with the old drone tech and, you know, I kinda, I kinda hyped this up a little bit more than probably what it's actually worth, but here we go. We have our usual Discord panel, plus it looks like a few new faces.  You know what, here's the rules, actually. I don't know if anybody can actually, here, hold on. All right guys, hey everybody, everybody, we're live. Just, I was just telling everybody, I'm gonna go ahead and let people who are in Discord introduce themselves. One second, let me make sure I'm transmitting, I am. I'm gonna go ahead and let everybody in Discord introduce themselves as long as they have the camera on. And I was delaying there a bit because I actually have to fix the speakers for you guys so people can hear you. Give me one second. There we go. Come on Steve, dance, put your bikinis on. Get the cameras going, riddle. So we're gonna start, hold on, hold on. Before everybody starts talking, hold on because they can hear you. We are gonna talk tonight about police officers being weaponized against the left's opponents, which sounds crazy, right? But it kind of seems like it's happening, especially since after the whole BLM riot thing. And it's not just happening in America, it seems to be happening in Canada and the UK. We're seeing all these crazy videos of people who say things that the left does not like having the full force of the law come at them. We've seen that with the J6 people. There's many examples, and I think we should all talk about them. Oh good, we got liberal clock. I was gonna put you in the title, but I didn't know for sure if you were coming, so I didn't wanna do that, maybe I'll edit it. But glad to see you here. Let's go ahead and start with Tyler. And we'll just go down the aisle here for everybody that's on camera. Go ahead and introduce yourself, and we'll go from there. What's up? Average debate and joy is my YouTube channel.  I'm coming back strong with some, I got like 30 scripts going, so. If you look at it now and you're like, wow, this video quality sucks, I agree with you.  Right, nice. Like a true debater. Thanks, go ahead, Clark. I can't hear you. Can you guys hear him? He's got his mute on. He just goes muted. You got to unmute him. Is he muted? I muted him? No, it was me. Yeah, I'm liberal-cluck, I'm in the same boat as Tyler. I have a channel and everything, but it all sucks, except I do not have an editor. Yeah, I just basically here because I like debating. Nice, thanks, man. And actually, RW is the official moderator. I don't know why. Well, it's my channel, so I kind of took it over there, but I'm gonna let RW introduce himself and then he can take over. You were doing so good, man, I was just back. I'm RW. I'm here because I enjoy this group and I think my job is to help people communicate on both sides of the fence so that good conversations happen instead of churn fights. And that's all I got. Yeah. Nice, okay. You don't want to do it, man? Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on. Can I just really quickly call out that we have actually some really cool person in our group right now in the Discord channel? I don't know if you guys noticed, but there's Flip City in here. That's, I think, Flip City Comics. Yeah, they're a hilarious comic, political satire comic in there in our Discord. That's pretty cool. I don't know if I... I'll have to pay attention to that. I don't think they're gonna say anything. I don't know if they're gonna say anything. You're very welcome to whoever's there, but thanks for joining us. I'll just say hello. Flip City Magazine, hello. I didn't even know what I was walking into. So I guess I'm here to watch. Nice, well, thanks for... You're welcome, you all. We would totally appreciate any of your stuff you wanna share in the user art or memes or anything. And when me and DroneTech work on stuff during the day, I'll try and pay attention to what you create. So... Yeah, they actually published a comment, like a mad TV, kinda... Not mad, mad magazine style, like comics, but political. Yes, I'll drop all kinds of art on you guys. Yeah, Flip City, if you wanna jump in at any point and tell me how smart and correct I am, feel free, also at the end of the room. Thank you, Tyler. Riddle's on cam and Steve's on cam.  Only if you unmute your mic. Sorry about that, whoopsie-daisy. Yeah, I'm Riddle, just some random guy, actually. But I just find this topic enjoyable, and honestly, any topic that we all get together to talk about, for the most part, except for over-early-done January 6th topics, stuff like that. But yeah, whatever it is, I'm willing to talk about it. Even if I don't know much about it, I'll still ask questions that might be annoying to people. But yeah, it's fun, so let's do this. So, oh, and there's Smoke Steve. Hey, Steve, welcome, buddy. Let's get a sword. Plug, plug, plug. After you unmute, okay. Hello, I am Smoke Steve. That's it. Did you have a stream weekly, right? Yeah, I do want Saturday nights. I don't wanna shill it out over here, but yeah, thank you. Come check it out if you want. Saturday night, a channel called Smoke Steve starts around 7.30 Eastern Standard Time. It's a pub setting where we all just hang out and chat. Sometimes we debate, sometimes not. Thank you. Good show. So, I think, I don't know who agrees and doesn't agree here, but let me just start this off real quick with what kind of inspired me to put this even on the poll in our Discord, because we take polls every week, by the way, on what we're gonna debate on Thursday night. So if you come to our Discord, there's actually a channel for that and you can vote and we'll talk about it. I actually put up there, or I didn't put up there, R.W. did. Police interaction with civilians and it occurred to me, I don't know how many of you guys have seen this yet and I'll play it for everybody, but the Rebel News, one of the Rebel News reporters was trying to interview a left wing Canadian politician and this police officer, well, playing closed police officer, acting as security for this politician, literally just like set up a pick in front of him and when he just kept walking, they then arrested him. So, since then, he was released and they dropped the charges, but just the fact that this happened at all is BS and it reminds me so much of what I see every single day in these First Amendment audit videos. The police in America and Canada, and it seems like a lot of Western countries is kind of messed up and it seems to be geared and being aligned towards opponents of the what we would call maybe the, I don't know, progressive agenda or I don't know what we would call it, but it seems to be have been pointed towards that group now, ever since the BLM riots. I don't know how many of you agree, but let me at least post this one video. I might play some more later to put this more in context. Let me play this and I'll make it so everybody can see it and they discord. One second. There we go. And here we go. Look at the deranged look on this guy right here. This cop. They all have that look, man. All the guys like this. It's ego run them up with you. This is crazy, man. Think about like what you're looking at here. It's crazy. For assault? That was that possible because you assaulted me three years ago. Right. That's why it looked to me too. You mean I was asking questions aggressively? No, no, your actions were. We were almost pushing everybody over. Lincoln, you got this on video, right? He's saying I'm pushing people over. That's an absolute falsehood. So now it appeared that way. That's what you're saying, officer. It appeared I was pushing people. I didn't touch a single person. That was a little bit aggressive for what was happening. You're under arrest.  Can I have the microphone?  This is crazy, man. He continues to like question them as they arrest him and he basically lays it all out their recipe because I was going after this politician and Trudeau. He calls a blackface, blackface. Hold on, let me see. Let me put it on. I was merely squirming Minister Freeland and a RCMP officer blocked me and evidently this is now a trumped up charge of assault folks. I didn't come here to cause any trouble. I came here to do my job and now I'm handcuffed. This is your candidate now, folks. This is the gestapo taking black faces orders. Blackface. He just calls a blackface Trudeau. So anyway, what do you all think of that? Let me hear what you all think. I'm curious. I watched the beginning of that clip quite a few times and I was trying to see how much he bumped into him when the cop stood in his way. I mean, me and Dan were talking about that, like charging and basketball. He brushed against him for what I can remember as the most it happened and then that being trumped up to a assault charge is insane. And even if I was joking, like even in basketball, the cop would have had to have planted feet and be knocked over for it to be a break in the rules. So I don't know. It's extreme. It's extremely out of place. I mean, it was obviously a, it was obviously a setup and because it was filmed, it never stood a chance of standing. Right. If you get involved with the police, pull out your phone and start filming. 1000%. They knew they were being filmed. They knew it was all on film and they still said exactly what they said. I know. You're just, it's crazy in it. All on your sword right now. Like what's up? No, I'm with you. I would say that since it didn't stick or they didn't charge anything, that all they wanted to do at the moment was just stop what they considered a harassment. So they didn't get anything on them and make the politician look bad. So they were willing to make themselves look bad as opposed to the politician. That's my only opinion on why they were so willing to stick with that. Right. We used that a lot. Or it's Canadian law. I don't know. Well, they actually have pretty, they don't have a First Amendment, but they do have pretty similar laws to ours. And they have a similar. They don't have a second amendment either. Right. And they do have a sort of bill of rights and a sort of constitution that's similar to ours, which does grant similar rights. And so that's why they didn't charge them. But what I'm seeing here is a trend throughout the Western nations where this seemed ever since the BLM riots, this seems to be happening more and more. And it would not surprise me that they've sifted through and gotten rid of all the people who might be right-leaning or sympathetic to people on the right and which you have left or people who are either non-political or easily malleable or people who are political and hate the right. And they're putting them in those positions and they're going to use them because you're seeing this more and more. It's happening way too much to be just a coincidence. Don't you agree? And especially on the, it's not just these First Amendment audits. There are things that have happened that are not related to First Amendment audits that are very similar where you have like a journalist. They're just trying to do their job and these police don't know the laws, don't know the difference between public and private property, they don't know these things. They take an oath to the Constitution yet they don't know what basic rights are. They don't know what the first... There are people who go around and just ask police what the First Amendment are. You would not believe how many do not have no idea. It's clear they don't know. What's up with that? Can I ask what you're comparing this to though? Is there an era of golden age police, policing where we saw a lack of misconduct? Because I would argue if you roll this back 30 years before body camp, it was way worse. And if you roll this back to what the cops call the good old days a hundred years ago, it was way worse. I would argue we probably have the most transparent and up-to-date legal system that humans have ever been able to conceive and the only problem right now are the individual, which I watch a lot of videos too. You watch audit the audit, you'll get to see both sides of it. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of times the police are in the right and the people are in the wrong. Sometimes. But what really bothers me about a lot of these videos, and you're right, there are a lot of times when the people are in the wrong, but you notice a lot of times when that happens, it's really people who, it seems like they don't know.  Like even basic stuff. These are just enforcers. They're low-level people on the street. Feelings enforcers. If you put a higher, think of it just more of an economic perspective. If you put a higher criteria of becoming an officer just based on a pure economic rules, you're going to get less people able to take that job.  So to open that up, to remove these barriers to entry would allow you to have a larger pool of people to choose from, to be police. And I would argue being a good person is probably a higher thing for a police officer to have than a full understanding of the law. Can I show you something real quick? There was recently, just so you know, I just want to show how this isn't just like, it doesn't just happen to otters, it happens to actual certified reporters or whatever you want to call it. Shit, I got to find it here now. But it does happen to them. You've seen more and more actual US reporters posting these videos where they're trying to get to some public official or something and the police are unlawfully blocking them, just acting as like you just said, like in Fortress. I do also kind of want to address the partisan point you brought up as well. I don't think it's something you're doing intentionally, but I do think it's sampling bias. A lot of police in the United States are in positions where their leaders are elected by the voter. And in blue areas or red area, you're going to get people to have a certain philosophy on the work, put in certain laws, prosecute certain laws, tell their police officers to look the other way for certain things like maybe homelessness or maybe knowingly giving somebody AIDS like in California where they decriminalize that. And you heard me. Yep. But you're going to have certain segments of the country that push their values into the law. I just think the sampling bias comes from the fact that like a lot of these areas where you see more press cameras and people are blue areas. But I guarantee you most of the country landmass wise, probably sides with law enforcement that would more represent what you like. Well, I don't think that like this is evidence at all that this guy was treated that way because of his political leanings, which is the implication here, right? Right. Well, Rebel media is a highly demon. And that's another thing I want to get into was I was really surprised by the amount of these like big Canadian Twitter accounts that came out in support of the police and against Rebel media because it's like the kind of thing I'm always talking about how left wingers are dangerous because they can always kind of rationalize any action. And here we see the same thing again in Canada where all these left wing accounts are supporting the police obviously intentionally setting up a situation where they can stop this reporter from asking questions that this reporter, this politician doesn't want to ask in public. And he had every right to ask her. Do you see the same tactics used here in America by the police? Jesus. Drone, have you seen the video released by Canadian police warning people not to release? Yes.  