with crimes of violent and connection with the events on January 6th,

Speaker 3: 54:11

Senator? I'm not sure exactly how many, uh, have been charged with crimes of violence. I know that there are

Speaker 7: 54:15

Many, how many have been charged with nonviolent crimes?

Speaker 3: 54:19

I don't have the numbers of people charged whether at the state or federal level. I know that

Speaker 7: 54:24

There are how many people are currently incarcerated concerning the events of January 6th.

Speaker 3: 54:30

I don't know the number of people incarcerated again. I

Speaker 7: 54:32

Know that I, how many, okay, let me ask you that. Look with limited time. So I don't want you to filibuster. You either know the answer. You don't, how many people have been placed in solitary confinement concerning the events of January 6th.

Speaker 3: 54:45

I don't have any information about that. Senator,

Speaker 7: 54:47

You know, Mr. Olson, I will say it was sad. Senator Lee just asked you about this back in June of 2021, Senator Lee and I, and two other senators sent a letter to the department of justice asking these questions, asking about the differential prosecutions. Let me ask you. During 2020 black lives matter in Antifa riots all across the country, there were over 700 police officers injured by black lives matter and Antifa riots. How many people have been charged with crimes of violence concerning those riots all across the country?

Speaker 1: 55:21

Yeah, so good questions. And again, he doesn't know the numbers, right? They don't have the answers. He could come out here and tell you, we got, you know, through 300 felony cases, 400 misdemeanor cases, but they didn't add one more column into their spreadsheet to just so a violent or nonviolent, you know, something like that would be very easy. I almost did it, which I'd be able to do because there already is a spreadsheet it's already on their website. You can go get it and download it. You just go through there. Anything say assault in it. Okay. Well, that's a violent offense cuz that's assault. Does it say, uh, trespassing? Well, probably not. If it's a trespas without an assault, probably nonviolent. So just go and categorize them. And I'm gonna guess that it's pretty small. The felonies, probably a lot more likely to be violent. The misdemeanors probably not violent. It's probably a 300, 400 split, but they don't even know their own numbers. And this is also a wild thing to think about. I mean, think about how much effort we have spent on this over the last year for 300 violent offenses, which as I've said is, you know, a small city a month, every month, one small city every month, every month in every, every small city in this town, in this whole stinking country, but we're gonna kill ourselves over this. Okay. So, uh, Ted Cruz rightfully rubbing their faces in it. I, we asked you for this, the DOJ doesn't care, the FBI doesn't care. These are essentially UN governable by. We do this little game of Patty cake every so often so that the rest of us have something to, to, to scoff at, look at these people and just say what a joke, cuz it just continues indefinitely. They just rolled out the domestic war on extremism here locally in the United States. And we're just gonna, you know, nothing's gonna happen. Cause these are the types of questions we get, I guess, here he says, now this is uh, where they are gonna be diving into Ray EPS. Now this is a good question, right? These are good questions. I'm not trying to, you know, to beat up too badly on the Republicans. Cuz what else can they do? I mean, it's part of the system where we just go around with these games of Patty cake day in and day out and I just get tired of it. So here is now Ted Cruz, uh, asking about a very interesting question. We have a mind map about this Ray S who is this guy? Were there feds involved in January 6th? You're rolling out this new, new domestic program, giving yourself all sorts of new powers. Did you investigate this guy or was he one of your own? Here is Cruz.

Speaker 7: 57:44

I, I wanna turn to the FBI, how many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th,

Speaker 4: 57:57

Sir? I'm sure you can appreciate that. I can't go into the specifics of sources and methods. So,

Speaker 7: 58:02

So did any FBI agents, the FBI or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th? Yes or no. January 6th, yes

Speaker 4: 58:10

Or no, sir. I can't UN I can't answer that.

Speaker 7: 58:13

Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on January 6th, sixth?

