Taya Graham: Pennsylvania’s 7th District is a diverse community stretching across the Lehigh Valley, but just before the midterm election, there is a common theme from residents that we spoke to.

Kathy: We are not liking what we see in our country.

Taya Graham: Anger and the desire for change.

Kathy: We’re not liking the effects of the things that are taking place in Washington, and therefore people are out trying to make a change.

Taya Graham: And how voters feel here could be critical to who controls the House. It is one of more than a dozen battleground districts, which is why we spent several days speaking to the people who will determine the outcome. Many said high prices, lack of affordable housing, and a disconnect between Washington and the concerns of working people were motivating their vote.

Valerie: But from what I see, a lot of people, including people that were always Trumpers or used to be always Trumpers, are actually changing their mind. They’re really upset. When they go to the grocery store, my grocery bills in the last year have tripled.

Taya Graham: But we also learned there are other more specific issues that could sway the election. Data centers have become a national issue, but the impact is truly local. Last week, the Bethlehem City Council met to approve more restrictive zoning regulations for data centers. The law would create wider setbacks from residential neighborhoods and limit noise levels. For some, data centers were the deciding factor on how they would vote.

Darcy: I actually see this as it being forced on us, it being forced on us quickly, it being forced on us without the proper studies and concern about the environment that honestly, I think it’s across the board, people don’t want them. And this is an issue that I think Republicans, Independents, and I think this is our stamp act.

Taya Graham: A unifying issue in an otherwise fractured electorate.

Mary Collier: Doors and on the phones across our turfs in Pennsylvania right now, affordability, housing and data centers are the top issues. I think there’s a lot of reasons to hate data centers, but the fact that 40% of Pennsylvanians can’t afford their bills right now, knowing that these things are going to raise their utility bills is a huge reason that it’s on people’s minds and they’re thinking about it going into this election.

Taya Graham: The race between Democrat Bob Brooks and Republican Ryan McKenzie is tight. The Cook’s political report gives Brooks a five point lead, but 16% of voters remain undecided. Neither attended the hearing. Brooks did make an appearance when the Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial bookmobile visited Bethlehem. It’s a moving repository of Epstein investigatory files and emails that has traveled across the country. We asked Brooks if he thought that the Epstein scandal would impact voters.

Bob Brooks: I think they’re a huge factor. People of all walks and want to see these things released. I think it’s a huge issue. I know within my union, I’ve watched my union members feel like they’ve been lied to, and this is one of the big topics that they voted that way in the beginning and now they’re feeling lied to. So I think you’re going to see it be a really big factor.

Taya Graham: At another stop, residents agreed.

Krista: I wanted to see the 3.5 million books. I wanted to see what it was all about and that I can’t believe our leaders in our country are saying this is a hoax.

Taya Graham: However, looming over the district were other more foreboding concerns that democracy itself was on the ballot and that their vote would not be counted.

Cathy: I am going to vote by mail, but I’m going to put my ballot in a drop box as opposed to the mail because I don’t trust that process, which is ridiculous. The United States Postal Service, we feel like we can’t even trust that anymore.

Thomas: I think that there’s a strong possibility that they would block as many votes as possible.

Taya Graham: We will continue to be on the ground in this critical district as the midterms unfold. This is Taya Graham and Steven Janis reporting for you.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report: Breaking News Edition. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. Now to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today, we will achieve that goal by reporting on a disturbing story that has been growing more and more alarming as it unfolds. I’m talking about the current ordeal of cop watcher Long Island Audit.

As you already know, Long Island Audit, also known as SeanPaul Reyes, has been covering police misconduct for roughly five years. His provocative videos and creative tactics have garnered him millions of subscribers and a huge audience, but it has also attracted the attention of law enforcement, according to SeanPaul. And some of that attention could have significant consequences for him and his family.

This comes on top of a broad demonetization of cop watching and auditing videos. So to unpack what’s happening and the consequences for SeanPaul, we will be speaking to him shortly.

But first, I want to turn to my reporting partner about the importance of the First Amendment and the pushback he encountered from law enforcement during his reporting. Stephen Janis, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Well, unfortunately, I dragged you inside to talk about something a little disturbing.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, very, very disturbing. And when I was reading what Sean had sent us about what’s happening to him, I was thinking about some of my own situations. Just recently we were reporting on the firing of the first Black police chief of Pokemoke City, which is a small town on the Eastern Shore. We were investigated as part of a grand jury investigation into an interview we tried to do with one of the witnesses in the case, and they made our lives miserable. But I think the point behind it was that they wanted to prevent us from reporting on this story. The witness had lied, the prosecutors were basically covering up and they didn’t want us to know about it. And the way they intimidated us was impaneling a grand jury and starting to investigate us and lawyers telling me they’re going to show up at your work, they might show up at your house, but they’re going to show up.

And fortunately, the judge in the case though it was absolutely invalid and it never went forward. But we were very much on the verge of it, very least being called in front of a grand jury, which has all sorts of fraud implications. So I really, really have problems with the idea of law enforcement criminalizing speech or dissent. And I think that’s why we need to unpack this in detail and understand what’s really going on here and the implications that go beyond just SeanPaul’s work and his career, but the implications for all people who use the First Amendment as a tool for their reporting or their dissent or anything.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. I think everyone out there needs to care about the First Amendment. You have to exercise your rights or you’re going to miss them when you lose them.

All right, so let’s bring in our guest, Long Island Audit. SeanPaul, thank you so much for joining us.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you so much for having me. It’s always a pleasure to be on with you guys.

Taya Graham:

So first I have to ask you, how are you doing?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I wouldn’t say I’m paranoid, but I’m definitely cautious. I’m definitely vigilant of my surroundings now. My life has definitely changed. My family’s life has definitely changed from this information that has been revealed and just being cautious and obeying the law like normal, just hoping that evil people don’t do evil things.

Taya Graham:

So SeanPaul, you’ve received some pretty disturbing messages. I’m going to put one on the screen and read a little, but I’m just going to say something first. While we can discuss the nature of the threats, we cannot name or disclose any information that would point to a particular person or even hint at a particular agency. And the reason for this is clear. At this point, we cannot confirm this information. And for all we know, it could simply be a way to scare or intimidate you, but we feel that it is noteworthy because of the far-reaching implications if it’s true. However, we also have to abide by our journalistic ethics and not disclose something about a specific person or entity that is so far unproven or that we have not ourselves confirmed. So we’re just going to keep that in mind as we discuss this.

So I’m going to put up the first threat and Cam, if you could put up Long Island Audit JPEG one and then two as I read.

I hope this email finds you well. If I didn’t write this email and something happened to you, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. At the same time, I’m not a supporter of yours or agree with the tactics you choose to expose police, politicians and the like. I also don’t like or agree with violence. With that said, let me get to the point of my email. SeanPaul, you are in grave danger. Your home is about to be raided sometime soon during the month of September. From what I understand, a search warrant will be approved to search for some investigative paperwork that you illegally got or received. The warrant will be also used to search for communications between you and other cop watchers.

I believe this warrant will be served by [redacted]. You are being investigated for being the leader of an anti-police government terrorist group. You’re probably wondering how I know this. OK, Sean, just even reading that just made my stomach knot up. How did you feel when you received this message? And since you’ve received it, have you learned anything else about what might happen?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, this was the second message in a line of messages that I received as far as warnings go. When I read this one, what stood out to me the most was the fact that they’re not even a supporter, allegedly. Again, I don’t know. I can’t confirm who these people are. I can’t confirm that they are who they say they are, rather. The people that they claim to be do exist, but I can’t confirm who they are. I’m working on that now. But these people are terrified and they don’t agree with what’s happening to me. They don’t agree with my tactics, as you heard, but they don’t agree with violence, and they believe that the government is going to be using violence in order to chill my free speech and intimidate me and stop me from asking questions. And that’s always concerning to me, especially because I live with my wife and my two young children who are three and four years old, and it’s definitely something that they didn’t sign up for and it’s not something that should be acceptable under our Constitution, under our First Amendment.

This should not be happening, this kind of threats.

Stephen Janis:

You know, Sean, journalists come into possession of all sorts of documents. What is the nexus of this warrant? What exactly could they be trying to do or trying to get from you or what could they use as fodder to get a judge to approve this? It sounds pretty farfetched to me, but I was just wondering if you had any idea of what they might be trying to do here.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, Stephen, it is farfetched, and I have no idea. I’ve racked my brain for hours trying to figure out what exactly is this evidence that I illegally obtained, allegedly. I have no idea. Everything that I’ve ever obtained has been legally and through the FOIA process, either through the federal FOIA process or New York State FOIA commissions. It’s always been legally obtained through open records requests. So I have no idea. Again, it’s just concerning to me that this would happen.

And the circumstantial evidence that comes along with it, these emails are that the Suffolk County District Attorney Ray’s Attorney’s office he did in fact subpoena 14 months of my financial records from various social media accounts that have been confirmed to me, Facebook, TikTok, Google. There could be others. They do not have to let you know. The reason why I know that they requested 14 months from those particular social media agencies companies is because the social media companies themselves advised me that they were going to be handing over this information, but there could be bank accounts. My lawyer tells me there could be a myriad of other options of them trying to get financial. And on a violation trespass, which doesn’t even amount to a crime, it’s a violation of law no different than a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, for them to request such substantial information, financial information from me leads me to believe that there’s more going on here than a trespass violation And it’s financial records, RICO, go hand in hand. So it’s definitely something that’s concerning to me and my attorneys and I are watching out for.

Stephen Janis:

Well, just to make a finer point here, I would come into possession of all sorts of documents as a reporter, like homicide records, stuff that wasn’t public, but it was never illegal. You can’t prosecute someone if someone… You could prosecute a person who leaked it possibly, but of course these are state records, so they’re not classified to begin with. But you can’t prosecute someone if someone came to your doorstep and dropped off a bunch of internal records from, say, any police department, that’s not illegal, right? I mean, that’s like First Amendment journalism. I mean, it sounds kind of sketchy.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, it definitely is sketchy. Again, I’ve only ever obtained documents legally. I haven’t even obtained anything sensitive or anything where the general public wouldn’t have access to them anyway. And like you said, Stephen, if somebody came and dropped something off at my house that was confidential information, not subject to FOIA, as long as it’s not top secret classified, we’re talking about state documents here, I don’t see where the crime would be. But again, that hasn’t even risen to that level. Everything I’ve ever received has been in the course of investigations through open records requests.

And at the end of the day, they know that. I mean, they have to know that. I don’t know what type of case they’re trying to build. I’m not a criminal. I do not engage in RICO, don’t have some criminal enterprise. I’m a law-abiding citizen with a company incorporated in New York state. I pay my taxes. Everything is legitimate about me. So I’m not really worried about the strength of a case that they can bring against me, but you can indict a ham sandwich is that old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich and on a RICO case, that would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. And as I always say on my channel, the process is the punishment. So I wouldn’t put it past them to just do it. We’ve seen it with this federal government already in different instances and the weaponization of the justice system. But to use it, that’s what makes it even more concerning for me is that we’ve seen it happen before. So now I’m not on the list of the friendly people to the administration for my views on ICE, for law enforcement with Lucivillo and my criticism of Suffolk County Police Union. So there’s a lot going on and I know that I’m innocent. I haven’t committed any crimes, but it’s definitely concerning, especially for my wife and my family, my mother, my children. It’s concerning information, especially the violence part of it.

Stephen Janis:

It’s totally understandable. And it’s very scary that they’re going after your financial records, which seem to me completely irrelevant to anything that they’re going to, whatever they’re pursuing. Go ahead, Taya, sorry.

Taya Graham:

No, I was just thinking if you’re guilty, you need one lawyer. If you’re innocent, you need two. Honestly, this is incredibly disturbing.

Now, you did mention that you might have some lawyers. It sounds to me like you might need a team of them. And if you don’t have lawyers, how are you prepared to defend yourself if worst comes to worst and you’re actually are raided?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, I do have a New York state attorney already. His name is Jacob Uriel. He is always on retainer for my company and for myself personally for any sort of criminal charges or civil things that are happening, but I would need more than just him. I would hire a team. There’s one thing that I would never do is be facing down the barrel of fraudulent, made-up RICO charges and take that lightly. So I would have to do what I have to do. Again, the process is the punishment. If I got to take out loans and I have to do what I need to do, a home equity line of credit to be able to pay for this legal defense, whatever needs to be done is going to get done. And that’s why I made the video that I did where I spoke about this because at the end of the day, if they have a valid search warrant, I’m not going to stop them.

I’m not violent. They can search my property. Whatever the warrant says they need to search, they can search. I have nothing to hide. I’ve not moved anything from my house since learning this. Nothing has changed about my routines because there’s nothing to change. But the only thing that concerned me was the allegations of using some sort of SWAT team in order to enter my house. And again, more process is the punishment to intimidate me, intimidate my family. And I think that’s a very dangerous, volatile escalation that doesn’t need to happen even if they are investigating some sort of RICO case. And I wanted to make that clear to the public that I’m not a threat to law enforcement. Law enforcement knows that. I’m not engaging in any criminal activity, but I will comply with any court order for a search warrant or anything like that and we can handle it in court.

But to terrify my family with flash bangs and entering in at 3:00 in the morning is just not necessary.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, I’ve watched a ton of your videos. I’ve never seen you engage in violence or even threats. Have you ever, as a cop watcher, threatened to do something violent or acted in any violent way during a cop watch? I mean, is there anything that you’ve ever done? And I’m just asking for the record here to make sure it’s on the record, depending on what happens. Have you ever?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. So in my entire career, I’ve never made any threats of violence or engaged in any acts of violence or even used profanity against law enforcement officers, which is my First Amendment right. I don’t believe that that serves the purpose of what I’m trying to accomplish. And I think the results of my activism and my journalism speak for themselves when police departments till this day continue to invite me to do trainings with them, ride alongs, district attorney’s offices, police departments, all facets of law enforcement want to come together with me and show that they are transparent, that they’re willing to learn, to hear a different perspective, not because I’m some sort of law or legal expert, but because I’m a real life person who has garnered a lot of supporters and I’ve dealt with a lot of police interactions from across the country, from New York to California and everywhere in between.

So I think they value that insight. Until this day, I receive requests to do trainings with law enforcement officers. So if law enforcement agencies though I was some sort of threat or had any sort of violent intent, they wouldn’t be wanting to work with me. So no, my videos speak for themselves, Stephen. I’ve never even cursed. I’ve never even raised my voice. I can defend myself and I can have my little quick witty remarks, I would call them witty remarks. But as far as violence, no, I’ve never engaged in violence and I abhor violence and I always want people to be peaceful because it distracts away from the message of accountability and transparency.

Stephen Janis:

And it’s funny, Sean, we know a lot of cop watchers who curse, but I noticed that you don’t even curse. You keep it pretty friendly. I mean, even in the —

Taya Graham:

Keep it professional.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

SeanPaul Reyes:

There was one time I was doing a cop watch in Connecticut and somebody, an officer, a state trooper had somebody pulled over on the side of the road. This was just recently, a couple weeks ago. And I told him, well, thanks for not spitting in my face. Because of course, Brian Fahey, the former sergeant spit in my face. And he looked confused and he said, well, why would I do that? You’re one of the most polite auditors I’ve ever seen in my life. He was like, you’re a very nice guy. And I’m like, well, there you go. There’s one of them. But again, and there’s a lot of law enforcement officers out there that support me behind the scenes. This is how I get a lot of this information. And again, because they know I’m not anti-law enforcement. I’m anti the apparatus of the police unions, the administration in protecting misconduct by officers, by not having accountability or transparency in these investigations.

Taya Graham:

I’m really glad we put that on the record, but let me just read the next communication you received, once again, with all the identifying information redacted. Quote, “They’ve been doing a lot of digging into your past and your family’s past. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but undercover officers are following you. But that’s not the most alarming thing that they’re doing. They’re currently in talks with the Department of Justice trying to figure out possible federal crimes they can prosecute you with. They’ve come up with a plan to arrest you and prosecute you on a RICO case. When I heard this, I couldn’t believe it. I even said, ‘Do you really believe you can indict him on RICO?’ They laughed and said, ‘Absolutely.’ The goal isn’t even to have you found guilty. They want to make you spend all your money defending yourself and at the same time, make you the national poster child for YouTube domestic terrorists. I know this email may shock you, but I’m telling you, they’re coming after you hard. You have no idea the reach these people have. I hope this email helps you protect yourself against these people.”

OK. Again, let me just get your reaction when you received it and did you think it was legitimate?

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I received that email first before the second one, but my reaction was the same. I receive a lot of shocking emails. I’ve received many death threats. I don’t speak about them all the time because it’s unfortunately a part of society. There are some sick individuals out there who will threaten your children, who will threaten your family members, your own life, and engage in some sort of hateful just vengeance against you. I don’t know what it is, but it’s sick. And I don’t talk about that all the time, but when I’m getting these sorts of emails and they all seem to have common threads: RICO cases, federal cases, poster boy for YouTube domestic terrorism, and they’re coming from separate people, separate email addresses, email addresses that have been created years and years ago. Again, I’ve looked into this a little bit, and we do not know for a fact if these are actually legit or they could be coming from the people just trying to scare me, but it’s definitely intimidating to me and concerning because my family’s at stake here, that I can defend myself and I can hire lawyers and the people have my back, but I would just hate it.

It would be something that I couldn’t even comprehend if my three and four-year-old boys, who actually look up to the police at this point and they see them as heroes, and I don’t want to disillusion them from that at three and four years old and traumatize them. Or even my wife who’s dealt with her own tyranny back in her home country that she fled to come here. She was a patriot in her country. She loved freedom and to see this. I’ve had mass law enforcement officers from Nassau County come to my house before and try and run me off the road. And these are things that have been happening to me, these intimidation tactics, trying to pick you up on a Friday night so you have to spend the weekend in jail, holding you for eight hours on a desk appearance ticket, which should only take like an hour.

These are the kinds of intimidation tactics, scare tactics that I’ve seen that law enforcement will unfortunately engage in to get you to stop talking about what they don’t want you to talk about. They hate the First Amendment. These individuals particularly hate the First Amendment. They don’t like what I do. They don’t like that I make money while doing it and they want to stop that at all costs. I’m going to keep fighting. I’m going to keep speaking truth to power because if I give up, all these people, millions of people have given me a voice, a strong voice, a platform, and if I give up, I feel like I would be letting them down. So I’m going to keep fighting, but I’m going to remain vigilant, and I’m going to continue speaking truth to power, but I have to be careful for my family because that’s where my loyalty lies first.

Stephen Janis:

I mean, this is a horrible thing to contemplate, but have you talked to your family? Have you prepared them at all? Have you told them about these messages, and have you told them what to prepare for? I mean, it’s a horrible question. I hate to ask it, but I know there are real consequences of just even these threats themselves are sort of you having to shoulder the burden. Have you talked to them about it?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. It’s unfortunate that I had to explain to my wife, my sister, my mother, my brother, all of these different things on secure lines, because I don’t know if they’re even listening to my phone at this point, but I had to let them know, and they’re obviously very concerned. And I think the saddest part and the most unfortunate that broke my heart is I had to prepare my children because I didn’t want them… My main job is to protect them from any sort of trauma or any set of issues. And I’m friends with law enforcement officers, so there’s been law enforcement officers that come over my house with their guns and their badges that my children have seen that they’re friendly with. And I told them, Daddy’s friends with the police. You know this, right? Yeah, you work with the police. Well, daddy’s friends with the police and if the police ever come here, it’s because they just want to work with daddy.

Don’t be scared of the police. They’re our friends. Don’t be scared. You’ll be fine. So in case some sort of raid happened or anything like that, I didn’t want my kids to… And that was a hard conversation. I got to tell you, Stephen, it was a hard conversation to have with a three- and four-year-old trying to get them to understand police are good, they’re our friends, and don’t be scared of them that maybe they want to talk to us or come visit how my lawyer visits. Because I have a bunch of friends that are lawyers, police officers, et cetera, and they come and visit and we have a good time and they play with the kids and they bring their kids over and some menace to society I am, apparently. It’s ridiculous what’s going on. Nobody should have to feel this way. And the difference is that when I believe that these law enforcement officers do receive death threats and things like that, because it’s just on both sides, the internet and people are just unhinged and they have a lot of anger, pent up anger built up on both sides.

And I call that out and I make sure in my videos, I say, please be peaceful. Do not engage in this kind of violent rhetoric and threatening rhetoric with law enforcement officers. It’s not productive and it’s going to get you in trouble. It’s going to hurt the movement. They’re going to label us domestic terrorists. They’re already doing that on the federal side. We’ve seen people film the police and DHS agents will say now, hey, congratulations, you’re now on a domestic terrorist list.

So me being the poster boy for domestic terrorism in the United States, according to the federal or state government or whoever, I feel like they could have found somebody better because I work with the police and that will come out once they try and label me that.

But I think what really happens is what’s really going on here, Stephen and Taya, is that they understand that I’m more of a threat to their sort of system than somebody who’s filming outside of a restaurant or whatever the case may be because I’m looking into their finances, $15 million for the PBA. I’m asking the questions about these hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements. I’m speaking at the public meetings, and they see that as a threat. And it’s not a violent threat, it’s just me exercising my rights peacefully. That’s all I’m doing and they don’t like it.

Taya Graham:

I know Stephen has had direct experience with taking a look at the financials of police officers and having the hammer come down on him through his editor.