Yeah, I have it right here. If you guys want to watch, I'll play it real quick. I was going to play it. So it's ready to go right now. These are urging Quebecers to not post them. But I'm going to play it real quick. Is it relevant to the idea that the police are attacking? It is. That the police are being turned against. They're being turned against. On one hand, yes, they are being turned against opponents of the left, but overall they are being turned against the people in general. So I feel like this is the thing the left and right should be able to get together on. And that's why I'm trying to tie that knot here. It's just Canada. I don't know enough about Canada. No, it's not just Canada, though. Like this is happening in Canada. Don't take. I look up. I look up something like reporter being assaulted by police and there's plenty of videos and they're not all right wing videos of. No, I agree. I was that's why I don't hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I don't know why I made I specifically said this seems to be a thing that's happening more and more since the BLM riots. So in general, this isn't like a this is happening to the right and it's a left wing ploy. This isn't what you're implying right now. Well, I'm not saying it's a left wing ploy. I'm saying that during the BLM riots, the left was able to get a grip on police departments. Yes, and as well as they got, they got a grip on the military. They're getting all of our institutions. They basically have everything now except for the Supreme Court. But yeah, so you're saying that the left has a grip on the police. So now they're attacking reporters. They're attacking opposition reporters. Yes. So the left, the right wing reporters, even though I've got video of the police also attacking left, which happened when, which happened when there was a whole no, no, no, right, right.   I was just talking about that, that I, there are other videos of other reporters who I don't know their political meaning. It's not like totally obvious, but the police employing the same sort of tactics recently when they're trying to, when it's like a situation where they're trying to interview like a mayor or like a governor or something like that, including Republicans using police to do that actually.  Nikki Haley just did it, didn't she? Okay. So, so I just, I'm confused about what the claim is. Well, I just just proved my own claim. All right, folks. Good night. I'm sorry. We can move on to the next one. So the original conversation was based around the, the experience of civilians and cops interacting with each other and it wasn't based on left or right. The title. Right. I need to click bait people in here. Haha. Gotcha.  So if you want to bring up like any examples of cops and civilians interacting on, you know, for the cop side or for the civilian side, totally, man, it's all, all fair play. Yeah. Cause I do think there is something going on. I really do. And I don't necessarily think it's political, although I do think there are, it seems like a lot more instances popping up now of the law enforcement being used against opponents of the left more than what we saw before. I don't know if that's intentional or not. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's just I'm paying more attention to that than others. Although I do see it happening on both sides, which is what I want to talk about. So what do you guys think? I do real quick. I'll just say this. Police are definitely under trained. They do not know very basic things. They take an oath to the Constitution yet they don't understand that like somebody can record in public and it's not a crime.  Too many police think they can do that kind of thing. Well, I don't think it's just under trained. I think the public servants all across the country are having trouble, institutions are having trouble getting people to even work for them. So they are having to settle for lower and lower quality people. You see it in the DOC, you see it on border patrol research on how they're having trouble getting border patrol agents. It's all over with all law enforcement institutions. So why is that happening?   It doesn't happen anymore.  You know what would be, you know what I think would be actually really good is if we got really good quality people, we train them, make sure they're very trained in people's rights and then those people could go out and yeah, they're going to have to deal with bad people and but they have to be able to distinguish between actual bad people and people who are. I agree and the good right. The way to get good people is to pay that and that means your tax dollars go out. So are you willing to pay more money in taxes to have higher quality, higher paid police? But do you think it's a profession that's like it's beyond like it's going to be corrupted. The people who do that job are going to be corrupted just because I mean think about any of you people who have done customer service. I work customer service a good chunk of my life and it made me hate humanity. Now I just try to think of myself if I was doing as a police officer like what would I think of people then and then you have power to do something about it. You know what I mean? Like I feel like it's a position that's like you're going to become corrupted no matter what. I can't thank you that video. Yeah, are you ready for a pretty pretty brutal video? I'm ready for a video. I just want to make the point that I don't believe all cops are bastards at all. I'm not coming at this in any way, shape or form that it's an absolute because I have interacted with some amazing cops that will give their life to do what they join the force for. So I just want to put my two cents in there. I agree. I mean a lot of people get into a police force for good reasons. Sometimes they end up tired. They just burn out and they end up mistreating people because they're taking out frustrations on the wrong people. I mean it happens. Right. That's what I'm saying. It's like you give these people this power and then they're having, they're just having a bad day and they know that most people don't know their rights and like I just watched a video today where the officers are piling up like nine people on a guy on a bike because he doesn't want to give up his ID because he was trying to pump up his tires at night at a place and they're like all these cops warm they're demanding his ID.  He's like that's not a crime. They're like but you have to give us your ID and if you don't that's suspicious and he's like if I stand up for my rights that's suspicious. You see where I'm at. The time to fight that is in court and civil court after they violate your rights. I disagree because when you give into that you're just like your rights are decaying over time. They're atrophying. They get in trouble after that. They have to go to the classes to violate your rights and then you got a lawsuit. So no you're better. I think you're better to stand up for your rights before the court. Yeah I think you could stand up for them. What you can't do is resist arrest. No. Don't resist arrest. Don't resist arrest ever. I'm not saying that at all. Personally I say if they want to arrest you let them because they really are. Yeah you bait them into as much as you can get them to do. You get them to throw you on the ground.  You'll get their actions. But yeah I wouldn't argue it on the street. You wait till that's the next step. Take it to court. No I say stand up for your rights to the point that they want to violate them and then let them do it. All right let's watch a nine year old pepper spray please. Yeah so this one is before you go. No sorry I'm letting you go but is there anything we have to do do we have to talk over this video or anything so we don't get flagged just as a question for you. You shouldn't. I mean it's a it's a very there's no gore or anything but watching. No I see this. No I know it's a it's absurd. Yeah it's absurd like why would they do. We don't even have to watch the video you can read the title but these. Yeah like why do we have to watch it just the fact that they did it. We know. Why. I want to see this. The reason I'm not going to show it you guys can play when this first when this first came out I did a video on it and I just think this is like an example of particularly of how like cops can be. Bastards. Just show the video. Cops are great. Go for it man show it to the discord if you guys want to see it come to the discord I'm not going to show it. You can hear it I guess. Oh this one yeah I remember this one. Yeah. Like it's a nine year old why would you employ pepper spray that's insane. It's even worse than that because she was in the car at the time they sprayed her. Yeah. I like how she they're saying she's having a mental. See. This is why I hate. Probably cause that. This is why I hate that the media focuses in on examples that are not good examples and they blow those up when there's actually like there's good ones out there they should blow up that happened to people of all colors but they don't want that they're like so focused on a very certain like narrative. To the point where even if it doesn't fit it they will make it fit even if they have to lie. Here. Here take this. I just like to point out their offerings are coming again. I think he said deer with the D. D. I guess that's better. So one thing. In the in the D. O. C. If you have to use pepper spray on a grown and mate you immediately take them to get medical care.  Right. I agree. There's something going on with our police forces. It just seems like they're filling them the ranks with idiots. Yeah.   Calm down sir.  Right. Be calm sir. The dog running out and not even attacking it. It's tearing my intestines out. Get on the ground. It is but see what I what really turns me off is when people try to make it like a race issue and look I'm sure that there is a component there because obviously there's like this basically a nationwide gang if you want to look at it that way. There's probably going to be a good chunk of those that are like specifically like they hate black people. Right. So like I don't think that there's I don't think that's completely off the mark but I think that the issue isn't race racial for the most part because I just see it happening to like so many like white people or anybody. Well really I don't see it ever happening to Asians for some reason but it seems like white people and black people. You know the cops really go after both groups. I don't see it in racial at all.  Right. For sure.   It's weird like they act the exact same way like they have all this authority and they can order you around and they can assault you even because they don't want you to record or whatever. You know what I mean. It's just weird how like regular people take on that same mentality. So are we done with this topic or. Right. That's what. Well I maybe there is the probably I would say there probably is to some degree. But it's an issue that really affects everybody because maybe you know whatever is leading to that is the same thing that's leading to what we're seeing in all these videos on YouTube. I like watching videos where like police chiefs get pulled over drunk and then like ask for professional courtesy and get turned down because it shows you like that last bastion of police on police like camaraderie is going on. Yeah and you'll see that a lot where police are doing things that are clearly not right. Any other cops are going along with it. And that's that's why I think a big problem.  They're all together no matter what. All right so I'm going to ask. They used to call that the thin blue line. Right the whole the thin blue line flag in itself is a desicc. I really don't agree with I used to and I don't anymore I can see the issue with it. The flag itself is almost like a gang sign. It separates them from everybody else which they're already separated from us. They are like our our over watchers almost like a prison guards. You know and they almost act like that. I would disagree on your interpretation of that. Really OK. Well why it's almost like a gang sign like MS 13 or something like that the ones that are the thin blue line. American flag. Absolutely. Yeah. Well for one it goes against the US code for the American flag. You cannot desecrate. Yeah. So you think coloring it as opposed to burning it is a desecration. Well you're changing the meaning of it for one like the flag is supposed to unite us and when you turn it black and white and put a thin blue line on it you're you're making it like representative of something else. And especially when that group that it represents is has a lot of force and authority over every other group. It's very divisive. It's very divisive. American people I'd say the exact opposite. I'd say that they're a part of the American people. No. The American flag. So just have the American flag then that's the flag unites us. What is the point. Tell me what's the point of a flag. What's the point of a flag. American flag like BLM and then they just make an entirely new one that's all blue. It's just like the freakin pride flag. It's like a separate flag that unite around. I don't like it. It seems like an us against them. It is it's it's divisive and the flag is guys. The United States flag is supposed to unite us yes or no. Yeah. Yes. So does everybody agree with the blue line flag. Did we all agree on that. What do you mean? I agree on it. It doesn't prove your point whether you agree on it. It doesn't. Yeah. It's very divisive. Look at listen to us. Look at the media. Look at the media. You think they have a thing to rally around when the media has been demonizing them the entire time. Once I can see. Yeah. Yeah. That's like saying that my kid. Yeah. Just let Steve go and then take your turn. I was just going to say the thin blue line has nothing to do with the American flag originally. It was a stick. You know an expression. And then it was made a sticker or actually like a front license plate under cover cops will put on their cars. And then the movie was made and then people started making the American flag with the blue line on it the red line on it whatever. But the thin blue line obviously originally was the line was what separated the criminals of society to the law abiding citizens were the police. You know I mean I don't know where the American flag part of it came in but that was well after. Well it is the American flag. It's the American flag with a it's black and white. I don't like the black and white American flag at all period because it's like what what is that. What's the point of that. But. But. In there since like the beginning of America like they're an old institution almost. I think that's what it's supposed to be. OK well I just like the American flag. I don't like the pride flag. I don't like the BLM flag. I don't like the blue line flag. I don't like the red line flag. I don't like I like the American flag and public officials should not be wearing a separate flag. That's the entire point of them. They're not the American flag. They're separating themselves from the American people. That's the entire point of why they are divisive. Right. I don't like it. They're making an argument for it. Yeah. Exactly so if one if one group does it then why can't the other and understand. What do you mean? I wouldn't even say that if one group does it why can't the other well that's a pretty straightforward question. That's what one one does it's. No but the police are a public entity. They should reflect the public. Our politicians whom wear rainbow badges. Oh no I agree. No I agree with you there I totally agree. I'm not disagreeing at Well, the rainbow badge is in a bastardized version of the American flag. I mean, people should be able to wear and express themselves however they want to. But as far as public officials go, I think it's different. Yeah. It may be OK. So what would you say, Steve? You said it was like a bastardized version. You said public officials wear rainbow badges. A rainbow badge wouldn't be a bastardized version of the American flag being that it was not the original meaning of black and white, the blue line, the red line, whatever. But is there an American flag version that's rainbow? Maybe I'm not aware of that. No, I don't know about that. I'm sure you can. I'm sure I'm sure.  