Speaker 4: 58:20

I can't answer that, sir. So

Speaker 7: 58:22

Any FBI agents or FBI inform actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on January 6th, 36th,

Speaker 4: 58:32

Sir. I can't answer that

Speaker 7: 58:34

Miss Saburn who is Reapp

Speaker 4: 58:41

I'm aware of the individual, sir. Uh, I don't look at that face specific background to him.

Speaker 7: 58:46

Ooh, well, there are a lot of people who are understandably very concerned about Mr. S concerned about Mr. S on the night of January 5th, 2021 S wandered around the crowd that had gathered and there's video out there of him. Channing tomorrow, we need to get into the capital into the capital. This was strange behavior. So, so strange that the crowd began chanting fed fed, fed, fed, fed, fed the Sandburn was Ray fed,

Speaker 4: 59:17

Sir, I cannot answer that question next

Speaker 7: 59:20

Day. The next day on January 6th, Mr. EPS has seen whispering to a person and five seconds later, five seconds after he is whispering to a person

Speaker 4: 59:30

That same person begins to forcibly tear down the barricades. Did Mr. S urge them to tear down the barricades?

Speaker 1: 59:43

Oh, these are good questions. I wanna know the answer to these questions. Don't you wanna know the answer to these questions? A lot of people do we have an entire mind map built around this question? Who is Ray? Y very curious case would love to get some answers on this one. So a poor little Jill over there she's squirming in her seats, cuz it's very suspicious. Look at this Ray Epps. This is at the west perimeter. We've talked about this many times. This is the, that very moment at the first breach. I think it was 12:53 PM. That night. First breach goes in. The rest of it goes downhill from here. This guy in the Trump hat was number 16, photograph on the FBI's most wanted list. Number 16 on there, right? And early cuz he was part of the first group in there. And then suddenly he's not on the FBI. Most wanted list anymore. Internet went hog wild. They found everybody found him not far from not he's he's here in Arizona, allegedly, but they took his photo off the most wanted list. That's weird. It went 14, 15, 16 REEP, 17, 18. And then you check back a couple months later and it goes 13, arrested 14 arrested 15 still at large. 16 is just gone. It's just gone with the wind. There's no photo of REEP anymore. 17 next guy arrested. Oh, that's very curious. Oh, almost like they found out he was one of their own and then removed him from the public list. Curious

Speaker 4: 1:01:13

Sir, similar to the other answers. I cannot answer that

Speaker 7: 1:01:17

Shortly thereafter, the FBI put out a public post listing seeking information on individuals connected with vital crimes on January 6th among those individuals and the bottom there is Mr. S the FBI publicly asked for information, identifying, offering cash rewards, leading to information, leading for information leading to the arrest. This was posted. And then sometime later magic Mr. E disappeared from the public posting. According to public records, Mr. S has not been charged with anything. No one's ex explained why a person videoed urging people to go to the capital, a person whose conduct was so suspect the crowd believed he was a fed would magically disappear from is to people. The FBI was looking at Ms. Sandburn. A lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on January 6th. My question to you, and this is a, this is not an ordinary law enforcement question. This is a question of a public accountability. Did federal agents or those in service of federal agent actively encourage violent and criminal conduct on January 6th? Not to my knowledge, sir. Thank you.

Speaker 1: 1:02:44

Oh, not to my knowledge lady,

Speaker 7: 1:02:46

Sir. Thank you, Ms. Chairman.