Stephen Janis:

We were the first publication that published the overtime earnings of the Baltimore City Police Department back in —

Taya Graham:

And they were not pleased.

Stephen Janis:

That was like 2007. We got death threats. They called our office and threatened us and it was scary.

Taya Graham:

Tried to get Stephen fired.

Stephen Janis:

And then the next day they arrested my editor on bogus charges and threw him in jail. So when you touch the money… I’m not saying touch the money.

Taya Graham:

That’s the third rail.

Stephen Janis:

But when you start to expose spending, how much police make and how well they do as per taxpayers, yeah, that’s when things get dicey. Yes.

Taya Graham:

Yes. Yeah. When you start showing the salaries, when you start showing the overtime —

Stephen Janis:

I totally forgot about that.

Taya Graham:

When you start showing take-home cars, that’s when things get really bad. And for the record, his editor was arrested for holding a gun inside of his own home. So that’s a whole other story [crosstalk], maybe sometime we’ll share.

Stephen Janis:

It’s a long story. The charges were eventually dropped. But the point wasn’t, as you point out, not to throw him in jail and convict him of a crime that was not a crime. The point was to scare him and to scare us.

SeanPaul Reyes:

That’s what they do. They’ve done it. They’ve used tactics similar when I rented… The reason why I owned a 14-foot LED billboard truck in the first place is because when I used to rent them for protests, the district attorney’s offices would send subpoenas for felonies for documentation to these billboard truck companies.

Taya Graham:

Oh, wow.

Stephen Janis:

Really?

Taya Graham:

It was done not because they were investigating some sort of felony, not because they cared about the contract or anything like that. It’s because it was used as a tool to intimidate these companies to say, hey, if you rent the billboard truck to Mr. Reyes, you’re going to keep getting subpoenas. We’re going to look into your financials. We’re going to make sure you’re on the up and up. And that’s the whole reason why I bought my own billboard truck so they couldn’t intimidate people. But now they’re just working to intimidate me. They hate the billboard truck, and I get it. Nobody wants a billboard truck in front of their residence, in front of their city hall, in front of their police department. But guess what? It’s my First Amendment right. It’s the only tool that I have for accountability, for transparency, and I’m going to use it to the fullest extent because it’s my right.

You know what? Let me take a look at the RICO statute. I’m going to have —

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, let’s take a look because this RICO thing is very strange.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. And to me, this is very scary. I know this has previously been weaponized against folks in Cop City in Georgia.

Stephen Janis:

Yes, that’s a good point.

Taya Graham:

I also saw it was possibly going to be weaponized against some cop watchers in Texas. I think HBO Matt was part of that crew. So I know the RICO statute can be kind of scary. So we’re going to have Cam put JPEG 4 on the screen. Now, this law is pretty complicated, but the gist of it is, and the most important aspect of it is, is that the idea of a predicate crime, and that’s basically sort of a core component of the law. So I’m just going to go through and read what it means.

So “predicate acts, unlawful predicate acts that can form the basis of a RICO charge include state felony crimes involving acts or threats of murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, obscenity, or dealing in a controlled substance. Predicate acts also include over 100 federal crimes, among them bribery, various forms of fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and trafficking in persons.”

OK, so there’s a lot to unpack here, but I don’t see “using a camera to film public officials” on this list. I mean, how can they turn what you do into any of these crimes?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, the way I see it is I’ve seen them turn a traffic sign into notice of a no trespassing sign. I’ve seen them do magic in the criminal justice system. I’ve seen them twist things and come to different conclusions that a rational, logical person wouldn’t do. So I don’t put it past them. I was talking to my lawyer the other day, and this is not… They’re the most evil people ever, these people that are trying to do this, so it’s not like I’m giving them any tips or anything, but they would say, well, he gave me an example. Well, you need a criminal enterprise. They’re going to say that it’s Long Island Audit Inc. that’s generating you this money and your actions, you, by exercising your First Amendment right, you are intimidating elected officials to stop them from carrying out their duties. And it could be as simple as that, money coming in for “intimidation,” what they’re alleging is some sort of intimidation, which is really just First Amendment protected speech, criticizing your government, protesting your government.

And they’ll try and twist that somehow and try and find a crime. And again, you can indict a ham sandwich. So they’re going to be able to do this if they really want to. The question is how long will it take me to get justice and to be able to fight back against this? And that’s their whole game, in my opinion, is the process is the punishment. They didn’t arrest your editor to try and get him to go to prison. They did it to scare him. They did it to make him hire an attorney, make him waste his money. These are why they do these things. And that’s why people that speak truth to power are so important. I’m so grateful and honored to have so many people who have come to my back to support me and help me because this is what they’ll try and do, but the people have my back and I’m going to keep moving forward.

Stephen Janis:

OK. I just want to put a finer point on this. Now, there was something I was thinking about with this whole thing and this whole idea that you’re terrorizing people. If the union president doesn’t come out of that office building, there’s no story. If Brian Fahey doesn’t come out of his house when you knock on the door, just ignores you, none of that ever happens. That’s two that I can think of where if they had just ignored you, it’s all over. There’s no video. There’s no nothing. They participated in this. You weren’t able to, let’s say, walk into someone’s home or office. You knocked on a door in both cases, said, I want to speak to someone, and then they decide to come out and confront you, but they could have just stayed inside their house. It wasn’t like you did anything other than knock.

I’ve watched these videos in great detail. You just knock and ask to speak to someone. That’s not intimidation. That’s not any form of trying to harass or impede or obstruct. It’s asking to speak to someone. That’s a basic First Amendment right. But if they don’t come out and confront you, then there’s nothing that happened. They could easily have neutralized you by simply ignoring you. What do you say to that?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I mean, that’s what happens time and time again. That’s the whole reason that this channel is what it is. The Long Island audit is what it is. It’s the overreaction and the lack of control of their emotions from people in power because they’ve been getting away with it for so long, and then they run into somebody like me with millions of people who support me and millions of people who are going to watch the videos and see it, and they’re going to look bad and their ego gets the best of them in the moment. Even Brian Fahey admitted to the law enforcement officer on the scene that he didn’t handle it right. He knew that after the fact, but at the end of the day, I am just knocking or I’m going somewhere and I’m asking questions and their ego, their lack of control to control their emotions, it just escalates this situation to something criminal.

And then they want to play the victim. And that’s the worst part is that they blame me for their own actions. If I knock on your door and you pull a gun, you spit in my face, somehow I’m the one that was convicted of a crime in that whole scenario. It doesn’t make any sense. The gaslighting is unreal because all I did was knock on the door and then halfway back, making my way back to the public street, a man comes out with a gun, spits in my face. He has no criminal record and I get convicted of a misdemeanor over a private road, dead end, no trespassing sign that apparently means — Dead end no turnaround sign, excuse me.

Stephen Janis:

Think about how those videos would be if they hadn’t come out. It would be just you knocking the door, I guess they’re not here, going out, getting back in your truck and driving off, or police union headquarters, getting back in your truck and driving away. So take those components as they are. There’s nothing illegal or terroristic or anything about knocking on a door and asking to speak to someone.

SeanPaul Reyes:

It’s also not trespassing to walk away from the police union headquarters, but I was charged with it anyway. They will do whatever. HBO Matt, Taya, you brought him up. He was charged with organized crime. These things are ridiculous, but law enforcement agencies, the system itself will try and protect it. And we’ve had law enforcement agents that I’ve spoken to that have told me IA and all these different accountability apparatuses, they’re not for accountability. They’re meant to protect the badge. They’re meant to protect the image of the police officers and let them get away with as much as they possibly can. And it’s unfortunate, and that’s what they do, though.

Taya Graham:

Something I was thinking of when Stephen said if the police officers were just able to deescalate, to handle their emotions, then there wouldn’t be any video. But unfortunately, there are a lot of officers that don’t seem to, let’s say, understand people’s First Amendment rights, which is why there’s so many cop watching and auditor channels. Have you heard anything more about the demonetization of cop watchers and auditors? Have you heard any more about how widespread it is, and have you been able to appeal, and just how are you adapting? Because I believe your channel was demonetized, is that correct?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. So my channel was demonetized on the same day as everyone else. And the police union president Lucavila was actively talking about getting YouTubers demonetized on radio programs. So as far as how widespread it is, it seems to be as widespread as it is because it’s a lot of people. I haven’t talked to every single one of them. I’m very busy. I’m very worried about my life and there’s a lot going on right now, but seems like it’s caught a lot of people in the First Amendment auditing community and including myself. And I have filed an appeal, and the person who responded to my appeal said something very interesting and I actually conferred with other auditors and other YouTube channels who have sent appeals that if they got something similar back, but they’re saying that they’re looking, in short, they’re saying he said that we’re going to look into this. We understand that you’re frustrated. I hope you and your family are safe, SeanPaul.

Stephen Janis:

What?

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I though that was a little strange.

Stephen Janis:

That’s what YouTube said to you?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. YouTube representative when they put in my appeal said, SeanPaul, I hope you and your family are safe.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

Woah.

Taya Graham:

That’s very odd.

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I though that was interesting. And no other YouTube channel received some sort of hope you and your family are safe kind of deal. The rest of it was pretty much generic we’re going to look into it, but it was definitely interesting.

Stephen Janis:

So wait, and you talked to other auditors and they didn’t receive that message?

Taya Graham:

They did not receive a similar message of, I hope you and your family are safe.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. Nobody got the hope you and your family are safe except for me out of the people I’ve talked to. So I thought that was definitely interesting given what’s going on. And again, I don’t want people to think people are like, oh, he’s connecting this with this, with this, with this and trying to sell us this. I’m not trying to sell you anything. This is my life. This is my theory based on all of the circumstantial evidence, based on these sources. I’m just trying to put two and two together the best I can. If I have a smoking gun, you guys will be the first to know, but it’s just definitely strange. And I’ve been navigating it. The people have been supporting me over on Patreon and it’s been very successful there. And I’ve been doing a lot of behind the scenes stuff. I’m uploading a video today.

And if I become funded by the people, directly by the people, I think I can accomplish a lot more. So I’m not deterred. I’m not distracted. I think if I’m completely people-funded by the people who want to see what I do, it takes away all of the fighting for the algorithm, trying to chase the algorithm, making sure a video is not too long, not too short, has the right moments, whatever. It just frees me up. So I’m excited for the new chapter of my life while I will be on probation during this new chapter. So that’s been a lot to get to, to get used to.

Stephen Janis:

On probation?

SeanPaul Reyes:

On probation for one year.

Stephen Janis:

Probation from what?

Taya Graham:

I think this is for the bench trial for allegedly trespassing on the [crosstalk] property.

Stephen Janis:

Why don’t you go to that question because he already answered my question. Yeah, go ahead.

Taya Graham:

I was going to do that.

Stephen Janis:

OK. No.

Taya Graham:

OK. Let me start over then. So actually I’m glad you mentioned the officer, you knocked on the door and the officer came out of the house, held a gun, spit in your face. That, I believe, was your interaction with Connecticut State Trooper Brian Fahey. Now, I believe you were convicted after that bench trial for trespassing, and I think you’ve hired an appellate lawyer. Can you tell me kind of what your next steps are to fight this case?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Sure. Yeah. So I hired one of the best appellate attorneys in the state of Connecticut, John Shorn, and he’s argued hundreds of times in the Connecticut Appellate Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court. He knows what he’s doing. I have full confidence in him. He believes this verdict to be, I guess, I don’t want to say what he actually said. He definitely disagrees with this verdict wholeheartedly, and he’s very opposed to the judge’s logic regarding the private road, dead end, no turnaround sign and how that under the law is somehow sufficient notice and not a vehicle sign. So he’s very passionate about it. I’m grateful to have him on my side. And we’re actually currently right now at this moment trying to get my probation stayed. I was sentenced to 90 days in jail, suspended with one year of probation. And that probation’s being carried out here in Suffolk County where Lou Savillo, the president of the police union, is very influential here in this county.

And I do not want to be on probation here in Suffolk County, but it is what it is. I am. And it’s already affected my life and it’s affecting my job and my journalism. I can’t travel when I want to. I have to ask permission, and I’ve already been told no for a preplanned trip that I had.

Stephen Janis:

Where were you going to go? What happened?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I was actually going to Washington, DC. I was going to go with my attorney and we were going to go over there and just document what’s happening in DC. Haven’t been in DC in a while. He wanted to go to a couple museums. It was more like a personal/business trip, and it was just too short notice for my probation officer and they told me no. So that was unfortunate.

Stephen Janis:

They said, no, you can’t go to Washington DC?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

Really?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. They said, no, you can’t go to Washington, DC.

Stephen Janis:

And what was their reasoning for that?

SeanPaul Reyes:

They said that it didn’t give them enough notice to make some sort of pass or something like that because obviously I didn’t know I was going to be on probation, so I planned this trip and I’ve planned other trips well in advance. And now that I’m on probation, I need some sort of permission from these individuals to be able to do anything about my job. So my attorney, John Shorhorn is actively right now, he filed the notice of appeal today and notice for a stay of probation because his argument is going to be, well, this is going to affect not only him, but his employees, his journalism, his company in a very significant way when we can just put a pause on it. And if we somehow lose, he can always serve the probation later. It doesn’t affect anything. He’s no public safety threat or anything like that.

So we’re trying to get it stayed for now so I can continue to work and do what I need to do.

Stephen Janis:

Well, what’s preventing them from saying no every time? I mean, is there any process for this or they just can just say no for whatever reason they want?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, they can say no for whatever reason they want, I guess. I spoke to my attorney. There is a process where I can go to the court and ask them, but that’s going to cost me money for have my attorney argue that and then time and then you get the judicial approval because the judge is the ultimate arbiter of what I can do on probation. But just on a day to day, it’s going to be the probation officer here in Suffolk County. So it’s definitely interesting. They can come into my home. They don’t even need a search warrant anymore. They can come into my home whenever they want with whoever they want. They can search your

Taya Graham:

Car anytime, right?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. They can search my car anytime they want. They don’t need any warrant or probable cause or anything right now. So I was told in those same emails that you read, I was told that the Lucivillo and these individuals were communicating with the state’s attorney. Again, I don’t know. I don’t have proof of that. I’ve put in FOIA requests. I’m waiting on everything, but I doubt even if I’ll even get anything, if there is anything. But I heard that they were communicating, which my lawyer says wouldn’t be that. If I’m facing a case here in New Suffolk County and I was facing a case, they would communicate and everything like that. Just the though of Brian Fahey and Lucavillo talking on the phone terrifies me. I mean, it is not a good lie. I don’t know what they would want to talk about, but it can’t be good.

I can’t imagine.

Stephen Janis:

What pretext do they need to search your car or go into your house? Is it none? There’s none. None?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, there’s nothing. Because I am on probation right now for a trespass crime, one of the lowest crimes in the state of Connecticut or anywhere really, nonviolent property crime that again, the circumstances I argue I didn’t commit it, but we’ll see what the appeal does. But even just for that, I have a year, a year. If I didn’t have a family or anything, I might have just chosen to do the 90 days and been done with it then because it’s kind of ridiculous that they’re going to have control over my entire freedom for one year. They can go in my car whenever they want. They can walk up to my door and come inside my house whenever they want. They don’t need warrants and no judicial checks and that’s for a whole year. So it’s going to really affect my work, but I guess I just have to work more from home and focus on the Suffolk County government.

I’m sure they’ll love that. What

Stephen Janis:

Does your appellate lawyer think about the implied consent and the Supreme Court precedent in terms of knock and talks and things like that? Does he think that applies in this case?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, that’s a great question, Steven. He thinks that it is ridiculous. Again, my lawyer is very grandiose and he speaks a little differently than I do, but he thinks it’s ridiculous that the judge would equate some sort of animosity as evidence of lacking a knowledge for license or privilege. Because the way my attorney sees it, and it’s the same way I see it, is animosity and unfriendliness is something separate from a license or privilege to do something. You could have animosity with anybody, a family member, you could have a bitter fight with a family member. The

Stephen Janis:

Family member comes to

SeanPaul Reyes:

Your door to apologize and they knock on your door to apologize and say, “Hey, I’m sorry, but you’ve never once told that family member they can’t come to your house. Are they trespassing because you had this sort of history of animosity?” To us, to me and my attorney, it doesn’t make really any sense, the license or privilege part, how they connect it with animosity part. And that’s to put to the side with a sign. But yeah, Florida v. Jardines doesn’t mention any animosity, just mentions a customary

Stephen Janis:

License. What you point out is a highly subjective judgment. And to me, that was a very weak piece of legal reasoning. And I’m not a lawyer, but I thought tying those two together in some sort of sequential if then was extremely weak and almost amateurish in the interpretation of the law because what he’s opened up is all sorts of traps within the law itself because it would be very easy to construe, let’s say, a hostile relationship with almost anybody. You could say, “I don’t like my postman. I don’t like Democrats or whatever. I don’t like Republicans, so they shouldn’t have known they shouldn’t come in my house because I had a Trump sign out there.” I mean, the implications of that ruling – That’s

SeanPaul Reyes:

A great point. According to this judge, if you had a Trump sign and you were a Democrat and you were a Democrat looking to knock on that person’s door, you would be committing the crime of criminal trespass. There’s no difference between my case and my case.

Stephen Janis:

And the whole point of the law is to think of consequences of making certain sort of assumptions and in a component of a law. And that what he did is a very, very weak because he didn’t think about these things. There’s so many ways that could be applied in a completely anti-First Amendment or I would say unconstitutional way. Yeah, I

SeanPaul Reyes:

Agree.

Stephen Janis:

I think your appeal is extremely important actually to precedent and

SeanPaul Reyes:

Case law. So does my attorney. He says that the law can’t be interpreted this way. That’s why he’s very passionate about it. He says, “This is not the way the law should have been interpreted and this sets a bad precedent, so we’re going to fix this.” And I have full confidence in him. He is one of the best. He knows what he’s doing. He knows what he’s talking about. And I’m confident that the conviction will be reversed and be issued a judgment of acquittal and that’ll be a great day for me because that would mean I’m no longer on probation.

Taya Graham:

Just to ask, you mentioned what a great lawyer you have. And as far as I know, really good lawyers are pretty expensive. So I’m just curious, you said the phrase, and I think this is so true, the process is the punishment. Well, my question is how expensive is this process and how many steps are there in the state appellate process? Because I’m not familiar with all the steps of it.

SeanPaul Reyes:

So to answer your second question first, you get an automatic appeal right to the appellate court, to a lower appellate court in Connecticut. And then you have the right to ask for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, but you don’t have a right. They can deny you. It would depend. But right now we’re working on the first appeal that I have a right to. He’s argued before them hundreds of times. He just got somebody new trial in August. Again, he came highly recommended. I looked into his cases and he is somebody that normally would get between 30 and $50,000 on this sort of appeal on a regular case, depending on how serious it is. He is actually offered, and I told him I was going to be transparent with him with this number and I’ve been transparent with my Patreons over there and he charged me 15,000 for the appeal.

So while that’s a lot of money – He cut

Taya Graham:

It in half.He cut it

SeanPaul Reyes:

In half for you though. A lot of money. Right. Because he finds this case very interesting and he wants to do it himself. So when one of the best wants to do something like this, and I would’ve figured out a way to pay him whatever he asked for that day, but he’s at 15,000 and I was very appreciative for that. And again, because you write the process, the process is the punishment. They don’t have to spend money on these appellate attorneys. They’re already getting paid by the taxpayers to do this. The amount of money this trial costs, everything altogether. Another thing that he said was ridiculous is the four protective orders for a hundred years, criminal protective orders against the entire Fahey family for a hundred years. It’s a property crime, a nonviolent property crime. I never even had any dealings with Sergeant Fahey’s daughter or his son.

They’re adults, but I’ve never met them. I didn’t even know they existed till recently. So for them to have a hundred year order of protection against me is ridiculous, as my lawyer would say. It’s ridiculous.

Taya Graham:

That’s amazing. I’ve never even heard of a 100 year protective order. I have seen body camera video of women literally getting knocked unconscious by men and they can barely get a restraining order. That’s the sad part. And yet you knock on a door and now there’s a hundred year protective order against people that you’ve never actually interacted with. That is just astonishing to me.

Stephen Janis:

Let’s hope there’ll be a headline. Protection order expires for oldest living cop watcher 100 years later.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, hopefully I can make it that long. You’ll be

Stephen Janis:

A 103-year-old man. I’m

SeanPaul Reyes:

Guessing around 30. It is sad. It is sad that there are people, victims of domestic violence, whether they’re male or female. Correct, male or female. And it’s impossible, almost impossible, very difficult for them to get a criminal protective order, a permanent one for longer than a year. But yet I got 104, 100-year ones. And even police officers, police officers get shot, beat up by individuals and they don’t get protective orders against the people they arrest. That just doesn’t happen that way. But yet I knocked on a door of a police officer and him and his entire family get a hundred-year protective order. We’re fighting against that too. Not that I care because I don’t plan on ever going back to knock on his door, but I know that I no longer have the license or privilege now, not then, but it’s just more abuse of the process.

It’s the system protecting itself, the judge protecting the cops, the state’s attorney protecting the cops. Anybody else would’ve been arrested for felony threatening felony crimes that day for what Brian Fahey did. And he was charged with a very light disorderly conduct charge that was erased from the system. So I’m just going to keep fighting for accountability. We’re going to have depositions are coming up next in the Fahey case for the civil lawsuit and just going to keep moving forward.

