loader image

Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R&R Law Group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I’m talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We’ve got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That’s why we started this show called Watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice.

And we’re grateful that you are here and with us today because we’ve got some news to get into. We’re going to start off by checking back in with Southwest airlines, talking about the vaccine mandates because they are walking that puppy back quite nicely. We know that there were a lot of airplanes that were sitting around on the ground canceled and delayed all over the country. Southwest airlines said it was the weather, but we looked at the weather here on this show and there was not a cloud in the sky for all intents and purposes. And so now they are rolling that back. We’re going to hear from the CEO out of Southwest airlines guy, by the name of Gary Kelly saying that they’re going to kind of remove the teeth out of the enforcement mechanisms that are in Southwest airlines policies. And they’re going to really just encourage it.

Now, I’m not going to force it, not going to fire you. We’re just going to encourage it, which is of course, a welcome change, less of a mandate, more of a suggestion, which is how it should have been in the first place. So that’s happening with Southwest, but unfortunately in Washington state, the Washington state patrol officers, they fired 127 officers over the vaccine mandates. And so they’re gone. Now. We’re going to actually hear from an officer who did get, gave his final call off on the radio from within his patrol car signed off Sianora because he didn’t comply with governor Inslee’s mandates. So very interesting. We’ll take a look at that all in the first segment, in our second segment, we’re going to look at Donald Trump filing a lawsuit, big lawsuit against Bennie. Thompson’s talked a lot about Benny tonnes Thompson and the January 6th select committee.

Of course, they’re investigating Donald Trump. They sent a fishing expedition in my opinion letter, over to the national archives saying that we want basically everything that Donald Trump has ever said, thoughts. We want to know every place that he went to the restroom, give us the list, give us the data. And so Donald Trump said, you can’t do that. We’ve got executive privilege over here. And, uh, how about I Sue you if you try to get that information about me and he did. So we’ll take a look at that lawsuit. And there are, it’s kind of a four-part factor test, which I didn’t know about. It’s called the [inaudible] test. Don’t learn about this, uh, you know, often in law school, but it actually has to do with this exact scenario. So what happens when Congress is trying to go get privileged material from the president? Well, there’s a test for that exist in the law.

It’s called the [inaudible] test, and we’re going to take a look at what Trump’s attorneys are doing with that test. So that’s going to be fun, of course. And then in our last segment, go into Maxwell. We’re going to be talking about her. This is Jeffrey Epstein’s number two. Her trial is coming up here pretty soon, November 29th. I believe it is. And so what we’re seeing are pre-trial preparations taking place, mostly surrounding jury selection is going to be a big, big deal here. Are we going to have sort of the same thing that happened in the Derek Shovan case, where we got to hear from every juror, they kind of put them up on the stand cut. Government prosecutor asked them questions, defense attorney asked them questions. Judge asked him, are we going to see that? Well, no, because this is in federal court and this is something that is really being micromanaged by both sides of this case.

And so we’re going to break that down and we’re going to look at what they want to do about this because this involves sexual allegations. And a lot of that can be really spicy when you are dealing with prospective jurors. And so we’ve got a lot to get into today. We are of course, uh, live streaming all over the place. Our home base is over on locals. And so if you want to be a part of the show, when it is live right now, then the place to do that is at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And there is a form that you can use. It looks just like that. So you can submit your questions. A lot of people chatting away over there. We’ve got shook up. Britches is in the house. We’ve got venti kiss prime. We’ve got Joey Bandolero. We’ve got, let’s see playing hooky, Paula M K N speech unleashed.

I’m not gassed and many others are chatting away over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com over on rumble. Shout outs to sledgehammer. The telescreen elucidation station is over on rumble as well. And our behind the scenes, YouTube crowd, uh, big, big shout outs to the KB and sniper Jared Zulu. We’ve got Jenny B Lauren S all apart of the live show. Now this is going to be premiering again on YouTube in about two hours, as soon as we’re done with the live stream. So that’s just what’s happening. And we’re just testing this because the live streams that we’ve been doing on YouTube, they just kind of disappear when we’re done with them and our channel has been shrinking up. And so we’re trying something a little bit different. If you want to be a part of a live program, we’re going to do that off of YouTube. And then we’re going to post the recorded live show back on YouTube.

And we’re just going to test it out for a little bit. I know yesterday there were some hiccups with some of the technology. I think I angered pretty much the entire audience. Uh, it’s not just on YouTube, it’s everywhere. It’s also on locals. And so I got the feedback I’m listening. I appreciate everybody understanding some of the tweaks and changes and some of the ebbs and flows. A lot of this show just grew organically. It just sort of happened. And so now I’m trying to figure out how to make best use of my time. And so I’m trying to, I’m trying to make everybody happy, but unfortunately that doesn’t always work out that way. And, and, you know, as they say, got to crack a few eggs, if you want to make an omelet. And so we’re sort of in that position, but I think that what comes out the other end is going to be better.

So thanks everybody for bearing with me. We’re going to continue to make tweaks. If I have to, if I have to adjust my schedule in order to make it all work, I can figure that out. But a lot of this, and I don’t want to belabor this point, but a lot of this, I don’t know how it impacts the show and how it impacts all of you until I make the change. Then everybody goes, don’t like that. And I go, oh, all right, well, better, a better adjust that then I suppose. So we’re in that process right now. Just wanted to take a quick minute to say thank you for that. Thanks for understanding. Uh, and I appreciate your patience. Okay? If you’re looking for the segments of the show, those are over on our segments clips, channel, Robert ruler, Esq clips is where you’re going to find some additional, uh, clips that are a lot more shareable.

So you can send that over to anybody who you want to invite to the show. And I’d appreciate it if you did that. Okay. So let’s get into the segments of the day. Vaccine mandates are still rolling around all over the country. Some jurisdictions, and some companies are having more success than others. We’ve on this channel, talked a lot about Southwest airlines and a lot of the supply chain problems where people are just deciding that they’re not going to comply with those mandates. And they’d rather not have a job anymore, rather than actually be forced to inject something into their body that they don’t want to do. So we’ve been covering Southwest airlines. They had a lot of problems. Last week, a lot of airplanes were stranded on the ground, and we were looking at the weather reports, looking at the radar and identifying the fact that there were no clouds in the sky.

Wondering lots of weird. Why are all these airplanes grounded? If it’s pretty clear outside people reporting from their cell phones going, no, it’s, it is clear. The weather report is accurate, but Southwest air and many people in the byte administration were coming out and saying day after day had nothing to do with the vaccine policies, had everything to do with, you know, the weather and other things that are obviously not true. So that all happened. And there was a lot of deadlines coming up. October 15th was the deadline. We had a lot of November deadlines and December deadlines basically saying, if you’re not compliant with these vaccine mandates, you’re gone. You’re out of here. You’re fired. Well, that was all in motion causing a lot of the other problems that we saw. And now Southwest airlines is reverting back. They’ve decided not such a good idea to do that.

They are dropping their policy, their plan that would have put unvaccinated staff on unpaid leave. This would have started in December. This article comes over from CNBC, and you can see that Southwest airlines scrapped a plan to put unvaccinated individuals who have applied, but haven’t received an exemption yet on unpaid leave. So, uh, there, there’s still presumably a lot of people that are looking for those exemptions, haven’t gotten them yet. They were going to be put on unpaid leave. That’s not going to happen anymore. So airlines, now we have Southwest air American air. They’re among the carriers that are federal contractors and they’re subject to a Biden administration requirement that their employees get the VAX by December 8th, unless they’re exempt for medical or religious reasons why federal contractors, they have strict rules that are expected for large companies. Thank you, Joe Biden. So now they’re going to say that they’re stricter than other large companies with, which would have otherwise allowed an alternative to vaccination, which would have been testing.

So basically if you’re a big company, you have the testing option. If you’re a federal contractor, not so much. And so what they’re saying here is really implying that Southwest airlines is saying, okay, well that, uh, I mean, yeah, their December eight deadline, it’s coming and going, but we’re not going to be firing you. If you don’t comply with that executives at both of the airlines in recent days, they’ve tried to reassure employees about job security under the mandate, urging them to apply for exemptions. If they can’t get vaccinated, even if it’s for medical or sincerely held religious beliefs, airlines are expected to face more questions about the mandate when they report quarterly results, Thursday morning, labor unions of pilots, they’ve sought to block the mandates and sought alternatives like regular testing. So we’re seeing a lot of it from the labor unions, Southwest senior vice president and others.

They say, if employees request for exemptions, haven’t been approved by December 8th, go ahead, continue to work, just follow mask and distancing guidelines until the request has been reviewed. And so we’re going to hear a little bit more about this and from the actual CEO, guy’s name is Gary Kelly, the CEO of Southwest airlines. He was on with Cramer from CNBC this morning, and he was talking about this and you know, Kramer’s like, well, I mean, if you’re not going to force the mandates, then is there going to be anything that’s going to be requiring? Your employees are going to be forcing them to go and actually comply? Are there any teeth in this proposal or is this just like a nice suggestion that people say, oh, that’s nice, right in the dumpster, let’s listen in and see what he has to say.

I want to go over this. Uh, United has only 3% of people were not vaccinated. A Delta P you have a $200 monthly surcharge healthcare. Uh, if you don’t get vaccinated, what do you have to make it so that people get vaccinated? And if they don’t, what is the procedure

We’re encouraging them. And, uh, we’re, we’re offering the equivalent of two days, pay for them to, uh, turn in their backs, vaccination card, uh, that compensates them obviously for the time that it takes and, uh, any after effects, uh, you know, from the vaccine. So it’s, uh, an encouragement and, um, uh, you know, not, not any kind of a stick, if you will,

Uh, Gary, all, all right. So that was the CEO basically saying, you know, no sticks there now, which a strong encouragement, but no sticks. In other words, you heard the carrot and the stick, right? You put the carrot in front of the horse and the horse walks towards the carrot in the cartoons, right? You put it on the big stick and the horse, the horse just keeps walking and walking and walking because it wants the carrot. But if you don’t have a carrot and you take the stick and you just give it a little tap, tap, tap a little love, tap right back there in the rear of the donkeys, dairy a and that is supposed to also nudge it along forward. It’s the stick here. There really is no stick anymore. It used to be, you’re going to be unpaid. You’re going to be put on unpaid, leave next step fired, but that doesn’t really exist anymore.