Speaker 1: 1:02:48

All right. So she actually did kind of answer that, right? Says not to my knowledge, sir. All right. Took her a couple seconds to think through that one. We'll see how that one holds out for. She's definitely a fed though. All right. Let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com had some super chats come in. Catherine Blair gave a nice donation and also had a couple other questions. Catherine Blair says, will Darnell Brooks be considered a domestic terrorist now or just an SUV? Well, I think you, you know, I'm not sure if the racial domestic extremist category applies to him. I'm not, I don't know if that, I don't know. You know, it's, it's complicated. I'm not sure if that one works or not. I, I certainly know that it applies to other racial groups, but I don't know about, about his, uh, does it go reverse in other words, but probably they'll just charge his SUV with terrorism, cuz that was really the bad actor there. We also had another one from Catherine says the way they word things are the way, the way the words are currently being manipulated and redefined with all aspects of our society. This language is terrifying. It is terrifying. It's done very intentionally. You know, I think language is very, very full, right? It's part of the big reason I sort of changed my last name, right? It it's an identity. It's labels. It's symbolic. It means stuff for those of you who do not know my mother's last name is Gove. I am my mother's son 100%. And so this is something I've been thinking about for a long time, but right. These things matter. That's why we label things. Many people say Donald Trump got elected because he labeled things appropriately because he labeled Jeb Bush, low energy. He's very low energy. Jeb K you know, and all of his labels were very powerful. So you have to think about these things and they're doing this intentionally. They're conf inflating, all of these different words. They want you in your mind to look at your fellow citizen, like a terrorist, because that's gonna justify the FBI to captivate, to, to, to, to take advantage of your fear and gobble up more power. See Reed says off topic, but have you ever looked into the David da da Laden case? I have not. I don't, but that name does sound familiar. Let me say, take a look at this one. Yes. Somebody has mentioned him before. This is an anti-abortion activist worked for live action. Number of different cases. No, I have not spent much time actually, no time. I I've read about him, but not looked at his cases at all. Very, very interesting though. All right. And so those were the super chats that came in. Jessica May says they are doing to the right, what they had been doing to the black community. If only the two sides could see it, the word is used to divide, right? It's the Lang it's very powerful wording. They're splicing and dicing the electorate literally right? Different different groups are under different or in different buckets buckets all under the same umbrella. And the language is so broad and so varied that it can really mean whatever they want it to mean. It's kind of by design. Robert Brett says, what about John on Sullivan? Don't you think it was odd that the police released him and there's a rec recording of him saying we need to get the, to set this stuff on fire. Yeah. John Sullivan was that guy who was in there and then sold his footage for, uh, I think 75,000 thousand dollars to CNN and some of the other media entities. Let's see who this guy is. John Earl Sullivan. Did he get charged with anything? He's a political activist. You, he was, he was there. He was present at the us capital attack, uh, years active, early life participation. During this, he spoke to the FBI about the shooting. An arrest warrant was his shoot. He, uh, by may he faced eight charges, prosecutors, I don't know what the outcome is on that. Wow. So very interesting. I'll have to look into that one. Thank you for teeing. That one up that came over from rod Brett on YouTube. Yeah. I don't know what happened to that guy. I remember him. He got like 75 grand for that footage. If I recall correctly. All right. Over at locals, we've got some questions loading up. Uh, Vient kisses here says hooray for the police state. Well, I'm glad you're happy about it. Vient kiss. I'm sure some other people are. Sergeant Bob says, meanwhile, back at the Southern border potential terrorist come across Willie nilly. This all reminds me of J Edgar. Hoover's BI FBI, the buy FBI, which hunts for communists around the 1920s. Very true. This is not new, right? It, I think it's always been sort of a political organization. News now says I know, sort of off topics, but any thoughts on the Boston bomber and others getting a stimulus check, all the DS who voted know on the amendment prohibiting this, keep ducking questions about it. You know, I, I think it, it doesn't surprise me for a minute. I mean, I say regularly here, how incompetent the government is just on a grand scale. And so doesn't surprise me. How much, how much else are they wasting? It's just, that's just at the iceberg. So it's hard