But rainbows are great. And the way they were. They were. Rainbows are still cool. Hunter Biden. Yeah, I am right. All right, so we're going to talk about Hunter Biden. Yeah, I thought that's what we were going to say. Yeah. You shift away. Let me give a chance for the note that Ashley had. Yeah, it's not good. Very bad. So Ashley was making a point earlier. She said, look into the fact that the police, sheriff's department, and troopers are being armed by the federal government with free military grade equipment to use against civilians. I don't have a source for that. No, it's true. It's true. All that equipment, all that equipment they're sending to Ukraine, they were giving to police departments. I'm fine with that. The anti-air missiles? Not that stuff. Like the, you know, no, no, like the, like the MRAPs and all that stuff. Yeah, I'm fine with them having rifles. And the Humvees and that stuff. I think they absolutely need rifles. Yeah, they need them. They absolutely need rifles, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I don't see a problem with that at all. There you go, Ashley. I don't think there's a problem with them having big armored vehicles either, because if there's a couple of tanks. I put that to people who are more better trained, like SWAT, but like armored vehicles and stuff. Yeah, I think they're armoring their police cars. I want to care. That's fine. Yeah, sure. I think the problem is that if you give it to them, they will use them. And not in ways that you didn't really want them to use them. I haven't seen a single video where an officer has unfairly shot someone with an AR-15. If anyone wants to provide me with someone, I'd be more than happy. Unfairly? Look at the Las Vegas. Unfairly? Really? Justly, whatever you want to call it. You want me to show you a video of that? No, no, no, no. Four, you need to specify that, because I don't know. You need to specify unfairly, because what he means is not unfairly, but intentionally unfairly. Was it Las Vegas or Reno? Remember when that guy got drunk on the ground? The drunk guy, yeah. Where he pointed a V-Gun out the window, and then they brought him around. And they're like, crawl towards me, back. Then they moaned him down. Right. That's just the guy wanted to kill somebody. He's like, oh, this is my chance. Oh, yeah, there's so much of the no-knock warrants. I mean, I don't like the no-knock warrants I never have. What I kind of think here is, what would have gone differently if they had a pistol instead of an AR? I don't think anything would have gone down differently. I'm going to tell you an example of really, really heinous abuse of police authority. I am playing fable right now. And all I did was agree to not tell the wife that the husband is cheating on her. And now the guard is mad at me. You're playing fable? That's so funny. That's so funny, man. I don't know why, but I just had this urge recently to play an MMO. And I was just asking R.W. about that, like, what's the play out there? I don't even know. That's funny you're playing fable, though. I played that back in the day. He did give you a suggestion, and you didn't listen. No, I downloaded it. I did it. I downloaded it and installed it on my laptop upstairs. Are you sure you can really tackle an MMO right now, though? Probably not. Probably not. You can tackle this one. Right? I suppose we're coming out of an MMO. People are pretty excited about that. Last dance. That's massively multiplayer online game. Is that right? I looked at that. Correct, yes. That's like World of Warcraft, that kind of game. I was thinking about playing New World, because people were saying that it's good now, and you can play it real casually. So I was thinking about that. I don't know. Yeah, if you play New World, let me know. I've got a character on there that's barely been leveled up. Yeah, I've just been watching videos on it, and apparently it was awful, and it's gotten better, so I might try it. But so should we get into country bind and the double standards and all that stuff? Yeah, and you know what? I think that pepper spray was justified. I think it was too dangerous. I'm just kidding, dude. You know what, it should have been bear mace. It should have been military grade bear mace. That's what it should have been. And they should have aged her, too. I need an armor. Yeah, should have dropped a JDAM on it.  You got to segue it into what you're after, man. You're yelling to do it. Let me hear what you have to say. I'm not the one making the affirmative claim here. OK, so I guess it's me. So we were arguing earlier over the fact that. So OK, so Hunter Biden did this stunt yesterday or was it? Yeah, it was yesterday and where he went to the vote to hold him in contempt for not showing up for his congressional subpoena and he made a big stunt of it. And of course, the media went along with it. They loved it and I made a video about it. And that's par for the course because this all started. The whole modern era of ignoring congressional subpoena started with Eric Holder, who was Barack Obama's attorney general, and that was over Fast and Furious. When Republicans tried to hold him in contempt for that, Democrats walked out of the vote and they made this big stunt of it. The media loved it at the time. They loved it, of course, because when Republicans do these things, it's just a political partisan stunt and to mock it and to ignore it is what you should do. But when Democrats do it, it's totally different. The standards are completely different. And I'm just curious how Liberal Clark is going to defend that. Like you had Steve Bannon, who ignored his congressional subpoena. And then, of course, that was a huge bad thing. Raskin and all these other Democrats went on the media. I could play some videos where they basically said, this is just how you're supposed to do it. You want me to play one here real quick? Let me just play that. So essentially, they had one standard for Republicans and there's another for Democrats, which is always how it seems to go. And let me play this. Did you watch that, by the way? The video I posted for you, Kluck, in main chat. Let me, I'm going to scroll up to it here and just play it from Discord. I know it's in here somewhere. And may I say that video was fabulous drone tech and that red-headed dumbass did see your border. Oh, the one that you posted of yourself? No, I didn't watch that one. Oh, you know what? I should just play that. Why am I not just playing that? Because I can just skip to the part. Let me just play that. This stream is very professional, as always. Super. Oof. All right, here we go. It sounds like Hunter Biden right now might be showing up if you want to start walking this way. Oh, I got to share it, right? He might be on his way right now, as I said. This is part of the Hunter Biden's effort right now to really show that he is making every effort to comply with the subpoena to appear for a deposition. Okay, so let me just play this. I'm not interested for a closed-door deposition, but we just. Congressional subpoenas. But before I get into that, a quick history lesson. The modern trend of ignoring Congressional subpoenas. Oh, that's you. Was started by Democrats back in 2012. Oh, I know that guy. When they launched a similar stunt at a vote to hold Barack Obama's AG in contempt for ignoring Congressional subpoenas in regards to the fast and furious scandal. Walking out of the vote, which, of course, CNN and MSNBC loved at the time. Then, of course, you didn't watch it? All right, let me do it one more time. Are you watching? Cluck. See where I'm coming from?  Yeah, I got it now. I couldn't get my mouse back. I was in a full-screen game. I didn't know where I was at that time. All right, here we go. One more time. Let me get into that, a quick history lesson. The modern trend of ignoring Congressional subpoenas was started by Democrats back in 2012. When they launched a similar stunt at a vote to hold Barack Obama's AG in contempt for ignoring Congressional subpoenas in regards to the fast and furious scandal. Walking out of the vote, which, of course, CNN and MSNBC loved at the time. Then, of course, those standards went right out the window, when a Republican ignored Congressional subpoenas, Steve Bannon, and was then sentenced to four months in prison. Oh, that was different. That brings us to the present, where the- All right, but hold on. I gotta, let me show this part too real quick. Here we go. Will. Don't skip Noble Gold, man. Don't skip Noble Gold, man. Use the exact same procedures. When dealing with witnesses- This is for Pear. ...and Trump's impeachment. Here we go. Here we go. This is what I wanted to see. All of you. ...depositions. You know, this goes on for hour after hour after hour. We want to get all our questions answered, and you can't do that in a live format. Oh, that was different. Or how about when Jamie Raskin insisted I close our testimonies? The lesson is, please tell your children out there in America, if you get a subpoena to go before Congress, or you get a subpoena to go to the court, go. You have a legal responsibility to go. Would it be closed door with Bannon, or do you want to- Oh, he could go pontificate. The reporter said that. Okay, so yeah, there you go. So, you have to explain now, Clark, why suddenly the standards now change for Hunter Biden. Okay, drunk check. When we went through this, I just, I don't understand how is it that I can put into your Discord that examples of three Republican MAGA, I'm sure one of them is MAGA, Congressman who did the same thing, ignored subpoenas, and did not get charged for it. And you're just like- Great, that's the standard. So why are they acting like this now? Why are they now acting like this for Hunter Biden? It did not get charged. Right, no, I'm not saying that. No, that's what I'm saying. I'm talking about the closed door. So the media was really defending, maybe I skipped over that, but the media is defending Hunter Biden. I don't ever come on here to defend the media. No, listen, listen. They're saying that what Hunter Biden's doing is good, that it's right, that he should, that he showed up for this thing, and he's willing to do a public testimony, but that Republicans are somehow in the wrong for demanding that he do a closed door testimony. So for one, you're making this judgment very quickly, very soon. They actually voted to recommend to charge Hunter Biden. Why are the Democrats- I don't care about that. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this sudden change of heart in the media. I just showed you a video of literally a CBS News reporter interviewing Raskin saying, oh, shouldn't you get him privately? You don't want him doing publicly because he could pontificate. He could pontificate. You don't want him to do it. Did you see that? No, check, no, check. I am not here to defend the media.  Yeah, but the media and the Democrats are one and the same. They are one and the same. So what, like, okay, what's the difference? What's the difference in the media stance on this and the Democrats? Online journals are, they're not perfect. They make mistakes, they make mistakes all the time, but they are way better than cable news. I'm talking about CBS, like CBS News, okay? Which is network. So what are you defending? What are you defending? The media are the enforcers of the standard. They are the ones who enforce whatever standard. So when it comes to, like, how the outside of the media, when it comes to how these two groups of people, you would say it's been pretty much the same, right? When it comes to the media card? Can I rephrase the question? Are you asking him if the media is not used and he were to just go to a court and watch one person be treated a certain way and go to the other court and another person be treated the other way? Would he still see it? Is that the question? Kind of, but it's not just like one person. It's like the group overall, because he's making the claim. Well, nothing happened to Eric Holder, and then Steve Bannon got sentenced to four months in prison. I don't think he ever has done it yet. I think that's still looming. I couldn't find, like, I looked. I couldn't find really anything about it. He got sentenced and it hasn't happened yet. Or maybe it did. Maybe it happened in secret. It's on appeal. Oh, it's on appeal. That's right. Yeah, that's right. I just see that. So Steve Bannon got sentenced to four years. Those three congressmen who, whose names, I do not remember, but they were mega congressmen. So hold on, address that. What's what's with that difference? Not for you. What's with that? Four months, hold on. Address that. What's the difference? Eric Holder, nothing happens. And Democrats walk out of the vote to hold him in contempt and the media applauds it.  I think it's probably pretty arbitrary. Yeah, go ahead, Tyler. Oh, arbitrary. Obama used executive privilege. He allowed Eric Holder to use executive privilege in that circumstance. Right, and then Trump, Trump did not allow Bannon, correct? I don't know if he was. Is that what happened? I think what happened. No, that did come up. That did come up with Bannon, what you just talked about. Yeah, but if I got that wrong, I think it was Biden who actually waived the executive privilege. Waved it for who? For Secret Service Protection. From Steve Bannon. I don't know how he could do that. Because he's the executive. But these are for eventually.  That occurred when Trump was president. He's, I mean, the court held it up. So I don't know if there's precedent for it for the past, but yeah, he's the executive. He's got the authority of what falls under executive privilege now. And I think that that's probably for the best, because if you find that a president is abusing executive privilege, like let's say trying to use it to keep people from testifying when the information actually wasn't dangerous to be out in the public. They just don't want to be testified against. The next president can waive that and force the testimony. Do you have a squirrel in your shirt? Meat? No, it's a microphone. I wish it was. Squirrel judge here. Squirrel's in his pants, not in his shirt. No, there's just like a poofy tail coming out of his. There's like a poofy tail coming out of his shirt. And he has a headphone mic, so I was confused. I was like, what is that? Yeah, so this one's going for Discord. This one's a higher quality, so I'm recording it for using it. All right, that makes sense. Okay, I'm sorry. Proceed. Hey, World War III is trending on Twitter. Yeah, the president has the right to waive executive private javendos that were claimed by former presidents. All right, speaking of squirrels, as soon as Druntek gave the mic back to you, he literally was like, squirrel, squirrel. Yeah, newsweek's talking about how. Yeah, I want to say that I didn't have a single drink until tonight, when I last said that I wasn't gonna have. No, executive privilege away from Novara. Oh, very good.  