It’s just kind of like, well, you know, we encourage you to do it, which is how it should have been. And so well done there, Kelly, for letting people exercise personal autonomy on what they want to do with all of this, thank you for standing up to the byte administration, which is, you know, going to have to respond to this accordingly. So it says they are going to be giving now employees until November 24th to finish their vaccinations and apply for an exemption. It’s going to continue to pay you those people while they review their requests. And it says, it’s going to allow those who are rejected to continue working as we coordinate with them on meeting their requirements or another valid accommodation. They say that this is a change from what was previously communicated. Initially we communicated these employees will be put on unpaid leave.

That is no longer the case they wrote. Southwest confirm the policy change. This is coming just weeks before the deadline. And so presumably Joe Biden does not particularly happy about this, but, uh, you know, they’ll deal with it. Let’s see what the next question for Mr. Kelly was it, it hearkens back to those cancellations that we heard a lot about. Southwest airlines had a lot of flights that were down a lot of delays that were all being attributed to Lord knows what, uh, personnel problems, staffing problems, you know, computer problems, weather problems, who knows nothing to do with the vaccines though, right? Nothing at all to do with policies that came down from the leadership or, or did it, here’s another question from another host on CNBC about that topic, particularly, um,

The cancellations are being used by some to argue that this was a huge vaccine protest in the words of Donald Trump Jr. On Twitter in the past 24 hours. I mean, how much can you push back on that? You say it was not at issue, but to what degree did it contribute to this problem at all?

Zero. I mean, again, we look at all of our employee behaviors in terms of absenteeism, uh, in terms of people volunteering, uh, to come in and pick up, what’s referred to as open time. And they’re very, they’re all very normal. Uh, the president of our pilots union has been out talking to the media, uh, confirming all of that. So I think people, again, that, that understand how airlines work when you get behind, it just takes several days to catch up. Uh, and the fact that we’re basically caught up yesterday and today, uh, supports that, you know, the, the, the assertion that we’re making here, but we were significantly, uh, set behind on Friday. And it just takes several days to catch up.

So you heard that, right? He goes, and he says, well, this is, you know, it’s taken us several days to catch up and we’re going to get caught up and we’re getting caught up right now. As a matter of fact, as you can see, look around, we’re getting caught up, aren’t we? And it’s the same timeframe that you announced the policy change. Isn’t that interesting? Isn’t that weird? How that works? You, you say, oh yeah, well actually, we’re not going to fire you. We’re going to revamp all of the COVID policies and suddenly things look or they’re looking up. Things are going to be getting better pretty soon, but it had nothing at all to do with it. Hmm. Very curious. Very curious there, Mr. Kelly, I don’t buy it myself, but all right. So let’s take a look at what else is going on around the world.

Southwest airlines, of course, is flying all over the country. And so they’re going to still have jobs. The people who work there, but not elsewhere because in Washington, we have to take a look at 127 police officers, uh, civilians and commissioned officers, troopers, sergeants, captains, all fired. Why vaccine mandates Fox 13 out of Seattle is reporting this 127 Washington state patrol employees gone fired. This was published today, says that some unvaccinated workers now out of a job because of the state’s vaccine mandate Tuesday morning, Washington state patrol announced 127 employees separated from employment due to the mandate. Isn’t that nice? They were just separated. Yeah. It’s just like, you know, we just agree to part ways mutually it’s like those relationships, those breakups. You’re like, no, we, we broke up. We’re friends. Still, everybody goes, you’re a liar. You go, no, we’re we’re friends. Like we parted.

Everything’s fine. You go, no, that’s not true. She hates you. Uh, so yeah, I’ve, I’ve probably been that person many times, which is why it’s so funny. Now officials said that 53 civilian and 74 commissioned officers, 67 troopers, one, a six sergeants. One captain have all been let go. So they’re just, uh, gone now, right? Uh, crimes up defund. The police was already something well underway last year. I think Seattle is having some pretty big problems with that. We talk a lot about, uh, areas in the Pacific Northwest. We talk about Portland, of course, that’s, uh, you know, nearby, but it is a problem. Crime rates are on the rise and 127 employees are now going to be fired. Well, it doesn’t sound like it’s very useful. Uh, but the chief of the police, you know, he’s not too upset about it. He says, well, we’re going to miss every one of them.

I extended a hearty. Thanks to those who are leaving the agency. These people are such pieces of work. Like these people just had an, like, they just woke up one day and they said, uh, chief John [inaudible], you know, I’ve had an epiphany. I’m going to go be a poet today. Yeah. That’s all. I’m just going to leave the agency. And he goes, well, that’s great. Enjoy your future as a poet. I wish you the best of luck. That’s not what happened at all. They’re leaving the agencies. They’re not being separated from employment. They’re being fired. Even if it’s not direct, it’s constructive firing. There’s a policy changed that has not been in place for, I don’t know, 18 months of the pandemic so far. And they were allowed to work. Then in fact, many of them were considered essential. Not anymore though, because some governor just passed a law and says, you have to do what I say.

Otherwise, you’re gone now. So, uh, leaving the agency. No, that’s nice. Well wishes. I wonder if they had a, a departing party with a cake and opinion data. I truly wish that you were staying with us. He says you have my utmost appreciation for the hard successful work you’ve provided during your valued careers. You’ll forever have our respect for your courage and your commitment and all you have done on behalf of the agency. That’s nice. Yeah. So thank you for everything that we’ve done for you, but you’ve done for us, but we’re not doing anything for you. Now. You provided a ton of value to us over the years. You’re very appreciated blah-blah-blah but not that appreciated. Okay? Your, your sort of pseudo appreciated all 127 of you. People, otherwise, you know, you didn’t do the one thing that we really, really mattered to us all the years, that you’ve been an amazing employee.

Somebody who’s been a part of the team, somebody who’s been a public servant, somebody that we have a gala’s over and we, you know, have tables. And we invite all of the other officers and all of the other people from, you know, civil society to come in and put pins on your, uh, on your shoulder and say, congratulations, and throw hats in the air and all that crap. All of it meaningless. Why? Because you didn’t get the vaccine. You didn’t do it. You didn’t do what the governor who never met any of these people said. And so therefore you’re gone. You’re out of here fired 127 people. I’m sorry, not fired leaving the agency peacefully, separated. Meanwhile, those people have families. They’ve got careers. They’ve been working with the police department for a long period of time. And what is their ability for compensation? Nothing.

They have to go find a different place. Maybe in Arizona, let’s see Washington’s vaccine mandate. This was previously issued by governor Jay Inslee back in August. So again, almost two years into this thing, it finally comes out, applies to most state workers, longterm term care employees, teachers, staff at schools, colleges, universities. It was a final day on Monday for thousands of workers who want to keep their jobs to prove that they’ve been fully Vaxxed. The only opt-out medical or religious though, it only ensures continued employment. If they can accommodate you agency set, it’s been working on a contingency Flint plan. So meaning the actual police agency saying, well, we’re just going to work on a contingency plan over the next several days, they say resources will be moved where necessary and specific personnel losses demand adjustment in the coming months. Agency will continue its ongoing efficiency, reviews, vigorous recruiting to fill three new academy classes.

Can you believe this? So they just fired 127 people and they’re like, shoot, we better get a bunch of young folks in here. So we’re just going to go fill up the recruiting classes with vigorous recruiting, whatever the hell that means. And so we’re going to get just a whole new swath of, I wonder what those candidates are going to look like, what a joke. Oh my gosh, they’re firing 127 people and they got to go immediately. Fill them over this crap. What a joke. All right. So somebody posted this on Twitter, Jason Rantz, he’s got a radio show at T T H says, and we’re going to play this a little bit of a content warning, got the, a word coming out here. The word is coming. It says, this is the last time you’ll hear me in a patrol car. And Jay Inslee can kiss my. This comes from a Washington state trooper in Yakima, Washington. He signs off after 22 years fired by governor Inslee for being unvaccinated. Let’s listen in and see what this, uh, domestic terrorists had to say.

This is my final sign off. After 22 years of serving the citizens of the state of Washington, I’m being asked to leave because I am dirty. Um, numerous fatalities, um, injuries have worked sick. I played sick. Um, we buried lots of friends over these years like to thank you guys. I’d like to thank the, um, citizens of Yakima county as well as my fellow officers within the valley. Without you guys, I wouldn’t have been very successful and you’ve kept me safe and got me home to my family every night. Um, thank you for that. Um, wish I could say more, but um, this is it. So state 10 34. This is the last time you’ll hear me in a state patrol car and Jay Inslee can kiss my.