for me to get outraged about that other than I'm just outraged about the inefficiencies generally. So just throw it in there. Sergeant Bob says domestic terrorism quote from Humpty a word shall mean exactly what I wish it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less that's from Sergeant Bob. It's a good quote. Did Humpty Dumpty say that three girly says when they start nailing down on BLM and Antifa as DVE, then I will listen to them on their agenda. But at this point it's just as bad as an overreaching, a overarching government who allows certain political violence and persecutes other political violence. Exactly. Right, exactly. Right. It's a standard. Okay. I'm not for violence of any kite of any kind. I don't wanna excuse one side or the other, but they are. That's what exactly what they're doing.<laugh> and that's what people are calling'em out for V antique says as sad as the event was, I can't find any better example of what I would consider a DVE as the guy who decided to drive through the parade, given the fact that I'm pretty sure the idea of DVE is to go after people of the lighter skin tone. I do find it pretty funny that I can think of no better face than this DBE thing that the<laugh> that we're supposed to worry about than Daryl Brooks. But let's be honest. All people cheer on their own demise when they cheer on the demise of other people, all people cheer on their own demise when they cheer on the demise of other people. So the idea that the whole DVE thing will stick to a certain ethnic group in the long run is laughable. It's a great point. There. Ticus the idea being that if you are somebody who's cheering on the downfall of somebody else, you're next, right? There's that quote, is it from Eli? We sold from the, from the book Knight first, they came for somebody, right? Where'd that come from first, they came poem from Lu, uh, German, uh, Martin, Neil Muller. First they came poetic form of a 1946. Post-war confessional. It's about the cowardice of German intellectuals. Following the Nazis rise to power purging their own charges. Uh, their chosen targets group after group many variations. Yeah. Yeah. First they came for them. Then they came for them. Then they came for them. Then they came for me and there was nobody else to save me cuz they were all gone problematic times. We've got some more qu, uh, questions here. 5 0 3 unlimited says, this is what I was worried about. When the USA created the global intelligence security apparatus during Bush Junior's administration, God help us all. That's how I feel today. And I feel like this is probably something that's just gonna get mostly glossed over, but they just changed everything today. So let's see what else. Sergeant Bob says, I am Sergeant Bob retired law enforcement and I do not approve of this message about what these knuckleheads just told us today in the Senate monster one says, Rob, you're probably gonna get questions in batches because I'm at work. And when I can spare a few minutes, I send them. Anyway. My question is why doesn't Antifa and BLM count as anti-government the entire ideology is about tearing the system down. Well monster one it's because they're a useful tool at the moment. I mean they needed them to get elected. That's why a lot of their behavior got swept under the rug over from YouTube Rahe. L is here, says nice work. Rob. Any thoughts on Ted referring to the January 6th suspects as terrorists? Yeah, Rahe. I, I made a video about that. I was not happy with that at all. Uh, and specifically I sort of rubbed his nose in it because he said, I didn't mean to say that Ted Cruz came out and said that, oh, it was a bad day. I was tired. I forgot to have my coffee. My wife kept me up that night, whatever. And I said, that's not true. You jerk. You said that originally back on January and went back and found the tweet. And he did say it on January 7th. He put it in a press release, domestic terrorists in writing. So he goes on Tucker show and just like bends the knee. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Stop yelling at me. Pathetic man. God stick to it. But anyways, he asked some good questions today and he talked about Ray S and I, and I appreciate that. So Ted Cruz is on my good side today. Raid bug spray says you got a bug problem. Heard there were leafy bugs in here. You want me to take care of that? No, we like this leafy bug. He's very good. The leafy bug, the leafy bug that's from, um, leafy bug told me from that one movie with Eddie, something Murphy and Owen Wilson. I think those two guys and the name of the secret plane that goes invisible is called the leafy bug. And it's not that good of a name according to, to Eddie Murphy. But I think it's a pretty great name monster. One says, oh, so your mission is to stop terrorism. Is that why you, the FBI plan the attacks? It it's easy to stop terrorism when you plan it. Cuz then you can just say, oh, I'm gonna foil my own plans. Harray we're saving America foiling our own plans at the FBI.