Stephen Janis:

So before we go, I have one more question. And I always want to ask you this question because whenever we post a video about you, the passion is unbelievable. You have passionate supporters and very passionate critics. And I just want to give you the opportunity to answer your critics who say, “Well, all he does is harass people for clicks and views and there’s no real substantive part of this work.” What do you say to them and why are they wrong?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, again, I would say to them first and foremost, because I know how passionate they can be.

Don’t be so passionate about me. I’m just some guy on the internet. I’m nobody to you, or at least I should be nobody to you. The people’s opinion, your opinion doesn’t really mean much because my opinion, I care about my friends and family’s opinion of me. And I do read the comments and most of them are supportive. But to answer their question about what I’ve accomplished, what have I accomplished? I’ve worked with the police departments. I’ve helped First Amendment auditor, whatever you want to call me. You call me whatever you want. You can’t say that I haven’t worked with the police on a serious level across our country, district attorney’s offices to help bridge that divide. I’ve exposed mayors for engaging in fraudulent misconduct where they’re voting on bills that they’re receiving the money to. I broke that story myself. The FBI is looking into it.

I’ve spoken to the FBI in Florida about that story. It’s a crazy story. I’ve had mayors rip down signs from city halls. There is so much that I… And the most important thing is when I’m out on the street, I never run into these other passionate people, thank God. But I do run into a lot of people as I travel the United States, whether it’s at an airport, a rest stop, wherever it may be. I always tell me, “Well, thank you. Thank you so much. I’ve learned so much from you. I’ve learned how to control my emotions. I’ve learned that I need to step out of a vehicle. I’ve learned that there’s certain things that I have to comply with, other things I don’t.” And that, to me, that has happened dozens of times at this point. And if that only happened once, it would’ve been worth it for me, my five-year career, because if I could teach somebody how to exercise their rights, there’s nothing more important in our country than our constitution and our rights.

So it’s something that, especially now, especially when it’s being tested by the federal state governments, it doesn’t matter. Again, I always tell people this, it’s not left or right, it’s up and down. And the quicker that we, the people, really understand that, the quicker we can come together and stop fighting each other and start really trying to demand accountability and transparency and that laws are passed to benefit the people, not the corporations, not the elites. We’re too busy fighting each other. So I would hope that they would hear me out, come on my side. I would love to debate them. If they want to debate, it would be my honor to do so. I want to bring people together. I don’t want to tear people apart. And if you think I just do it for clicks and views, I’m not even getting paid on YouTube anymore, so I can’t say that.

I mean, that’s a lot. I still post on there, so I’m not doing it for clicks and views on YouTube. But again, I think it’s such a red herring because every single news media outlet is looking for clicks and views because why wouldn’t you want somebody to hear your story?

Taya Graham:

Exactly.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. And you got to get paid for the work. And

SeanPaul Reyes:

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a utopia where everybody gets

Taya Graham:

It.

Stephen Janis:

I know. No.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I’m really going to hold onto what you said. It’s not left or right. It’s up and down. And the sooner that we figure this out, the better our country is going to be. We’re going to be able to work together. I really, I love that so much. That is just the perfect way to end this conversation.

Stephen Janis:

And true. And quite true.

Taya Graham:

It’s so true. That just rang so true with me. Thank you so much for sharing that with us, SeanPaul.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you for being here. No problem. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. It’s always a pleasure and I would love to come back on. Yeah,

Taya Graham:

Please. Oh, absolutely. We are going to continue to follow your story and of course request that you keep us informed and updated as much as you can.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Will do. Promise.

Stephen Janis:

Thanks, Sean.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you

Stephen Janis:

Guys.

Taya Graham:

Thank you so much. So Stephen, that was a fascinating – It was. But deeply troubling conversation. And something I just want to point out is how tricky probation can be. There are so many holds that can be put on you. Essentially, the civil rights that you’re used to living with every day are just suspended. Your car can be searched at any time. You can be pulled over for not putting on your turn signal. Next thing you know, your car is being tossed. They can come over to your house and search your house. Also on probation, it can mean urinalysis testing to see if you’ve been drinking alcohol or taking any kind of chemicals or drugs. So basically the civil rights that you’re used to having are just completely gone, let alone the fact that you have to ask permission before you travel and you can just be told no.

Stephen Janis:

They can basically lock Sean down for the duration at this point. I don’t see why they let him go anywhere at this point, given the animosity they have towards him in Suffolk County. So this is very, very concerning. And have

Taya Graham:

You ever heard of a 100-year protective order? No.

Stephen Janis:

Have you

Taya Graham:

Ever heard of

Stephen Janis:

That? No. And I’ve covered a lot of trials and a lot of different types of legal situations. And no, that has never come up in any court process that I have covered as a reporter over the past 23 years.

Taya Graham:

There are absolutely brutal cases

Stephen Janis:

Of

Taya Graham:

Domestic violence where I’ve never seen a protective order like that. And it could have saved the person’s life.

Stephen Janis:

Right. And I think that this shows that there’s a tremendous amount of concern about SeanPaul with the law enforcement that seems to be disproportionate. Although I wonder to a certain extent is the fact that he has some power himself because he has a very big audience and that audience reacts to what he does. And perhaps that’s why they’re fixated upon him, not for any specific reason of what he does, but the audience that he has, which is quite extensive. And I think that’s perhaps why they treat him that way.

Taya Graham:

And I also think when you start investigating money, when you start investigating someone’s pockets, what that overtime looks like, if they’re getting take home cars, if they’re getting any kind of perks, when you start looking at people’s money, that’s when you can get into real trouble with the government.

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely.

Taya Graham:

And just to your point about the role of people who are less than pleased with Sean, that’s actually pretty important. By reacting to him, they actually create the story. And the best way for there not to be a story about you, for there not to be a Long Island audit video about you is to just ignore him, which begs the question, why can’t they do that? Why can’t they just ignore him? I mean, I was just sort of imagining when you were talking about it earlier, what would’ve happened if Lucivillo just never exited the building and confronted SeanPaul? There would simply be nothing for him to post. I

Stephen Janis:

Mean,

Taya Graham:

Stephen, what do you think is going on here?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I was thinking about this a lot while we’re talking to Sean, because that’s really sort of the critical question. What is it about him that’s so threatening? And I think he’s exposing the sort of authoritarian impulses of law enforcement in this country and the power, the power that they actually wield. And they are used to being able to wield that power pretty much unfettered. If I get a $10 million judgment against me, I can still keep my job or I get convicted of a crime, I can still keep my job. The money and the power is extensive and it’s just unaccustomed to being challenged on that level. Most mainstream media organizations generally tend to work with police because they want the tip on the latest crime or the serial killer or something, and that’s very important. But Sean’s doing an aspect of journalism that doesn’t normally get done, which is a sort of accountability.

Even in our town, since I stopped reporting on overtime, there’s not a lot of reporting about police overtime or take home cars. People generally, mainstream media journalists don’t really pay much attention to that. And I think because Sean is challenging that underlying power structure, which starts with resources, government resources and taxpayer money, the pushback has been massive because that’s what really drives all this. I mean, the $1 billion budget or whatever he was talking about for Suffolk County police, or we talked about in the previous show, that’s a lot of power. That’s a lot of power to have that kind of influence. And the police union in Suffolk County, they all are paid by taxpayers not to be police, but to be union officials. That’s a lot of power. The overtime is a lot of power. The very generous pensions, it’s a big, big lucrative system.

And when you start looking under the hood, I think that’s when it gets dicey for reporters. I know it did for me. That’s very true. And I’m sure in some ways, I think that’s one of the reasons Sean is experienced. He is sort of getting underneath a massive source of power that really goes unexamined quite often.

Taya Graham:

And you know what? I think that’s what unfortunately can make cop watchers really annoying to police is when they start looking at budgets, when they start looking at the money, when you start looking into their pockets, that’s when things can get really dicey. And so SeanPaul is just part of our ongoing coverage of the copwatching movement across the country. And we have been reporting on this very colorful and obviously controversial group of YouTube activists for almost seven years. I mean, it’s been an interesting journey documenting this spectrum of disorganized, but potent dissent. It tests us. It provokes us. It measures the health of our First Amendment right. And what it shows is what’s possible when the average citizens pick up their phones and point them at people who are unaccustomed to being watched. Yes, it’s not always pretty. It’s not always comforting, but it is vital to our ongoing dialogue about how to hold power accountable.

And that’s really the point. We might not always like it or the form that it comes in, but that process, keeping power in check is vital. It is vital because we want a government that serves at the consent of the people, not the other way around. Now, if you are interested in Copwatchers or the idea of YouTube activism, you can watch our documentary, I Am But the Mirror, the story of American Copwatching. And we’ll also put a link in the comments where you can watch it for free. It’s free on Fossam. And also, please don’t forget to send your tips and your videos and your story ideas to par@therealnews.com. Of course, you can always reach out to me directly at TeusBaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. We want to thank you for joining us for this very special episode of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, this is Taya Graham and welcome to this breaking news edition of the Police Accountability Report. Now, as I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. But today, we will achieve that goal with a little bit of a twist and a surprise, an exclusive interview with a controversial cop watcher who was just released from a halfway house in Colorado after spending five years behind bars. His name is Eric Brandt. He’s a Denver activist and advocate for the homeless, also a prolific YouTuber who built a large following with his antics on the streets and his successes in the court. Now, Eric’s thought copwatching isn’t for everyone. His tactics were flamboyant, to say the least.

Some said they were simply over the top. Law enforcement often deemed them illegal. In 2021, Eric was sentenced to 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of telephonic harassment of Denver judges. The charges with results of serious threats that were made over the phone. However, the sentence was also considered extremely harsh at the time, and Eric apologized to those affected. And now, due to good behavior and perseverance, we have the breaking news. Eric was released today, and we’re going to be talking to him for his first interview since his exit from the aforementioned halfway house. But first, I want to check in with my reporting partner and co-host Stephen Janis. Now, Stephen, Eric is not just someone we covered, but he was also the subject of our most recent documentary, I Am But the Mirror of the Story of American Copwatching. Can you tell us a little bit about the documentary and Eric’s role in it?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, it basically was about Eric because when Eric received such a harsh sentence, we though we had to tell his story in depth. So I spent years becoming an Eric Brandt expert. I would say unequivocally, I am the foremost Eric Brandt expert in America at this point. So if anyone

Taya Graham:

Wants to talk – At least on the

Stephen Janis:

East Coast. Yes. But I mean, Eric’s story was a story of great achievement and great tragedy. And he was extremely creative, but also controversial. And I think as you said, he received this very harsh sentence. So it really gave us a prison to look at copwatching in general because copwatching is a very creative sort of organic movement. Eric was a part of it. And looking through the lens of Eric’s experiences, I think made the film really interesting. So I was appreciative of having that access to his life. And now, like I said, I’m ready for my interview on NBC, ABC, anyone wants to talk about Eric Brant, come to me. I’ll talk.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Now, before I get to Eric, I just want to say Eric was one of the most colorful cop watchers we have ever seen. He is a Navy veteran who served his country and he’s also a prolific filer of very successful lawsuits. But more important today, he was released from a halfway house. It marks the end of a five year ordeal for him. Eric, welcome back and thank you for joining us.

Eric Brandt:

Thank you, Taya.

Taya Graham:

Now first, Eric, I have to ask, how are you feeling and what was going through your mind when you finally walked out that door for the final time?

Eric Brandt:

Sorry.

Taya Graham:

I can understand it. I’m sorry, Eric. I know it can be tough to talk about. Just take a moment if you need it.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, take a moment, Eric.

Eric Brandt:

Sorry guys.

Stephen Janis:

No, no.

Taya Graham:

It’s okay. Take a moment.

Stephen Janis:

Of course. Of course.

Taya Graham:

We understand. Absolutely. At five years and finally having this moment, there are a lot of emotions that must be coming to the

Stephen Janis:

Forefront. Do you want us ask another question or?

Eric Brandt:

Well, I guess you saw it now that I just had the release. Yeah. Wow, that kind of hit me. Yeah, you asked me what I was feeling and I was like, oh, I guess I am having a feeling. Yeah. It’s

Taya Graham:

Understandable.

Eric Brandt:

It’s been the last two weeks have been surreal, right? Honestly, I’ve been like blah. I know that the date is there. I don’t have anything else to do. I just work. I know that I’m going to have a computer, so I don’t want to do any of my litigation work on the phone. It’s too hard. So I’ve just been blah, milling around for the last two weeks and that’s crazy. I know. And today I had administrative things that I had to do and I’m sorry that I lost it on your camera.

Taya Graham:

No, it’s okay. It’s completely understandable.

Stephen Janis:

I remember Eric when we were talking maybe a year ago, you thought the parole board was not going to grant you release. What do you think finally convinced them? I know you’ve been on great behavior and you hit every achievement you were supposed to inside the system. What do you think kind of finally pushed you out that door?

Eric Brandt:

I don’t know what eventually convinced them to release me. I’m a little surprised that I wasn’t released earlier. The risk instruments suggested that I should have been. So I really was pessimistic about it. And then when I got the halfway house, I was surprised the halfway house application went by very quickly. Once I was in the halfway house, parole was likely at that point. And I know that you and I talked about things. I didn’t really share a lot of that with the public at the time because there were certainly opportunities for people to try and sabotage that. But

Once I was at the halfway house, I had a pretty high degree of comfort that they would choose to release me. And then I had my hearing and it went status quo. It went what the instruments should have suggested, which is release upon completion of the halfway house program. I think that’s what the public expects, right? If they release you early before you finish the program, they’re like, “What’s the purpose of the halfway house program?” If they were to have delayed that further, then they would almost have to justify that publicly. So I think that that was really the only appropriate answer. And you and I knew about this, of course, some time ago, but again, we kind of kept it under wraps for a while.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Eric, I hate to take you back to the past, but it’s something that a lot of us have difficulty imagining. If you could just talk about what those past five years incarcerated were like, how did you survive them and what did you do to help work towards actually getting out?

Eric Brandt:

Well, for one thing, I’m not criminally minded, right? So I’m in with a bunch of criminals. You get to know these people. A lot of the guys that are in there, they’re in there for a reason. And all of my instruments scored pretty low on things and my requirements and my needs were a lot lower than a lot of people. I have good education, so I wasn’t in a lot of the educational programs. So my situation was a little different. Behaving is actually easy to do. And I know that when people look at my work, what they see is misbehavior and they really have to delve deeper. And then I think that you guys did a pretty good job of that with the documentary, which I recently got to see finally. But there’s a lot that was going on there. So it wasn’t misbehavior because it was misbehavior.

It was misbehavior or civil disobedience, if you will, for a purpose. And so the classic things that I didn’t have the sexual misconduct issues that are prevalent in there. I didn’t have the theft. I didn’t have the violence, the frauds, drugs, all of these things that are really what the majority of the people I was around were involved in, that just wasn’t me. So behaving was always easy for me and my five-year track record shows that. So what did I do? I used my time to help develop programs. I helped develop a veterans program. We did a lot of service. We did a lot of community service, not just in service to the guys in the prison, but we actually extended that and did community service in the local community.

Taya Graham:

Didn’t you help pack up Thanksgiving dinners for families outside of the prison?

Eric Brandt:

Oh yeah, absolutely. We got feedback from that immediately too. We raised money internally from the inmates and we were able to raise enough money to put together. The first year we did it, we made 40 boxes and it was a complete Thanksgiving dinner box for a family. So everything that you would have at Thanksgiving was in this box. And we got immediate feedback. One guy, his wife had just passed and he didn’t know what he was going to do. And then we got a thank you card from a family whose house had just burned down. They were moved into a hotel room with their three kids. They had nothing except for the Thanksgiving dinner box.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Well, Eric, was there ever. I remember talking to you when they brought you down to Louisiana for that other case. Was there ever a time when you kind of gave up hope or you felt like we’re not. Because I remember being really worried about you in that particular part. And just so people know who are watching, we talked to Eric at every point that we could while we were working on the film and just trying to keep in touch with him. Was there ever a point where you’re like, “I’m never getting out of here,” or you ever felt like this wasn’t going to work out for you?

Eric Brandt:

Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. When I went in, 12 year sentence, I was pretty harsh and I always believed in the back of my mind that there would always be something else. They would drag something up from somewhere. And so then when they grabbed me for Louisiana, I was like, “Yep, this is what I expected.” So I already pretty much knew going into it that that was going to be the rest of my life.

Taya Graham:

Eric, I have a question. There were a lot of people who stood by you during this incarceration and they were ready to stand by you for the full 12 years. What do you want to say to those supporters who stuck by you during your incarceration? What would you want to say to them?

Eric Brandt:

What is wrong with you people?

Taya Graham:

That’s an Eric Brandt answer. Yes.

Eric Brandt:

I can’t even begin to quantify or even understand the tremendous amount of sacrifice that so many people have made. And we have as a group consciously. Again, you and I have had so much communication in the last five years that we haven’t shared with the public and for good reason, but I’m perpetually blown away at how much support there is. I couldn’t have done it without you guys and I couldn’t even begin to list all of the names. I’d almost feel embarrassed if I listed one because I wouldn’t be able to list all 5,000 of them. But I would get things out of the blue from people. Marita Gladson, I’ll tell you about Marita Gladson. She sent me cartoons and jokes on a nearly weekly basis for the entire time. Oh my

Taya Graham:

Gosh. That’s

Eric Brandt:

Amazing.

To the point there where we would come downstairs and check the list to see if we had mail for the day and the officers would be in there and they would see me in the hallway and they’d wave me over because they saw Marita’s envelope and they knew they were going to get their Marita jokes that day. They recognized the Marita envelopes. Lacey R. Abby Irizarry, Melody, Johnna, Aaron, Joe Cool. I mean, some of these people, do you have any idea how angry these people would get if I didn’t call them by a certain time of the day? And you know how I knew they were angry is because the captain would call me to the office and want to know why he was getting phone calls.

Taya Graham:

There you go.

Stephen Janis:

That’s cool.

Taya Graham:

It just shows how much concern these folks have for you.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

I was going to ask you, because I never really got a chance to ask you this, but when you were in that courtroom and they gave you 12 years, because I did a lot of research, I could not find a sentence for threatening speech without some act of violence, which you did not do anywhere across any case I could find. I couldn’t find a case even remotely close. I mean, people threatened congressional members of Congress and got in two or three years. What did you think when the judge handed down that sentence and why was it 12 years?

Eric Brandt:

I’m stunned. To this day, I find it stunning. I turned to my lawyer and I said, “Did he say consecutive?” And she’s like, “I think he did.” We didn’t even comprehend it at the time. And you have to maintain a certain kind of decorum in that circumstance, and it was really my intention to accept my consequences with dignity.

Taya Graham:

I just want to pivot here a little bit because we haven’t really had a chance to speak to you publicly about the film that featured your story. Now you’re not the only cop watcher in the story, but you are a central figure. Now, okay, I’m not saying you have to necessarily give the film a thumbs up, but how did you feel watching your life unfold on screen?

Eric Brandt:

Well, so full disclosure to everybody, when I was in Louisiana, you guys sent some draft work to my lawyer. It hadn’t been through any post-processing. It wasn’t complete, but you sent it to her in case there was anything in there that we could use for mitigation. I thank you. I appreciate that. So I had the opportunity to see it or to see parts of that. I got to see it once through just really briefly. The first thing that I noted to my lawyer was I said, “Thank goodness it’s not all about me.”

Taya Graham:

It was

Eric Brandt:

Such a great story and so much of that story was not me. And that’s the point, right? I’m only on this stage for a brief time and the world is run by those who show up, and it was nice to see that there was momentum and good happening in people’s lives. It was so nice to see so many different positive aspects of all these people that are in union with my circle, but they’re doing their own thing. I was just so thankful that it wasn’t about me. Thank you. I’m

Taya Graham:

So glad. It was such a pleasure to work with you and to, like you said, one of the things that we learned through doing the documentary is that there was this circle of people that you touched that sort of reached out kind of like a constellation all across the country. And it was kind of amazing to see the effect that the copwatching and the copwatching community was having in communities all across the nation. So it was really beautiful.

Stephen Janis:

One thing I was making, I was like, the whole idea of YouTube is the minute you go on YouTube, things just go downhill and you don’t connect. But you guys were the opposite of that. It was like you went from YouTube into real life connections where

Eric Brandt:

You

Stephen Janis:

Were – It’s amazing

Eric Brandt:

How many of those connections are still active.

Stephen Janis:

I know.

Eric Brandt:

It’s impossible for me to respond to everybody in a given day. It’s just so much going on and there’s so many people involved and these are real people with real lives and yet still somehow find time for each other. And that’s what I really got out of your program was that things are really kind of good out there. People are living lives and that’s all we can hope for is that people live a good life.

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, I didn’t want to just fall into the same narrative of the YouTube spiral, which is sort of the mainstream media take on it that, oh, these are people who were like-minded in their pushback against what they felt was a faulty government, and they were able to help connect with each other in ways that were not possible without YouTube. So that’s why I focused on that part of it. I didn’t just do you got sentence. That was the beginning, but really the end was about what came out of those relationships. It’s cool to hear you say that you still have them, right? I mean, you’re still connected to these people.