Mike drop. Thank you for your 22 years of service to the citizens of Washington state. You’ve taken on many roles in your time as a patrol. And your first here, you delivered a baby. While on patrol in Bremerton, you’ve been in theory theory, instructor, certified technical specialist and reconstructionist, peer support member, part of the chaplain state board, and a CVD trooper. You’ve been a great role model and mentor for all your introverts to serving in the area, by sharing your knowledge and experience throughout the years. Thank you for your service 1936,

That breaks your stinking heart man. And you know, it really does. He goes, that’s it, that’s it. I guess that’s it, 22 years. Uh, and that’s happening all over America right now. Uh, good men like that. Good men and women, good people. Who’ve served their communities, you know, and I’m a criminal defense attorney, right? I’m supposed to go against police officers on a regular basis. Set looks like a very good man. Who’s very upset. Who’s having to turn it in over something like a vaccine mandate and it’s going to harm the society there. They’re having to hire three new classes with vigorous recruiting all in the name of healthcare. This is all all for healthcare and safety. Give me a freaking break. Well, I, you know, my prayers, thoughts go out to that man and his family and everybody who’s affected by that because it does break your heart to watch people watching their passions, watching their livelihoods, their entire careers of service evaporated because some dumb bureaucrat somewhere decided this was the new standard that everybody has to apply.

Insane thoughts and prayers go out to all of them. Meanwhile, the Supreme court is not doing anything about it. Take a look right here. This broke today. Us high court will not stop vaccine for main health care workers. So, uh, we’re going to be seeing a lot more of these appeals. Go up to the Supreme court since all of these things are now coming into effect, right? Remember that before the Supreme court is going to start hearing these cases, a lot of this stuff has to be right, right. It can not be something that we’re talking about. Speculatively. It has to be something, an actual case in controversy that we’re fighting over. So when these mandates now go into effect, boom, right now we have some harm. That’s going to come. We have a date. All right, well, December 8th, October 29th, whatever the deadline is, is now going to trigger consequences.

And that is going to prompt the lawsuits. And so these are working their way up into the Supreme court now, but out of Maine Supreme court just said, not going to hear your case. Why? Probably because it went over to, uh, justice, Stephen Brier, who is somebody who is on the left side of the court. Take a look here. AP news is reporting. This us Supreme court declined on Tuesday to hear an emergency appeal of a vaccine requirement imposed on main healthcare workers, latest defeat for opponents of the vaccine mandates. First time the Supreme court weighed in on a statewide mandate, previously rejected challenges of vaccine requirements for New York city teachers in Indiana staffing and students justice Briar rejected the emergency appeal, but left the door open to try again. As the clock ticks on Maine’s mandate, the state will begin enforcing it October 29th, main vaccine requirement put in place by governor Janet Mills, hospital workers, nursing homes, everybody’s got to get vaccine or lose their job.

So we’ll see where these continue to go. Remember that when you have cases that are sort of working their way up through the district, different district courts, the federal district courts, each judge, in this case, judge Brier, they have jurisdiction over different geographical areas of the country. So out of Maine, right? You look at Maine. I don’t remember what’s in that circuit, but all of the other states, they sort of make up this little pocket. If there’s a case that arises out of there, those go up to judge Brier. Judge Briar happens to be somebody who’s a liberal. And we have seen some of his, uh, prior rulings, uh, even in the CDC case, he came out when the CDC, it was, I think that was a six to three case. And he was like, well, Corona virus is very bad. Therefore we get your property.

Indefinitely was essentially his argument. So we know how he’s going to fall on those issues. But that being said, it doesn’t mean that the entire, of course, you know, this is not the Supreme court deciding on the issue of vaccine mandates, not by a long shot. This is just one little attempt to get in there. The court through a liberal judge said, nah, not going to hear it that way. Bring it back a different way. And we’ll see where it goes. All right. Let’s take a look at what your thoughts are on some of this stuff over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And let’s see if we have some questions that are poking in here. And I know that we do and we do miles. Wait, what is this one? I think that was on yesterday’s show. All right. We’re queuing some of these up that’s here. It is. Eat on. Test is here, eat on test, says we need more of this push back on the unconstitutional laws and mandates get the VAX if you want it.

But if we allow the government to mandate, this is going to be no end to things. They will find a way to mandate. I want the government to fit in the size of the box that it came in. Yeah, like the mini boxes, right? You don’t need the extra supersize. Just get the little minis mini government. I like that. Cram it back in there. Uh, needs more cowbell says, can you please change the lamp color to white or yellow? Yeah, sure. I can do that. How about a it’s a little too bright on that one. How’s is that that’s a little bit more yellow. How’s that? Less, less, less red. Yeah. There you go. Let’s see if that’s a little bit better. We have another one from Bama lick. It says China has developed hypersonic weapons and we are still stuck with COVID-19. Hmm. America, please.

Can we move on? Take your vitamins or whatever. Happy pill you have just saying good day, everyone. I like that Bumble. Look, it let’s get back to business. The Antica says, I wonder how pervasive things like dead peasant insurance still is when I used to fly around the country, working for work. I know this was an issue in case you’re unaware. It’s the idea that companies take out an insurance policy on their workers, which by itself is understandable. But then when there have been situations where people have been overworked and pressured to work, unsafely reason why I bring this up is because of the pressure they’re putting on people over the shots. It makes the shots look more and more suspicious in my opinion. Oh, interesting comment. Yeah. So sort of a reverse of this, right? The idea that you’re, you’re being forced to be vaccinated is causing people to be in a higher risk category because of that mandate.

Whereas I thought you were talking about the anti kiss, the idea that unvaccinated people might be endangering the vaccinated, which is not where you were going with that little twist and it turned there. I like it. We have another one from thunder seven says, hi, Rob watched a video yesterday of a bunch of pilots planning to create their own airline, to avoid getting jab, being 30,000 feet up in the air, having an episode of a clot, not going to end. Well, one airline is offering free first-class flights with one criteria. Must have experience flying the planes. Gee, that’s not a red flag. There is a video that went viral from a Quantas pilot. Everyone should watch it. Very educational. Yeah. That’s great. Oh, that’s a interesting way to approach the whole thing. Yeah, you can fly on our airplane. You can buy a ticket. Well, we’ll do our best to get there, but if our pilot drops dead, you better be ready to go.

So don’t get too comfy in there, buddy. Boy, keep that seatbelt unbuckled. Cause we may need you in the cockpit, like on a moment’s notice. Woo. We have monster. One says, I think you should look into the Eric July style of YouTube does a live show and then immediately removes it. Then uploads clips throughout the day. Ooh. See, that’s another format, right? That might work as well. I might have to do that monster one also sent over a good suggestion as did somebody on Twitter saying that, you know, another format on the show is I could do, I could do. I could do the live show also on YouTube. And then as soon as the live show is over, I just unlist the live show there. And then I upload the premiere and then I sort of deed link. I could do it that way, which I might end up doing because I’m just, uh, angering everybody and the cabal over and in YouTube.

They’re not happy with it either. They’re just, uh, yeah, they’re just, I think they’re organizing something over there. I don’t know what’s going on over there, but I can see Zulu and KB and they’re plotting on something. All right. So we’re going to figure it out. We’re going to keep tweaking and everything, but keep your eye on them. A geo Mancy game says thank you for covering what’s going on in king county. I just talked about the story on my channel about how they’re going to comfort your kids. Next. I encourage you to check the video out in your off time. It’s getting worse here in Washington. Yeah. I, it certainly looks that way. Geo Mancy and geo Nancy games is on YouTube. Subscribe. Speech unleashed says, I hope a bunch more companies cave on these mandates too. I know you, I don’t know if you can read this live, but did you know about the Pfizer vaccines and FDA approval?

Yes. Yeah. Yes. So I’m not going to read it speech, but it’s a good conversation worth having. And I think it’s, it’s well worth something that I can talk about here, but these are conversations about senators getting answers about the vaccines, right? And it’s, I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with them or anything like that, but senators just have questions about it. And they’re sending letters over there. Like, Hey, what’s the difference between all these different versions? I think Ron Johnson is somebody who is, uh, you know, very aggressive with this. He doesn’t want any of this going forward for any of the Marines. The Navy, all of the armed services are, are up against these deadlines, just like everyone else. And you start talking about national security and readiness and those types of issues. It’s a big deal. D rod says, Hey, Rob, I have been, uh, lobbying state legislators to, uh, to something vaccine mandates by to stop vaccine mandates by employers in Florida, I spoke to a representative today.

He told me he believed if an unbox person should be ostracized from society. Vaccine mandates are not for the individual, but for the good of society, this rep is on my short list for not getting reelected. I’m a volunteer against for his opponent. I counted every one of his arguments with facts at the end, he told me my call was unsolicited. And didn’t appreciate my opinion so much for representing his constituents. Good for Southwest for seeing the light and the need to push, to make more the 360 degree in this direction. Yeah. So that’s a good comment from D rod out there getting involved in some civic activities, which of course I think is well worth it. Good to see you. Marty Lynn says, if your doctor wants to out you for a medical exemption, does it matter if your employer is honoring the weekly testing option or is that already a sufficient accommodation seems dumb to force, to be forced to pay for an indoor test when you already had COVID your Contra indicated for the VAX?

It’s a good, it’s a good question. Right? And I think in those cases, you know, you’d have to talk to your specific employer about this. Part of the problem is, is that there’s, there really are no articulated standards yet. This is what speech unleashed was talking about previously, right? There is this supposed to be rolling out all of these new OSHA regulations? Where are they they’re supposed to be coming here pretty soon. A lot of what we’re seeing from employers and from, you know, companies like Southwest airlines, they’re sort of just guessing what the administration wants and they’re coming up with their own policies, go get vacs or else adhering to the deadlines. But there really aren’t clear black and white rules about how this all works yet. They said, it’s coming. They promised it’s coming. We’ll see. Sergeant Bob says more evidence that the perverse mentality of California did creep northward, Oregon, and Washington as Californians move north over the last 40 years.