<laugh> uh, thunder seven says, oh goody, does that mean that they will finally go after the Antifa BLM thugs who killed over 100 people in two years and caused over 2 billion in property damage, will they finally arrest the pipe bomber from January six? Will they arrest the smashing grab? ANGs terrorizing the blue states who have caused stores to slow down permanently. No. Then the entire stunt is nothing more than a failing. Oh, Biden regime trying to hold onto powers are unable to stop mega, which is the most popular and successful political movement in America's history. I gotta tell you, I, you know, I, I, I think, I think that, uh, there's gonna be a rude awakening here come up. Uh, pretty soon people are angry. Man. Leafy bug says these feds would know that there are more domestic terror threats facing the us ever before their agents are busily setting them all up as we speak<laugh> yeah, they're just setting out the, the invitations for the national tra the militia trainings in all the various states and then paying their informants to bring people to them. Literally news now says domestic terrorism equals something different here or than elsewhere in Afghanistan. People who set fires were violent, et cetera. We're called terrorists. Here. We call them BLM. They get a free pass. They need to fully prosecute all the ones out there. Setting fires, attacking cops, using Mo cocktails and entering the capital under violent circumstances, not just picking and choosing the ones who have different political beliefs. This is what I'm most angry about. All this is that the prosecution have become so political. I don't think the answer is to not prosecute J six. I think the, I think it is to prosecute everyone who was caught. I don't think the answer is to not prosecute. I think it is to prosecute everyone who was caught. I agree with that. Right? I've said that I've never said that anything that happened on January 6th was sort of excusable and that, that it all should just be swept under the rug. But I've also said it's not the crime of the century. It's not Pearl Harbor crying out loud. Monster one says, remember Ted Cruz's political career didn't kill itself. It was murdered by Ted Cruz. That one is true. Now the Epstein stuff, I don't know what happened there, but Ted Cruz did murder his own career. Viant kiss says, if I remember my history correctly, a lot of gun laws came into place around the time of the black Panthers. Also I missed the Ramones. The, that quote is from the chorus of one of their songs. I'm glad I got to see them live back in the day. Sounds like it was a good time there VI kiss. I don't know much about them, but I'm glad you enjoyed it. Monster one says are the immigration policy people she's talking about the people from Portland who attacked an immigration facility for a hundred days. I doubt it. She's obviously talking about people who are upset with the Biden's open border policy from monster one. We have a few more here. We've got thunder seven set. As the American people know that ISIS gang members illegals we've got crime in, in cities is the real domestic terror threat. The corrupt DOJ FBI have aligned with the Marxist DS who attack Patriots, who put America first. They put China first and the American people know it. Quite frankly, Rob, nobody cares what any of these lunatic left nuts have to say. Nobody listens to them and their news conferences make them feel important. There's I think there's truth to that. I think there is growing truth to that. I mean, you can see what happens every time. You know, there's a Rogan incident. It's like, it's like not a fair fight anymore. Rogan has a way bigger audience than those people and they can feel it. You can see them feeling it. Groucho lady says, uh, Groucho cat lady says, she said that threatening word, Trump used fight against, did she say fight against somebody better? Tell Liz Chaney. Does that mean she is inciting a domestic terrorist threat? Sounds like it. I mean, if she's fighting a for anything, you know, she might be trying to incite a coup as far as I can tell inquisitive citizen on YouTube says the irony of the retired police Sergeant being unhappy about this rights violating government tyranny is really funny. The irony of a retired police Sergeant being unhappy about this rights violating government tyranny is really funny. Well, you know, look, there are there, look, there are good police officers out there. There's no doubt about that. I know, you know, there's, there's this sort of contingent that of people that say all cops are bad. I've never been in that contingent. I started a whole channel calling out the bad PPO and I'd like to make sure we hold them accountable, but I've met many, many very good police officers who wanna go out there and help their communities. And Sergeant Bob is one of them. So, you know, I, I think that there's a big difference between the feds and local law enforcement. I mean that through and through it's like the more that the, that the local law enforcement agencies try to become like the feds that leads us to a lot of these problems and they want, they, they are, while they're creating their own sort of domestic federal surveillance force right