What were you saying, Tyler? I'm just pointing out Biden took executive privilege away from Bannon, Novara and several other people. Not surprised. But yeah, it looks like that's the difference, Druntek. One had executive privilege, the other one didn't. Okay, and then we come to Hunter Biden. Yay. And Hunter Biden ignored his congressional subpoena because he, for whatever reason. I think he's been recommended for charges. Right, okay, but hold on. Well, see, so I'm not allowed to bring up the media's reaction to this at all. Like, you think they have no, hold on. Okay, but you think they have no influence over this, over these situations? Maybe, but what are we gonna argue about? Well, if you agree, so you agree with me that they are, the media is enforcing double standards on this. Yes, the cable news media, yes, for sure. Okay, well, goodnight, folks. I've never just agreed with that. Like, we got eight more. There has been so many times that you brought up something that like CNN cable news has done that was bad. And I'm like, yes, yes, that's bad. Yeah, but the media is the ultimate evil and they're the bad guys. I don't think they're the ultimate evil. I have a question. Yeah, they get it wrong most of the time. For Clark or anyone here, what do you think was meant to happen when Hunter went to that court hearing in the way that he did? Like, what did that mean to you? Which one? The first one or the second one? The most recent one. The most recent one. The most recent one, he was just trying to troll the Republicans. Do you think it worked out for him? I think so. As soon as he started getting questioned, he got up and ran. I meant to include that in my video, I forgot, but yeah, that was the funniest part. The second he started getting questioned by MGT, he got up and ran. Is there any way, if you play the devil's advocate, that he left for another reason? He had, yes, he had to take a shh. He had to poop, yeah. Bathroom break?    He left when MTG came up, right? Yes, when it was her turn to go, yeah. Right, but just before that, he had to smoke some crack. Who actually wants to hear Marjorie Terrell Green, the space laser lady talk? Is that your, she never said, she never said Jewish space laser. I just want to point that out. No, I didn't say Jewish, hold on. You're putting words in my mouth and I know that there are people that put the Jewish part into MTG's mouth. I'm saying space lasers. Are you saying space lasers aren't real? I'm saying that they didn't cause the fires. Oh, how do you know that? Yeah, no. Because they were investigated. Whatever. Oh, they're investigating. The government investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong, huh? She does a surprisingly decent job on the house oversight committee. I've watched her a few times. I think MGT's pretty damn hot. She did a surprisingly good job with the whole Man Act thing. I think she was, she was all right. She wasn't impressive or anything, but she was all right. She's as good as any other person in the House Senate. You have a crush. We know. No, she, I think she's kind of crazy. I think MGT's kind of crazy, but that's also kind of hot. I mean, don't have to move over. So Drone Tech, real quick, you think the government took its space lasers and started the fires in Hawaii? No, I don't think that. I don't know. I don't think that, but. You kind of were saying that. No, no, I'm just saying to his response, his arguments against it. I'm just like rolling my eyes because it's like, I don't know why you want to provide and got that is I don't, I think that's you guys like trying to make a story out of nothing. Like he wasn't even supposed to be there in the first place. I did see, I did see one weird video of fires in Canada where it looked like a bunch of fires started from space. Did you guys see everybody saw that video? Right? We're like a whole bunch, where it looked like a whole bunch of fires started like pinpoint locations at the same time. Like a flash mob. I never saw any verification. Well, widely spread like by probably hundreds of miles. Yeah, it seems like they all started simultaneously. Right, like a whole bunch of them. Yeah, yeah. They were widely spread. Like this is not, these were not close by each other, but they all started at the same time. I'll find it. I'll find it. One second. But it could be, it could be not real. I have no idea. Quick question. Do you think that the California, Southern California might have been the test bed in Ventura County a few years ago? It's the test bed for most other things. So it's logical. Yeah, exactly. Right? Test bed for what? These space lasers, using fires, stuff like that, right? Why don't you use a space laser to make a fire on earth when you could just throw a match?  Because I was, I just did a search. I just did a search. Guys, guys, I got to show you this. Look, I just did a search on Twitter. Hold on, I got to share this with everybody. I'll do it quickly, but everybody come in and look. On Twitter. Look, this is Elon Musk's Twitter. All right, hold on. Go ahead. You said that Hunter wasn't supposed to be at the screen. Oh, Jesus Christ. But at the same time, he was supposed to be at the screen. Am I looking for the video and I see that?  That hearing wasn't the one that he was subpoena to. That was the first time he showed up. Don't scroll up. I'm not. I clicked back. I know I clicked back. I saw that.  I know.  That's like, I'm glad I missed that. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I got with searching for smoke and fires. Why are you searching for? Wait, are you searching for information on space laser starting fires? No, no, I just want to find this video I saw.  Okay, okay. You're looking for something specific. Yeah. Jesus Christ. No, I'm not. I'm not that level of, in fact, I'm very skeptical. I'm a very skeptical guy. Does anyone here know Bred? Yes. Bred? Yeah. Yeah, I think it's all of his news exclusively on Twitter. It's insane. The band? Yeah, that's like boomers. A lot of boomers. A lot of boomers are like that. My mom, I have all these. So I need clarification. I need clarification. No, check this out. Check this out. Let me just tell you this real quick. My brother, he's married to this girl who her parents are divorced and her father is a fan of mine. It just turns out that way. He just happened to be like he's been watching my channel forever and he's total nut. And so like that side of the family, like my brother's wife side of the family thinks I'm like a nut and I'm the one who turned him into that. They should call you all in joy. Could be watching. It's like this guy messages me all the time on Facebook. I just ignore him. He sends me all these insane links. It's like I just, my mom's, my mom sends me these same kind of links. I'm just like, I just ignore it. So what happened with Hunter Biden was that he was supposed to go to his hearing. He showed up at the hearing, but he didn't actually go into like the room and everything where he was supposed to go into. And he did it like a press conference on the day of his hearing. So he was like, I'm here. You guys can question me, but we're going to do it in public. And then when that didn't happen, he left. And then the second hearing was a hearing on whether or not they were going to recommend charges for contempt of Congress. And he showed up for that one to seemingly to troll the Republicans. Do you think that worked out for him? You said you thought it worked out for him. How did it work out for him? The whole not showing up for the hearing, that's going to really depend on whether or not he goes to jail for it. The trolling the Republicans part, I think it worked out. It got some good clips. And there was a lot of talk about it. And I think that he's like, because it's like, the left doesn't really like Hunter Biden. But if he's trolling the Republicans, they seem to like it. All right. Hey, I found this video. I was talking to you guys about, finally. Very shallow reason, honestly. Why it worked out for him? It's all a good distraction for him. It's great for him because it's all a good distraction from the pay for play Biden scheme that he was hosting for a year. So it's a win. What is the new view, though? I don't understand what he now looks like. A guy that's not talking about money. They're not talking about money going to Joe Biden right now. They're talking about Hunter Biden. Tyler, are you being serious? Flip the news cycle. Absolutely, yeah. Oh, that's crazy. Tyler, I would love to debate you on whether or not there was like a actual corrupt thing between Hunter and Joe and Theresa. Wouldn't be much of a debate. It was pretty bad. OK. Send me your sources. And I'd love to look at them. I want you guys to debate. But let me show you space lasers real quick. This is all from the hearing. I went through all. I've watched the Hunter Biden hearings in the impeachment inquiry like four times. OK. Yeah, send that to me. I'll read through it and we can set up a debate. Unless I end up agreeing with you, then there's nothing to debate. Yeah, I'm sure if I lay it out for you in a way, you'll be like, oh, this is pretty. There's still a miss. It's not complete. There's still a little bit of holes in it. They know that they were actions taken. What they can't do is link Joe Biden's actions that benefited these people to the money that his son took it. OK. I got the point, Joe Tech. I got it. Let me ask you real quick. At the top of your head, from what you know of the Trump Foundation and his company, dealings with foreign entities, the company that he didn't divest in. Do you think that there's possibility using the same standard you're applying to Biden right now? Do you think there's a good possibility that Trump was also like you think it could very and the whole Kushner thing with Saudi Arabia, they're very well could just as possibly be. The thing is, it would take one of Trump's kids smoking a bunch of crack and leaving a laptop and some guy's computer shop for us to find out because that's the only reason we know that like Hunter Biden was meeting with the CFO of Burisma. And then he got that guy a meeting with Joe Biden and then Joe Biden did things that benefited Burisma for the next two years.  It's pretty. It's it's like we're missing just the one conversation. And then we have all the rest of the pieces. Same thing with that. You said it went to. So the claim isn't that Joe Biden took money. The claim was that Hunter Biden was taking money and Joe Biden was facilitating that. Yes, yes, that's more than enough.  You know, it's so obvious.  If your family members taking it in, it's still seen as a gift to you. Especially if they can prove the thing is they can't prove political favor like the oligarch lady from Russia that gave Hunter Biden three point five million dollars. She got a meeting at that fancy restaurant I can't remember the name of right now with Joe Biden. Right. You know, she is one of the only Russian oligarchs to not show up on the sanctions list that Obama puts out a few weeks later, attacking all the oligarchs in Russia when he moved in on Crimea. And can I just add to that that Biden had dinner with these people knowing that they were like already known criminals? He already knew that and he had dinner with them. Yeah, there was the guy that really wanted to become prime minister of Kazakhstan. And Schwab. No, it wasn't called shot. It was another and he got he met with Hunter Biden. He was a bit. He also hired Rudy Giuliani just in full transparent. This guy had a lot of money.  Next thing you know, Joe Biden's meeting with like somebody. Maybe he met maybe Joe Biden. And this guy wanted to be an ambassador is what I think it actually was. I have a lot of these details written down, but this is all one over in the three hearings that I watched. Well, yeah, it's on your on your I chat. GPT did it for me. Was it as bad as Trump basically. Threatening to withhold 400 million in military aid so that he could get dirt?  I think that if what is alleged of Hunter and Joe Biden is proven, it's probably worse than that. Yeah, that was bad. Trump was really he was president when he did that. He rightfully got impeached for that. The only thing is. Impeachment is like it takes the manifest will of the country. And since we're so partisan divided, you can never get 60 percent of the 65 percent of the country to agree on that. That guy's back to break. OK. All right, I'm going to go to bed. But if you don't go to bed, maybe I'll go. Yeah, I'm really I'm not leaving. I'm coming right back. I promise. I'll sit down and chair right now. Look, I'll sit down and chat with you. We'll see if we disagree before taking that next step to debate. Plus, I'd also like to get you on the same page. Factually, yeah, yeah, I would. I'd be interested in what the. OK, so there's a lot of claims that were have been made so far of Hunter Biden like, oh, well, he received, you know, twenty thousand or something dollars from his brother. But then it turned out that it was a loan. So I would need to look into those claims that you're making and see if there's anything like that. And if there's not, then the loan that was also discussed in the hearings, they had the woman that was testifying in the first impeachment inquiry, a white haired woman. She was a former prosecutor. She was talking about when you have loans in this in this capacity. You have other contracts. You have a loan contract. You have talking about repayment. You have talking about interest rates. And it's seemingly none of these paperwork exists for all these loan checks. Joe Biden's taking in. There's no proof he actually gave anything for a loan. He's just receiving a check at the bottom of the check. The reason why says it was my understanding that the money you can see, you can see the money going out to. James, I think it's his name, Biden. Yeah. And the money going back in like that. You can see that in his bank statements. Yeah. It's the Hunter Biden emails that are really the most damning I feel like, especially like with CEFC, the WhatsApp tax. We're saying I'm sitting right here next to Joe Biden and I don't I don't forgive grudges. And I'm the one that makes chairman G happy.  And then that very same company, CEFC, as soon as Biden left the White House in 2017 as the VP, he was brought on as a partner.  Him and his wife, Joe Biden, both became partners at this company in China and sold investment that worked directly with Chairman Xi.  OK, um, yeah, send it to me and I'll take a look at it. Yeah, absolutely. I got it's a lot. I got a lot of information on this. So it'll take you a minute. But again, I'd be willing to sit down and chat with you. I answer any question. Yeah, we can schedule that too. Just not this week, because I, like I said, I was working overtime this week.  