Eric Brandt:

And what I think is really great is that so many of these people, they’re able to live their lives and then we touch and our gears mesh for a little while and then we live our lives. So we’re not dependent on each other. If you go off and do your thing, you’re not going to ruin my life. You’re not going to ruin my life. You’re going to enrich my life while we’re connected, and I am happy that you’re enjoying your life when we’re not connected. And so a lot of folks, we touch and then we go and we touch and we go. And even a lot of people that maybe there wasn’t a great super mesh, it’s still there. I think that’s how human connections work.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I agree. One thing I wanted to ask you about, I’ve always wanted to ask you this, you have a lot of fans and a lot of critics and some people who say Eric Branch just went too far. I don’t care what he wanted or how he felt about the homeless or police. What do you say to them now? Given the perspective you have of more time, how do you feel about the people who are like, “I think Eric Branch is into the antics. He’s not really fighting for something specific, but just making a show.” How do you answer them now?

Eric Brandt:

Well, I suppose that’s a compound and complicated question.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, sorry.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. Well, first of all, I was never in it for the antics, right? The street theater was the vehicle. Sorry, our rooster is apparently objecting to the interview over here.

Stephen Janis:

He doesn’t like your answer?

Eric Brandt:

No, the rooster of. I have a critic right here. No, I mean, I don’t know how you address critics. I have. I’m sorry, guys.

Stephen Janis:

No, it’s okay.

Eric Brandt:

He’s got to get his girls under control here. I’ve actually spoken with a lot of my critics, and I have a lot of critics who have turned. I would say critics that have turned friend or at least friendly, and that’s important. So the reality is I’ve never been afraid to sit down and talk with somebody intellectually, but sometimes it’s really hard to open the door, and sometimes the contrast is important too. So for example, if you look at my five-year institutional record, they make notes, they put things in the notes, you can read that and you can see the character of the person. And what you see in there is a lot of interactions with would-be foes, right? These are cops. It’s the government, it’s the man. The reality is that you are the government.

I am the government. This is government by the people, and governed by the people only works when the people bother to show up and do it. So when we have put trust, and frankly, a lot of money in the hands of these strangers, then yeah, we need to have good relationships with them. And different kinds of message and different kinds of activism at different stages requires a different kind of hat to be worn, and I’m very good at wearing the hat that’s necessary or that the work tells me it needs to be worn at the time. So what would I say to my critics? I would say, “Come have a conversation with me.” I’m not going to put any of my critics on blast. They might not appreciate that, but those of you that are watching, you know who you are, and we’ve had some good conversations, and I would have those conversations again.

Taya Graham:

It’s interesting you were talking about wearing the different hats, because one of the difficult parts of the film was trying to show how many successes you had at filing lawsuits, and you had a really big win with Liberty Freak, making case law that I believe enshrines in the 10th circuit, the right to film police. I think this came out when you were incarcerated, that’s when that ruling came out. So what are your thoughts about this win, and do you have any other lawsuits that are still cooking?

Eric Brandt:

I don’t have any that are still cooking. We had some pretty good ones going and the defendants died, and that pretty much puts an end to the litigation because you can’t get damages out of a corpse. I think I’ve had now, in my entire career, I’ve had three or four defendants die before trial. That’s terrible for a lot of reasons, and your questions don’t get answered because the litigation becomes moot. When I came to the halfway house, for the last two years, I’ve had no litigation open. I do have an active litigation right now that I can’t really talk a whole lot about.

Taya Graham:

You

Eric Brandt:

Can read what’s been filed on Pacer, that’s as much as I can give you now, but that litigation is earned, and there are some questions that need to be answered there. I lost track of the question. What was the question? Litigation successes.

The point of the work is not to have a litigation success, right? There’s no such thing as a successful litigation. All litigation is injurious, and so I wouldn’t encourage people to do litigation or to go into it for the litigation. The risks are very high. Take the liberty freak when Irizarry versus Yahia, for example. I was the primary author of that initially because we were together, and you may recall that I actually was found guilty for that incident, and so therefore I lost my part of that lawsuit under collateral estoppel. It was barred because I had been found guilty, and I, in fact, got a six-month jail sentence out of that. So this guy tries to run me over, and I ended up with a six-month jail sentence out of that, but Abboty didn’t. Abody didn’t even get charged, so his continued to move forward.

When the judge granted the officer’s qualified immunity, that’s when things really sped up. We learned that a lot of people watch these cases. The attorneys that wanted to take up that appeal crawled out of the woodwork for him. So getting it to the 10th circuit, yeah, that was my work in collaboration and collateral with Abody. Is that a great success? Well, no, there’s no such thing as a litigation success. It would’ve been better if it had been legislated instead of litigated. So I don’t consider litigation to be a success. Good litigation is difficult, it’s expensive, it’s risky, and you really don’t know what the outcome is going to be. As strong as you. You’ve got a slam dunk case. Slam dunk in the real world is like 80%. You’re not going to get better than that. You could get a weird adverse ruling and lose a perfectly good case, or more importantly, you could have a really good question with the wrong judicial environment to bring it in, and you could end up with a bad ruling.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, we end up in the Fifth Circuit, which is also where good lawsuits go to die.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. I’m pretty sure that the Fifth Circuit placed a moratorium on brains. I read that somewhere.

Stephen Janis:

Which for people that don’t know, Fifth Circuit basically covers Texas.

Eric Brandt:

I know.

Stephen Janis:

I’m just letting people know who don’t know because we’re talking about 10th Circuit would be the Denver area.

Eric Brandt:

Let me tell you one of the great comedies in my life is the Ninth Circuit.

Stephen Janis:

Which is where? Which is, just so people know.

Eric Brandt:

Okay. This is where the comedy comes in. The Ninth Circuit includes Idaho and California.

Taya Graham:

That’s a little

Eric Brandt:

Schizophrenic.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Wow.

Eric Brandt:

And it’s dominated by the San Francisco side, so those poor libertarians up in Idaho have to endure this liberal shit. Can I say shit on TV? I’m sorry.

Stephen Janis:

No, no, no. Speak the truth. No, I

Eric Brandt:

Do find that to be judicially comedic.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Eric Brandt:

Litigation successes though. I mean, the litigation is necessary sometimes, unfortunately, and it’s part of how we push back. There’s virtually never any accountability at the street officer level, and that’s unfortunate. And how much better would the world. Do you have any idea how many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on attorney’s costs in Irizarry versus Yahia?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, you had the electronic frontier, you had the Cato Institute.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, you had amicus briefs that were supporting you from really great

Stephen Janis:

Institutions. From really high powered organizations that probably have very expensive lawyers, I would imagine.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. I hope that didn’t buzz through on you. I’m rejecting a call. I’m sorry. Yeah. Even in my case with the jury nullification, we had the ACLU come out from New York. Wow. They were given time to speak at the questioning of the Supreme Court here, Colorado Supreme Court. We had an amicus brief again from the Cato Institute, surprisingly. And if you took. Well, let’s take a look at the Westminster case. I was arrested for speaking about police brutality at the public microphone. It took six years to get to trial. Six years.

Taya Graham:

The

Eric Brandt:

Federal jury was impaneled. They found the city guilty or liable. In civil court, it’s liable. They found him liable of violating the First Amendment by dragging me out of the podium and arresting me for trying to talk about police brutality at my public microphone time. And I will tell you that I did tell the mayor it would be in his best interest if he let me finish my speech. That case cost the city of Westminster about $400,000 just in attorney’s fees alone.

Taya Graham:

Incredible.

Eric Brandt:

And the judgment was fairly small. It was $12,000. So you want to talk about litigation successes. There’s not a lot of money in civil rights, right? I wasn’t beaten. I was in jail overnight.What’s the real injury here? The real injury is to the community. It’s to the constitution. So while prosecutors like to say, “Oh, all these crimes, the victim is the community.” Well, that’s also true with civil rights violations, but they don’t pay out. So the fee shifting, the ability to recover attorney’s fees if you win is great. That can help convince cities to settle with you, but unfortunately, that’s money that does not go into officer training.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, good point.

Eric Brandt:

So we have a bunch of officers that we’re going to presumably say that at least a substantial fraction of them go into the business because they want to do something good for the community. And what they end up is they end up in this morass of, “I have to write my report a certain way so that I don’t lose my case.” That takes a few years for them to figure that out. So the reports go from being detailed and honest to being vague and boilerplate and embellished, and they’re not really remembering the incident. They know how to write the charges for the eight big charges that they file on a daily basis, and it’s really not refreshing their memory. It’s just one of the things. So they become jaded, and you have to remember that they’re being trained by a population that believes that they’ve been taxed enough already.

So we’re giving them the absolute most training that we can squeeze out of a population that is taxed enough already. Now, layer that onto the litigation costs. So Westminster, instead of being able to pay $400,000 for officer training, they instead paid lawyers to take that money out of their community. Those property owners were taxed for that.

That cost of litigation passes right onto the bill with no representation. Cost of litigation is the one thing that they tax you on that you don’t have a say because it has

Taya Graham:

To be

Eric Brandt:

Paid. So the community paid for that. Did they really get a half a million dollars worth of training out of that? And I seriously I don’t really question that. So what’s the word there? Again, there is no such thing as successful litigation. All litigation is an injury to the community and to everybody involved.

Stephen Janis:

Well, Eric, let me shift gears a little bit here. What do you think, you remember people called you a copwatcher. I think you were a copwatcher. I don’t know if

Taya Graham:

You’ve

Stephen Janis:

Been able to follow it from prison, but what do you think about the copwatcher movement at this point that you were a big part of? And in some cases it seems like it’s like James Freeman took down his YouTube channel. There’s been a lot of, I think, commotion in the community. Do you think it’s still as viable as it was five years ago or is it kind of waning or what do you think?

Eric Brandt:

Well, let me first be honest that I don’t have enough time to watch all of these channels. Right,

Stephen Janis:

Of course.

Eric Brandt:

So I guess I’ll give you some off the cuff observations that I’ve made in the last few months that I’ve been able to do that. First of all, when you put yourself out there and you put yourself in the public light, not only do you have supporters, but you also have critics.

And worse than critics is you have the silent enemies. You have the people that are watching your channel just to find the grew up. No, I’m talking about when your life is completely on blast all day long, then you have placed a target on your back. The guy in Texas, the head of the police union, Grimaldi or whatever his name is, I remember him saying once, “We are sick and tired of having a target on our back every day.” And I’m thinking to myself, “Well, stop putting it there.” Well, that’s the same thing with a copwatcher. You’re sticking your neck out. You are exposing yourself to liability. You’re exposing yourself to them taking a tiny little jaywalking ticket and turning it into a prison sentence. You have to look at the great risks that are there. If you have a family, if you have kids to pick up from school and you get arrested doing activism, social services is happy to give those kids a ride and you’ll see them in six months maybe.

If you have a mortgage, you can’t. We’ve seen a lot of cop watchers. I’m using the term copwatcher very loosely. I’m not famous.

Stephen Janis:

I’m famously

Eric Brandt:

Despised labels, but I’ve known a lot of activists, we’ll call them activists, that have lost their employment over their activism. So cops do go to these employers and say things to them and try to do that. That’s another reason why I’ve not shared where I’m employed because I don’t want turmoil with my employer. Does that make sense? That totally makes

Stephen Janis:

Sense. Because

Eric Brandt:

There’s risks there. There are mala factors out there. If we say that 99% of the population is good and 1% is genuinely malevolent, then if you have a channel with a hundred thousand people, you still have a thousand malevolents out there working against you and you’re just one person. Yeah. I haven’t thought of that way. There’s a lot of risk there. And so it’s not at all a surprise to me that some of these activists are flash in the pan, if you will. They do their little activism, they get into a little bit of trouble, then they’re done. And that’s as much as we can expect out of a population, that’s a tax. People can only handle so much tax and so much pressure. It requires all kinds. I will say, I don’t think I’m a big fan of the standing on the side of the road with the Zoom lens in the dispensary.

I’m not sure that I’m really advancing the First Amendment. I may be creating animosity with the First Amendment if we’re basically going after private citizens. And I’m not a big fan of the watch these people freak out until the one asshole gets sauced. I’m not a fan of that. I don’t think that that’s advancing the First Amendment very well. I think that that’s trying to make money in clicks and views. I’m not finding a lot of value in that work, but that makes me the critic and they have to make their own decisions. So

They’re there and I think that we have to tolerate it and accept it whether we like it or not. And you may like it, I don’t know. And your viewers may like that stuff. It does seem to get noticed, but that’s not my fan. My attack is against the government. I want government actors to be made aware and I want the public to be aware of the government misconduct because they’re the ones that ultimately make the decisions. They make the pressure. If you’re out there on the street creating the scene, then there are people in the back that are talking about it. If you don’t mind, I’ll talk to you about the power of how these things make it to the dinner table conversation. I had jury selection going on in an incident in Westminster, this is now about a decade ago, and we’re questioning the jurors.

And one of the jurors says, “I don’t know if this is the same guy, but my kids came home from school a while back and they were talking about a guy with this big sign and with this uncomfortable message. And we had to explain to our kids that this was not the language that we espouse, this is not how we like to live in our lives, but they used it as the teachable moment to explain the function of the First Amendment and the Constitution. So who am I to say that a particular incident does not reach the dinner table in a certain way?” And ultimately those are the people that talk in the background and that’s where the real power comes from. So I think that copwatching is still active and alive. I still see it. I do like some of these channels like John Eagle’s channel and Audit the Audit channel where they kind of go in depth on the story and they seem to put a lot of work into that.

And I would certainly, what’s that channel? She’s got the hair. We were talking with her earlier today. Oh, the police accountability report, that one.

Taya Graham:

I’m glad I’m on your list. Of course

Eric Brandt:

You’re on my list. But these are also important, right? So you have this street antagonism and then we have Tea Graham coming into us with the intrepid reporter in the field, Stephen Janice, and they kind of break down an incident or they break down a story. There’s a lot of money that goes into that kind of journalism. And so it’s so complicated and there’s so many moving parts and it’s really important for people to appreciate all of them.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, we confronted that, but go ahead Tea, you had the next question.

Taya Graham:

I wanted to ask you something because we’re talking about criticism and I was just wondering, just looking back on your life, on your activism, do you have any self-reflection or criticism for yourself? Because I know, for example, I was there when you were in the courtroom in Colorado and I saw you make a statement apologizing to the folks who were affected by your speech. But looking back now, do you have any criticism for yourself or is there anything you would change?

Eric Brandt:

Oh, that’s a complicated question. Do I have criticism for myself? Absolutely. And a lot of criticisms are internal. Some of them we’ve talked about. Yeah. I mean, nobody gets it right all the time. And that’s kind of the problem when you’re out there with the spotlight on you 24 hours a day is that all of your flaws are out there. And I’ve owned my flaws. I tell people I’m bulletproof. Everybody knows I’m a schlub, right? I mean, pick the negative moniker and I’ve probably done it at least once. So that makes me essentially bulletproof. You can’t attack me. Go ahead. Try to insult me. And you have to, to a certain degree, have that kind of attitude if you’re going to go into this. You have to have a thick skin. You have to be able to handle it. I will confide in you now today that what really pushed me over the edge was them taking Otto’s kids.

Taya Graham:

That

Eric Brandt:

Was existential to me. That was so horrible. And that was too much vicarious trauma for me to endure that broke me.

Stephen Janis:

I’m sorry, Eric.

Taya Graham:

I understand that. A lot of people were very deeply affected by that.

Eric Brandt:

Oh, horribly affected. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And just because he was with us, all that, I’ve seen all of that case from both sides. I’ve seen all the body camera footage and none of it made it any easier to swallow. It made it harder. It was even harder if you knew the backside of it. So I’ll tell you that the biggest criticism is that I had too much going on at the same time. I mean, my strength was that they would kick me down and I would get right back up. And I had so many things that were being juggled and then the auto incident was just more than I could bear.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Just so people who are watching, just so they know, Otto, the watchdog, he took his kids camping and they separated him from his kids accusing him of –

Eric Brandt:

For three years.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, for three years. So it

Taya Graham:

Was an ordeal. And that’s for Otto’s First Amendment activism. Otto was primarily, essentially police would approach him for holding signs. He was not putting a camera – Still approach him. He still out there. He’s still out there holding those signs, but putting cameras in people’s faces. He wasn’t approaching police officers. He was merely standing on the side of the road holding signs. And that was the beginning of his persecution.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, Eric, so what’s next for you? I mean, we’re kind of wrapping up and listen, we appreciate your time.

Taya Graham:

Oh, absolutely. Oh,

Stephen Janis:

I appreciate your time. What’s next for you? What’s your future look like? I mean, people want to know, what are you going to do next?

Eric Brandt:

I had intended to get out and go to the ranch and build my ranch. And there’s a lot of work that needs to be done there and that’s my forever home. That’s what I want to build.

Stephen Janis:

With a septic tank, right?

Eric Brandt:

With the septic tank, right? My life’s ambition is a pile of shit and I’m excited about it. Well, I think it’s – Oh, you guys

Taya Graham:

Are

Eric Brandt:

Going to have to bleep out a lot on this video, aren’t you? Yes. I

Taya Graham:

Think it’s absolutely wonderful that you’re creating a life for yourself where you’re going to be able to live off the land and give back to the land, help cultivate your chickens, maybe grow some food. I’m really into pepper stuff myself, ready for the urban apocalypse. So I definitely appreciate being able to live off the grid. Well, if

Stephen Janis:

There is no population left

Taya Graham:

There.

Eric Brandt:

I want to essentially build a biodiverse zone.

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Eric Brandt:

My goal is 50 trees a year for 10 years.

Stephen Janis:

Oh,

Taya Graham:

That’s

Stephen Janis:

Great.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Very nice.

Eric Brandt:

I hate to say, I have a certain amount of experience and education and expertise, so you’re not going to see Eric Brandt running down the street with sparkly purple toenails and a giant fuck the cop sign. That’s just not in the cards. So

Stephen Janis:

Those days are over. Those days of crazy YouTube videos are over.

Taya Graham:

No more Pikachu outfits.

Eric Brandt:

Maybe Pikachu.

Taya Graham:

Don’t give

Eric Brandt:

Up Pikachu. My situation is now different, right? I can’t tolerate another prosecution. The most minor thing now, if I lose, would be a very major thing for me.

Stephen Janis:

Eric, well that- That’s great. I kind of had a feeling that you weren’t going to stop working on this type of reforming the criminal justice system. And I commend you and laud you for that. That something you’re doing when you just got out. But we really appreciate you joining us today. Absolutely. It’s been fascinating discussion. We have very much enjoyed covering your career and film. Yute, you want to

Taya Graham:

Take up? And also being one little part of that constellation, of that Eric Brandt constellation. We’re grateful for you helping us be a part of that community. So thank you, Eric.

Eric Brandt:

Thank you so much for being there.

Taya Graham:

We really appreciate you joining us and sharing your thoughts and your feelings during this critical moment in your life. And we really appreciate your candor about copwatching and the criminal justice system and your own personal reflections about what you’ve been through. Now, Steven, for me, there’s not going to be any rant today for me. I mean, I thought this was a really profound conversation. I feel like there’s nothing I have to say here. I mean, love them or hate him. Eric is always insightful and thoughtful and kind of a mad genius, but not just about his own work, but the broader issues that prompted his activism. But Steven, before I walk us out, do you have any thoughts about our discussion?

Stephen Janis:

Well, it’s just interesting that Eric has projects already kind of percolating to do reform. It’s interesting to see that the activists within him did not die in prison. It came out. And also, well, I think a lot of people don’t understand the trauma of being incarcerated.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

And to see Eric’s emotional reaction should be, I think everyone should see that because it’s not a big deal. It’s not a small deal to put someone in a cage and confine them. And Eric showed how that affected him. And I think we should all recognize that. Absolutely. We have to be careful about how we run our criminal justice system for a variety of reasons. But the emotional toll it took on him really moved me. And also the fact that he understood that we tried to connect the dots in his life and others and show it in a way that wasn’t just mercenary or that we use the conflict to create a story, that we showed a story of some positivity and some true emotional connections. So I was really glad that he saw that because I worked very hard to try to bring that out of the film.

So it wasn’t just about crazy cop watchers. As Eric points out, they’re people with lives.

Taya Graham:

Steve, that’s a really good point. I mean, we could have made that documentary incredibly sensationalistic, but instead what we wanted to show was the community that was there. And I’m really glad that Eric was so open with us. Okay. We’re going to keep you up to date on Eric and his work, putting his life back together, and also his upcoming litigation or legislation. We’ll see what happens. And we’re also working on new episodes of the police accountability report, which we hope to debut soon. So please stay tuned. And finally, our camera will be in the courtroom when a judge hands down his decision in the dramatic trespassing trial of Long Island Audit. This was after the popular cop watcher defended himself against charges that he broke the law when he knocked on the door of Connecticut State Trooper Brian Fahey. And as always, please be safe out there.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to this breaking news edition of our Police Accountability Report livestream. Now, we decide to do the show because there have been serious widespread disruptions across the 1A and Copwatcher YouTube community, namely a broad and still unexplained demonetization of an array of channels related to both copwatching and First Amendment auditing. Whether this is targeted, random, part of YouTube’s overhaul to its partnership system, what it means for some very popular activists is what we will unpack today. And to help us, we’ll be joined by two influential copwatchers, Long Island Audits, also known as Sean Paul Reyes and Wright’s Crispy or Finn Vargas. Both have been instrumental members of the Copwatcher movement and both have been affected by YouTube’s mysterious move to end their ability to monetize their content, at least on YouTube for now. But before I get to them, I want to check in with my reporting partner, Steven Janis, who has been researching and reporting on what’s happening.