now, they just announced it today. Sergeant Bob says, nationwide, judge shopping, approved DC judges will approve anything. It's exactly why they want to do this. They can just go, oh, uh, uh, here you go, judge. Every time. Yep. Get'em get,'em get,'em get,'em get'em. Jessica May says, the question is, why do white collar crimes get a pass? They are the biggest criminals, not the BLM domestic, et cetera. Well, because they're part of the they're they're, they're part of the upper circle, right? They is. There's a group of, of, I think of people that just operate according to a, a different system of justice, a D a just different rules. And it, it is unfortunate. I mean, it's a really big problem. I think it's, it's, it's a big part of the reason we do this show. I do the show it's cuz it irritates me that there are two standards for, for people. You know, people who come through our office are good. People who got into a little bit of trouble and we have to deal with the justice system that wants to just wreck them. But there are actual, you know, evil people out there, bad people who are doing things intentionally to take advantage of other people. They're in positions of power. Maxwell's gonna serve time for a lot of those people who have done very horrendous things, but the justice system, the us department of justice, and everybody just goes, who is she gonna talk? She's not gonna talk. Woo. Okay, good. I guess we'll just gonna put her in, uh, in there and then she can appeal it and we'll let her out in a few years and we'll just move on with the next thing. That's how of this stuff goes. We have three girl who says doesn't Congress need to be the ones changing the law. Um, yeah. Like in, in America, if you lived in a, in a United States of America, that still was functional. Yeah. That's how it would work, but we don't do that anymore. How does the DOJ or the FBI have the legal standing to change this law to encompass uh, domestic violence Extrem? Well it's cuz they just said so three girls it's prosecutorial discretion. He's saying I'm interpreting these laws differently. I'm interpreting it this way. I've got a memo. This is how we're doing it. FBI agrees. I'm okay with this Biden signed off on it via me. Merick Garland. That's it. If someone actually charged with this, what is their recourse? Is there any way, is there a way they could go as far to say that this is not a criminal act because it was not instituted by Congress? Yeah. So here's what's happening. They're not gonna be able to charge anybody under this as a crime. Okay. He's not saying that. So we gotta be clear on what he's distinguishing. He's saying that this is a definition that gives them broader powers to go do other things. So nobody's gonna be charged with domestic violence, extremism or domestic terrorism, because it's a definition. It's not an actual criminal of fence. He's saying that under that definition as a justice department, he has more tools, more leverage to go out and investigate other types of crimes because this definition gives him power to do it. And he's using his prosecutorial discretion to interpret that, to fit his end. So if somebody is charged here, they're not gonna be able to go back and say, this wasn't a criminal act because they're not gonna be charged under this new act. They'll be charged under a real criminal act. He's just gonna use this to expand his investigative capabilities. As we detailed to get judges, to get more warrants, to intercept conversations, all of that stuff, then he'll charge them under an actual crime, but he's gonna crack the shell. He's gonna break through the door, essentially using these new powers that he just gave himself. So he is not creating a new law. He's just sort of interpreting an existing law to create new powers, which is a little bit different and our government, it is. So, uh, I, I, I would say complicit in this, I think they're all okay with this, that nothing's gonna change. And so the next Republican administration is gonna carry this on of course. And so on down the line and it will just continue to get worse and worse and worse until the American people decide we don't need this stupid federal government anymore because they're just taking from us without giving us any real benefits. They say that they're giving us all of these great features like security and global respect and functional systems and institutions. But do we get any of that? Has any of that come to fruition over these last two years? No, it hasn't three girly says the corrupt bureaucrats and the federal government and the unit party are trying really hard to criminalize perfectly legal behavior. And they're both okay with it and they're both gonna keep doing it. We've got Viti cassette, by the way. There's a video put out by Ruco of the Bailey. Yesterday says if I remember correctly, the TLD R is that in one of the Canadian provinces, as a bill where people are gonna try to have to where people are going to have to pay, to go to court for traffic violations that they're now considered guilty, Intel proven innocent, and that they're not allowed to call