You know where else they’re coming? Sergeant Bob, Arizona, Texas. And we don’t, we don’t want them here quite frankly. And I say that with all due respect, get the hell out. We have another one from, let’s see, I’m not gas as boy with all the issues of undertrained and aggressive police. I’m sure a bunch of wet behind the ears emergency hires will really help with the police civilian interactions. Yeah. It’s going to look real good when we have, you know, uh, an 18 month recruit who just starts shooting somebody or gets killed himself because he doesn’t know what to do, or she doesn’t know what to do about it. It’s a disaster and it’s, it’s caused by them. Nothing else caused this, right? This wasn’t, this wasn’t like, you know, the pandemic, it’s kind of this new thing. Nobody knew what to deal with. But the, the, the response to the pandemic is now it’s like a self-imposed goal.

It’s like a cell phone. It’s insane, but they’re doing it. And they think that they’re brilliant for it. We have another one serious question says that there is no law that employees get jabbed. The mandate is not an official law. Interesting comment, no name on that one. Thanks for sending it. Peely. Wally says the U S and the UK. They’re fast becoming ridiculous with the mandates and regulations regarding COVID. If things keep going this way with COVID with freedoms being cut back, I might move to China to feel a little bit more free in life. Well, certainly don’t go to Australia. I mean, if you had two choices in that segment of the world, uh, you’d have to go with China, obviously, because what’s going on in Australia is like Looney tunes over there. Look to G and shout out to our friend, Greg, who’s surviving over there.

Look, two G says, hi, Rob, scary stuff. These mandates are going to remove employees who have critical thinking skills, replace them with ones who only take orders from the elites who seemingly own this country. I think there’s a lot of truth to that. Look to G no question about it. I don’t think it’s just existing in these companies. I think it’s sort of been in bread into the American zeitgeists the global Zeit Geist. In fact, chairman of the board says, I’m sure the response to the officer resigning was planned. She sounded very prepared. I’m sure she was, but still wow. Was that powerful when she thanked him for his service and started listing some of his accomplishments over the years, such a sad situation, good luck and Godspeed to that. Former officer. Very nice comment. Chairman of the board. Good to see you. Glad you made it here.

Live with us. We’ve got former. Leo says, I know what vigorous recruiting is. We worked under a federal consent order for four and four, and they almost eliminated any testing. San Francisco got the bottom of the barrel, but it met the goals of the federal court. Wow, that’s terrible. Yeah. San Francisco got the bottom of the barrel in terms of the vigorous recruiting over there. You know, who knows what their idea of vigorous recruiting is in San Francisco, but does not sound good. We have, Sergeant Bob says, Rob, you are a smart guy. You know, the difference between good Popo and bad Popo being an ethical defense attorney means, you know the difference. Thanks for the support. Yeah. That’s from Sergeant Bob and I’ve never looked. I started to show that was really aggressive with law enforcement and the police, because that’s when nobody was talking about it back then, right?

This was back in March before a lot of the summer stuff happened and then the whole world changed. And for some reason, everybody has pivoted. The pendulum has swung the other way. And it’s gotten a little bit insane now. And now they’re just saying that every single officer that’s ever existed as some sort of a monster, which is lunacy, that’s never been the case. It’s never been my perspective on this. And there are look, it’s just like, there are good officers. There are not so good. Officers are good lawyers, not so good lawyers, good doctors, not so good. The whole thing goes, right. It, it, it goes on everywhere, but what what’s happening here? I mean, it’s just, it’s. So in your face, these are the same public servants that many of these bureaucrats were holding up in the highest regard, right? For, for, for decades. And they serve all throughout the pandemic. And then with the stroke of a pen, they’re going to wreck their entire justice system. Okay. It’s a weird thing to do. I guess that’s leadership for some people. Exit is five. One says an afterward Sante went in and told the Southwest, thus sayeth the Lord of Israel. Let my reindeer go.

Oh, with the Santa memes, sweet potato says, God, just checking in sweet potato is here, says, just checking in. Washington is still hell reporting from the front lines. They refuse to provide accommodations for religious exemptions. Years of knowledge in their field, just gone. In fact, leadership, pat each other on the back and say how much safer they have made the workplace, even though both vacs and unpacks can get and spread it. And if the whole situation isn’t sad and sick enough, pouring salt on the wound, we need prayers. It’s a different kind of evil here in Washington. That’s a man that is a heavy comment. Sweet potato. There’s even a, uh, tears emoji there. I mean, I felt that one. Yeah. It’s a different kind of evil there. You saw it, man. Look, did you see that police officer sitting there in the car going all right, well, that’s it 22 years gone for what?

For what? Disgusting. So disgusting. Hang in there. Sweet potato. We have another 1, 5 0 3 unlimited says I X I’m experiencing a direct result of these mandates as well. Oregon demanded the mandates. Alyssa was created yesterday. That list of more than 40,000 executive branch workers was accidentally sent it to Mazer news publications contain the names, personal data, as well as vaccine status. What are you kidding me? What repercussions are there? When this happens as a result of a private company or governmental body, I’m afraid a HIPAA violation penalty doesn’t scare a government agency. You know, it’s a good question on those 5 0 3, when you are, when you’re looking at something this big, typically the, the entity that you want to go to as the attorney general of your state, talk to them about it. When there’s a big breach like this, they will often take some active action on that.

So I would contact your, uh, your attorney general, unless the attorney general has already indicated that they’re not going to do anything about it, but that’s typically where you’ll go. You know, things like the most common thing that you know, attorney generals will do for example, is when, if a gym, right, a whole chain of gyms starts doing something poorly and nobody can really get to the bottom of it. You call the attorney general and the attorney, what are you doing to our citizens over here? And they go after stuff like that. Uh, you know, of course, if there’s a crime, you know, the, the, the federal law enforcement will, should take a look as well. But that’s a crazy story. Soul Viking says, and still no OSHA rule yet all of this compliance is based on Joe Biden’s remark. Yeah. The compliance are happy to comply.

They just jump right into it. Very excited about it. Jeremy says, Rob, hopefully the people are waking up catching onto the fact that government mandate has never been about the vacs they’re testing to see if they can take away some of our freedoms. This isn’t the first time the government let’s try to take away our freedoms. Won’t be the last, never give up. Never give in tow the line. That’s from Jeremy Machita. He says, good to see you. Jeremy VNT. Kim says, I hate relying on other people for the first time in my life. I find myself hoping that others hold the line while preparing to possibly have to join myself. Yeah. Right. It’s sort of all hands on deck at this time, which is crazy. Kincaid says good evening. All I do not understand this from a medical standpoint, science does not support national action for many reasons.

So my question is why put additional stress on the economy without knowing it seems like such a social redesigned by, uh, to replace key figures. Think of all the other small changes made over the last three years. Yeah. Everything is changing dramatically and rapidly. We have [inaudible] says Lightfoot law, not following the jab mandate is COVID insurrection. Lock them up. Lori, you think Washington was bad buckle up in Chicago. Well, let’s see what else you got to fly through. A couple of these robot day says LOL combat readiness for the military. By having the vaccine bred. The military is not ready under Biden’s shown in Afghanistan. Let’s go Brandon. Yeah. Military readiness. Yeah. Did you see who just became a four star Admiral today? Oh my gosh. All right. We have another one. Greg Moran says, yeah, don’t come here. Greg’s in, uh, in Australia says I can’t even leave without a vaccine so much for your, if you don’t like it, you can leave.

Greg’s in the house. Good to see you, Greg. And he’s in Australia and he’s, uh, you know, living that hell hole. We have a couple other ones before we jump into the next segment, Jay, he says the trooper was on Fox news and said, he’d filed for a religious exemption. It was accepted. Unfortunately, there were no new positions to accommodate him unless he took a pay cut and moved across the state. So sad to see this happen. Total sham. Yeah. It’s like, I I’ve been saying it subhumans. It’s a separate class. It’s segregation. It’s this is our drinking fountain. That’s your drinking fountain. And a lot of the same people that were behind that segregation or behind a lot of the same posturing today in this world. It’s lunacy. Former Elio says if it bleeds, it leads biggest problem. With losing perspective on events, the news all the time in the more blood, the gore, the better that’s from former Leo.

And then we have John Haugen says running out of energy. This has to end. Yeah. John Hal green is in the thick of it. John, hang in there, brother. Hang in there, brother. We got a couple, you know, look, it’s probably going to be a couple more months before we get some clarity from the Supreme court. But hang in there, brother. We’re all pulling for you. Monster. One says, when you say soul Viking, I thought you were saying sole Viking. Like there was a soulful Viking come to find out its soul Viking sounds lonely. That’s for monster one.

That’s a deep observation. Monster one. Yeah. It’s true. You know, I never thought of it that way. Yeah. Kind of like, like lonely. He’s just like alone. I’m just a Viking alone in the wilderness with my ex. Oh, I love it. All right. So one more before we jump out of here, we’ve got the Antica says, I know you want it to be quick, but I just want to point out not being able to leave Australia. Apparently soon, Canada, people will still push the wall, but remember walls can keep people in as well. It’s a very good comment. [inaudible] and one final one. Let’s see, I’m not guest as this Levein lady confuses me. They say she’s the first female four-star Admiral provable. But this lady kind of looks like a fella. Look, that’s not inappropriate comment. That is, um, highly offensive to many people out there, but probably not Dave Chappelle.

All right. So that’s all that we have on that segment. Amazing questions over from our live show platform, watchingthewatchers.locals.com, please come and join us over there. All right. So we’re going to move into the next segment and uh, let’s see what’s happening with the January six. Oh yeah. The insurrection heard round the world that almost wrecked America, Donald Trump unhappy with the January six select committee is filing a lawsuit saying that what they’re asking for in their subpoenas, basically everything that they ever could imagine that relates to Donald Trump, the select committee wanted all of it. They wanted briefcases and wheelbarrows full of all of his files. And so he’s unhappy about that. He said, we’re not going to allow you to get away with that. Filed a lawsuit. And as suing everybody who’s involved, including the January six select committee itself, not to mention Bennie Thompson, remember Bennie Thompson, this fellow right here, we can see he is being sued by Donald Trump.