So Stephen, thank you for joining me indoors. Tay,

Stephen Janis:

Thanks for having me. I’m glad to be indoors. I don’t plan to stay here, so let’s get this going.

Taya Graham:

All right, so let’s get right to it, Steven. What is the scope of this move by YouTube and perhaps its origins?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, we’ve been debating that and it seems like it kind of came out of nowhere. There was no warning to any of the channels and it’s really difficult to decipher because YouTube has not made any public comments on why this has happened, but it has caused a lot of distress in the Copwatcher community. We’ve been hearing from many channels about this. People that we know, people that we’ve been talking to for years have reached out to us and told us this is happening, but no one seems to know why we have a theory we’re going to talk about in a second, but it’s just kind of like out of nowhere.

Taya Graham:

Oh, and I also want everybody watching to know, as you can tell, this is very live and we’re going to do our best to put your chats on screen and to also read your comments whenever possible. But let me just get back up right into it. I just want to say hi to the mods out there, Lacey R and Noli D. Thank you guys so much for being here. Okay, let’s get back to it. Dave, if you don’t mind putting up on the screen the graphic that shows the copwatchers and auditors. So if you take a look, there are some familiar names here like ANCAP Copwatch. There’s also James Freeman, John Felax, NC Tyrant Hunter, and of course Long Island Audit and Writes Crispy. Now, these are some of the channels we have been able to confirm directly. There really is quite a bit of uncertainty.

And let me also say this, if you are one of the channels affected, please reach out to us and let us know so we can compile an accurate and definitive list as we want to cover this closely. And I also want to say a special thanks to Friends in Code for providing us with some very valuable information. Agreed. But of course it’s not just who was affected, that’s a big question, but why? Now the YouTubers who told us they have been affected said the email they received was nebulous to say the least. Dave, if you don’t mind putting JPEG2 on the screen.

So I’m going to read some of it and then we can discuss a theory Long Island audits discussed and that you’ve been doing some reporting on. Okay? Yep. So let me just read this first. It says in the email or rather on the screen, “Your channel isn’t earning right now. After reviewing your channel using a combination of automated systems and human reviewers, we found that does not follow YouTube channel’s monetization policies. Our review found that your channel contains the following, violations of creator responsibility policy. Your channel has violated our creator responsibility policy.” Stephen, what does that even mean? It

Stephen Janis:

Doesn’t mean anything really. It’s a very nebulous, like you said, sort of definition. I dug deeper into it and it was something about reputational harm, very, very things that would be part of the normal process of journalism or reporting. I mean, anyone could create reputational harm by just reporting something that someone disagrees with or having a conflict or having a conversation. So it’s really, really loose, vaguely worded, and I think that’s the point. I think it gives YouTube a maximum flexibility, just kick people off of monetization however and whenever they want. And I don’t think it has any guidelines that are useful to any channels in terms of how to follow these. I don’t think you can follow them. So it’s really, I think, purposely vague.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, how has the Copwatcher community and the First Amendment activists responded?

Stephen Janis:

Well, a lot of anger because I think there was no warning or no sort of like, you need to do this or you need to do that. I mean, and these channels have been up and I would note that all the channel, their videos are still out there. Now, sometimes YouTube, when it really is offended by a video, will take it down or force you to take it down or take down your channel for copyright strikes, all sorts of things. But this just kind of came out of nowhere. And I think that’s why that’s feeding, I wouldn’t call it conspiracy theories, but some thoughts about there’s something behind this more than just YouTube trying to enforce its creator responsibility. I think people feel there’s something deeper there going on and something more nefarious. And I think that’s why we’ve been looking into it.

Taya Graham:

Now, there’s a theory that has emerged thanks to Long Island audits that you have been reporting on, Steven, and that we, of course, will discuss with him shortly, but we want to try to lay it out for you first. Now, as we’ve reported before on the show, Sean Paul had a fraught encounter with a powerful police union official named Lou Savillo. Sean Paul had visited police headquarters to ask about lawsuit settlements for police brutality, but the visit turned chaotic fairly quickly. Now, Long Island Audit was arrested and the ensuing fallout actually caught the attention of the New York Post, which blared headlines claiming that the resulting YouTube posts had led to angry phone calls to the Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association members. Now, Reyes was eventually arrested, but Savillo is actually more powerful than just the head of a local police union. And it’s possible the dispute escalated.

Turns out he’s the president of an organization called UCOPS or the United Coalition of Public Safety. And in that capacity, he weighed into a national controversy that may have given him behind the scenes leverage. So Stephen, we’re going to watch the video where Savillo endorses Todd Blanche and discuss the theory about how his influence may have played a role in what we’re seeing on YouTube. Dave, if you don’t mind playing clip three, the Savillo clip. I’m

Speaker 3:

Lou Savillo and I’m the president of UCOPS. UCOPS is a coalition of law enforcement unions that represents over 100,000 active and retired law enforcement officers. Recently, I had the opportunity to have a conversation with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. We discussed how police officers are being threatened, doxed, and even targeted for violence in their own homes. The AG expressed strong support for our law enforcement officers and stated that prosecuting these crimes would be a top priority for his administration. Todd Blanche has a keen intellect. Moreover, he has a discerning nature. He also is even-handed with justice, making him the perfect candidate for our country’s top prosecutor. This is why UCOPS and the thousands of police officers we represent are urging the United States Senate to confirm Todd Blanche as Attorney General. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Okay, Steven, I know you’ve had some run-ins with police unions. I’m sure you have something to say here. Well,

Stephen Janis:

No, the important thing to remember here is Todd Blanche at that point was facing a lot of pushback. He was the acting Attorney General and was trying to get the Senate to approve him to become full confirmed Attorney General. And he was facing a lot of headwinds because he would not renounce Trump’s sort of $1.76 billion giveaway fund to people who had been supposedly wronged by government, the weaponization fund. So he was in really, really kind of rough waters and he was looking for help. And then this organization called UCOP steps in and says, “Hey, we should endorse this guy. He’s great. All 100,000 police officers are behind him.” And I think it was a very important moment for Todd Blanche’s confirmation.

Taya Graham:

And you know what? We also got a copy of a July 9th letter sent to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, that offers a full throated endorsement of Blanche. Now, Stephen, why is this important? What was going on with Blanche who at the time was acting attorney general? He

Stephen Janis:

Was just really searching for a life raft because a lot of Republican senators were like, “We’re not going to approve you.” Tom Tillis from North Carolina was like, “We are not going to approve you if you don’t renounce Trump’s weaponization fund.” And of course he wouldn’t do it. He parsed on it, he kind of danced around. But then these guys come in and say, “Hey, this guy’s great. All the cops, 100,000 cops,” which I’m going to get to about that being sort of a very flimsy claim, “are going to support you.” And I think so they were trying to bail out Todd Blanche, who’s a very powerful man.

Taya Graham:

I want to discuss a bit what he said in the video that police officers are being doxed and harassed. And I think that’s curious that he brought this up specifically, and you’ve also been doing a little digging on UCOPS organization highlighted in the letter that Lou Cevello just said he’s the head of. So what have you found?

Stephen Janis:

Well, so UCOPS is supposed to be this big organization that represents 100,000 police officers, but only was started in 2025. It has about $60,000 in revenue. It has about four or five people who don’t work for a full-time or volunteer. So it’s, I would say sort of an AstroTurf, which is claiming to represent tons of people, but being a little bit of an artifice because they don’t have any money, they don’t have any staff, and there’s no information on their 990s, which is their tax form, about how many members they have. So UCOPS kind of came out of nowhere, and I think that makes it a little bit of a strange thing to say, “Well, I represent UCOPS, which represents 100,000 police.” There’s really very little evidence of that.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So I think we’ve established a connection between a powerful police union president and the most powerful law enforcement officer in the country, namely the Attorney General of the United States of America. But to connect the dots further, we’re going to bring one of the guests, the man at the center of the controversy, and one of the most popular copwatchers out there, Long Island Audits, also known as Sean Paul Reyes. Sean Paul, thank you. Thank you so much for joining us.

Long Island Audit:

Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So first, I’m just going to say a quick acknowledgement to Chuck Bronson, Noli D. I think I see Johnny Bravo out there. People are showing up and I’m hoping they’re showing their support as well. So let me ask you just to start out, how are you doing and how did you find out about your channel being demonetized and how is it hitting you? I mean, how are you dealing with it personally?

Long Island Audit:

Well, as you know, I’m usually on the road as I am right now, and my brother-in-law actually called me multiple times and I called him right back. I was in the middle of something and I was like, “Are you all right?” And he’s like, “Hey, every First Amendment auditor is getting their channel demonetized. Is your channel demonetized?” And I was like, “No, I don’t believe so.” So I opened up my YouTube studio and my phone app and it said you were removed from the partner program. So that’s how I found out. It was definitely shocking news for sure. I’ve been doing this for five years now, built a platform of over a million subscribers and just never had a violation. Till this day, my YouTube studio says no violations whatsoever. So I’ve never had a copyright strike, never had a violation.

Taya Graham:

Incredible.

Long Island Audit:

And they demonetized me.

Taya Graham:

Oh, wow. That’s incredible. I’ll just say I know some channels that have gotten strikes from personal experience. There is some other news related to your work that occurred yesterday. So you really had quite a day yesterday. You were found guilty of trespassing. Can you talk a little bit about what happened?

Long Island Audit:

Yeah. So Judge Guinari in the Danielson Superior Court found me guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree in the state of Connecticut. He found that as a matter of law, the private road dead end to no turnaround sign was not a vehicle sign. He said in his decision that he rejected my argument that that was a sign meant for vehicles. I think it’s pretty clear from the verbiage on the sign that it is really pretty clearly meant for vehicles. So I’m hopeful on appeal, but this is part of the process. The process is the punishment. They brought this judge in out of nowhere. I’ve been switching through judges so quickly, different judges, different jurisdictions. The process is the punishment and I’m going to continue to, hopefully in the process of an appeal, we can get a win here, but I don’t think anybody really believes that that sign was meant for a pedestrian.

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, Sean, this is hard to believe because there’s sort of a presumption that you can go up and knock on someone’s door. If they tell you to leave, you leave, you’re fine, which is what you did. I mean, there’s Supreme Court precedent here. Why did the judge ignore the law in this case? I mean, did he ignore the law?

Long Island Audit:

Yeah. I mean, his interpretation of the law, because in this case, his interpretation’s the only one that matters as of right now. His interpretation of the law is that unless if there is some sort of animosity between you and the person beforehand, then therefore you lose that privilege to conduct a knock and talk because you should know that you’re not welcome because of the alleged animosity and prior problems. But to me, if I’m a tenacious reporter, which I think I am, and I follow up on these stories, there’s a lot of public officials that one could argue in a court of law that have animosity with me and therefore I lose all my privileges.

Stephen Janis:

I was just thinking that because if we’re reporting on someone, they don’t like what we’re reporting, they’re aware of that, they’re angry. And I have shown up at people’s houses and places of work and stuff when I’ve been writing stories that have been critical of someone who could easily make the case that there was so-called animosity. I mean, has that ever been explored as far as you know? Because that strikes me as a really fine line and really gets into First Amendment monitoring and deciding what is conflict and what isn’t. I mean, is that something that’s been explored?

Long Island Audit:

I believe, Steven, that this is a case of first impression. That’s what it’s called in the legal world. And I think that this is something that the judge is just ruling on his own. I couldn’t find any case law where it takes away your privilege of a knock and talk animosity. And he did find that there was animosity he did find. And again, on his part, there’s a lot of animosity. I just talk about him on my channel and talk about what he’s done and what I’ve found out through investigations. And at the end of the day, I love my family and I don’t think about him after work. I’m just putting him up on there. He’s a bad man, but there’s been many, many, many bad men in law enforcement that I’ve come across over the last five years. Patrick Psycho, Ryder, Danbury where he said he would kill me 20 years ago.

There are so many examples and I would knock on any of theirs door. It wasn’t personal. I’ve knocked on dozens of government officials doors at this point.

Taya Graham:

Right. You know what? Before I ask you this question, I just wanted to make a note that one of the people that was trying to confirm the real press, NH NOW, yes, they were also demonetized. So it is hitting people out there. Wow. Sean Paul, I was wondering what are some possible consequences for you? I hate to ask, but are you going to be sentenced and could you face jail time?

Long Island Audit:

So I was already sentenced after I was found guilty by Judge Guinari. The state’s attorney did not ask for any jail time when they were making their case. Brian Fahey’s adult daughter and his wife spoke at the sentencing and the judge sentenced me, ultimately decided to sentence me to 90 days of incarceration, but suspended and one year probation. They actually have a little funny insight is that they were like, “Okay, well you’re going to transfer your probation to Suffolk County obviously, right?” And I was like, “No way. I will traverse all the way to Connecticut before I put my probation in Suffolk County with Lucivilo.”

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Well, let’s get back to YouTube and I’m very sorry that happened to you. We’ll be waiting to see what happens next. But do you think it’s a coincidence you had this encounter with Lucivillo and then suddenly Todd Blanche. I mean, he endorses Todd Blanche and then suddenly YouTube, which has been known to do carry the water for the Trump administration, decides to start demonetizing copwatchers and otters. Do you think that is a coincidence?

Long Island Audit:

I personally don’t think it’s a coincidence. It’s my theory. Could it be any other reason? Sure, it’s a theory. I’ll say that, but there’s a lot more things that go into it. Lucivillo and the union that he leads has been talking nonstop in the last weeks on radio programs that they own about directly targeting the monetization of these YouTubers. And they specifically mentioned YouTube, they specifically mentioned monetization, and this was just as late as two weeks ago. They were talking about these things and then this happens. I think it’s clear that the administration under Todd Blanche, the Department of Justice rather, I don’t think they would have an issue with sending a letter or an email to Google. And also the district attorney in my county actually subpoenaed Google for the last 14 months on a violation trespass case for the last 14 months of my earnings, and Google handed over everything immediately.

Really? And

Stephen Janis:

Google didn’t push back on that at all? At

Long Island Audit:

All. Motion to quash. Before I could even submit a motion to quash, which was only a couple days later, the district attorney had a disc full of all of my subscriber information. Your

Stephen Janis:

Subscriber information? What?

Long Island Audit:

No way. I don’t know about individual subscribers, but I don’t know if they mean, because it says subscribers with an S, but in parentheses. So I don’t know if it’s every single person or just me or maybe just my members on the channel. I don’t know exactly what it entails. I haven’t gone through the disc. My lawyer currently has it, so I have to go through it and that’s one of the many things on my plate rightnow.

Stephen Janis:

That is extremely invasive. I mean, that is extremely scary and not good.

Long Island Audit:

A non-trespass case, I obviously was leaving, the video shows that, but a trespass case to get 14 months of financial information from Google. Again, the common denominator with the police union president, the district attorney here is all that they’re focusing on monetization, financial aspect of YouTube.

Stephen Janis:

Now those charges were dropped or the ones from the encounter at the PBA, at the Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association headquarters, those charges were dropped, right?

Long Island Audit:

The criminal charge was dropped, but what they do is they’ll drop it to a violation of the law, which is not a crime, and they’re prosecuting me on that right now. So basically on a non-crime, they got the subpoena as well.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. It sounds to me like just a fishing exhibition that was facilitated by a bogus charge. But sorry, Tay, go ahead.

Taya Graham:

No, it’s okay. I just wanted to let you know, if you guys see me looking down, it’s because this chat is amazing and I’m learning a lot of information here. I just found out that I for an eye free press is on the list. NC Tyrant Hunter, who I’m glad to see. Good to see you, NC Tyrant Hunter, says he can’t even get into his Google account. So this is hitting people. This is really scary. This is really scary. I even saw that the Batoosize channel had been demonetized, but it has just been restored. So perhaps that’s a sign of hope. Sean Paul, I want to ask you, what’s your thoughts on the reasons provided for the demonetization by YouTube, like violation of creative responsibility policy? I mean, why is this happening now? Because copwatchers and First Amendment auditors have been on YouTube for at least a decade.

Why is it happening now and what do you think that policy means?

Long Island Audit:

As you stated earlier, it’s very vague. I read the policy obviously, and there’s nothing really that stands out, just basically reputational harm on or off the platform. It speaks about actions being taken off the platform as well as on the platform. It’s extremely vague. I’ve never had any violations or copyright strikes on my channel in the last five years since the channel was started. So I have no idea. I have no idea what else it could be, what type of reason Google has behind doing this massive demonetization of channels like First Amendment auditor channels. I have no idea.

Stephen Janis:

Have you appealed to YouTube and communicated with them or heard anything back from them? Have they given you a message or have you at least appealed or what’s going on in terms of YouTube and your communication with them? So

Long Island Audit:

I still have time to file an appeal. I wanted to wait and see what would be the result of some of my peers that already had submitted appeals were going to be. So now that some appeal decisions are coming back, I plan on filing an appeal in the coming days. And contrary to popular belief, just because I have a million subscribers doesn’t mean I have any sort of special connections with YouTube. Right,

Stephen Janis:

Right. And what have your peers said? Have people won their appeals? I mean, I know Batusai, I think won his appeal. Has anyone reported to you what has happened to them in the appeal process? So

Long Island Audit:

The only person I’ve spoken to about the appeal process was Philip Turner, and he had told me what he appealed and how he got his monetization back. I know there’s Rogue Nation had done an appeal. I don’t know what’s the status of that, but there are a couple people out there that did appeals and I don’t know the status of them though.

Taya Graham:

Okay. I just want to shout out Chuck Bronson out there and I see the Humboldt Squid. Good to see you. Humble Squid. You know who you are. I know who you are. Good to see you. But Sean Paul, back to you. I know I keep on going back and forth between the chat, but I just want to make sure everyone knows out there how much I appreciate them being part of this live chat. So I would just want to do something to kind of strengthen the idea of ties between Google and the current presidential administration. So for example, Google Maps did change the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America, which I think suggests they’re willing to comply with any requests from the current administration because for example, MapQuest didn’t do this. So what do you think is the potential role of those folks in the administration?

Long Island Audit:

I think it’s definitely possible that I wouldn’t put it past Attorney General Todd Blanch for sending at least a letter to Google saying that maybe we classifying these people as domestic terrorists. They use that term a lot for a lot of different people that they do not like or who do have different points of views for them. They automatically label them domestic terrorists. So I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an incoming memo or there is one already that in existence that First Amendment auditors are domestic terrorists now. But at the end of the day, we really don’t know. It’s all speculation, but there are some sort of connections between the police union president and Todd Blanche. And I think it’s quite hypocritical because he talks about these violence docs, specifically violence against law enforcement officers, but he supports an attorney general who would give money and who has participated in the pardons of individuals who have used violence against law enforcement officers.

So I think it’s very hypocritical on his part. I think he says that just to serve his own ends and he doesn’t really care about law enforcement officers.

Stephen Janis:

Just a note, I have watched hundreds of thousands of hours of copwatcher videos, never seen anyone come close to what happened on January 6th in terms of what the people that they pardoned, that they cleared, that they wanted to compensate with taxpayer dollars who were beating cops. And so I’ve never seen anything, anything remotely. In fact, I’ve never seen a cop watcher strike or in any way threaten a police officer in that way. So the hypocrisy, Sean, is insane, right? I mean, that’s insane.

Long Island Audit:

Yeah. They try to gaslight the country. They’re trying to gaslight Americans and they want to be the heroes and the victims at the same time.

Stephen Janis:

Now we reached out to UCOP, this supposed organization with all volunteer, five volunteers and no money. And we asked them – The

Long Island Audit:

Police union has a lot of money though. They have 15 –

Stephen Janis:

Well,

Long Island Audit:

Yeah, we’ll get to that.

Stephen Janis:

But the UCOP thing is really weird. Do you think that’s some sort of ASO turf or what do you think that is? Because it just doesn’t seem like it’s a real org.

Long Island Audit:

I haven’t looked into it as deeply as you have focusing on the police union, but I mean, if it doesn’t have any members listed, again, I’ve looked into Lucivillo, the president of that organization apparently, and the players of the PBA. And there’s internal affairs reports where he’s alleged to have told officers to lie, picked officers up from DUI arrests. There’s so many different things I wouldn’t put past him for any sort of nonsense. And

Stephen Janis:

I want to make a point here that I hadn’t made before because I went through all the Suffolk County finances. Suffolk County and New York State have some of the highest property taxes in the country. And one of the reasons for that is policing. The Suffolk County budget said that $1,400 per household is what that police department cost. So your work to expose this is so important because people, I mean, I think they’re getting fleeced. Why do they have the highest property taxes in the country? Because they have state troopers retiring for $100,000 a year salary. I mean, isn’t policing tied to the fact that you guys are suffering with some of the highest tax rates anywhere? Yeah,

Long Island Audit:

For sure. I mean, it’s crazy that they talk about so hypocritically, they talk about the monetization side of First Amendment orders while having $15 million in assets. The police union in Suffolk County is quite hypocritical. $15 million in assets and I believe only $2 million in liabilities they claimed on their forms. So $13 million and they bring in $5 million every year in revenue. But then the police department, that’s just the union. The police department has a whole hundreds of millions of dollars. And if you’re counting – It’s a billion dollar a

Stephen Janis:

Year. Suffolk

Long Island Audit:

County. If you’re counting all law enforcement in Suffolk County, yeah, it’s over a billion dollars a year. Crime infested

Stephen Janis:

Long Island.