the ticketing officer to the stand. How soon before America takes that leap, we've already had many other parts of the constitution violated. Oh, oh yeah. V kiss. I mean, we're we're well on the way there already. I mean, we're, we're going that way quickly. Uh, Arizona, for example, we, we just modified our jury rules. So we got a lot less options. Uh, when we have jury trials, I mean, it's happening all over the place. So, uh, you saw it today. They're they're, they're gonna be doing a lot more of it. So good stuff. Jeremy says, Rob, according to the FBI, they get to define what is true. If I come to a conclusion based on clear evidence and perceive the truth to be contrary to their per predefined truth. Does that mean that I can be pursued as a terrorist? Unfortunately, the only solution to changing one's perception would be reeducation camps. Well, Jeremy, I think you are prognostic. The prognostications of the day monster. One says seriously, how do these people keep giving themselves power? What's the point of the legislators? If agencies and governors can just go around them, maybe it's time for the legislators to go, am I a list now? Yeah. You're along. You and me as well. We've got Republican party says it's okay, we'll be taken over Congress. And the Senate November, all this nonsense will be swept away. Uh don't hold your breath on that. Along with the majority of democratic politicians, they are desperate. And it's sad to see a party that had the likes of JFK abuse, their power this way, it's pathetic. It is sad. It is the whole, the whole thing is sad. The country is just not, not looking good. Speech says it's really simple. A person is innocent until proven guilty. None of the January six people have been charged or found guilty of treason nor insurrection. So they're not guilty of such things. Furthermore, if they can't be found guilty of treason or insurrection, then they certainly cannot be accused of domestic terrorism. This whole prosecution of the J six people is a sham, plain and simple Al fre says, now that Biden has officially endorsed it. What do you think the chances are that the filibuster will be changed that could cement all this? Uh, you know, I haven't been paying attention to that today. I've been focused on this, but I did see that Biden was out. I think in Georgia giving a speech saying that they're gonna end the filibuster so that they can reform the, the election rule so that the feds federalize, the local elections, they've already been encroaching on everything else there out fre, why would they not take up the elections as well? We've seen the justice department go in. They're going into the schools, CDCs taking over property. You can see that the mandates are invading your bodies and the list goes on and on and on. Why not just take up the federal elections to make'em federal that way. The states don't have to have to be involved in them. That's it's that's coming up right. A couple more. And I gotta really pick up the pace because we gotta end up here soon. Uh, LG zero zero says sounds like the three points that define extremism. Trump could have been convicted under the new statute. However, the Portland insurrection is off is off scotch free. Doesn't sound political equality from the FBI. Once again, not at all. I think it's highly politically partisan. Chris WNY says, thank you, Mr. It's called equal protection under the laws. What about the victims of the 2020 mob violence and property destruction? How is that working out for them? Equal remuneration under the laws? Is that happening? No. No. Did anybody who was, uh, injured or killed as a result of the BLM or Antifa protest? Did they get, uh, a state funeral as essentially in the congressional building? Don't think so. Ian correctionist is here, says, so I'm not the brightest knife in the fridge, but hear me out if this threat is as real and as dangerous as they claim. And so many citizens are so mad at the government that they would want them to do something crazy. Wouldn't that be a good indicator that the government should maybe ask themselves why people are so mad and maybe make some changes to the, the way they do stuff instead of doubling down and completely ignoring the root of these issues while continuing to poke the bear? No, it's, it's, it's definitely not their fault. It's our fault for being mad. We are just too dumb to realize that they're, uh, really looking out for us. They really care for us. And so they anti-government sentiment is just ignorance is really what it is. Just too dumb. Maybe if they set up a camp and threw me in there for four years, I'd come out a little bit smarter. We can only hope can't we let's see what else we've got. Look, two G says, Eisenhower said beware of the military industrial complex. And I've never thought that our government would have the, or the audaciousness to attack its own population during my lifetime. But here we are, feels like our government is preparing to assault us and our God given rights. I agree. I, I<laugh>, I agree. It does feel like that because they are actually doing it. Uh, Ray E says, I'm now