Donald Trump in this lawsuit filed in the district of Columbia civil action, Donald Trump in his capacity as 45th president suing out of Mar-a-Lago swing Bennie Thompson. You can see him here to talk a lot about him. He is the chairman of the house, select committee also suing the actual select committee itself. You can see here as another defendant, we have David Ferrero, who is the archivist of the national archives. He’s the leader of the national archive. So he’s a defendant as well as the national archives itself. So Donald Trump not happy about what they’re digging into, nor should he be. We’ve talked a lot about the criticisms about why this was such a stupid joke of a select committee in the first place, because we saw stuff like this. August 25th, Bennie Thompson sent this letter over to the, uh, Mr. Ferrero ferry area, as well as the national archivist, right?

So this is where us keeps its records, records administration. He sent this letter and he says, listen, I want everything. And if you were with us on the show, when we went through this, it’s like 20 something, oh, it’s 12 pages here. But that was just one request. Right? Many other requests went out to, uh, Steve Bannon and Kash Patel and everybody. And they’re just asking for everything that was back in August. And so Donald Trump said, you can’t do that. You cannot just get everything that you want just because you’re the government. And you said, so what kind of lunacy is this? We have executive privilege. We have attorney client privilege. We have all sorts of administerial, uh, stereo privilege. We have due process. We have all sorts of protections in place to stop this stuff from just opening the door, right? Any congressperson, just drafts a letter and sends it over.

And the archivists go, oh, well, sure. It’s like a library book. What do you need? Come on in and check it out. Not supposed to be how it happens. And so Donald Trump is saying, if you give those records back over to those people and I was going to be problems. And so he’s asking a court to stop it from happening in the first place. Here is the rest of the complaint from Trump. He is bringing this action. He wants two things declaratory. So he wants the court to say something to declare something and he wants injunctive relief. So he wants the court to do something, to stop something from happening. And it gives us some background here. We’re not going to go through it entirely. It’s a big document. Something like 26 pages. I think not going to read through the whole thing, but I want to show you sort of the, the bits and pieces.

So here is the introduction. He says the select committee, the January six committee, they are harassing president Trump. See that word, they’re sending an illegal unfounded over-broad records request to the archivist of the United States. They are describing this themselves as a sweeping hearing quotes request, almost limitless in scope, which is true. Effectively seeks every presidential record. Every communication that even tenuously relates to what happened on January 6th. It also seeks records with no reasonable connection to the events of that day, which is true. We talked about it in a political ploy to accommodate his partisan allies. Biden has refused to assert executive privilege over numerous clearly privileged documents that have been requested by the committee. The committee’s request is nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition, which we called it that a long time ago. And this is designed to unconstitutionally investigate Trump. Our laws do not allow for that, which is all absolutely accurate, right?

When we were reading the letters in the first place, this is what one of them look like. So yes, it was 12 pages, but this is everything that they wanted. And this is not just, I mean, this is like a snippet of this, probably three or four pages on here, but you can see, I mean, basically everything, right? Let’s start over here. Uh, documents from April one to January 20th, 2020. So, uh, nine months, 10 months of documents there that they want, what does that have to do with January six communications about delaying the electoral count, right? November 3rd, all the documents can communications between state governments and the white house. What the hell does that have to do with January six? Uh, and the list goes on and on. They want documents from governors, Doug Ducey, everybody. They just want everything, which is why we call it a fishing expedition.

And I even made a little thing right there showing fishing Bennie Thompson, which I thought was pretty clever, but you know, what can I say about that? So that’s exactly what the messaging looked like. They wanted everything totally unreasonable. And so Donald Trump’s lawyers are calling that out. They said that the committee, they sent sweeping requests, they wanted everything, multiple committees, white house advisor, archivist, everything they’re saying that these requests are unprecedented in their breath, unprecedented in their scope. And they are untethered from any legitimate legislative purpose. Okay. That’s what this is talking about. This is Congress. Are they supposed to be beating up their political enemies? Are they supposed to be doing official congressional things? Probably the latter, right? But they’re not doing that. They’re saying that these boundless requests include over 50 requests for documents, people working inside and out of the administration.

We see here, they’re asking for all sorts of stuff. So they have, they give us an example, all documents and communications relating in any way to remarks made by Trump or any persons on January 6th and seeing a public remarks. They want Twitter messages throughout the day that they’re going to go and check his DMS. I guess all documents, you can see some of this stuff is, is privileged, it’s protected. And so Trump is saying you don’t get access to that. Okay. So here’s a couple other examples before we get into the actually sort of the meat and potatoes of the analysis here, we’re giving some background, they’re saying they want over two dozen high ranking officials, single request demands, access to a number of records. The committee has no right to have. They have nothing to do with the events of January six. And they’re all privileged communications from hundreds of people, right?

Huge, huge buckets of information. And I’ve, I’ve told this story before, but basically every time we ask for anything in a criminal case, if we say, Hey, our client got arrested for a DUI, and we’d like to know what your crime lab did since you tested the blood, you inventoried it and moved it, put it into evidence, your crime tech people took it out. You analyzed it. We want to see all of those records. Can you show us, uh, how you calibrate your device? Can you show us the chromatograms? Can you, uh, detail us the last time your device was taken in of service? Let us see the service records for everything. In fact, they always go like this. You don’t need all that stuff. What kind of a person are you? What kind of defense lawyer are you? You want to see our calibration records?

Uh, judge that’s inappropriate. This is a fishing expedition by defense counsel. They’re just looking for stuff to sink their teeth into so that they can win their case, but they don’t need access to any of that. Most of it’s proprietary. It’s not even relevant in a DUI case. That’s what they say all the time. And the judges go, oh, no, that sounds right. That makes sense. So, yeah, counsel, uh, w w what, what’s your basis for it? Oh, due process, the presumption of innocence, your client deserves the right to a fair trial and reviewing the evidence. That’s a nice, that’s a nice comment. Um, a motion denied counsel. You don’t get access to any of that stuff. That’s unfortunately how some of this goes, unless you’re in Congress, then you can just submit these fishing expeditions that include literally whatever you want. Hundreds of pages of documents from anybody.

And it even goes after the president. And if you say the president is now objecting to your subpoena requests, well, it’s because he’s an insurrectionist, he’s a trader to America and he almost took the country. It’s almost, it almost became the United States of Donald. Very, very difficult time for many people out there. So what they’re asking for in this lawsuit, in some, the plaintiff now files this action, asking the court, this is what Trump’s lawyers want. They want to stop enjoying the archivist from turning over the records, just stop them from doing it right. They got an official subpoena requests that went over from the select committee. The archivist is taking a look at this. The archivist is looking at this letter from the Democrats in Congress. He’s looking, oh, shoot, uh, uh, my boss up there in the executive branch, Joe Bynes, a Democrat basically said, uh, give it to him as they’re looking at this document and they’re going well, that’s weird.

You know, executive privilege applies to a prior administration, but this incoming administration, Joe Biden just waved. It just said it doesn’t matter. Uh, it doesn’t apply retroactively. And so they limited that. So the archivist is going, I don’t know what to do. I got an official looking letter from a couple of useless congresspeople. My boss says, I have to give, give it over there. What should I do? So Donald Trump files a lawsuit to stop this from happening. Tell judge court, tell them, don’t give the documents back over to the select committee, telling the archivist, you are enjoying your stop from doing that at bare minimum. Trump’s lawyers want that the court to stop them from producing any privileged records at the bare minimum, until Trump is able to conduct a full privilege review of the requested materials. Okay? We talked about executive privilege. It’s up to the person who holds the privilege.

Just like your doctor counts are can’t start spouting off about your medical records or your lawyer can start spouting off about that guy that you murdered. You have you, the person has the privilege. Trump is the executive. He was the president. He holds the privilege. Biden just waived it for him. Question is, can you do that? Well, we’re see Trump says you can’t. And in fact, his lawyers came up with this nice little test, which I never heard about called the [inaudible] test. You can see that here. And it’s a nonexclusive balancing test to analyze the propriety of Congress, peering into presidential records. So if that standard is satisfied, then the committee and that committee can’t overcome this, they don’t get access to the record. So they give us a four part test. And we talk about, these are fun in law. These are easy to analyze, which is a nice thing for lawyers.

Courts will oftentimes set out these four part tests. They say it’s a nonexclusive balancing test. So we get these four factors and we balance them out. And you can, you know, you can analogize this to a number of different things. It’s like, Hey, I probably should have thought of a better analogy here. But it’s like, if you’re, if you’re trying to shop for a car, right, you’re going to be looking at different factors. Uh, what’s the speed. How many people does it hold? How fast does it go? Uh, what does it cost? These are all different factors. And you weigh those factors out. One is not necessarily exclusive, or they’re all sort of independent of each other, but they all will weigh in and you analyze them in totality. And you say, oh, I like all of those different factors of that car. And so I’m going to go purchase that car.

Now we have a four factor test here. Let’s take a look at what this is. And let’s remember what we’re talking about. Should the national archivist, should the January 6th select committee get access to these private records from Donald Trump’s camp, a election from his presidency that were according to him, executively privileged, let’s see four factors that we have to analyze. Number one, first factor Supreme court says you better carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants, the significant step of involving the president and his papers, Supreme court decided this case in the bazaars case. So asking ourselves does what Congress is doing. Does it further, uh, uh, an asserted, legislative purpose? What are they going to do if they get this? I dunno, pass a law against insurrection, which already exists. And nobody’s being prosecuted under what are they going to do with it? What is the legislative purpose of this?