We can segue into the next point on the poll. We was actually Cluck's concept of Trump ballot woes. Oh, I know we were going to do that one tonight. Sorry, bro, we're just going on to the next one through the list. I mean, go ahead and make your point if you want to, Cluck. But basically, I'm just curious if anybody here has been paying attention to what's happening in different states, which states are trying to still actively remove Trump and which ones are actively trying to move Biden? It's a two way street now. So go ahead. So the the only one that I actually did research in was Colorado. And what Colorado essentially found was that there's a few different points that they had to look into. Off the top of my head, the one is whether or not incitement counts as engaging because the 14th Amendment says that it's the people who are engaged, who are disqualified. The second one is whether or not the 14th Amendment is as self executing, meaning that you don't need another charge to be for it to apply. The other one is whether or not Trump actually did incite the insurrection. And the other one is whether or not this amendment applies to the president and the first district court found everything to be in the positive, meaning that Trump did incite it. The incitement does count as engaging. The 14th Amendment is self executing, but they did not find that the president is a office that the 14th Amendment restricts. They said that they're not no taking office. And then what who? Sorry to interject, but who is deciding who is deciding that, yes, this is a true conviction? Who is saying, yes, he's he incited based on the facts of the speech and the situation. We know if it was a jury trial or if it was just a judge. But I do know subjective enough that I don't see how that can be. It was a judge. It was a judge. Yes. All right. I'm trying to choose my sources now. But yeah, so that that's that that that was what they decided. And then they the people. So the first court judge said this doesn't apply to Trump. So you got to put them on the ballot. The second judge, which was the Supreme Court, so the panel of judges agreed with the district court on everything except for the the president is not a office oath taker, whatever that the officer of the United States. Yeah. So they found that he is not eligible for the to be on the ballot by the 14th Amendment. This is it was a bipartisan effort to get Trump off the ballot. It was funded by a Democratic group. The people that they found to actually file the claim were Republicans and the person that they were suing was a Democrat. And yeah, that's kind of where it's nice that they were working together. I love this bipartisan teamwork stuff. Me too. It is nice. I struggle with the. The judgment that it was it's clearly inciting that he clearly incited the the insurrection. I mean, just the terms that are being used and and and how it's voted upon, I find that a little bit too subjective to just back. But oh, it's just the Supreme Court announced this week that they're going to be taking it up in February. Maybe I think it's February, early February. And so like, you really could just put a pin in this conversation until that. But I really feel like I kind of agree with you that using these legal terms of insurrection and incitement of mob, like, these are things that you can get arrested for there. There's actual codes to arrest people for. And he's not even can charge by for any of that. And there's no there's no even allegation that he said he did these things, let alone a conviction. And to say that, like, we can use the colloquial definition and non criminal colloquial definition. Just say that that could be interpreted in a lot of ways. And if you say, like, you know, like, fight like hell, if someone on the left says fight like hell, you could say that's the same level of incitement Trump did and turn around and charge that person with incitement in the same way. I think every every aspect of this is bordering on the absurd. The the notion that we would use a law designed to prove, you know, where in the minds of the people that wrote it and insurrection was the Civil War, where, you know, millions died and attempt to, you know, wrangle the legalistic language of what does insurrection say in the dictionary into this little tiny event. You know, that's the first absurdity. And and everything follows from there that the things that Trump said, you know, have to be twisted and and pushed into this category to be even considered incitement. And then incitement has to be twisted to be engagement because none of these words are really that well defined in the amendment. The amendment was simply, you know, we're not going to let Confederates that served in office be be officers in the in the New Republic. OK, OK, I will point out that there was one. There's been one use of this since reconstruction. And that was to attempt to prevent a socialist who opposed the US entry into World War One to prevent him from taking taking office. And then he was prevented from taking office. All right, so the court, all right. So I'm going to give you my my perspective on why I think Trump was at the very least morally responsible for January 6th. I think that he probably should be held legally responsible. I just don't know if the code is written that way. But if it isn't, it probably should be. I think that Trump created an environment where he was telling lot by telling lies about about the 2020 election that made these people feel like that they were going to literally lose their country if they didn't do something about it. And I think that some of his past statements when it regards to violent acts made them feel like it would be OK in his eyes if they were violent.  So you're not going to get me to disagree with that. Yeah, so the court, you know, they say basically regards to the general atmosphere of political violence that Trump created before January 6th, many of which we have already outlined in in discussing why the district court concluded that President Trump engaged in insurrection. We incorporate those observations here by reference and supplements. And they go on to like list a bunch of things that Trump has said, which includes saying things like in my days, protesters would be punched in the face. I'd pay your legal fees if you were to do this. Do they do this for Democrats, too? Or is it just this guy?  No, OK, OK, whatever. OK, OK, I think the most I personally think the most damning one thing that Trump said was when he told the proud boys to stand back and stand by. That was dumb. That's the kind of thing I would say. Which, by the way, I think like four of them, including their leader, was convicted of seditious conspiracy. All right, but he wasn't even there and they didn't. Yeah, I know. The guy that wasn't at the Capitol, right? They got 20 years who wasn't at the end for him. We're probably at the Capitol. They got convicted of the same thing. And what did they do? What did they do? They got convicted of seditious conditions. I haven't looked into the indictment. I know, I can't even trust those convictions, though.  All right, I mean, that's fine. Like seditious conspiracy. How are they going to seduce? How are they? How are they going to be seditious? What were they going to do? I would have to look at the indictment. Like how Joe Biden, Joe Biden, I wonder if they played this during the hearing of during their trials that they played. Joe Biden saying that you could not over overthrow the government with AR-15s that you needed F-15s and nukes. But somehow this group, the small unarmed group, people was going to do it somehow, right? Just because just because they were doomed to fail doesn't mean they didn't try. Oh, yeah, that. Oh, OK. Well, OK, OK, hold on. But clock, clock by that standard, you guys tried for four years after 2016 to overthrow the government, right? BLM and the media backed it. Democrats backed it. BLM basically terrorizing the country for four years because you guys lost the election. And their stated goal was to burn down the system and replace it, right? When are the hearings for that? When are the treason's? When are we going to see the treason hearings for that? Are we? Is that going to happen? Tyler, Tyler, what were you saying? So I'm going to. Oh, just ignore me. OK.   It's going to hurt your grandparents, blah, blah, blah. And shortly after that, there was the shooting where Steve Scalise was shot at the congressional baseball game.  Would you blame Bernie Sanders for that? Or would you say that sometimes when you have a large crowd of people that charged rhetoric resonates with a small percent in a different way than normal people expect? And can I also add that there was a domestic terrorist attack against Republicans based on the rhetoric from Bernie Sanders and all that, right? Yeah. So I think it's probably a little bit of both. I think that Bernie Sanders rhetoric was irresponsible and. Oh, no charges, though. But yeah, I also think it's a little bit of the whole. When you have large groups of people, somebody's going to. Can I ask you, Clark? Can I ask you just on that based on that? Like, why did the FBI lie about that for so long? You know they lied about it, right? But I don't. Oh, let's just toss over that. OK. I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to have a discussion about all these topics with me. I am. No, no, like, like, no, no, if you want to have an actual discussion, what you need to do is you need to DM me, be like, all right. Do you know about the baseball game shooting, the GOP baseball game shooting? OK, do you know that the FBI lied about that? So what you need to do is you need to DM me, be like, hey, I want to talk to you about the FBI lying about the baseball game shooting. Here's my evidence. But that's connected to this. That's part of this debate. Here's my evidence. Look into this. What? Stop. Just stop. Just stop. Just stop. If I see your evidence. You're done. OK, stop. You don't know about it. You have no. Yeah, right. You don't know about it. You can't comment. No reason to patronize me about it. I think the FBI lied about it. It could have happened. They did. I don't. It's not about me thinking. They did. It's un-debatable. It is out the open. What? Nothing to do with what Tyler asked. It does, though. It does. It does, though. It does, though. It doesn't. I mean, you like to debate, so you're supposed to be on your feet with these kind of topics since you'd like to bring it up, right? I'm not going to debate something that I haven't looked into.  I bring this up like every debate. I bring this up like literally every debate we have. You have to admit that you don't know certain things.  You won't have a discussion, blah, blah, blah. No, you have to admit that, yes, I don't know. We can discuss this later, and maybe you're right. Wait, was that not my whole spew? That was not your spew at all. OK. Spew. Come on. Spoo. OK, anyway, it's Tyler. Yes, so I think it's a little bit of a vote. I think that Bernie Sanders' rhetoric was irresponsible. And it did cause that person to do that shooting. But also, like, Bernie Sanders' rhetoric, it wasn't just Bernie Sanders, though, right? It was like the entire media, the entire Democrat Party. It was a narrative. It was a narrative. He cited Bernie Sanders' rhetoric. Well, no. No, he didn't cite it. He said this is for health carriers. He was shooting at Republicans. And the FBI said it was suicide by cop. He was a big follower of Rachel Maddow, too. What about Maxine Waters, the entire state of the union address, about all that? Like, when are we going to hold Democrats? This is the point I brought up earlier. Yeah, like, when are we going to hold them to that same? Well, the thing that I was saying. We can do that to Republicans. But let's do it to Democrats, too. The thing that I was saying was that Trump created a world with lies. With lies, he created a world where if he did do something now, yes, he did. He or people before him did that. And then Trump came along and maybe started doing it, too.   Like, what? Don't say that and have no examples. Like, what? The entire January 6th was stolen by fraudulent elections thing, a fraudulent folks thing. That entire thing was a lie. I think the 2020 election was definitely shiesty. And I think that doesn't raise the level of incitement. Sure. Well, that is the standard that I am using to hold him morally responsible. And I think that the whatever code that is in there should probably include a little bit of aspect of that, especially when it comes to lying that leads to some type of riots. I think that the most damning thing that they have on Trump was when he told the pro-boys to stand back and stand by. And then four of those pro-boys people ended up getting convicted of seditious conspiracy. OK, but stand by. He told him to stand by. What's that mean? He told him to not do anything. He said, yeah. How do you interpret that to mean go into the camp? Right. He said, don't do anything is what he told him to do. He said, don't do anything. He didn't say that on January 6. He said, stand down. On January 6. He told him to stand down and stand by. Right. It means wait for your moment. And those people took it as January 6 was their moment. Did we address the rape situation? I don't think. If you were getting into rape, I'm. Because how? Well, you can't defend it. You can't. At this point, you really can. I defended it pretty well when. No. So he was just. He just got his sentence. How can you explain his sentence? Wait, hold on. How are you able to defend the rape situation when it's already known that he was working with the FBI? Wait, what do you mean it was known? Hey, hold on. Let me take this one. You got the last argument. OK, so what if he was working with the FBI? What OK, so what is the so what about? Oh, I'm interested. Now you piqued my interest. All he did was say, hey, let's go into this building and he wasn't actually answering himself. Isn't he the one that was insinuating rights? I mean, maybe he was. And maybe he was working with the FBI. Well, it's not maybe. It's not maybe. So hold on, hold on. So let me tell you something. I'll give you the perspective here since we're going to play that game. How is it that he gets the lowest sentence but the people that was actually peacefully inside the capital or the one that are being that has been charged with it with a three year plus sentence? Oh, no, no, I'm not everybody. Some some hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. But how is this so what's the most common two sentences handed out of the 87 excluding the 87 three years is the is the average. I'm sorry, Greg, it's looking more like people are getting trespassing and was the other protesting without a permit and they're getting months. But how when the security guards was just allowing people inside? That's a police tactic. If you don't have enough police officers, you're going to put more police officers at risk and study the crowd. Why did why? A better question is why didn't they have enough police officers? Isn't it the police officer's job to keep people out? Isn't there aren't they supposed to be the muscle to secure? They are. But when there's not enough of them, it's a police tactic to it's it's it's like a cop out. So it might be. But in this aspect, I think of it like this, when you see a police chase going on in a busy city, they'll often call the police officers off and say, stop chasing that person. We have a license plate. We have their address. It's going to cause more violence if we continue this chase, right? Let that person go and then they'll go arrest them later. It's a similar similar to what they did at the cap. We don't have the manpower to keep them out. We'll see more hurt police officers who violently resist. I mean, I have I have a few I have a few possible reasons to why. I mean, I mean, a lot of a lot of the lot has been asked to defend the police and a lot of people has left the police force because of some such rhetoric like that. For sure. But like, I mean, the police forces is aren't hurting in a lot of states. It's only the areas that talk about the front of police. But I want to stay more focused on the apps. So what if he worked for the FBI? If the FBI, they're allowed to go undercover. So what if Trump was the president of the United States? He is not the one that's heading right. People are allowed to go undercover. If you were to inform it, it doesn't necessarily mean the FBI is like, go in there and do this. It's like, you were in there doing that.   Except can I can I jump in on that?  I'm not kidding is what he said. I'm sure I'm sure that's so if he's working for the government and his plan on behalf of the government is to storm the Capitol and he's instigating people to do that on the day before in the day of like, come on. Like, how can you explain a sentence given that? Like if he's just a regular guy. Well, I have I have one other explanation, actually. If he's if he's not if he's not a government agent, he's just a regular guy who did incite it. But that's a problem for people trying to blame Trump for inciting it. Yeah, but see if you work with the police, if you were and then you get like discounted sentence, there's all sorts of like the police could jam you up for nothing and keep you busy for 48 hours. No, but we're talking. We're not talking about any normal schlub here. We're talking about the guy who literally admitted that his plan was to storm the Capitol. Those words, which which turned out to be the leading buzz phrase of our media. So coincidentally, coincidentally, maybe he again, I'm for the sake of this argument. I'm affirming he probably worked for the FBI. Let's say he even had a I'm not even saying working for the FBI. So what?  