Long Island Audit:

Right, exactly. And again, what they do, Steven, is they like to gaslight and push their police propaganda. This is why they have podcasts. They’re reaching out into social media. It’s because they want to push this propaganda that, oh, Suffolk County’s one of the safest counties in the country. But at the same time, the Suffolk County, I’ve been lifelong resident of Suffolk County. Suffolk County’s one of the safest counties in the country because of the people of Suffolk County, not because of the law enforcement officers.

Stephen Janis:

Exactly. And if you want to equate public safety with the number of police, it doesn’t add up. So I think that’s why, as you pointed out, they have this propaganda arm. I’m sorry, Tay, I didn’t – No,

Taya Graham:

That’s okay. All right. I’m going to ask a question that might sort of put you on the spot, Sean Paul, so forgive me for doing this, but let me ask you, if they respond, would you be willing to debate Lou Savillo on the Real News if we could hook it up? Oh,

Long Island Audit:

He would never do that, but yes. Well, listen – It’s worth asking. I have video of him saying that he would come on the channel, so maybe you could play that for him when you asked him. You come on your channel, but I would love to debate.

Taya Graham:

Brian would be neutral third party?

Long Island Audit:

I’ve seen his debating skills and it’s just propaganda mush, so I would love to.

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Well, that’s a date.

Taya Graham:

We can set that

Stephen Janis:

Up. If we can do

Taya Graham:

It, we will. I promise. So I know you had another question for Sean.

Stephen Janis:

No, I think we’re done.

Taya Graham:

Are you good? I mean, I just want to make sure because – Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

I mean, I don’t want to keep him for too long.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

And so when do you file your appeal on your trespassing case? What is the next step for you? Yeah.

Long Island Audit:

So the next step is I’ve been talking to multiple attorneys. I’ve had multiple attorneys with me this entire way. So these attorneys are, now that their retainer is over, we’re speaking about getting a new retainer for them to file the appeal. And I’m excited. I think it would be a bad precedent in Connecticut to allow any sort of vague signage to be used as some sort of notice under that statute. So I’m hopeful and I plan on fighting it the whole way. This is part of the journey. You win some, you lose some, 14 arrests and one criminal conviction for now. I think that’s a pretty good record to have.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. And Sean, before we let you go, Sean Ray, sorry, what do you see the future of copwatching? We were talking before the show and you and Chris, we were talking about we’re going to keep going, which is going to eliminate one of the greatest sort of arguments the frauditer, anti-copwatcher community makes that you guys are just about clicks and views. Are you getting any feeling among copwatchers that people and auditors are going to keep going regardless and not just give up because of this? I

Long Island Audit:

Hope so. And at the end of the day, I think it’s such a disingenuous argument to make it about monetization when the fraudater, the trolls out there talk about monetization when all of these people, how am I supposed to conduct a proper investigation and travel and do all these things when I’m facing an organization that has not only the power of the law on their side, but $15 million in assets to use against me to do what they need to do? That’s why I purchased the billboard truck. I’ve invested into my company. And at the end of the day, it is a company, but it’s a mission as well. And I’m happy to continue the mission and it’s definitely going to change a little bit depending on whether I get my monetization back. But I think even now, it’s just going to change because I’m going to do more long form content now.

I’m going to do more more over the legal things, show you the videos that necessarily wouldn’t be good for the algorithm, but I know a lot of people appreciate. So it’s going to expand the investigation. I think that’s

Stephen Janis:

Great. I

Taya Graham:

Love it. Yeah. And

Stephen Janis:

Also, it might be interesting to FOIA Groton or whatever part of Connecticut it is, see how much money they spent prosecuting on trespassing charges. That’d be interesting. Yeah, we’ll probably do that. We’ll probably do that.

Taya Graham:

Sean Paul, I can’t wait to see that because just like you said, there are things that when you have to bow to the algorithm that you can’t put up because you know they won’t get views or investigations that you want to do that are going to take a lot of time. And so you might put it on the back burner. I’ve had that experience and it’s painful to do that. And so this might really set you free. And I think we had Lacey R. Put your Patreon in the live below. So if people want to support these coughwatchers who are losing their channels, now’s your time. Full

Stephen Janis:

Disclosure, I’m a Patreon member of Line Isles. Just so everyone knows,

Taya Graham:

I’m

Stephen Janis:

Biased, but-That’s

Taya Graham:

Journalistic ethics to say the truth there. Journalistic ethics. I’m

Stephen Janis:

A $25 a month Patreon member.

Taya Graham:

I

Stephen Janis:

Thought you said 10. No, it was 25. I went all in. I appreciate it. No pizza this week.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So we want to thank you again. I mean, you literally had to stop on the road to speak to us, so we really want to thank you for your time and we absolutely wish you the best of luck. And thank you for taking the time with us, especially because you’re kind of going through it right now. So we really appreciate you coming on. Guess

Long Island Audit:

What? I still got the smile on my face. I’m still healthy, still got my family, still have my good friends and good people in the space that are working really hard like you guys and Rites Crispy that you guys are going to talk to.You guys are doing great work and I’m happy. The trolls needed one little happiness in their life. I’m happy for them. When you live with your life with such misery and pain, I mean, it’s just every day you need a win once in a while, so enjoy it.

Taya Graham:

I think they will savor it while they can. Thanks again, Jean-Paul. We really appreciate you. Come back.

Stephen Janis:

Come back soon. I will.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So Stephen, we’re going to continue our discussion with Copwatchers who are caught up in YouTube’s questionable shift in policy. And we are so happy to be joined by Finton Vargas, otherwise known as the creative force behind the popular channel. Writes Crispy. Hey, Writes Crispy. Thank you so much for joining us.

Rights Crispy:

Hey, thank you, Taya. Thank you, Steven. Thanks for having me and thanks to everybody in the chat, everybody who’s watching now and in the future. I appreciate you.

Stephen Janis:

We appreciate you. We appreciate you coming on.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. And

Stephen Janis:

Being patient.

Taya Graham:

Yes. And so first-follow.

Stephen Janis:

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, absolutely.

Taya Graham:

So first, let me just do a wellness check with you. How are you doing and how are you dealing with the decision of YouTube’s to demonetize your channel?

Rights Crispy:

Thank you for your concern and thanks for asking. But as I’ve always told everybody, I do well by doing good in my profession. This is just a bonus hobby for me. I don’t do this for money. It’s a nice bonus to have, but as we were saying before, now the trolls don’t have a reason to say that we’re doing this for the money. And if we are, what’s the difference between major news networks that get a lot of ad revenue for their sponsors and everything? I think trying to find a villain in somebody who gets paid in America, it’s what country do you think this is? We make money doing things. But I’m doing all right, thank God. And I know that Rogue Nation did get a response back from YouTube saying that they’re going to escalate it. So it wasn’t a decision, but it was a response.

So that’s good.

Stephen Janis:

What does that mean, escalate? Does that mean they’re going to continue considering it or what does that mean?

Rights Crispy:

I guess the person who received his appeal said that they were going to send it to a higher up.

Stephen Janis:

I see. Okay. Well, that’s better than having the door shut right

Taya Graham:

Away. Right, exactly. It’s a step in the right direction. That’s good to hear. But

Stephen Janis:

I mean, to your point, when you think about if you took the collective monetization of every YouTube auditor out there, it wouldn’t amount to the budget of one metropolitan police department.That’s

Taya Graham:

The truth. Or

Stephen Janis:

Let me tell you this much. When I was a reporter dealing with police departments, they had multiple staff members, like seven or eight, nine, 10 people whose only job was to deal with the media or the press and to get their point of view out there. They had massive multimillion dollar budgets to hire people who were only job was to harass us or tell us we were wrong or yell at us or call us up in the middle of the night. So what YouTubers bring in is pennies on the dollar of what the police unions and the police departments have to spend. So why are people always giving you a hard time about making $20 from a YouTube video? Yeah, it’s

Rights Crispy:

Not just the police, but I’m working on a few stories. Like I told you guys before we started, I’m not going to stop doing this. I have some really important stories that I have to get out. And I stopped feeding the algorithm on YouTube years ago. I think my last paycheck last month was a couple hundred bucks and before that, I don’t remember when I got paid before that. So it’s not something that I’m getting paid off, but I am doing a lot of good work and I’m getting it out there. And like I told you guys also, the only thing I want people to pay is attention. We have a lot of big stories coming out on the Wrights Crispy channel.

It’s not just police. Like I was saying, there are government agencies that have do nothing jobs and we discover that we find their credit cards being used for wasteful purposes and we point that out. I have an attorney here, our city attorney, he also is an attorney for eight municipalities. He gets paid about $20,000 a month. That’s $160,000 a month if that’s what all the municipalities are getting. And he’s not advising the cities correctly. They want to put in data centers, they want to keep flock cameras up even though our Department of Transportation has stopped it. But I don’t want to get off on a tangent. I want to –

Stephen Janis:

No, no, it’s interesting.

Rights Crispy:

It’s

Stephen Janis:

Interesting.That’s great accountability work, man. It needs to be done.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

And it’s not getting done in many communities because of YouTube and the algorithm and the way our ecosystem is kind of constructed around conflict

Taya Graham:

And

Stephen Janis:

Not like

Taya Graham:

This all reported. The way the attention economy

Stephen Janis:

Works. So let me get you, I just was curious what you thought about some of the ideas that Todd Blanche might be doing this at the behest of police unions or that police unions have been advocating for this and that they gave Google like, “Hey, you got to kick some of these people off monetization.” Do you give any credence to that or what do you think of that theory?

Rights Crispy:

I wouldn’t put it past them. Again, I thank you both for the work that you’ve done since I’ve known you, but especially last September you were in DC and you were interviewing the victims of the Epstein files. Oh yes. That’s one of the main reasons why I got into this. I know that none of those trafficking rings operate without some corruption in our government involved. And for Todd Blanche to say that it’s not a crime to party with Epstein when there are young kids in that room, yes, it is. That’s who we’re dealing with. And if we want to think about how he goes and meets with somebody from Google, I don’t put it past him. Like I said, the narrow-mindedness of these tech companies, look at what happened, the old Twitter, which is now X, remember they banned somebody in Canada for using the wrong pronouns.

However, they allowed the Taliban to continue their channel or their. So the narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy is ridiculous, especially in our modern cruelty. America has become a cruel and vicious place.

Taya Graham:

We

Rights Crispy:

Reward the shallowest, the loudest, the meanest. And for them to think that we are the ones who are being offensive by knocking on a door. I’m flabbergasted at what happened yesterday in Sean’s trial. I mean, that’s clearly established. You can go and drop off a UPS package. You can go and knock on a door and ask for answers.

Stephen Janis:

Politics, when people go and knock on doors and say, “I’m here.”

Taya Graham:

Or if you have a Bible in your hand and you want to talk to people, you’re allowed to knock on doors. It’s an American

Stephen Janis:

Tradition,

Taya Graham:

Even

Stephen Janis:

In a. A door to door salesman. Yeah.

Taya Graham:

I just want to ask you, have you heard from any other channels about this? Because you might have noticed, I’ve been looking down into the live chat. Some people have been demonetized. Other people have luckily missed the swinging sword over their head, the sword of Damocles there. Have you heard from any other channels? What are some of the things you’ve heard from your fellow cop watchers?

Rights Crispy:

Yes, I’m in a group chat. I was actually speaking with Nasty Nathaniel. Shout out to Nasty Nathaniel. When I got a call from Rogue Nation who asked me if I had gotten demonetized, we all checked at the same time. Then we went to the group chat. We were all like, “Hey, you guys checked and everybody’s…” Except for I think a few, Chuck Bronson, I don’t think was affected. Rogue Nation’s other channel was not affected. Major Lee Awesome. He has a lot of new, good content on there. But going back to when I started this, I saw Aurora, Colorado. There was a doctor that was trying to move some Boy Scout equipment in his own office building, and there was a police officer parked in his parking garage. Do you guys remember that?

Stephen Janis:

I’m sorry, I don’t, but –

Rights Crispy:

Well, he was confronted at gunpoint and he gave this speech after everything blew over. He said, “Use your white skin, use your straight teeth, use your education, give your money until it hurts. Give your freedom until you lose it.” And I took that to heart and I’ve done all that. I’ve given more money into this than I’ve gotten out of it. So it’s really not about the money. And the J-Town Press, Lana, just last year alone or the year before I think, she paid, I think $75,000 in records requests and other such fees for getting the story out there. That’s two Florida school teachers’ yearly salaries.

Stephen Janis:

That’s amazing.

Rights Crispy:

And that’s one DMV supervisor’s yearly salary.

Stephen Janis:

One thing you brought up about Todd Blanche and the Epstein victims, Tea’s reporting in Washington DC, the way she made sure that we were there and the way she talked to almost every single victim, I just wanted to acknowledge was an amazing thing to witness. Thank you. And she was there for every moment. I mean, I was right behind her, but – With the camera right there. She was leading the way and I’m glad you saw that because Tea was just amazing about really getting the stories and getting to know the people.

Taya Graham:

And for the record, TikTok was not always fond of my clips.

Stephen Janis:

But to your

Taya Graham:

Point – That’s

Stephen Janis:

Another story. Todd Blanche pretty much dissed the victims. He would only meet with them for an hour or something and it was very, very. That’s another knock against this whole administration, the way they treated, the way Pam Bonnie wouldn’t look at the women. I don’t know if you have anything to say about it.

Taya Graham:

No, it was incredible to see all of those women who, in doing this, I don’t think people realize when those Epstein victims came forward, or survivors perhaps is a better word, when those Epstein survivors came forward, these women have to relive some of the most traumatizing experiences of their lives publicly. They have to talk about something that’s probably one of the worst things that’s ever happened to them. And then they have to deal with the scrutiny of the public with people think, oh, they just want to do a lawsuit for money or oh, they’re just doing this because of a political reason. And these women have been suffering for years. These women have been reaching out to the FBI and the DOJ for years. So it was just heart-rending to see people literally turn their back on these women.

Stephen Janis:

And to your point –

Rights Crispy:

People are talking about these women and trying to question their integrity and why are they. Think of them 20 years younger. That’s who they were when this was happening to them. And I read this story in December 2018 from the Miami Herald and it put a knot in my stomach and I haven’t been able to untie that knot. And now that everybody knows what I’ve known for the last eight years, it’s sickening to see that we are in the age of apathy. People are just looking past it. Keep telling that story, Taya. I will. Thank you. Steven, please keep it up.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thank

Stephen Janis:

You. And it points to why you have to hold law enforcement accountable. They’re not always heroes, right? Because as you point out – Sometimes you got to motivate them a little bit. As the stories were told to Taya, people reached out to law enforcement. Law enforcement ignored them. Yes, they did. And in 2008, they gave Epstein that sweetheart deal of 18 months of being overnight in prison, but he was still abusing women. He was actually

Taya Graham:

Still abusing women at the office he was allowed to go to during the day when he was supposed to be in prison.

Stephen Janis:

To say we don’t need cop watchers is absurd.

Taya Graham:

I completely agree. Alex

Stephen Janis:

Acosta

Rights Crispy:

Is the DA for the SAO who gave him the sweetheart deal, right?

Taya Graham:

Alex

Rights Crispy:

Acosta then became the labor secretary under term one of Trump.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. And

Rights Crispy:

Now guess where he is? He’s on the board of directors of Newsmax. So if that’s where you guys are getting your news, shut it off.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Wow. Thank you so much for sharing that. I actually didn’t know he was on the board of Newsmax. Thank you for that. Good fact. Not that I was watching, but.

Rights Crispy:

Back to the YouTube money thing, you were talking about what are they doing about this? Can somebody sue or anything? I know that the Federal Trade Commission is doing an investigation on the bait and switch aspect of it where they’re telling people, and Steven was mentioning how vague it is, these rules that we have to follow. There’s so many things that we can or can’t do. And it’s weird because we’ll watch a channel and there’s somebody spraying somebody with a garden hose in the garden section of Home Depot, and they’re fine. They don’t have a troll channel to bother them at all, and they get away with all that. We are holding our government officials accountable and people start looking at us. We’re not taking a penny of their tax dollars. The person who is taking their tax dollars is not doing their job right.

We’re showing them that, but they’re focused on us.

Stephen Janis:

That’s such a good point.

Taya Graham:

That’s an excellent point. I just want to ask you if you had any thoughts on the violation of the Creator Responsibility Clause. I mean, what do you think that even means and how do you think it applies or doesn’t apply to your channel or to Copwatchers? I mean, this clause is really odd.

Rights Crispy:

Yeah, I was taken aback. Again, when I started, I tried to model myself after more moderate channels like Jeff Gray, Honor Your Oath, Civil Rights Investigation, and Rogue Nation. I really liked their approach, and I saw people doing what I thought was just getting a chip off their shoulder. I tell cops, “Hey, we need those guys too to test your bearing.” But I just decided on my first audit, I said it, “I’m not going to be that way. I’m going to be professional, courteous, respectful, and I’ll give what I get. I’m not just going to be a sucker. I’m going to go up there and I’m going to hold their feet to the fire if I have to, but I’m going to do it in the most respectful manner that I think is possible.” We’ve seen a lot of people take that approach after I started doing that, and I’m glad to have inspired a lot of people to do it that way because that way we can actually make a positive change, I don’t think in our government, but in our country with people so they can see us doing what they should be doing and get them to hold their local municipalities accountable.

But we also have seen people chasing and feeding the algorithm, and they couldn’t pander any harder with their trying to provoke people. I mean, I get that a lot of people who I work with have taken that approach. They’ve gone to dispensaries and stuff. I say heroes work there, leave them alone.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, no, I’ve seen some of those videos and I can’t really figure out what the hell that’s all about. But to the Copwatcher community and the people who are doing the work like you’re doing, the government accountability specifically, do you think this lack of stability in the monetization ecosystem and YouTube in general is going to. What is it going to do to the future of this community that has been very important to keeping police in check? What do you think bodes for the future for people who do this?

Rights Crispy:

Well, it will get rid of a lot of people who do depend on this. They are working with YouTube. That’s their livelihood. And I’m not saying that they’re just making clicks and views. They do good work. It’s just they need to pay their bills.

One of the OGs, the guy, I think his first audit or Copwatch was in 2009, Tommy from Mass Accountability, that guy has really put in a lot of good work and he exposed the “shit list” in Salem, Massachusetts, and he’s out there right now and he’s trying to make money off of YouTube. I don’t know if he was hit. I haven’t talked to him, but he would struggle if he didn’t have that YouTube income. I know he’s doing good work, so it sucks to lose somebody like that. If somebody realizes, “Oh, I can’t make a quick buck off of this,” and I’ll start doing something else that is just questionable or that some people don’t like, they’ll find something else to do. They won’t do it in the YouTube genre. Tuapri was a prankster and did pranks and stuff, and then he jumped into the auditing community.

So they’ll move around, they’ll find something else, they’ll find another way to get paid, but we are going to lose good citizen journalists.

Taya Graham:

Wow. I think you make such a good point because it’s kind of funny. There are people who say, “Oh, well, this is just for money or just for clicks or views.” And it’s like, “Well, I thought this was a capitalist country, and if you did work, it was okay to be paid for said work.” But the thing is that I don’t think a lot of people realize so many folks who run these channels barely make enough money to cover their camera equipment or to even bond out of jail if they get thrown into jail. People really are not making tons of money out there. People are doing this because they really care. And so it hurts to think that this well of activism that was so grassroots, so natural, just really just came from the ground up, could be shut off at the source because these places like YouTube, they essentially are digital commons.

This is where we can go now. And if they turn off the spigot, they basically control what narrative the rest of the country sees. It’s just really disturbing. But I just wanted to get back to Long Island Audits for a second, just to get your thoughts on the verdict of Long Island Audits trespassing case. Do you have any concerns about how his case was treated? Because essentially was just going up to the door and knocking, and now he could potentially be facing time behind bars.

Rights Crispy:

Yeah, it’s repugnant on its face for that judge to have done that, but I’m shocked. We have a broken system. Oh, no.

Taya Graham:

News flash for me, right? Big newsflash for me.

Rights Crispy:

Right. No, that’s what I tell people in every situation when we’re dealing with the government is don’t pin your hopes on an illusion that you’re going to make a change and they’re going to be like, “Oh, you know right, you’re right. McDonald v. Rundle, take those cuffs off of him. You can go home.” No, you can go there with all the facts and all the law in the world. If the guy in the row behind the bench is feeling some kind of way about you, you’re not going to see justice that day, and you’ll have to take it to appeal where it’s, I think, a little bit more scrutinized. But look at how did we get qualified immunity in the first place? It had to be fought all the way up to the Supreme Court that a Black man could eat in a restaurant. They could segregate.

I mean, not segregate, they could integrate, and the cops didn’t want to do that, so they arrested him and they took it to court and they were like, “Nope, I know what the feds said, but here in our beautiful state, we want to keep it that way.” And then they took it all the way up to the Supreme Court, and even in the Supreme Court back then, they said, “Fine,” begrudgingly gave him his right to eat wherever he wanted, but from now on, cops have qualified immunity, and that’s how they got it, is from that Jim Crow law that was being enforced. I’m

Taya Graham:

So glad to explain that. It was basically

Stephen Janis:

Like the Ku Klux Klan law, 1983 federal law that was supposed to allow people to sue public officials to enforce their constitutional rights. The ironic fact is that qualified immunity, which has been a barrier in many circuits to. Yeah, that is ironic. So what’s the future? What’s the future for copwatching and what’s the future for you? Just kind of closing out the last question.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, I was going to ask

Stephen Janis:

The question. I’m sorry, Steve.