working for the R and R law group, but please don't tell Senator is they know you're here. Get outta here, get, get outta here. All right. So he's uh, uh, he's not here. Reaps is not here. News now says I will never believe an entrapment argument either. I make a choice to commit a crime or I don't, it's not like a priest with a group of Al boys. The feds can't make me commit a crime. It's a lazy excuse. Yeah. I can understand that perspective. Assistant director, uh, quote, I can't answer that true meaning I won't answer that due to our investigations, not to my knowledge means I'm lying. Snuggle struggle says Harvard university professor in two Chinese nationals charged with three separate China related cases on a dot government site, nine unknown liquids at an airport. Yeah. I've been seeing some of those prosecutions take place. I saw there was a Harvard professor that, uh, that was involved in that. But I did not know that there were three separate related cases, 19 unknown liquids. Interesting. Very interesting. That was from snuggle struggle. Thank you for, for that. Let's see. A couple more monster. One says, Rob, obviously Darnell Brooks was protecting himself from the white people. The people he ran over will get arrested after all. They are domestic terrorists. Now it's true. PWS, MK MKZ GI has a quote from Sol snit says hastiness and superficiality are the psychic diseases of the 20th century Alexander Sol snitchin. That's a Jordan P I, I, I know that name from Jordan Peterson, but I should probably go read the primary sources on that. Yeah. Hastiness and super. Yeah. There's that great. There's a great YouTube channel that has a lot of these. What's it called? I can't remember it. And we're running at a time. So we've got monster. One says, Rob, you missed one of my comments seen in the YouTube chat just cause got, uh, just wanted to send him some support. So yes, all our love goes out to just cause hopefully just, I saw him in the chat shout out to just cause everybody's getting sick. These days heal up rest. Well, thoughts and love and prayers out to just cause Sergeant Bob says, I do believe everyone's right. Should be respected. And defended just respect the laws and the rules. Tim Flint says, reading the book, civil war of 1812 right now, lots of parallel of what is going on. Everyone should read. It sounds like a great recommendation. I probably will. I am techy says this just proves the us is aligning more to China who prosecute their own people for saying bad things about the government. I think we're we're there. Right? My, my, my thesis is not original. This is, this is I think pretty obvious. Really. We're seeing that a lot of the same limitations on freedom that you see in China are happening now in the United States. They're just being outsourced. Okay. A couple more. And then I've got a jet leafy bug says raid bug spray, please. I use that as breath freshener. I bet raid bug sprays from Jake is Jake from Oxford. He's always jealous of my hog aches. I mean hot takes that's from leafy bug. And then NY renal MD says, I thought information from FSA warrants or national security letters was unusable for domestic prosecution. Congress specifically put that firewall up. Well they're they're they're they're doing it. I mean, yeah, I understand what you're saying, but those are for, for that's foreign intelligence surveillance. This is domestic intelligence. I don't know what look<laugh>. I don't agree with it. I think it's unconstitutional. I think that that, that there's no reason that that, that any of this should exist in at all. We have local laws that govern all of this type of behavior. I don't know how to explain it and why ask them how they can justify it. Constitutionally. It's a good question. Monster. One says the other commenter had a point about Trump. He could have been charged as I think it's deeper than that. I think they will charge him. They openly admitted. Their plan is to disqualify every Republican who objected to the certification. That's almost 200 of them. There won't be a red wave in 2022. It will be a Democrat, super majority, dun dun dun. And our last one of the day is from tweaks. As I absolutely agree that far, right extremists and white supremacists pose a real threat to American democracy. And if you wanna really put a stop to them, have a simple solution. Shut down the FBI bump, bump bum that's from tweak out outstanding comment and a good way to leave it there. I wanna thank everybody for being a part of the show today. Thanks to all of the people chatting over there at locals. We've got news now, Jack ALA be spec many others on YouTube. Thanks to everybody who sent in the super chats, Rahe acquisitive citizen. We've got Jessica May Al fre snuggle struggle. Rod Brett was in the house. And then we also had Catherine Barr, David Moton, Patricia Molina, and several others. And so that is it for the day. I wanna welcome some new members who came over on locals, but will do that tomorrow because I'm out of time and my friends. I hope you have a tremendous Eve evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Byebye.