Okay. They already impeached Donald Trump that didn’t work out. So politically that takes that out or are they wanting to charge him criminally? Because that’s for the DOJ, that’s not for a Congress. That’s for the department of justice. They can refer all that stuff over to them. So what is the legislative purpose of this January 6th committee pass a new domestic surveillance laws to stop the mega Trump people, right? That would actually be a legitimate, legislative purpose. They got to say, listen, uh, America was almost taken over by domestic terrorists. And so we need to get to the bottom of this Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney. They’re going to solve this problem. And so that we’re going to end, you know, we’re going to review all these records and we’re going to go pass some new communications act policy that stops secret conversation about insurrections. Okay? At least that’s an actual purpose of the committee, but I haven’t seen much about what they’re doing here other than trying to rub Trump’s nose in it and never let that beaten horse die already.

It’s done. It’s dead. It’s been beaten for 10 months now, but they’re not going to let it go. Uh, they also say the president’s unique, constitutional position means Congress may not look to him as a case study for general legislation. They may not rely on the president’s information. If other sources could provide Congress that information to achieve its legislative objective. So if they really wanted to go and investigate a dangerous insurrectionary mob, well, they’ve got the FBI. They’ve got all of the different federal law enforcement agencies that have been investigating this. They can go talk to them about it. Why do they need to go talk to Trump about it? Well, it’s because they don’t really have a legislative purpose. Do they also second factor? So that first factor, I think, weighs in against them getting access to anything. How about this? Number two, the Supreme court in Mazur says that courts should insist on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support the legislative objective.

Hmm. All right. Well, I think it fails that one because plaintiff, when they issue a broad request, it asks for everything under the sky, the burden should not be placed on the president of critiquing unacceptable discovery requests line by line. Therefore courts should be wary of requiring the president to assert the executive privilege in response to a broad request. So strong protections for the president, meaning if they are going to ask for something. So it’s kind of a high standard. Don’t ask the president for something, unless you have a legitimate reason to do so. That’s number one. Number two, when you do ask for something, you better make sure it’s narrowly tailored. It’s it’s reasonably necessary. It’s not broader than anything else that you need. That is obviously not the case with Bennie Thompson’s requests. I just showed you the slide. They want everything from everybody all over the country.

Ridiculous. Number three, the third factor courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances, a valid legislative purpose. So when Congress contemplates legislation that raises sensitive, constitutional issues like issues concerning the presidency, it is impossible to conclude that a subpoena is designed to advance a valid legislative purpose unless Congress adequately identifies its aims and explains why the president’s information will advance its consideration of the Ponsa possible legislation. So this is like, Hey, if you are, I’ve said this before, right? Presidents don’t get indicted. There’s a big reason why, uh, you know, nobody gets in trouble once you are at that level. But the point here is if it, you better explain clearly why you need it. In other words, make sure you need it. It’s gotta be narrowly tailored. And then you basically have to detail it to make sure that the, the specific data that you’re asking for specifically advances the possible legislation and you’re in consideration of that possible legislation.

And then the final test, finally, number four, burdens imposed by the congressional subpoena should be scrutinized for they stem from a rival political branch has an ongoing relationship with the president use and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage. Okay. So the Supreme court has rejected arguments that only an incumbent president may assert separation of powers. Claims these burdens are not sufficiently diminished by the fact the president is no longer in office. Okay. Yeah. And so, uh, sort of four factors there. I don’t see why, why this, this goes anywhere. I think that honestly, the January 6th committee probably knows that and that this is all going to, uh, pewter out at some level, but here’s what they’re asking for that these are Trump’s lawyers. They’re saying we want a declaratory judgment saying the committee’s requests are invalid unenforceable so that the national archivist doesn’t have to give it over in the alternative.

They’re saying that this is a violation of separation of powers. They want an injunction, both pre preliminary and permanent stopping the committee, including Bennie Thompson from taking any actions to enforce the request. So sort of a proactive, uh, elimination of the ability to even make further requests. And then we have preliminary permanent injunctions stopping the archivist over at the national archivist from actually producing the documents. So, uh, stopping the requests from coming from the select committee and stopping the archivist from disclosing any of the information back the other direction to the committee. So kind of hitting it from both angles. That’s why you’re seeing a number of them, uh, delineated there as a co-defendants essentially. All right. Let’s take a look at your questions over from watchingthewatchers.locals.com. See if there are any thoughts on this stuff. We’ve got VNT cuss here says I make it no secret how I don’t see a difference between team Coke and team Pepsi, but regardless of what flavor of Cola you like, can we take a moment to recognize this is the first time in the lifetime of anyone alive today, that one team was holding a lot of the members of another team in persecution.

Yeah. I mean, I think that’s fair. I mean, they’ve, they’ve sort of identified an entire contingency, a contingent of Americans that are now pseudo terrorists, and that’s not a joke. That’s not being hyperbolic. Right. They’ve actually said that former CIA director, John Brennan was somebody who was in power. Who’s talking that way now it’s scary stuff. If the Antica says it’s reg, he said, I want to emphasize for my last comment that it is regular people being held. Yeah. The whole January six thing is really resulting in a lot of miscarriages of justice. Thunder seven says the witch hunts against Trump will never stop. They’re terrified of Trump in the 120 million Patriots. Glad he is fighting back lawsuit. Number three, I think one against the New York toilet times and his niece, one against Twitter. And now one against the raging lunatics of the January six unselect committee.

Trump calls them warmongering rhino and crying. Adam Kinzinger, Adam Kinzinger is so insufferable. I can’t even take it. I follow him on Twitter. That’s how I know VNT kiss says as much as I know that seeking these documents is a witch hunt. The fact that keeping the official documents of the office under wraps does contribute to a lack of transparency of our government. No question about that, right. Executive privilege absolutely. Is something that limits accountability and transparency, which are two core values of this program. But the point here is that there are some privileges that are necessary in my opinion, for the operation of government. And you know, we’re going to have this same battle come up again. So if we want to do away with executive privilege, that’s a whole separate conversation. I don’t even have a problem with that. That’s not what we’re talking about.

What we’re talking about is a standard that was set and that another administration is going to retroactively open up for the preceding administration, which is a whole new game, right? That’s a whole new can of worms. What that means is the next time the Republicans are in charge. Well, there’s new rules in town, depending on how this goes. And so the Democrats would be open to all of that, right? Opening everything up. And so, you know, fares Fair’s fair. Donald Trump didn’t do that to, uh, Obama, did he? Didn’t open up the national archives, get whatever you need. Didn’t do that. Now there wasn’t a, uh, you know, an insurrection that almost wrecked America either. So I think that would be the response the other way. Again, let’s see a speech unleash says, I can’t even imagine what four years worth of Trump tweets would look like the government can’t even get through reviewing all the January six tapes.

So I don’t understand how they will have time to go through all of his tweets laughing that’s from speech unleashed. I’m pretty sure that they were all hanging on them for four years. Anyways. They were all, you know, lapping it up. Former. Leo says, I wonder if the Democrats understand what will happen after POTUS is elected again, number 47. How about all the protected communications from Russia, Russia, Russia, or fast and furious, or the Obama reign of terror or anything that the Biden administration has done. How about, would you like to just take a look at some of those Afghanistan withdrawal papers? Would you like to see what Joe Biden was saying to his cabinet officials? Right. Hump would be very curious there because we had Millie, we had Austin, we had Mackenzie all hauled in front of Congress saying, oh no, we, our position was to leave troops there.

Can you tell us what you said to Joe Biden? Well, I can’t do that. It’s all executive privilege. We can’t talk about that. Oh, well, a Republican just comes in and says, well, not anymore because we’re going to form a committee and we want access to everything. So for all the Democrats who are pounding their fists over this stuff, that Trump is fighting it. Hey man, look, it’s going to, you know, the pendulum swings both ways there. All right. We have another one from look to G says, now I thought there was something called executive privilege. How could they try to obtain Trump’s information, but not dig too deeply into bushes weapons of destruction. Obama’s fast and furious. Hillary’s illegal wiping of info from phones, scandal. It seems like a double standard that’s because it is, it’s exactly what it is. And that’s why we’re talking about it.

It’s a good, it’s a good observation. Kincaid says, I have seen the shift of reasonable dams breaking the charm when shown just how dirty party leaders are. The scary thing is how many will still refuse to observe actual reality. Morality is fabricated by the powerful empathy and sympathy usually come from within bold, compassionate thinkers need to survive all this for hope. That’s a beautiful comment. Kinkaid that’s poetic, empathy and sympathy usually come from within bold, compassionate thinkers need to survive all this for hope. Love that. Thank you for that comment. It’s inspirational. We have a, Jeremy says, Rob, at what point are these Trump obsessed stocker is going to be deemed mentally ill. Trump was such a successful president. His political opponents have gone mentally insane. They can’t stop thinking or obsessing over him. He lives rent-free in their heads. I guess they are. It’s hilarious.

Former Lao says it appears in the second qualifier. The name Cheney was on the case, which Cheney filed and why it was Liz Cheney. She’s on the January six select committee. Sergeant Bob says great analysis as usual. Thank you, Sergeant Bob going through the four factor test, we haven’t done a, uh, a multifactor test here on the show. Monster. One says recently on the show monster, one says, it’s never going to end. They’re going to fabricate bogus criminal charges to keep him from running again. That’s for monster one. Yeah, they are just going to, never let this puppy die. And uh, let’s see. I think that was our last one for the day. So those were great questions from our amazing community over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com, where we go live on this show exclusively. So come and check us out there. And that’s where the live chat takes place.

All right. So we’re going to move into our next segments and what are we talking about? Oh yeah, that’s right. Golin Maxwell. And we’ve got a little bit of time here. So we’ll, we’ll move through this one a little bit quickly, but it’s some good stuff. Golin Maxwell trials coming up very soon, which means we’re in the final stages of trial preparation in particular, we’re hashing out the rules about jury selection. If you recall, if you’ve been with this channel for some time, we’ve gone through some other cases that took place in state court or local courts that are not the federal level. And so for the Derrick Shovan case, for example, we saw individual jurors kind of get called up anonymously one by one, ask questions from the prosecutor, ask questions from the defense and then decide whether they’re going to be on the jury panel or not works a little bit differently in federal court.