It's bad enough like like we already have on public records, like the CIA was was the whole reason for 9-11 habit and that became public information last year. Don't you not think that this is just another another issue of like government interfering in elections? It might. I wouldn't say interfering in elections. I think this is government doing their job. This is the FBI doing what they do. Like they enter. They get into these groups. So so so so now we're just going to put the point the finger of of an adversary just because just just for thoughts all and be like, well, we had an informant in there. But like, who cares? That's that's a bad argument. I don't think I don't. I think it's a perfectly good argument. If people the informant is there telling the FBI what these people are talking about and what they're but he's the one who's inciting the rights. Can I real real quick? Or wait, hold on. Hold on before we continue. Before we continue on this line. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Before we continue on this line, let me play this real quick for the audience real quick before we because it's right in line with what we're talking about right now. One second. We are here to lose focus. I am losing focus. You're losing focus. You're getting off the subject now. We're here for another reason. We're not here to fight. We're here to serve the cabinet. Wow. Today has been an accessible. All right. Anyway, yeah, that's all I just wanted. I like the fact that he says that and then I'm not kidding. I just want people to see that and continue. Good. So what if he works for the FBI, is what catches me off guard? But I'm like, I don't need to. Wait, why, why, when did it come out that you work for the FBI? I don't know. I'm granting for this conversation. There was something. Let me jump in. I read something about he trained FBI or his sister said that he trained FBI agents years ago or something. This was during the congressional hearings a month back during the whole election proceedings about the whole January 6th. So he wasn't like an employee of the FBI at the time of the riot? No. I know you're granting that because the argument works even if he did work for the FBI. But no, it was that he was working for the FBI. Can I throw something else out? I read there's an article from Politico that came out right after Raphs was sentenced, this most recent sentence. And it, of course, paints anybody that's raising questions as a conspiracy theorist. But then when you read the article, it completely lies about what he said. It multiple times throughout the article, it mentions that he told people to go to the Capitol, go to the Capitol. He did say go to the Capitol. No, right. But in parts where they're quoting him, where he was actually saying go into the Capitol and they do not quote it that way and they don't say anything about storming the Capitol. It's like, why are they leaving these things out of these stories? Why are they leaving that out? When we had this debate, there was one time where he showed intent on actually going inside the Capitol. Oh my God. No. That was when he told that person to get rid of the Capitol. No, no, no, no, no.    That's wrong. You're wrong. It's as simple as three months ago to almost a year ago when they were having these congressional hearings about January 6th. If we simply just look back, I know people. I'll play the video if I must. I will do it. You want me to play it?  I have to actually look at the news just to actually look at these congressional hearings. But they were having like three hour long conversations about RAEBS and this involvement with the FBI. Yeah. Wasting time. I think this is a real weakness.  And obviously, these people that were working that are working there currently, obviously won't answer basic questions. Yeah, it's all a waste of time. Something like the Garland Hearing Waste of Time. No, so the point is, it doesn't matter. If you're putting, and this is, he's just an FBI informant. I'm not saying he's an undercover agent or something. But if you're putting undercover agents into a drug house to get a drug stain, those agents aren't going in there and saying, no, don't commit crimes, guys. We should really all stop selling drugs and go in there. And they're like, yeah, let's sell drugs.  It's their job to blend in. Why is it OK to do that? Why is it, in the instance of these are actually, why is it, why are you backing it? Why are you saying that? There is a line here, and that is the line of entrapment. And I'm not sure if you are alleging that the people that were arrested and convicted were entrapped by REAPs. That seems unlikely, especially if it's what he said about storming the Capitol, he whispered it to somebody. Yeah, he's like, my plan is to storm the Capitol. I'm not kidding. How does that excuse somebody else who was convicted of their role? That's a very good point. It's hard to argue.  Not the point. I feel like we are holding one person to a higher standard than the next, just because of status. I mean, in a way, that's the world work. Here's my argument. One thing is, here's my argument is that Donald Trump told people to march peacefully and patriotically and make your voice heard. There was over 120,000 people did. That's what the vast majority of people did. When it came to the actual riot, it was about 300 people, about 372 people that took part in that. There was another about 302 part in destruction of property. And that's it, about 600, a little over 600 that you could accuse of rioting out of the 120,000. I wouldn't argue anybody that trespassed. OK, all right. So another 1,000 that trespassed. I think we're up to 1,100 arrests right now. OK, that's 1,100, 1,100 out of 120,000. What would you call that? Mostly peaceful. So right, and not only that, but think about Ray Epps. No, think about Ray Epps compared to Trump, OK? The influence, both guys. Are you going to completely ignore what he said? Will you let me finish? I, look, this is exactly the way Destiny came at me, and I'm ready for it, OK? Yes, yes. Will you stop? Destiny came at me the exact same way. OK, so Epps, yeah, he said that peacefully only after he was called out as a fed. That's the only time he's recorded ever saying the peacefully part, is after he was called out. OK, OK. All right, so does it count for Trump? If it counts for Epps, it counts for Trump, then, right? No, no, you're saying for me, but this is a legal issue now. So does it count for Trump? No, Ray Epps got charged. Right, he got probation.  I also remember celebrities inciting violence on him. He got one of the weakest charges out of anybody, and he very well may have been the ringlinger. And he didn't even go into capital. He was at the steps. He was literally pushing a giant sign into ringleader. He was literally on the steps of the capital, pushing a giant Trump sign into a line of police. And it's on video. And that came up. That came up during his hearing. Yeah, he showed me a picture of him. No, that actually did come up. Do you want me to tell you what the judge said during his hearing, which was private, but now we have a transcript supposedly. But the judge said that the sentencing was very hard because while he did take part in some of the melee and was also seen urging peace, and it went on like that a little bit. But at no point did he say anything about telling people to enter the capital. And the judge's statement, he never mentioned that. Why would he not mention that? He's an Obama appointee, by the way.  What do you, okay, who gave me that?  You just give me a thumbs down. What's your fuckin' argument, dude? What did I do wrong? I'm the one that made the noise because you're slurring around. It's a lot of plausible than I used to talk so I'm sure it's all I'm sayin' it. R.W., I'm slurring around, am I? Okay. When you go back, when you, yeah. Yeah, well, how can you explain, wait, hold on. How can you explain people like Owen Sawyer, who would tell people not to go into the capital, didn't go into the capital? He was also saying that Democrats should die and all that stuff, which I think is okay, actually, but. I actually agree with you, Joan. I was just doing the thumbs down because R.W. made this sound, so. Right, R.W., what did I say that was wrong? I might've been slurring around, I'm sorry. I'm havin' fun. Okay. Okay, guys. Okay, all right, fine, that's fine. Y'all have a good night. What? I didn't even respond to any of that, Clark. We went through this on our last stream, intensively, like. You have a squirrel in your shirt. A little, like, chipmunk. The guy who was eating the pack. The guy also had testimony of the guy that first broke the barriers. He testified that Wright Epps told him to calm down. He also, the one thing, the one video you have where he was saying, where Joe Intent and actually going inside the Capitol, he was telling somebody to leave their pepper spray. He told one person, he told one person.  After telling, after telling probably hundreds, almost maybe 300. He went to the Capitol, yes. I just, I still cannot accept the defenses of Wright. It just seems to be a people clinging to, like, I don't know, it makes no logical sense to me at all. I cannot square with it. There's some reasons why he was a light target for the FBI, why it took them so long to get around to him, why after he called them, they took him off the list. Yeah. You can say that it's a light sentence and I might agree with you. I don't really know and I don't really care. They're trying, look, dude, they're literally, they're on the precipice of starting a civil war in order to imprison a guy for supposedly inciting this.  If it was Trump, I'm pretty sure you guys will go AWOL bonkers.  Trump's got just a little bit more pull than a crazy boomer. No, no, Wright, Wright, which is why I made, Wright, which is what, hold on, which is why I made the argument about the fact that 120,000 over 120,000 people march peacefully. How do you explain that? Like, if Trump was inciting a riot, where is the gigantic riot?  There was way more than 300 people rioting through 2015 to 2020, way more. But every single riot... Can we imprison all left-wingers, imprison them as traitors and insurrectionists? And Wright, yeah, you're out. Yoink! Bye-bye! Yoink! Yeah, I say, let's start imprisoning.  We imprison them and then charge them with insurrection throughout 2015 to 2020.  How about that? Let's do it. Who was the one that was shot on the face? Wait, hold on. So we're at the Capitol? Can we have it? Just to be sure that you have your clip audio on or off? Because you could be put on the app, so. Yeah, I'm just saying. I'm just saying if we're gonna be consistent here, which we all know, all of us here know, it will never happen, obviously.  You know, it was even crazier. I live in Connecticut, and my state was counted as one of the states that was part of the election fraud allegations. It turns out it was factual.  That happened at Bridgeport.  Hey, Aircraft Sparky, what's up, buddy? Sorry. It did happen. So, I mean, that being said, and it's not like I don't justify violence, but January 6th was not a violent thing. And also, the people that were rightful... Well, it was. I defend them. Well, it got at some point... It was bad.  I'm like, why are these people doing this? Let me clear it up in the library. However, there is such thing as something called the ROR, which is the Rite of Revolution. I did mention this like a while ago before someone started attacking drone taxes, Discord servers before they all got shut down. I didn't mention the ROR. And so because we do have the right to exercise freedom to express and have political movements, what the people were doing in the Capitol was exactly that, which was practicing the ROR. Nothing about that was a violent insurrection. It wasn't a violent insurrection, but it was a riot.   What about the Chomp and Chats?  I don't think he had the authority. He did have the authority to send the Constitution. I'm pretty sure he just had the authority to go and protect the federal and state buildings, which he did. He has the authority to suspend the Constitution under the Posse Comotatus Act, where he can actually use federal troops on supposed American citizens who ever were in the Constitution ship. Isn't that the Constitution? Very anti-American to suspend the Constitution and deal with the Chomp. Isn't that what? That sounds pretty anti-American. What was that anti-American? We're actually talking to one of these 12 kids. People are being murdered for those 12 kids and they were not allowing EMS or police to go in there to handle it. Hold on. We're talking to a soul.  And no, what they did was actual insurrection and it was very simple. Once they claim that they are no longer American citizens, they are no longer protected by the Constitution. Naturally rejecting authoritarianism. I personally like my federalism to be local than state than federal. And not saying that the federal government can supersede the laws voted on by the people of that area just go in and arrest whoever they want. Well, I mean, that's called the Federal Supremacy Clause. That's in the Constitution. Again, just being moral. I mean, if you're about doing away with the Constitution, that's great at all. The pro-liberty guy of my son, I'd rather lean toward the other way. What about the liberty of the people that were held hostage by those insurrectionists? What about their liberty, huh? You got proof of that? Yeah. I think your dog is getting taken back there. There was people that were being put down by those groups. I'm gonna need you to send me some videos and site that. One's neuters, one's spated, they're fine. Foxy Spinks. Yeah, right here. Let's get ready to rumble. Yeah, yeah. Take a left. Never mind, never mind. I take that all back. I'll take your word. I'm gonna just need you to send me the proof though.  I use chop and chases. My examples of something worse in terms of insurrection than what Trump did absolutely. Yeah, that was an actual. I think he was doing an actual step. He's still saying Trump did when he didn't do any of that. Yeah, exactly. That's what I'm saying. I don't think it was an insurrection. Chas are just scratching the surface even like. Yeah, and look what they were doing. That was like a civil war of years.  There's nothing wrong with that.  There is crazy video that those people have never seen from those from that whole era. Like I remember watching streams where there were these mobs roaming through neighborhoods in different cities and they were just like randomly attacking cops that had like set up literally like mobs that would just overwhelm these like groups of cops. I have no idea what happened to these people. But I remember watching these streams and that shit's gone. Never to be like spoken of or heard of again. I didn't have. Yeah. That's the point I was making to you earlier is that like these these areas of vote, they vote on your police chief, you vote on your DA, you vote on the people that make the law and they they they tell their police like you can ask the officers on the ground. They're like these are the orders we got. Don't go after those guys. So like you really have to blame the voter in the area more than you blame the individual police officer for those actions. So we think that the blame the cops are not enforcing the law. Yeah, but they're an order. Oh yeah, that's what the Nazis were doing too. They were just following orders. So it's completely fine. Yeah.  You see that a lot. Yeah, just doing their jobs. Yeah, whatever the Reichstag fire and everything else. I mean, it's like you took a note of the Constitution and yet you're like openly violating it. You were using orders to justify evil actions. These police are using orders to not do anything. It's a little bit different. Not doing something is an act of evil. It's called the banality of evil.  