Taya Graham:

No, it’s the same question. We’re just seeing in sync.

Stephen Janis:

How do you see the future unfolding and

Taya Graham:

What’s

Stephen Janis:

Going to happen because of this, what we’re calling the great demonetization of YouTube? Well,

Rights Crispy:

I think a lot of people will get re-monetized, and hopefully I will too. It’s a nice bonus, like I said. If not, we can’t be stopped. We’re going to keep on going. I have stick it to the maniosis. It’s fatal.

Taya Graham:

Oh, I love that. I’ve never heard that before. I really like that.

Rights Crispy:

You watch School of Rock.

Stephen Janis:

What makes you think that you guys are going to win the appeals? What do you think is on your side?

Rights Crispy:

Well, for instance, I think it’s a machine algorithm that made all these decisions. I don’t think it was one person going around and watching every one of our videos. I think if anybody had gotten a yellow flag or something before on their channel, that might have affected us. Because again, why would they only do some copwatchers and not all of us? I think maybe some music or something might be affecting. I think it’s something technical, but again, I wouldn’t put it past all those clowns that we mentioned before and the police unions because they really love to hate us. And the other quote that I was saying, I have it here, it’s to be hated for loving freedom has been the weirdest experience of my life.

Stephen Janis:

That’s so interesting.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, I think I understand as a journalist, you write what you think is the truth, and then people hate you for it, and you have to reconcile that. You have to learn to work through that, that, well, I’m giving my best representation of the truth, which I would hope would be beneficial to the community, and there are people that just have vested interests in a power structure, and they hate you. And what’s weird about it is that institutions like policing have people who will go out and attack you who seem to have no reason to do so or no vested interest in the institution, just seem to be blinded by the propaganda, right? I mean, it’s like –

Rights Crispy:

I have two theories of one of two or both, either they don’t have the guts to stick it to the man like we do or stand for their rights, and they hate seeing somebody else showing them that they can and they don’t. Wow. Or they want to kill the messenger because we’re showing them that their heroes are actually cowards or jerks and they don’t like it, or both. And I think –

Taya Graham:

That makes a lot of sense.

Rights Crispy:

To inspire people. I’m here to let people who are like-minded know that they’re not alone. I also love to turn people around. People ask me all the time, “Oh, why’d you do this?” And when I explain it to them, I’m like, “Oh, wait a minute. Hold on.” And they get educated. My wife and I sing the Bonnie Taylor, “Turn them around,” because we turned them around, and that’s one of my favorite things. Shout out to Wolfie Gladly, who taught me how to be positive with the trolls and just have fun with them and let them know to search inward for the source of your misplaced anger. Wow.

Stephen Janis:

That is a good

Rights Crispy:

Way to approach it. Be aware of your own anger. Why are you mad at me? You don’t know me. I didn’t do anything to you. That

Taya Graham:

Is a very evolved way of handling it. Yeah, that’s very evolved and very healthy way. To be able to deal with the

Stephen Janis:

Negative comments.

Taya Graham:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, we appreciate you taking the time.

Taya Graham:

We appreciate you so much. We’re so glad you joined us. We’re so glad you were willing to be flexible with us. We appreciate your work, and I hope you keep us updated, and that if you hear from anyone else in the Copwatcher community, let us know how it’s going. Are people still continuing to get demonetized? Because as we showed earlier, there’s a chance that even though you said it might have been just an algorithmic thing all at once, there could be someone who’s putting their thumb on the scale. Well, the

Rights Crispy:

2A community was also hit. I’m sorry to interrupt. No, the 2A. Oh, the

Taya Graham:

2A? Interesting. Oh, really? Because I reached out to HBO Matt to see if he came. Well, HBO Matt

Stephen Janis:

Did get demonetized,

Taya Graham:

Right? No, no, no, he wasn’t. I spoke to him. I messaged him as of two days ago. He was not. He wasn’t demonetized. I don’t know if that’s changed, but I did know the 2A community got hit too. So 1A and 2A.

Stephen Janis:

Anyone here from Corners News?

Taya Graham:

I asked him about Corners, but actually I’ll reach out to him later. Yeah. And just please keep us updated because if we can, we’d like to be a resource for everybody. And also, we want to see how far this goes. Is it hitting 1A? Is it hitting 2A? Do we need to worry about any of the other As in our constitution? Do we need to worry about them? Yeah.

Rights Crispy:

It was HBO Matt who told me the gun channels got hit too.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Okay. All right. Well, I’ll check in with him again. Finn, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate you so much. Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

And keep doing the great work you’re doing.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Absolutely. Citizen journalists

Stephen Janis:

Are the best.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. I appreciate you. We have utmost respect for it.

Rights Crispy:

Dittos. I mean, you guys are inspirational. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Aw, thank you. Thanks to everybody. That’s really kind. That’s really kind. Thank you. Oh, wow. That was right to Krispy. That was so great. Well, I guess I shouldn’t comment on our own interview. I though his interview was really wonderful. Well, it’s interesting

Stephen Janis:

To hear people. What inspires me is people do this under the most difficult circumstances, take on power with just their own sort of wits and the limited resources. Very limited resources. They’re undaunted. I know. And that, to me, is inspiring because journalism is a weird thing. It’s not like being a lawyer or something. You’re not accredited or something.

Taya Graham:

You’re in a gray zone. Yeah,

Stephen Janis:

You’re in a gray zone and it’s not something that makes you rich,

Taya Graham:

Famous

Stephen Janis:

Or anything. It’s just you get the –

Taya Graham:

Unless you’re

Stephen Janis:

On

Taya Graham:

Cable news.

Stephen Janis:

Right. But it’s something that gives you satisfaction from doing the work on

Taya Graham:

Behalf

Stephen Janis:

Of people.

Taya Graham:

You’ve got to care about it.

Stephen Janis:

And that ethos is pervasive throughout copwatching and other forms of YouTube accountability. And it’s kind of cool and really heartening to see that. Some people just get it, this bug, and they want to let the community know what’s going on, and they want to hold people accountable. And it’s just great to see it, that it’s still a spirit in this country, sort of a civic tradition, I think. We’re fierce accountability people, and to see other people just do it, and no matter what, they’re going to keep going, is pretty awesome.That’s

Taya Graham:

A really great way to describe it. That’s a civic tradition, that it’s kind of in the blood of Americans, that we care about. The First Amendment, all the amendments, our Constitution, the Bill of Rights. It matters to us. Those of them who go out to protect it in their own way, I think that’s really

Stephen Janis:

Normal. None of

Taya Graham:

Them went to journalism

Stephen Janis:

School, right? They’re not people who had

Taya Graham:

The

Stephen Janis:

Traditional training, but they figured it out.

Taya Graham:

They sure did.

Stephen Janis:

And then once they figured it out, they became very passionate about it. Just like we did.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, exactly. As journalists, that’s why we’re passionate as journalists. And so it’s great to see other people develop that same passion. And

Stephen Janis:

I was an English major, so whatever.

Taya Graham:

Well, Steven, I think that was a really intense discussion about an important topic. Absolutely. And I think all of us, meaning journalists and cop watchers, all of us understand how fragile and tenuous the right to push back against power is, which is why at least in the past, the courts have given great leeway to people over what they post and how. Do you have any final thoughts you want to share before I do my warning rant alert?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, thank you for the warning. It’s interesting because this debate is over the economics of an information ecosystem, and the control that YouTube has is kind of difficult to parallel with anything I can think about. When you start a newspaper 50 years ago, you could put it in boxes out in the sidewalk, you could mail it to someone, you could have subscribers through the post office, but now YouTube has become the only place to monetize this kind of content besides Facebook and TikTok, but the kind of serious long form content. And so I think that’s kind of scary, right? That’s kind of Philip K. Dick kind of dystopian that this one particular attention machine can sort of cast people off and that creates a very unstable kind of economic system and ecosystem for people to create information and to report back to us. So this is in many ways very, very disturbing.

And then Long Island, I was talking about the subpoena of people’s subscribers and getting into that. I don’t know. I don’t think YouTube is going to represent, given the way they have responded to the Trump administration and changed Lake Ontario to Lake America and how quickly they have caved, I don’t think they’re the right people to be defending en masse a ecosystem of First Amendment information. I think they are a bad actor in this in some ways. They have created a devastating attention machine, but I don’t think they have the same ethos of protecting the ability of people to express their use. And all these channels have never been taken down or anything. They’ve been there and then all of a sudden. So it just shows you how precarious this is. It seems great on one level that everyone have their own YouTube channel, but now it’s very precarious and it’s a little scary to say the least.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Steven, I think you made a really great point about how there is a concentration of power. And I really think that it’s important to point this out Because a world where the control of the distribution of information is bound to just a few private companies, that’s a dangerous world because that means, like I mentioned earlier, they can control the narrative. They control what we see, what we watch, what we learn, what information we take in. And that is a type of power I don’t think that’s ever been seen before in history.

Stephen Janis:

Maybe back in the day.

Taya Graham:

Right. Back where there were medieval peasants and only upper class people were literate or something. Okay. Maybe back then that was controlling the narrative. Ever

Stephen Janis:

Since the

Taya Graham:

Printing

Stephen Janis:

Press, it’s been more

Taya Graham:

Diffused.

Stephen Janis:

And now it’s oddly gone in the other direction in many ways, just evidenced

Taya Graham:

By

Stephen Janis:

What’s happened.

Taya Graham:

That’s a really great point. And I guess what I’m going to do is just start my little rant. Is that okay?

Stephen Janis:

I’m okay. I’m here.

Taya Graham:

I’m here. I’ll get

Stephen Janis:

The popcorn.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, buckle up. So what I wanted to share with everyone is that I think the idea that keeps occurring to me as we discuss what YouTube has done to copwatchers and First Amendment auditors and apparently Second Amendment auditors is fairly simple but has some complex implications. And that is, it’s hypocrisy, just the blatant and contradictory use of the notion of creator responsibility as a justification for taking away the ability of YouTube activists to monetize their work. I mean, the idea in principle sounds reasonable enough. When you read the words and discern the logic behind them, they don’t seem irrational, but then you start thinking. And then the question becomes unavoidable. Like really Google, the company that gave us Alex Jones and the flat earth conspiracies, the company that has been monetizing conflict for decades and profiting off lies and embellishment and fabrication since it was birthed and now out of nowhere, they’re suddenly concerned about this sort of nebulous sense of decency without any warning or outward provocation.

The oligarchs who run this obscenely rich company seem to become uncomfortable with content that holds power accountable in ways that are not always pretty or easy to watch. Well, I mean, Google, where was that moral qualm when child victims of the Newtown Massacre were being accused of being crisis actors when their parents were being doxed and hounded by Jones and his legions? It took Google quite a while to deal with that mess if they actually did it all. But all this debate over content, creator responsibility and the nuances of Google standards misses another really important point. Something that the powers that be would like to ignore, but we’re not going to let them. Who actually made copwatching possible and even necessary? Well, it wasn’t Wright’s Crispy or Joe Cool or Long Island Audits or Out of the Watchdog or Friends in Code or Eric Brant or Noli D or Lacey Art.

They didn’t create the environment of the law enforcement industrial complex that made policing one of the most powerful institutions in America. No, they didn’t. Power, inequality, and the police themselves invented copwatching. It was their overreach and abuse of the law that demanded a response from the people subject to it. It was their power drunk officers and biased judges and poorly constructed laws that sewed the general discontent that made any of this, basically all of this possible. I mean, let’s remember, copwatchers and 1A auditors wouldn’t garner millions of views if people didn’t tell Google through their watch habits that auditing content was relevant to their lives. YouTube’s merciless algorithm doesn’t dole out watch time to videos that no one is interested in. The platform is not a charitable foundation constructed for the public good. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It is the most efficient, reactive, adoptive, and yes, destructive attention machine ever constructed by human beings.

It’s the most elaborate ruthless flame for a moth of human cognition that has ever been devised. People watch the aforementioned YouTubers because the algorithm has determined they want to. Copwatcher videos get traction because of YouTube’s own technology and it’s crafted an audience that wants to see cops held accountable. And if you think police power is not a problem that requires people with cell phone cameras to address it, just consider something. The most recent police shooting in Pennsylvania and the role video is playing in its adjudication. 22 year old Glenwood Earl Seicher was walking to a friend’s house after a pub crawl when he stopped at the wrong address. After he knocked on the door, homeowners called the police fearing that someone was breaking into their house. Turns out that wasn’t true because Pyscher was actually sitting quietly on their back patio when police arrived. Enter Sean Farrell of the upper Potsgrove police.

He arrived on the scene, told the young man to show his hands, which he did peacefully and then inexplicably shot him twice in the chest killing him. Farrell has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, but here’s the most important point. When backup arrived on the scene, Farrell told the fellow cops that that young man had been shouting and gesticulating wildly, that he was screaming and threatening and all of it was not true. It was an absolute lie. But imagine if Officer Ferrell didn’t have body-worn camera, imagine if there was no video, what would’ve happened then? Well, I can tell you because I witnessed it here in Baltimore before cell phone cameras became ubiquitous. Nothing. Nothing at all would happen. No changes, no questions, no justice. Sure the family would’ve protested. His friends would’ve sworn up and down that he was a good kid incapable of scaring a cop, but it wouldn’t have mattered.

The officer would’ve been believed and an innocent man’s murder would’ve gone unavenged. So when YouTube or Google decides to shut down the ability of cop watchers to monetize their videos, it’s not just an inconvenience. It’s shutting down the people’s flock camera, so to speak, the cameras that are documenting power and the abuse of it. The one instance where the camera is turned on them, not us. And that is why this great demonetization should concern all of us. It’s not just about cop watchers. It’s not just about auditors or crazy YouTubers. It’s not just about who gets to shout the loudest or act the craziest. It’s about who has the right to tell our stories, who has the means to represent us. It’s about our voice and who hears it and who doesn’t. And that’s why here at the Real News and the Police Accountability Report, we will continue to report for you.

I want to thank – Wow. Was that all right?

Stephen Janis:

That was quite the Rantea.

Taya Graham:

I was moved. I couldn’t help it. After seeing this happen all week, we’ve been talking about it. We’ve been seeing people’s channels struck down and I was a little fired up. But

Stephen Janis:

You make a really good point because I covered a lot of police brutality and a guy would get shot in the back and police would come of sort of furative movements or whatever. It didn’t matter what anyone in the community, even people who witnessed it didn’t matter what they said.

Taya Graham:

10 witnesses and it wouldn’t matter.

Stephen Janis:

Until there was video. And that changed everything just like in our city, of course, with Freddie Gray, when people had the video of him being dragged into that van, Freddie Gray who died in police custody and the subsequent uprising. Without video, it just didn’t matter. The police always had the benefit of the doubt and a lot of, I think, bad shootings or criminal shootings went unprosecuted because of that. Absolutely. So your point about the camera and whether or not we need cop watchers, I think answered that question, I think for anyone.

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Just wanted to say that.

Taya Graham:

I really appreciate that, Steven. Thank you.You’re welcome.

Stephen Janis:

You’re

Taya Graham:

Welcome. Well, I have to thank Long Island Audit and Rice Krispies for joining on Rice Krispies. I called them Rice Krispies. Rice Krispy, sorry. Rice Krispy for joining us. And to anyone out there who might be experiencing demonetization on YouTube, please reach out to us. Even if you’re not a Copwatcher or First Amendment activist so we can try to understand the scope of this problem, you can reach out to me directly at par@therealnews.com or leave a comment here in the comment section. I’m going to be going through the comment section later. I’m going to be giving out hearts. I’m going to be looking for a comment of the week, but I also really want to see if there are people who’ve lost their channels. I want to be able to reach out to you or at least make a note that this has happened to you because I really want to keep track of this.

I have a running list and I want to confirm as many demonetizations as possible so we can really get a handle on what’s happening here. Agreed. I want to thank our moderators, Noli D and Lacey R. For their help. Thank you, Noli D.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Taya Graham:

And of course our friends in the studio, Dave, Max, James, Jocelyn and Ryan. And of course, I have to thank my amazing co-host, Steven Janis, who knows better than anyone the power of pointing a camera at a powerful person. So thank you, Steven.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. And thank you to the studio. Thank

Taya Graham:

You David and Max

Stephen Janis:

And everyone for helping out.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, they do. They were heroic. Oh my gosh, Cameron. Sorry Cameron. Thank Cameron.

Stephen Janis:

Don’t forget Cameron. Cameron was very helpful.

Taya Graham:

We appreciate you all. And so I want to thank everyone watching who took the time to stay with us to the end. Like I said, I promise to go into the comments later and respond to comments. And I’m going to try to do a comment of the week. I’ll probably have it out midweek. So take a look. It might be yours. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Inequality Watch Report, a show that examines government policy and action through the lens of extreme economic inequality, the existential issue of our time. Today, we’re going to discuss a topic that defines who holds power in America and how they keep it despite growing voter dissatisfaction amid a historic wealth imbalance. It’s a story of money, access, and self-enrichment that is at the root of the bad policies and broken institutions we all struggle with daily. And it’s an issue that transcends the nominal state of play in this country to ensure entrenched power never loses its grip on our wavering democracy. I am talking about, of course, the hoards of cash that have turned our political system into a pay-for-play utopia since the infamous Citizens United decision in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could make unlimited independent expenditures to influence elections, super PACs, and other vehicles have transformed our elections into a veritable auction to the highest bidder.

But there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes where all this money is going, how it’s warping our electoral system, and ultimately who is cashing the checks. To help us uncover the dark details of how the system constrains us, we will be speaking with journalist and filmmaker David Sirota. But first, I want to check in with my reporting partner and co-host, Steven Janis, to set the stage for our conversation. Steven, how are you?

Stephen Janis:

Very beleaguered. Very beleaguered by the cash system you were just talking about, the ATM and politics.

Taya Graham:

Have I already depressed you?

Stephen Janis:

Yes, quite a bit.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, there was a question I had for you. There was a weird mystery in democratic circles that was sort of a one-day story, but it speaks to a less talked about aspect of today’s topic. It’s a missing chapter from the so-called Democratic autopsy of the 2024 election. What was it about and why do you think it’s important to our discussion today?

Stephen Janis:

Well, the basic story was that the Democratic Party didn’t want to release an autopsy in their 2024 loss to Trump. So there was a lot of controversy about that. Eventually they released it, but then the New York Times broke a story about a missing chapter from that report. And the missing chapter was really interesting. The fact that they left this out was talked about the consultant class that works elections that literally had somehow through this entire process of running elections obtained generational wealth. Generational wealth. That’s a direct quote from the New York Times story. And so that just really got my attention. I know money in politics is ridiculous at this point in our historic run towards authoritarianism, but I had no idea that you could get generational wealth. And I do recall a tweet from our guest, David Sirota, talking about people after 2024, all these consultants going to beaches and living the luxurious life thanks to their consultant fees for these elections.

So that really, I think was something that just stunned me that you could become that wealthy losing.

Taya Graham:

I think I chose the wrong line of work apparently. Generational wealth. Exactly. Incredible. I think this explains why working people’s issues are always on the back burner. I mean, we both cover Capitol Hill and despite a recent poll showing that 91 million Americans say they could not afford quality healthcare if they needed it, we can go months without hearing even a peep about it. It’s just silence. But I’m sure our guest will have plenty to say about it. David Sarota is the founder of the investigative news organization, The Lever. He is a former speechwriter for senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and was nominated for an Oscar for his work creating the story for the Netflix film Don’t Look Up. He’s also the producer of the podcast series, The Master Plan. I could go on, but we wouldn’t have time for the interview. So David, let me just say thank you so much for joining us.

David Sirota:

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Taya Graham:

So first question, just to get a sense of this consultant class and how their role in politics and how much money they’re pocketing and the report, it actually cited generational wealth for these people. How on earth are political consultants soaking up this much money just working for a campaign?

David Sirota:

Well, it has to do with in many cases how their fee structure works. A lot of the way the consultant fee structure works is related to how many television ads are purchased. So they get in a lot of these deals a cut of the buy. So the larger a TV ad buy is, the more the consultant stands to make. Now obviously that creates, there’s sort of a conflict of interest problem there, which is if your main campaign strategist stands to benefit from a certain form of spending and will not benefit from other forms of spending, then the consultant is more likely and is really financially incentivized to suggest that the campaign spend in the way that it benefits the consultant rather than spending in different ways. So in practice, it’s not that TV ads aren’t important in elections. They certainly are, but a disproportionate amount of campaign budgets go into TV on campaigns where the consultant is paid as a percentage of the cut of the buy.

And in many cases, less money goes into mail, goes into organizing, goes into a field and ground game. It’s like there’s a baked in financial incentive. And we’re talking about in these major races, we’re talking about millions and millions of dollars that are at stake here. If you’re a consultant who’s getting a cut of a hundred million dollar ad buy, I mean you are making a ton of money.

Stephen Janis:

And David, what do you say to the idea this is generational wealth being generated for these consultants? Do you think the New York Times or the reporting from the autopsy was accurate in that, that these people are making that amount of money doing this?