And it’s also a case, this case that involves a lot of really, really drastic, dramatic consequences. We’re talking about Golin Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Of course, these two people were hobnobbing around with most of the elites political elites, the corporate elites, the media elite throughout the United States and the world talking about royalty and things. So there’s a lot of eyeballs on this case, a lot of scrutiny. And so let’s take a look at the court docket so we can gain an understanding of what’s going on back on October 18th. So this week there’s been a ton of activity in the Glen Maxwell case. You can see back on October 18th, yesterday on Monday, there was a letter by the U S so this is by the prosecutors to Golin Maxwell address to the judge. This is a response to a motion for limited attorney conducted voice deer and individual sequestered voice deer.

Okay. What does this mean? Right. When we were going through the Derrick Shovan case, most of the jury was sort of brought in together and ask questions individually or as a group, or this often happens, right? Juries are sort of brought in, they’re asked questions as a group, and then you call them up one by one and you do voice deer individually. You sequester them from everybody else. So you don’t ask everybody the same question. So for example, in a DUI case, right on a low level, uh, sort of state court DUI case, one of the first things that a judge will ask the entire group, everybody gets called in for jury selection, you know, 50, 60 people there, the judge will say, uh, has anybody ever been convicted of a DUI people who raised their hands they’re gone immediately, right? They’re going to be biased in a DUI case.

Has anybody ever been injured by somebody who was driving under the influence hands go up, they’re gone, right? There’s no way that they’re going to be, uh, impartial or unbiased. So those are the preliminary questions. And then, and in, in the shelving case, we did that through questionnaire and things like that. Did you see Derek Shovan, you know, put his knee on Floyd’s neck? Yes, I did. I think he’s a monster. Okay. You’re gone. So it’s the same concept, but then you have a segment where you’re bringing them up individually and you’re asking them questions. And we saw that in the show of, in case we’re not going to see any of that in the Gulen Maxwell case. Number one, this is federal court. They don’t allow videos in there, but number two, we’re still fighting over that. We’re still fighting over how this is all going to go.

Is a judge going to ask the questions is the judge going to allow group questions? Is the judge going to ask individual questions of each individual juror? Are they all going to be sequestered, separated out from each other? Or are the attorneys like we saw in the Shovan case, they were able to ask questions. We heard from Eric Nelson, we heard from the prosecutors, they asked the jurors questions and they both took turns, but in federal court, that’s not an automatic thing. So now are the attorneys are going. Maxwell’s attorney is going to be able to go in and ask questions. These are all issues that we’re fighting over in court. And it might sound like it’s sort of, you know, minutia it’s stuff. That’s around the margins, not that meaningful. This is critically important. And that’s why there’s so much activity here in this case. So Glenn Maxwell and her lawyer, they submitted emotion.

They’re asking the court to allow lawyers to ask the jurors questions. This is not usual in federal court. They’re saying, judge, we would like to ask some questions. And we would like this to be done with individual sequestered jurors during the questioning segment. So the government responded and basically say, no, we don’t want you to do that. We’re going to look at those motions, but we’re also going to see that we have several different motions, filed motions, eliminate down here. These were filed by the U S prosecutor’s office. And we also have, where were they? These are Glen Maxwell’s motions eliminate. Right? And so in, in motions, eliminate, this is a whole separate concept on the, we’re talking about two issues here. Number one is what jurors are we going to get on the jury panel? And this is what we’re talking about. Questioning the jurors, void Dearing jurors, making sure that we can eliminate any of the non, the non neutral jurors.

We want to get, you know, kick them off of the panel because they’re biased. That’s one issue. What is the makeup of the jury panel? Number two now is what can the attorneys present to the jurors? This is where we talk about motions. Eliminate is think of these as motions to limit what can come into a trial. So we’re talking about stuff that lawyers can say and stuff that lawyers can’t say before trial even starts. Okay. There are certain things that you can’t talk about. So for example, if we go back to the DUI analysis, the DUI case, one example of a motion in lemonade that defense lawyers like myself will often file will be a motion to stop a police officer from doing certain things while they’re testifying. So for example, in a DUI case, we’re all familiar with the standardized field sobriety test, right?

Stand on one leg, walk in, turn, follow the pen, test the horizontal gaze nystagmus test Sergeant Bob former LEL will tell you all about these things, but oftentimes police officers they’ll they’ll perform those tests and a defense lawyer. When they’re in the middle of a trial, they’ll want to talk about those tests. And they’ll say, well, officer, isn’t it true that you did this, this and this and this. And the oftentimes the officer will say, well, I’ll just show you what I did. And they’ll just stand up and they’ll walk in front of the jury and they’ll say, here’s how I asked them to do the test. And so you’ll get this officer who’s really precision, right? He’s done this a million times, testified in front of juries a million times. Doesn’t falter, doesn’t mess up at all, goes in front of them and says, I asked them to put one heel on the ground and they plop it down.

And then I put one foot in front of the other and I did my exact walk and turn and they show it in front of the jury. And the jury looks at this and they go, oh, that’s easy. That test is super easy. Anybody can do that. And so a defense lawyer is going to go, well, I don’t want to allow that lawyer to do that. I don’t want to that, that officer to do that because if they get in front of the jury and they show how easy it is to perform these tests, that’s not really how this was on the side of the road. Was it? This officer is in a nice flat carpeted courtroom. There’s no sirens flashing around him. There’s no cars that are working down the street. There’s not somebody who’s barking orders at him with a badge and a gun on the side of the road.

It’s not 2:00 AM in the morning. Right? And so this officer is going to get out there and perform something that it’s going to feel like to the jury is accurate. Like it’s right. Oh, that’s oh, that’s how it was on the side of the road. Well, that’s easy. Well, he should’ve just complied and done that in reality. It’s not the same thing. It’s a false equivalency. So that police officer, what a defense attorney’s going to want to do is to stop them from performing that act right from getting up there and demonstrating the walk and turn test, because it’s not the same thing. They’re not out there on the side of the road. So a defense lawyer is going to file. What’s called a motion eliminated. They’re going to say, judge, if this officer tries to get up and do that, I’m going to object because that’s not proper.

It’s demonstrative evidence that doesn’t apply for whatever the reasons are in the case. And we, we seek to stop that from happening. Now we can still talk about the field sobriety tests. We can still talk about the one in turn, walk and turn. We can do all of those things, but the officer getting up there and demonstrating that it’s super easy. It’s not easy. And it is basically prejudicing the jury. And so we ask that that stop. It’s a motion eliminate. It’s a motion to eliminate that, to stop that from happening to limit that testimony. So we got two of those now from both sides in the Glen Maxwell case, Gulen Maxwell filed that. And we have the prosecutors that are also filing that. So we’re going to look at all of this stuff, uh, relatively quickly here. And I spent a lot of time explaining that, okay, enough, Rob, get into the motions here.

They are memorandum of law in support of Golin Maxwell’s motion for individual’s requested juror void, dear, this is questioning and limited counsel conducted void deer. So this is two things. One we want jurors separated and questioned individually. And number two, we want to ask questions as counsel. We want to ask these questions. So what they’re telling us, this is from Glen Maxwell’s attorneys. She’s saying the court has already determined. We’re going to be using a questionnaire it’s appropriate in this case. Parties recently submitted under seal. Everything is under seal in this case, a joint proposed jury questionnaire. So we can’t see what that is. Court has scheduled three days for jurors to complete those questionnaires and then four days to conduct examination. Those jurors. So questionnaire is going to go out. Do you, have you heard about Glen? Do you know anything about it? Do you know Epstein?

Do you have any opinions on it? Yes. Gone everybody else. Okay. Come back in four days to question them. But Maxwell’s lawyers say that a questionnaire by itself is not sufficient in this case to root out potential juror bias. Doesn’t allow lawyers to exercise their peremptory challenges. These are the strikes. So they say they want two things. Well, I’m sorry. Let me back up. They say, we want to supplement those questionnaires with sequestered voice deer. We want examination of the jurors by counsel because there are two very important unfairly prejudicial media questions here. Number one, the pretrial publicity here in this case is going to continue throughout the trial, which is unquestionably true. And the extensive prior negative publicity about Colin Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. They’re saying we know what the rules are. We’re asking for a change. This case is a little bit different because of who we’re talking about.

Here they go on there’s intense media coverage. This has been really exacerbated since Epstein didn’t kill himself in August, 2019 Maxwell arrested July, 2020 unprecedented amount of media coverage. It’s all over the place it’s on Amazon. It’s on podcast is on YouTube, it’s everywhere. And so we need to really make sure that we’re getting crystal clear about how we pick these jurors. So Maxwell’s lawyer says that jurors may also have a strong reaction to the sensitive nature of what we’re talking about. Epstein’s arrest. His prior convictions are for sexual misconduct allegations of sexual misconduct with minors over the course of two decades. And then he died while awaiting federal trial at the front and center of Maxwell’s trial. So, uh, the standard void deer typically conducted by this court it’s insufficient for this case. Written questionnaire, coupled by limited questioning of jurors is what is necessary. And that’s what they’re asking for.

So you can see Bobby stern Haim over here, a lawyer extraordinary to the stars has filed this. Now the government responded and they said, well, you know, we don’t really want to do that, judge. They say the government respectfully says that. Now we’re responding to their motion. We’re saying that nothing, that the defendant just argued warrants departing from a well-settled practice of a court led void. Dear, this means the court is asking the questions. This prosecutor says the court is well-equipped. They can thoroughly question perspective jurors and they can filter their questions that are prepared by the parties. So they don’t want sequestered void deer. They say, look, it’s the court should ask most questions in open court and ask sensitive questions at a sidebar. So anything that relates to sexual abuse or media exposure that can all happen offline, but anything else should be done in open court, right?