I guess. I mean, like that's a feeling. How about this? What if you do nothing and then you punish the people that are doing something like. That's up to the DA's like these are DA's that are getting voted. I completely agree with you with on the George Soros funded DA point. You're not going to get any funding from me there, but that's that's the level that people control.  It's because parents in those areas vote in the people to the school board that allow that and they let it happen. They find out it's happening. They keep voting a man.   You give them exactly what they asked for. That's the whole thing. I agree. I don't like jazz and chocolate. I just don't think that sending federal troops and is the answer. Like, it's like why don't we have, why don't we have like a yearly anniversary about Chaz and chop? Like everybody gets remembered. Like remember when left wingers did this to George Floyd? Autonomous zone is still up. George Floyd Autonomous zone. It's still going. Yeah. Are we, are we, bro?  They already came out that, it already came out that the middle. It already came out that the middle. Bro, bro, the man who did the autopsy was admitted that he got bullied by the Democrats in order to falsify the autopsy and said that the man was strangled. No, that's a little more extreme than what he said. That is not, okay, okay. I wasn't strangled enough. It's still a paraphrase, but he admitted that he got bullied into falsifying the autopsy. Look, I'm somebody that's done a lot of heroin in my life. I could tell you that when you get intolerant, the amount of fentanyl Floyd died in the system with less than half of what junkies overdose on. It was like 12. I see what you're saying about that, but it shouldn't matter, even if your tolerance is high, like if you take a certain amount, it's still gonna have the same effect. I don't, is that actually, I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. They said it was 11. They said it was 11. Right, I see what you're saying. I don't know if that applies to be honest. They still say it was a leap or no second. Yeah, but I could show you, junkies dying with 25 in their system. Okay, that's understandable. But they said it's a medical assumption. It was 11 that was already. 11's a lethal dose for you. Absolutely, you'll die on this. Yeah, so then it was like 10 years ago, 11's a normal dose. I'm doing 11 maybe once or twice a day. Hey, welcome, Nick. He just joined us. Congratulations. I'm just saying, like, that's how tolerance is, I'm not bragging about it. All right, that's understandable, you know?  What's up? What's up? Do you think that, so you think that it's so weird? Like I understand about the police problem and stuff. But when it comes to the Floyd thing, for some reason I get a little defensive about it. I don't know why. Cause it has nothing to do with the guy being black. Cause it's not that. And in fact, like the media tried to make that out. Like it was all racial, right? But racism was never even like alleged at any point. And the funny thing is once he came out in a minute that he falsified the autopsy, first of all, he should have been, I'm glad that he testified to that.  Oh yeah. And when Chauvin got stabbed, the moment this became public announcement, which is insane. Yeah, I think he's a bad cop. I think he, you know, he has enough. But I don't think he intentionally planned to kill Floyd. I don't think so either. I don't think he's a bad cop. The length that he held that position was absurd. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. This is basically standard.   I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell you a lot of people will say, oh, it's horrible. And that's based on your feelings and not any experience. Okay.  Regardless of their, like, let me up.  Right. I get you. I get you on that. It's such a murky night. I've broken Haji's fingers just for looking at me funny at ECPs and FOBS. Well, you're not a cop, are you? No, I was a soldier, though. What would you say, Dan? Hold on. I want to hear Dan. Dan, go for it, man. All right. So can we all just agree that cops shouldn't be shoving their knees into people's backs? I disagree. No, I disagree. Yeah, there are reasons for doing that. Let me tell you a story. OK, hold on a second. I don't need a story. You ask a question and I answer it. No, I disagree. It's story time. No, I agree. Well, I don't need to tell you a story anyway. Let me tell you a story anyway, because El Aircraft Sparky wanted something. Aircraft Sparky wants something from personal experience. This is something from personal experience. OK. So about what was I, 17? Yes, I'm going to slow zoom in on your face for this. I, oh no, this was about 18 years old. I was right out of Job Corps. I'd come back home, just hanging out with friends. We got some acid. Got some sugar cubes. I took a couple of sugar cubes and had some more in my pocket. And over the course of time, I let a couple melt in my hand. So I was going off of about four dank-ass sugar cubes. I was gone. Ended up leaving my buddy's house that we were tripping at and started walking down the neighborhood.  I ended up taking my pants down.  Police showed up and they was trying to wrangle me and whatnot. They got me on the ground. They was trying to cuff me. One of them wanted to shove his knee into my back.  And apparently as he goes to shove his knee into my back, I rolled over and he shoves his knee into the concrete. So it's not just the person that they're arresting that they shouldn't be shoving their knee into somebody for.  Because if they blow their knee out, then they're no good. Then the city has to pay them for what?  No, actually what will happen. The truth will happen in that scenario is you'll actually get charged with assault on an officer and you'll end up having to pay. That shouldn't happen. Hey, let me tell you a story. What do they do? Did you guys hear about this guy who just got trolled? Hold on, John. We're talking over each other. We're talking over each other. Thank you. He's going to tell the story I was going to go to. Yeah, I got a great story. I robbed a bank once and a cop tried to arrest me for it. He stubbed his toe. It's for their own good that they shouldn't be existing. You should have a chump fire for this. We should even the police for that. Yeah, you know, just to go inside. He was back out once wearing money armor.  With his big toe. I just think it's ridiculous. You've got to subdue people and whatever, and they have methods to do it. They're trained on how to do it. And it's not about being nice. It's about actually subduing the fricking person they're arresting. You have to use violence at times. That's just the reality of their job. What did you say on their car? All right, so I'm going to give you a big perspective.  As anybody else, you literally have to, like, like this is why I don't know why people think that they're above the law, right? When a cop has to do something, you do, right? Well, no, wait, let me stop you. Let me stop you. That's not true. I said constitutional.  Yeah, I'd like to hear. Literally, you could tell them that. You could flip them off.  I was going to give you guys. Do you guys? Can you let's just give military a chance to say a word or two? Because I'm just saying, I'm just saying, don't say that. Don't say it just because cops give you an order, you have to follow it, because that's not true. You have rights. You have rights. You should stand up.  I was going to say, I was going to give. I was going to give. I was going to give. Yeah, go ahead. OK, I'm not one for interrupting. I believe in respect.  I'm a former law enforcement, a 30 years law enforcement. I went to Iraq for six and a half years. I worked directly for the Pentagon. I know exactly how this stuff is going down. There's so many topics I wanted to jump in and talk about. But right now you're talking about Derek Chauvin and what he did wrong. Let me tell you exactly what he did wrong. In training, they tell you to put your deal on someone's back. Now, when I was in law enforcement, you had the ability to look and see the totality of circumstances. When Floyd was thought to be under some type of influence, immediately Chauvin should have subdued him to the point of calling EMS. It becomes a medical situation, not a law situation. That's where he went wrong. This whole thing. Well, I agree. I agree. Hold on, hold on. No, no. So there's context that is possibly missing. You may have not seen it. So there is video of him being arrested. They placed him. They cuffed him. They placed him in the truck. And he started freaking out, screaming about how he couldn't breathe. They should have either get him in the truck. He was trying to. No, they got him in the truck. They got the door closed and everything. And he started freaking out.  They should have never pulled him out. Look, once you get started with the call. I agree with that, too, actually.   Hey, man, I'm sorry.   He doesn't want to color his asses. But the problem is, everyone wants to sense different standards because of the color of the man's skin. Hold on. True. The only is, they tried to accommodate him. And then his overdose, the results of the drugs that were in his system, he died from those. Look, listen. You get a chance to respond. Hold on. Hold on. Just take it, please. That doesn't change what I'm saying. In my experience, when I have someone that I believe is under the influence of anything, doesn't matter what it is. I don't know what it is. I'm not a doctor. Once I get him in the car, and you're correct, I am aware of that. Once I get him in the car or in the truck, then he's at the safest point he could be until EMS arrives. That's what should have happened. They shouldn't have had. They should have accommodated him to get back out of the car because he claimed he wanted to be on the ground. So they gave him what he wanted. And now, you've got a gentleman sitting in prison for murder. Yeah, I don't think he should be in prison. This whole thing is crazy. He's a back cop, but I disagree with him being a back cop. I don't know if he was a bad cop. This is going to sound crazy. This is going to sound crazy. Most cops are going to be back cops. Hey, guys, guys, guys, can we cut it, please? This is going to sound crazy. That don't mean to be. They're just ignorant. Right, this is going to sound crazy coming from a guy that's former law enforcement, working for the feds, working for the Pentagon. But there are no good cops. The institution now is completely corrupted from the top down. Yeah, it is. I heard somebody mention earlier. I heard somebody mention earlier. Pussycomitati. They don't even need to worry about that. That's going to the wayside.  We have a standard military force in every single city. And to think that when one guy there on the microphone said, oh, well, I'd rather have things done at a local level as opposed to a federal level. Well, let me tell you something. The paternal order of police is backed by the federal government that every single one of the police officers working for the executive branch of the government. Therefore, you don't have a local. All right, so hold up. There's a lot of that was addressed. Good to hear from you, buddy. See you later, Dave. See you. So first off, the reason George Floyd, or Derek Shover was arrested, wasn't that he put his knee on somebody's back. It wasn't that he held his airway down. It wasn't that they accommodated his request. It was that when the man became unresponsive, he didn't alter his action. So he never took the knee off of his neck to check if he was all right. He never signified he'd a mess, needed to hurry up until it was far too late. People were screaming at him. That guy's unconscious. Get off of him. And he never even shuttered. That was what got him in trouble. Secondly, the civil asset fortune for profiteers have been around for decades. If, to be completely honest, they're a comparable nothing burger to what they used to be. Police don't have the same powers and rights they use. We were talking about the golden age of policing for body cameras. Now there's not official courtesy for officers.  You're not going to jail. That doesn't happen anymore. We're in a society where police have the most transparent that they've ever had. We're in a much better place than we've ever been in that regard. I agree it's at a much better place, but clearly, I still see videos every day that show that there's still a lot of work to do. There's a lot of police out there who are so freaking ignorant, man. Well, so hold on.  And then are we going to talk about the news? I think personally, I'm looking at the body cam footage I see and just for reference, I'm looking at videos of people trying their damned is not to harm the suspects or people that they come in contact with that they have to apprehend and they end up either getting themselves killed or because they are afraid to apprehend the individual due to them getting Derek Chauvin, you know? If that makes sense.  Also body cam footage studies show that body cams get the police off of trouble much more often than they get the citizen off of trouble. Is that true? Okay. Yes. Well, let me ask you this. Did anybody here heard of the difference between Malham, Insay and Malham for Hibbidham? Elaborate. I'm sorry, say that again. I can bear that. I'm asking them to elaborate. Malham, Insay versus Malham for Hibbidham. Is this some kind of lawsuit using a Latin terminology? No, well, actually all legalese is different words used that the government uses. Legalese. Okay, let me explain. Let me explain it to you this way. When you go to a doctor, they use a different language called Latin and makes them sound more important or of higher authority than you. A doctor surely knows what they're doing because they're writing prescriptions in Latin. Well, that's the same. Okay, well, that's the same with the military. The military uses different terms. They call Norman Clashers. They don't call things the same. They call them an M1A1. They don't call that a rifle. They call it an M16. Okay. That's so the general public doesn't quite understand the language that they're using. Well, in the legal world, Black's Law and Bouvier's Dictionary Law, there are legal terms. And the legal terms, like for instance, an automobile is a non-legal term. A legal term for an automobile is a vehicle. That thing that uses goods and services from one location to another. Well, that's commerce. Here's another one. Okay, so what about like a 5.34 liter Chevy? All right, what do they call it? What do they call it? You can turn a 5.34. Is that also just to confuse the populace? Is it also an experience of your way? That's particular to a certain type of automobile. Oh, okay. So how is everything not customized? I don't understand your logic. Okay, you can turn that 5.3 liter Chevy into a vehicle when you go down to the Department of Motor Vehicles. And if you look up right now online, whether a motor vehicle is, the legal definition of a motor vehicle, what is that? 18 USC 31. You can look that up. I'll put the laws right up ahead. Do you have to Google this right now? Okay, sure. 18, what'd you say? Do you want to post it? 18 USC 31. 