And, and, and the attorneys are fighting over this for two different reasons. The prosecutors want the standard narrative to go out to everybody. What defense attorney is trying to do here is get into the minds of the jurors to some degree, and to start setting the theme early. Oftentimes lawyers will make the mistake of thinking that their case starts during the opening argument, right? That they’d walk into court. The jury has been picked and they go, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you’re going to hear today, a story from the prosecution about a bunch of made up baloney. That’s not true. Let me tell you a story about my client, right? And you’re going to go into the story about what happened and you think, oh, well this is my first time to make an impression on the jury wrong. It starts way before that, right.

It really starts when the jurors walk past you and you’re standing there in your suit and tie next to your client, that’s when it starts. But then it starts during voice. Dear ladies and gentlemen, you know, my name is Robert. Anybody recognize me? No. Right. Okay, great. We’re going to move on with this and anybody recognize anybody else in the courtroom? No. Okay, great. And, and you just start going through and that’s where your, your personality comes out from the first setting. So the government, in this case, they do not want Maxwell’s lawyers to have that opportunity to start setting the tone, to start asking questions that might get people thinking a certain way. What Maxwell’s team is doing. They focus, grouping all of these issues, right? They probably have entire teams of focus, groups, testing, different themes. What do you think about this? Why don’t we say if Maxwell was the victim, what do we say?

If Maxwell was, um, you know, being abused by Epstein? Do you like that or not? Yes or no. Do you like if I use the word, uh, you know, assault or abuse, which one, which one is less offensive to you, which, and they pick it, right? Their focus, grouping all of this stuff, and they’re trying to do everything they can to maneuver the jury pool. I can’t even tell you the amount of resources that are probably being expended in this process. Given the fact that we’re talking about Maxwell Epstein and Lord knows who else is involved with this, they say under the typical practice in the district, prospective jurors would not be asked to describe their experiences with sexual assault or the details. The questioning would happen in a sidebar in individual settings. You can sign, see this was filed by, I believe Alison Mo.

And so, uh, we’ll see what the judge does with that. Now the rulings are, is going to come out. I think later, let me see when the judge scheduled this. Yeah. Future hearing is going to be scheduled when October 21st. So they’re going to hold a telephone conference to discuss the jury selection matters. That’s going to be coming here in two days on what does that Wednesday, Thursday, October 21st. Can you believe it’s almost November already. That’s going to be when the next hearing will be. And so the judge will rule on some of that. Now let’s talk quickly about the motions in lemonade, a brief segment on this, but motions, eliminate, as I mentioned, it limits testimony. It limits evidence from coming into court. And you want to flesh this out before the trial starts, right? Cause you don’t want to the battle over this in the middle of everything.

So for example, if we back up to my DUI analogy, if that officer gets up and walks over and starts walking and turning in front of the jury and I, I object, you can’t do that judge. And I make my arguments and all this stuff goes out. The jury is going to go, what the hell is wrong with that attorney over there? Why is he jumping out of his seats? This is kind of crazy. Maybe he’s trying to hide something from us. Huh? Why is he trying to stop that officer from testifying? And so you don’t want all of that to unfold in the middle of a court trial. You want to get it out of the way early so that there aren’t anything that explodes right in the middle of a trial. All right. So here is what Maxwell is asking for. They’re saying, judge, we’re filing these motions and get ready for them.

Number one, we want to preclude the introduction of co-conspirator statements. I don’t really know what that means. Cause most of this is filed under seal, but we know that there is a co-conspirator and that they have some statements, but we don’t know what that means. Practically. Who is the co-conspirator and what statements are we talking about? But Maxwell’s lawyer does not want that coming into court. So they’re filing a motion specifically for that, right? And these Mo this is just a list of the motions. These are, these are each one of these is very substantive. This is, this is what the issue is. This is why, this is what the law says. And this is why this should be granted judge and the government can respond and we can go back and forth on each one of these motion to exclude any evidence offered by the government for failure to comply with the rules, notice requirements.

So any late evidence can’t come in a motion to exclude evidence under federal rules. The, the Daubert standard, basically saying that if anything needs to be vetted by an expert witness, anything that hasn’t met, that standard got to go. Otherwise you have a Daubert hearing. Let’s see there’s another accuser. Number three, they want evidence of that gun. There’s a, an alleged fight. They want evidence of that excluded. We also have Maxwell made false alleged, false, false statements and perjury. They want those redacted and removed from a superseding indictment. Oh, we got an authenticated hearsay documents from the government. We got items that were seized from property at 3, 5, 8 El Briella way, October 20th, 2005 long time ago, they have a motion to suppress identification. So somebody’s probably going to identify Colin Maxwell. And they’re going to try to suppress that saying that it’s a bad ID. So that’s been filed motion to preclude a law enforcement witness from offering expert testimony.

Hmm. Wonder who that witnesses. We have precluding testimony about any alleged quote rape by Jeffrey Epstein. So they do not want that word coming in. They do not want that word rape being used. They do not want any reference to the accusers as victims or as minor victims. Right? Very smart. You don’t want the prosecutor to come in and say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, these minor victims over here, there were victimized by Jeffrey Epstein that were raped repeatedly. Right? You don’t want them to say that you’d rather the prosecutor come out and say, uh, ladies and gentlemen, those jurors were, uh, you know, uh, assaulted, sexually assaulted. They were accosted. And they were the recipients of some heinous activities by Jeffrey Epstein doesn’t sound as bad, right? We all know it’s the same thing, but it doesn’t sound like a victim was raped.

And it’s just a different, you know, the V’s and the RS. They’re very aggressive, a motion to preclude introduction of government exhibits. So all these different exhibits don’t know what those are. 6 0 6, 2 51 to 88 to 94. They want them all precluded. So we don’t know how the judge is going to rule on some of those. A lot of these are going to be ruled upon further down the line, but we know what Gillen Maxwell’s asking for. Now we can take a look at what the U S government is asking for, and they don’t give us anything because they’re submitting it all under seal, a bunch of punks, but the government is submitting it under seal by email, with proposed redactions, they give us a three-part test for why they can see all this stuff. They say that there are certain documents about access and victims.

Don’t see much there. Let’s see what else is over here. The government seeks redaction of section X until the conclusion everything’s redacted, super annoying, but Alison Mo is over here and they are, they are not telling us specifically what they are going to try to, uh, preclude or exclude from evidence. So let’s take a look at some watchingthewatchers.locals.com questions. It is Tuesday. So I got to fly through a couple of these, fortunately, not too many of them, but let’s see what else we’ve got. All right. First one is here from no, that was on the last segment. Okay. We have, uh, let’s see here. Former Leo says, how about the body cam video from the roadside sobriety test? I had drivers that couldn’t even stand up. I had to save them from falling. Was Glen Maxwell drunk somewhere former Leo Nadler’s dirty diaper says Galane could only make my life heavier.

What she knows is I’m not pretty. I’m now at 31 pounds, 31 and a half pounds from Jerry Nadler, poor Nadler. All right, well, look, Natalie has a diaper problem, Glen. Maxwell’s not going to be able to help him out with that, but, uh, those questions came over from watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And I appreciate everybody’s support over there, our Homebase. So that is it for the show for me for the day, my friends were wrapping it up there a little bit early. Thank you for those questions. I want to welcome some new people over art to our community at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. You can see here, we had a max 9, 2, 2 who jumped in and I mean, a really generous support over there on local. So ultra mega shout out to max nine to two, I’ve never broken out the shocked face emoji, but we did for that one, max.

So thank you for that support. Also, we have tsunami, Tommy who signed up, absolutely loved that name. Welcome tsunami, Tommy. We got saga. Riches is in the house, joined up for the year, saw Suga sugar, sugar britches in the house over on, uh, on locals today. She’s chatting away. We’ve got ad Millie aura in the house. Welcome ad. We have pretty darn nice. You signed up as well, which is a pretty darn nice thing. We have sovereign lion Lynn fish, germs sniper 2 75 and Lao Patricia week. Prior to that, Paula Revere HS DNP Thai live in Maxine 27 unbridled form. Aviatrix burnt to a crisp and let’s be fair. All joining us over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com, which is good news because we have a meeting coming up soon, November six, crazy from seven to 8:00 PM is our monthly locals meetup. And we are going to have a lot of fun there.

So I hope you can join us. And that my friends is at for me for the day, we’ll give some extra special loves and shout outs for our friends over on YouTube for being a part of the show. We also are signing off over on rumble user 1, 1, 2, 1 Paul fare. We’ve got reca, double oh seven and a few other people are chatting away over there. And then of course, shout outs to my friends over on locals. We’ve got sugar, britches pronouns. Are he him and that guy? So it’s not a, a female it’s it’s sugar, sugar britches, welcome sugar britches. We’ve got VNT kiss. We have Mustang. Jeff, Jeremy Matrine is over there. Jeremy says, Hey, Rob, I’m still driving. Can you keep going with the stories please? Jeremy I’m out of time, I got to jump into my men’s group. We’re going to hop on over there right now.

And so that my friends is at, for me for the day, we’re going to be back. Same place, same time here on locals, live 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the east coast. This is all being rebroadcast, of course, to our friends on YouTube as a premiere, which is going to be live at 7:00 PM, Arizona time, 10:00 PM Eastern. So a couple of hours later, if you want to be a part of the live show during this experiment, head on over to watchingthewatchers.locals.com as we continue to work through this stuff. All right. So that is it for me, my friends, everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I’ll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.