18 USC 31 is what you're saying? Yeah, and go down to section six. Yeah, okay. So you have the link up right now, right? You can post it if you want. Well, I'm on a phone. I'm just looking at you guys. I'm not looking at anything else. You're on a phone. Yeah, I'm on a phone. Okay, 18 USC 31. Let's see. Yep. Go down to section six. Code is everyonedefinitelylaw.cornell.edu. Okay, let's go. Here we go. Oh, it's a Cornell Law School. Okay, here we are. So what's the point you're approving? What's your motor vehicle? Go down to section six. Section six, the term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and underlined use for commercial purposes on the highways and the transportation of passengers. Passengers and property or property or cargo. Now, what defines all those terms that were used to describe this motor vehicle? What I'm trying to say is there are legal terms. Clearly, if you're retired or if you're not employed, if you're not working, you're not a driver because the driver is the person that's employed. Then clearly, clearly, if you don't have a vehicle, you wouldn't register it with the Department of Motor Vehicles. If you have an automobile, you get what I'm saying so there's a difference between the terms. Okay, do you have a license plate on your car right now? Do I have a license to drive? Do I have a license plate? Do I have a license plate on my vehicle? Did you register with a DMV? Yes. Why? Do you work for someone? Yes, I do. Now, remember, you're getting this from a cop. But, okay, so you do work for someone. Oh, you're doing a great job. You're doing a great job. Hold on. Just to put it out there. I also watched sovereign citizen videos, too. No, no, wait, stop. Come on, dude, is there a real copy? This is, this is, I'm getting from this. Give me a chance to finish it, please. So, once said sovereign citizen. So, once said sovereign citizen. Well, let's go back to that 14th Amendment of the Constitution. A sovereign citizen, a citizen is a subject. You can't be a sovereign and a subject. That's an oxymoron. And that term was made up by the federal government. I can tell you what year, 1994. Okay. Now, we go back to what I'm saying about legal definitions. If you registered your car, your private conveyance with the Department of Motor Vehicles, you did it, and you converted it into a government entity. You don't own that car anymore. You have to pay property taxes on it every year. If you hadn't done that, you would be the owner of it.  So, we're talking all legal. How do you drive it on the road, then? How do you play the game? How do you play the game? Okay. How do you drive your car on the road without playing that game? Well, this is a long conversation, but number one, you can, as a citizen resident, do that. What you have to do is you have to set up paperwork, write five letters out, and then you go to, you know, one's got to go to Department of State, one's got to go to DNB, one's got to go to the governor of your state and let them know that you're no longer a citizen because you're not a subject. You are now an American national and you'll get all the same amenities and everything else is any of these illegal aliens that come in here who don't have to have driver's licenses, who don't have to go, they can go and buy a gun and they're not regulated to show any background checks. Did you know that? Are you paying taxes as a national? They're their own diplomat. Diplomatic. Are you paying taxes as a national? No. Well, damn, brother. Nope. Are you not paying taxes? I mean, it's not like. I'm not a person with paying taxes. I'm a hundred percent disabled better. I got shot a few times, you know, while in Iraq, but that's beside the point. They spell your name in all of my cases that year. As a diplomat, there's a lot of things.  It actually becomes a place where diplomat, the diplomat lives. There's a whole, I could take you down that whole thing, but the reason I brought this up is the loop, the terms lilies, when it comes to malum insay and malum prohibitum. Malum insay means the evils on their face. You can look these, these terms up as well. A malum insay law with things like rape, incest, murder, assault, theft, when there's a victim. You've heard that term, no victim, no crime. You hear all the left, all these crazy left talk about, well, we need to defund the police. We need to defund the police. But no, actually what we need to do is we need to go back to malum insay laws and screw all these malum prohibitum laws. Malum prohibitum laws are laws where some edict to some guy said, well, we're going to make this a law that you can't go out on a Thursday with red shoes. Now it's a law. Look at the drug laws. Back, the 18th Amendment. Did anybody know the 18th Amendment? Now I'll stop my head. Okay, the 18th Amendment was the prohibition of alcohol in order to take someone's rights to the United States of America because your rights as an individual, in order for the government to take your rights, they have to make an amendment to the Constitution to supersede that right. Well, in order to give that right back, they have to make another amendment to give that right back. The 18th Amendment is prohibition of alcohol. The 21st Amendment is that amendment given that right back. Let me ask you a question. What amendment did they give for marijuana, heroin, cocaine, or all these other supposed illicit drugs that thousands wants to be the one to mandate? Can I ask you a question actually? What are we even arguing at this point? Okay, what I'm saying is we need to get the cops back to what they're supposed to be doing. Malim can say laws, not malim prohibit them. Oh, how do you think that we do that though?  We the people. We the people, okay. So who votes for that? What do we vote for? Okay, how it starts is someone like me coming to a group like you, that's how it starts. Well, what's your initial process of we the people? What do you think, because we vote for what? Who do we vote for? Don't mention something about low. Who do we vote for? You're assuming it's voting. Yeah, well, that's the- Okay, yeah, I mean, we had to start peace. We had to start peacefully, right? That's the first process, isn't it? Yeah, okay, peacefully. Let me ask you this. Does anybody here know what the United States flag stands for?  No, no, no, this is very serious. This is important. Anybody knows what the flag stands for. 50 stars for 50 states and 13 stripes for the original 13. That's the description of the different parts of the flag. Sure, yeah. That's what it stands for, America. The blood that we shed. No, it actually depends. What it stands for. The blood that we shed is the sacrifice for what it stands for. Freedom is the symptom of what we get for what it stands for. Nobody knows what it stands for. Oh, thank you. Who said that? Is that why you got so triggered by the blue line? Well, hold on. Okay, yeah, earlier I got triggered by the blue line. Marky said that. Marky said that too. I got triggered by the blue line. Okay, the blue line. You did. Yeah, I did earlier. I got triggered. Let me ask you a question. The blue line flag, the United States flag is something that unifies us all. I agree with a host 100% on that, the one that said that. It's the unification. Yeah, let's show it to him. Okay. We all agree. We all agree. Right. What is the purpose of the blue line flag? Does it represent every single taxpayer? No, it doesn't represent us at all. It represents the cops alone. It singles them out. It separates them from we the people. So that sounds like an emotional reaction. That's your personal story that you're telling right now because you were supposedly 30 years in law enforcement and then six and a half years in the pension, right? It's the reason I quit. It's the reason I quit. The reason you quit? Why'd you join the Pentagon afterwards? Well, so here's the deal. Here's the deal. I kind of get where he's coming from. So all these different types of flags, blue line, red line, green line, all these different line flags. It's actually the facement of the flag which is the symbol of the Republic of America under US flag code. You actually cannot do that. When it has a gold fringe around it, it's talking about the corporation of America. That's the Jolly Rogers, the corporation. You're correct. And the corporations were flown in every single... Military tribunal. When you walk into a court system, it signifies a ship. It signifies coming in on boarding a ship. Okay. So again, let's digress a little bit. I'll ask you again, how do you think that we fix this as a people? Okay. When you say we the people, what do you mean by that? Well, okay. There are four branches of government and I'm getting ready here. Oh, no, there's not. Oh, no, there's not. The constitution lists four branches of government. Oh, no, there's not. Hold on. Hold on. Let me... Hold on. Go ahead. I've been listening. Let me explain why. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Wait a minute. Let me explain why there are four branches of government. Article one starts off with the House and Senate. Article two is the executive branch and article three is the court system, the judicial branch. And everyone says, well, that clearly shows there are three branches of government. Right? Well, no, wrong. Article one should have been listed as article two. Article two should have been listed at article three and article three should have been listed at article four because the preamble of the constitution, we the people, is how it starts. That's the first branch of government and it's the last thing in government. Okay. With government, government is two laws. Laws get created by the House and Senate.  Then it goes to the judicial branch for adjudication. And we the people, the jury notifications could say whether that law is any good or not. If I go down right now and I'm part of a jury, as we the people, and I go to the, I'm sitting in the jury and they say, well, we got a video of this guy with 50 pounds of heroin, 50 pounds of cocaine. Here's the video and he come out and said, well, you called me, I did it. If I'm sitting in the jury, I'm saying not guilty because that's my saying. I'm the fourth branch of government. It's the first one listed, it's the last one who has a say. We understand the concept of the we the people. What is your understanding of the solution for the broken system? So hold on, hold on, hold on, let me interject here. So when you're talking about an article one, two and three is you're talking about three, the three separate co-equal branches of government. The fourth branch as you're saying the people is not a co-equal branch. It's actually the thing that gives the government justification of existence. That's correct. And it has a final say. Yes.  Well, a court government's gonna buck you.  The government- What exactly happens? Well, number one, you talked out, you could go to contempt of court.  Well, we're not saying that they're constitutional. I'm not saying that the government is doing anything lawful. That's not my claim. They're the one, the system is broken. Of course they're gonna be people that go to jail. I mean, look, you got people going to jail right now for things they didn't do. Let me ask you this. So myself and another creator are actually looking at being arrested more than likely on trespassing charges due to being on the grounds of the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. The People's House, you're right. Yeah, it's the People's House. The People's House. Being on the grounds of People's House. Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, I completely understand that our government doesn't follow their own rules. It's rules for thee, not for me. That's right. It's a common thing, but I will tell you, there is no legal course of action that will be accepted by any court in America to usurp their authority. Okay. That just doesn't exist. Because they will not accept that. Well, if you notice in most courtrooms now, there isn't even a jury. Look, you got- Strange. I don't understand. You've been fooled from the top all the way down. Corporations run everything. What do you mean? What do you mean by you? The corporation- Give us some credit. Do what? It's a blanket statement when you say you. I mean, some of us have a little bit of credit in this field of not being deceived everywhere. Okay. Well taken. I stand corrected on that. But what I'm trying to say is, the majority of the people in the United States of America have this government belief system, but it's become like a religion. When looking first and second grade, Santa Claus absolutely exists.  Come about the third or fourth grade, you start waking up and realizing that the whole thing is a facade. Well, that's how they believe in government. People believe they have to have a driver's license. They believe they have to have a marriage license. They believe they gotta have a hunt license and a fishing license. And because the belief system's broken- Brother, brother, I understand that you have things to say on this- Yeah, we need a license for our rights. I'm with you, man. I would like to see the digress to the answer to the question of what you believe the solution is. Okay, how we think it is, we educate everybody number one that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. And what does that mean? The difference between the two? That's a democracy. It's a form of democracy. No, it actually isn't. It actually isn't. It is a republic. There are different differences there. It's not, we're not a strict republic though, right? No, we are a constitutional republic with democratic processes. And I, to sympathize and to masterize it by calling it- Right, the democratic process is actually going to be- No, I'm with you. I'm with you on that. I'm with you on that. The democratic process is a verb. It's not a noun. We don't live in it. No, I agree. I agree. If we go by what the flag stands for, it's individual rights, individual liberties and individual responsibilities. This one concept fixes every single thing wrong with this nation. Pick any topic. Let's say for instance, abortion. I was a 17 year old boy standing in front of a judge to say your honor, I got my whole life ahead of me. I can't have a child right now.  Well, what about a woman then? Shouldn't she be held responsible for her actions to willingly open her legs and responsibility and pregnancy? This is another tangent. It's a tangent, though. Exactly. I mean, the tangents that you're going on, we agree with you on, but you're not providing any real solution to these tangents that you're complaining about.  No, no, no. You're preaching to the choir, basically. Basically, yeah. La. I'm trying to give you a shit, do we agree with you? No, I'll tell you the whole story There's nothing that you can do until you actually have a part of the government that will actually agree with you. And that is not going to happen because that would require them to give up an amount of power that they have. So the people, the last time the people, quote unquote, stepped up and tried to do something like that. Last time I checked, there's about 1,200 people that are still awaiting trial and over 1,000 more are waiting to be arrested and detained by the FBI for simply being on public land. But I agree with some portions of that, but I think a majority of those people simply wanted to go into the Capitol because the doors were let open and everybody was going in. They're like, wow, we're being allowed to come in. I would say there was like about 900 people that were like that. Yeah, that's a good estimate. They just walked in, the doors were open, they're right, they didn't realize there was any kind of like, yeah. Right. No, no, see, I will push back on that. I was there. No, if you didn't know if something happened that day, then you were blind and a fool, okay? Look, I was there, I watched it happen and you could see the film of it. I would say there's like a gradient. I would say there's like a gradient between the riot and then going back to the mass of like about a thousand people that were behind them and like probably a lot of them. When you watch videos of elderly people walking through there like it's a parade. Right, exactly. That's what I mean.  There were journalists and stuff who walked in, right? Like just behind in