David Sirota:

Yeah. I mean, it doesn’t surprise me. I guess it surprises me that this is mentioned in this conversation because this is a really taboo topic, but yes, we’re talking about just enormous sums of money. And to be clear, look, I’ve worked on a lot of campaigns before I was a journalist. I understand people on campaigns need to get paid. I mean, it’s real work, it’s hard work. But when we’re talking about the levels of money that we’re talking about here, I mean this is something that’s way beyond that.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I was curious, how much are these people, and they’re vested in what we would call the great moderation fallacy, which is that voters actually want a moderate or a centrist path. So basically how much are these folks responsible for sowing doubt in the party when a progressive candidate wins? The pundits are on the same page with the same talking points about how the Democrat socialists are somehow bad for the party. How are these people responsible for making progressives look to be the lesser choice even when voters seem to be supporting them?

David Sirota:

I think a lot of it has to do, as we’ve been discussing, it has to do with the money and the financial incentives. There’s huge money to be made, not just on campaigns, but there’s actually even bigger money to be made if you’re working for advising a consultant for super PACs. Super PACs are these supposedly outside entities that are spending huge money in elections. And obviously those PACs, the biggest of them are funded by billionaire donors, oligarch donors, corporate donors, donors who have a vested interest in the status quo, in the economic status quo. So if you’re a consultant who’s working at the nexus of campaigns and super PACs and you know your next job is going to be at a corporate or oligarch funded super PAC and you’re also working, you know that those Super PACs pick consultants from specific kinds of campaigns and candidates, well guess what?

There is a kind of nexus between what that consultant is going to advise and who their next client is. I mean that is really where this is at. The consultant class appropriates the agenda of the donor class and the consultant class is advising the candidates. And you mentioned the media. I mean look, billionaire and oligarch and corporate owned media has a viewpoint. It has a political agenda. It’s not to say that good journalism can’t be done inside of corporate media and the like, it certainly can, but there is a filter there.

Stephen Janis:

So I mean is this why we keep hearing this question come up again and again on CNN and other punditry saying, well, is win of democratic socialists bad for the party rather than inquiring or trying to understand why people would vote for democratic socialists? It’s like a mantra. They say it every time. All they talk about is why it’s bad. Is this coming kind of from that consultant industrial complex that you’re talking about, like the intersection of this wealth they’re making versus actually listening to the voters?

David Sirota:

Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of the conversation about electability, I put that in quotes, this idea that candidates can’t be too populist, too far left, the Democrats shouldn’t nominate them because they can’t win general elections. I mean, I’m old enough to remember when Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the media said that Barack Obama could not win a general election. I’m old enough to remember when the Democratic Party elites and the media sort of celebrated Donald Trump being nominated as the Republican presidential candidate because they

Stephen Janis:

Though

David Sirota:

He couldn’t win a general election. Electability is sort of this manufactured idea that anything that strays too far from the norm inside of where politics and democratic politics specifically is can’t actually end up winning a general election. And I think that that’s how this sort of frame is laundered into the conversation. So then it becomes that DSA candidates or economic populist candidates, they supposedly have an electability problem. Oh, it’s not necessarily that they may be wrong on specific issues. It’s that even if they are right, if democratic voters vote for them, those candidates can’t win general elections. And what I see happening is that the corporate democratic faction is sort of weaponizing this argument and also playing a role in sort of wish casting that idea into reality that you see in various races where when populist candidates win the nomination for a general election, that the corporate faction is still attacking and criticizing them in the general election, even though they are now the candidate going up against the MAGA Republicans.

And I think what that speaks to is that the corporate faction of the Democratic Party in specific here is willing to potentially lose general elections to MAGA and Republicans

If that is the cost of maintaining the corporate faction’s power inside the Democratic Party.

Taya Graham:

Incredible. Now just to touch on your podcast, which is the Master Plan for those who haven’t heard it yet, I know it gives a history of something we’re dealing with at the moment, which is the Unitary Executive Theory of Power and of course our current president, Donald Trump, but it also focuses on systemic corruption that you say affects all of our lives. So this isn’t just about one man, right?

David Sirota:

Absolutely. So the first season of Master Plan was about the 50 year plot to legalize corruption. And that story basically starts, and both seasons do, excuse me, in the early 1970s in the aftermath of Watergate. Watergate was the first real dark money scandal of the modern era. And what we trace is how conservatives, and they wrote this down in documents and we have all the evidence there, they really made a blueprint to deregulate the campaign finance system, equate corporations with people under the law and narrow the definition, the legal definition of bribery. And they did that because they understood that they became nervous that elections were causing the government to react to what the people wanted. And the Powell memo that we talk about in the, it was a memo written by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, talks about how at that time conservatives, oligarchs, corporations need to invest in politics because the government had become too responsive to what the people wanted.

So one way you deal with that if you’re an oligarch and you think that’s a problem, the one way you deal with that is to turn elections into auctions, is to turn your one person, one vote democracy into a $1, one vote oligarchy. So that was season one. This relates to season two in this way. So that’s the first pillar of how you, if you think democracy is a problem, you legalize corruption, you turn elections into auctions. The other thing you do is what we trace in season two. You try to concentrate as much power as possible in the hands of one person and strip it away from more small democratic institutions and all the ways power is dispersed across the country. You concentrate that power in the hands of one person and then make sure your person is that person. And that is what we are tracing in season two called the Kingmakers, which is about essentially the unitary executive theory, where this idea came from.

Because again, it started after Watergate where Watergate was seen as a crisis of an imperial presidency. Congress passes a bunch of laws to strip power from the executive branch and it catalyzes a conservative backlash that carries through the Reagan administration, obviously into the George W. Bush administration with the war on terror and into the Obama administration, I should say, with its use of drone warfare to say that the executive branch gets to make all of the decisions. And so the point is, you asked is what’s going on today, Donald Trump, the situation, is that all just one person? No, Donald Trump is in an office with a control panel of tools that were handed to him and a system of legalized bribery that was handed to him by 50 years of plots.

Taya Graham:

To your point about how these oligarchs are essentially controlling our conversation and controlling our national narrative, and Stephen and I are actually on Capitol Hill quite a bit, rarely do we ever hear anyone talk about healthcare despite what could be described as a literal crisis in the country. I looked at a recent report from Yale University and it estimated 27 million Americans don’t have healthcare. It’s top of the list in the polls in regard to priority concerns from Americans, and yet we’re hearing silence on Capitol Hill. Would you be willing to connect the dots with some of the reporting on your podcast about systemic corruption and our current healthcare crisis?

David Sirota:

Absolutely. I mean, I think this has a lot to do with how money doesn’t just buy legislative favors, money also buys silence. And sometimes not even a transaction has to occur in order for silence to nonetheless be purchased. And it works in a lot of ways in this way, that if you’re a senator, if you’re a congressperson, you know implicitly now that if you propose a bill to deal with the healthcare crisis that let’s say challenges the power of or threatens the profits of the private health insurance industry, you know that what you’re doing is potentially provoking that very powerful money interest to spend a lot of money to get you thrown out of Congress. So many legislators basically choose to not do anything or not say anything for fear of sticking their neck out and seeing their political career ended. Money doesn’t necessarily have to even be transacted for that situation to exist.

And so what I’m describing really is the norm, that there is an implicit threat that if anybody tries in a serious way to deal with the healthcare crisis, they will be targeted. We know this, by the way, from the Obama era where the first thing that the Obama administration said when it got into office and started pushing for some kind of healthcare reform was we are ruling single payer healthcare off the table. It was immediately the administration made an announcement that this is not part of the conversation. And this is only at that point, four years after Barack Obama, when he campaigned for the Senate, said he’s a supporter of Medicare for All. We just need to get a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president. And four years later they had that and they immediately said, “We’re not even going to talk about this.” And I think that was because they saw the collective power of the healthcare industry and said, “If we do this, there will be a ton of spending to try to get every member of our party thrown out of office.” And they also ruled out the public option.

So my point in just mentioning this is that even though money doesn’t get transacted, money is overlaying and creating the political conditions at all times.

Stephen Janis:

One thing I really appreciate about the podcast is it goes back 50 years, which a lot of times reporters, we get caught up in the contemporary moment and don’t understand the roots of this. But I was thinking when I was listening to it that all of the sort of trends we’ve seen in economic inequality, and this show is about economic inequality, started about the time your podcast starts digging into this sort of systemic corruption. I mean, is inequality intertwined in this story in terms of how the process that you kind of illuminate sort of set the seeds for this almost traumatic wealth inequality and wealth imbalance now? Are they intertwined in that sense?

David Sirota:

So there’s an amazing website. People can Google it. I think if they put just the year 1971 into Google, you’ll find it where it traces how so many trends started in the year 1971. It’s kind of amazing, like de-unionization, inequality, et cetera, et cetera. I do not think it is an accident that so many of the trends started at roughly that time. This is the lead up to the Watergate era. This is a moment where the consumer movement and the broader left has sort of culminates a lot of its agenda, right? Medicare, Medicaid, the great society, all this is culminating. Ralph Nader is having huge success, regulatory success in Congress, but there is this backlash. A well oiled, moneyed, conservative machine is starting in earnest to build what ultimately ends up culminating in MAGA. And I think that that machine was based on preserving and expanding the wealth of the people who were funding that machine.

We’re talking about people like Joseph Kors to name somebody, like the Kochs. That machine started to be built then and it was a machine designed ultimately for wealth protection for that small group of people. And this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it’s not a theory. It was a conspiracy. And look, they used the tools of the government, they used the laws of the land and the lobbying system and the campaign finance system to get what they wanted. And we are now here living through that reality. So when I think people look at the affordability crisis, when they look at gilded age levels of inequality, we have to understand that goes along with the corruption that we’re talking about. The original gilded age was also one of the most infamously corrupt ages in American history. These two things go together. The wealthy and the powerful are buying politicians, buying elections, buying policy outcomes that preserve and expand the wealth of the already wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

This is the oldest story in America.

Taya Graham:

You broke a story about a really troubling phenomenon inside the Democrat political machine, and it basically uses dark money to push or bolster so-called moderate candidates. The organizations you identified were called the Bench and Majority Democrats. Could you explain how these organizations work and what’s really behind them in terms of pushing this moderation fallacy we keep on coming upon?

David Sirota:

Right. So listen, we’ve seen iterations of this for most of the post New Deal era of politics. And I would pinpoint that to probably in the modern era starting in the 1980s. You had a movement among, they were called at one point so-called Atari Democrats. Then they became the Democratic Leadership Council. Now they exist as groups like Third Way. So this is not something new. And you’re right, they exist like a group like the Bench and Majority Democrat. They have different names and different faces, but it’s the same idea. And the idea is that the Democrats need to abandon their new deal roots in order to compete with Republicans and to do that, to compete with Republicans for business support, corporate support, oligarch support, and all of those entities’ money. This has been going on now for 40 plus years. And so I think this is the latest iteration of that.

You have shadowy billionaires funding this network of groups and think tanks, which are designed to support candidates who are, and I’m putting it in quotes here, like moderate. But what that really means is much more corporate and oligarch friendly. And again, they don’t come out and say that. They are cast as we are pushing this because these are the most electable candidates. They’re not acknowledging the actual mission of what’s going on. They’re shrouding it in the veneer of what seems like a rational and logical political argument. But what’s really underneath here, it’s not a coincidence that there is billionaire money and there’s big money that wants specific things from these politicians.

Stephen Janis:

Citizens United obviously is the core of this story in terms of things getting worse in the past decade, but there is a recent decision, NRSC versus Federal Election Commission, which also I guess loosens some of the restrictions on spending and coordinating. Can you talk a little bit about your concerns about that decision and how you think it’ll make this political campaign finance system even worse?

David Sirota:

So Citizens United mostly dealt with so-called outside Super PAC spending. The idea was that these Super PACs, which are backing specific candidates, because they are supposedly independent from the candidates, they can’t be regulated because they have free speech rights, they have First Amendment rights. That ruling, now I say all this understanding and implying that those Super PACs aren’t in practice really very independent from those candidates, right? It’s almost like a fallacy, but the Supreme Court’s argument was they’re independent, so they can’t be corrupting, and so their First Amendment rights suspend must be protected. What Citizens United left in place though was the government’s interest in preventing straight up quid pro quo corruption means that campaign contribution limits directly to candidates can still be maintained because you can’t argue that a donation directly to a candidate cannot be corrosive from a corruption standpoint, cannot be a vehicle of quid pro quo corruption.

So even in the post Citizens United era, campaign contribution limits directly to candidates have been maintained. Well, along comes this case and what this case sought to do, a case spearheaded by JD Vance, we call it Citizens United 2.0. It

Was designed to say that there was a law in place to preserve those campaigns contribution limits to say, listen, you can’t route your campaign contributions through a party to get around the campaign contribution limits to a candidate, right? You need to make sure that if a donor wants to give a candidate six figures worth of money way above the campaign contribution limit, they can’t just be able to give it to their party and know that their party’s going to coordinate as if they were the candidate with the candidate to spend the money. So the Republicans led by JD Vance went into court to say that law should be taken away. And so the Supreme Court agrees. And so now what we have, we have a much larger conduit through which big donors can now give much larger amounts of money to political parties and the political parties can spend in coordination with those candidates.

So what that does in practice, it means that the original campaign contribution limits that were designed to prevent corruption, they were just circumvented. They were just significantly weakened and widened. A much larger amount of money can now be funneled directly to candidates.

Taya Graham:

I was just wondering if you could make the public understand just one thing about corruption that normally our legal systems obscure or political systems obscure or the oligarchs are actively working to obscure, what would it be? What would you want voters to understand and know?

David Sirota:

I’d want voters to understand and know that there’s a direct connection between the policies that are harming them and the corruption that’s taking place. That when they’re paying a higher prices for a medicine, a medicine developed already at US taxpayer expense, most major medicines are originally developed, we’ve already paid for them as taxpayers. The average person should know that the reason that they are now, when they need that medicine for some illness or the like, the reason they’re paying the world’s highest prices for that medicine is because the pharmaceutical industry gave a lot of money to politicians to rescind the rule that said if a drug is developed at taxpayer expense, it has to be sold to taxpayers on the market at a fair price. That rule was removed because the pharmaceutical industry gave a lot of money to politicians to get them to remove it.

I could go on and on and on, but I guess what I’m getting at is that every policy that is responsible for the affordability crisis in the United States can be traced back to a policy written and bought by big money. That corruption is not some esoteric abstract issue. Corruption is why the working class and middle class of this country is being immiserated.

Stephen Janis:

David, before we let you go, I’ve been wanting to ask you this question. If Bernie Sanders wins in 2016 or in 2020, would we even be talking about Donald Trump? I mean, if the Democrats let Bernie Sanders win rightfully those primaries, do you think we’d ever even be having. Would he have beaten Donald Trump either way?

Taya Graham:

Ooh, that’s

David Sirota:

Interesting. It’s hard to run that counterfactual. I mean, I know one of Donald Trump’s pollsters said after 2016 they though Bernie Sanders might’ve beaten Donald Trump, would’ve been a stronger candidate against Donald Trump. It’s hard to know, but I take it back a little farther. I think the more interesting. The question that haunts me, and I think should haunt us all,

Is whether there would’ve been a Donald Trump phenomenon had Obama and the Democrats when they had a super majority or a near super majority, had they really genuinely delivered a new, new deal as was rhetorically promised in 2008. I think a lot about in 1938, FDR gave this speech, it was about democracy and he had said, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Democracy did not go away in other countries.” He’s looking out at Europe and the like. He said it did not go away in other countries because people there didn’t like freedom, didn’t like democracy. Democracy went away because people saw a dysfunctional government and they ultimately decided to vote to get something to eat. The idea being that the New Deal actually significantly delivering in a real way for the working class, FDR understood it to be an anti-fascist program, a way to prevent the rise of fascism in the United States.

The idea that if you raise people’s hopes and you don’t deliver for them, you will sow a level of disillusionment that will be channeled by the right. So I think a lot about those two years, certainly those first two years in the Obama administration, that

Had the administration used its political capital to serious Deliver for the working class rather than bailing out bankers who were foreclosing on 10 million people, rather than ruling out single payer healthcare and getting rid of the public option and instead passing a kind of heritage foundation version of healthcare reform. Granted, better than the healthcare system before it, but not a full delivery on the promise. Had the Obama administration used that political capital and the Democratic Party used its political capital to really deliver, would there have been a Donald Trump? Now that is a question I don’t know the answer to. Maybe there still would’ve been, but I do know this. 200 plus counties voted twice for Barack Obama and then voted for Donald Trump. So I think when you look at that, it’s hard to say, “Well, Trump only got elected because of racism.” I think you have to be honest and look deeper and say people were extremely disillusioned.

The Democrats, yes, they chose to put up in 2016 a nominee who seemed like an avatar of the kind of problems that people were disillusioned with. And people voted for the political version of the Joker. They voted for Donald Trump to just blow up the system. I’m not saying I think that was a good thing at all, obviously, but I think that is what happens. And what I worry about is looking ahead to the next set of elections. If a Democratic president is elected in 2028, making big, bold promises and does not deliver, do we relive that cycle again? And is the next Joker who gets elected at the end of that disillusioning cycle, is that somebody who’s smarter, shrewder, and even more dangerous than Donald

Stephen Janis:

Trump?

David Sirota:

That’s what haunts me.

Stephen Janis:

I mean, even now it doesn’t seem like the Democrats are making a great case for a new new deal that we can see on Capitol Hill.

David Sirota:

Not yet. I mean, listen, listen, I’m not apologizing for the Democrats.

Stephen Janis:

Understood.

David Sirota:

I think their argument in this election is put us into power so we can at least be a check on the last two years of Donald Trump. I think that’s actually a fair argument. I think what everyone should be watching for is in the 2028 Democratic presidential primaries, who is proposing what? Who looks like and who can we detect is really serious about delivering in a real way? Because if whoever gets the nomination and if they win the election, if they do not deliver, we are going to live through this cycle again and it will be even worse.

Taya Graham:

David, what you said was absolutely amazing and that’s what should be keeping the consultant class awake at night despite their generational wealth stuffed in their pillows and mattresses.

David Sirota:

Absolutely amazing. I mean, you’d hope. And look, to be clear, I’m heartened by some of the elections happening right now. We are finally at a point where it seems like Democratic voters are not only angry at what’s going on in the country, but disillusioned with their own party’s leadership. And I think that’s actually a moment of opportunity to actually fundamentally change that party, to fundamentally make it into a vehicle that actually is serious about delivering. But to be clear, the corporate faction of that party is not going to give up power without a big fight. So I don’t think there’s been some encouraging elections, but I don’t think it’s an inevitability that this all goes in a sort of positive constructive direction. There is a lot of power and money that is trying to stop that from happening.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. David, we don’t want to keep you too long. We promise to respect your time, but I have to say this has been an incredible conversation. We are so lucky to have an investigative journalist like you watching the machinations of power and the threat that it poses to our democracy. We have to thank you so much for your time and we really hope that we’ll speak to you again in the future.

David Sirota:

Anytime. Thank you so much for having me.

Taya Graham:

We really appreciate you so much. Thank you. Okay, Steven, before I do my final rant or analysis, do you have any thoughts about ourdiscusion you

Stephen Janis:

Want

Taya Graham:

To share? Absolutely. I bet.

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Tell you, I was really struck by the idea that democracy has to deliver to survive. I mean, that’s a really important concept. We talked about this with Dr. Richard Wolf, who told us in terms of the Cold War, there was a concerted effort to make people’s lives better because otherwise democracy would not survive. And I think that is a critical takeaway from what we see covering Capitol Hill where there’s just no attention to the immediate needs. We watched while the Democrats were Republicans, and I don’t blame the Democrats for this, where the Republicans couldn’t even pass ACA subsidies so that people could keep their healthcare. If democracy is going to survive, then this political system has to freaking deliver like now, and people have to make promises and keep them. And it just really struck me that democracy in this age of inequality is not delivering for the people it’s supposed to serve.

And if it doesn’t, that’s why it’s going to collapse. Not because Donald Trump is an idiot or we hate him or whatever, not because of those things and not even because of MAGA, because overall the system doesn’t deliver. And I hope that who’s ever going to try to get elected in 2028 is listening to that important point. You got to deliver real benefits to the people who live in this country.

Taya Graham:

You know what’s crazy, Steven? What you just said actually almost sounds like a foreign concept that a politician makes a promise and is supposed to deliver on said promise. Right. I agree. That sounds groundbreaking for some reason.

Stephen Janis:

It really does. Sounds revolutionary.

Taya Graham:

So if there is one takeaway from David’s insight to how our political system works and doesn’t, it has to be the role of fear and making us believe change is simply impossible. I mean, the whole moderation fallacy he discussed with us is based upon the idea that fear is more important than any idea or change or simply transforming a system that does not serve us the people. Taking risks, believing something is possible and embracing change is just foolish, that new ideas, new candidates and new voters should be avoided all because a party establishment fears it will lose power. And that’s where I think the establishment Democrats and Trump intersect because in a sense, President Trump is the perfect foil for a party seeking to maintain the status quo. He’s the perfect instrument of fear. We are told the only way to rid ourselves of him is to stick with the establishment that lost to him twice.

Yes, that’s right. Remember, they actually already lost twice. That’s why when you turn on the mainstream media, you hear a chorus of highly paid anchors and apparently very rich pundits having the same circular conversation. It goes something like this. Will the success of democratic socialists hurt the party’s chances in November? Will the historic wins of popular candidates with new ideas keep the establishment dems from taking their rightful place in the chronicles of power come the midterms? But here is what you don’t hear. And Steven, please correct me if I’m wrong.

Stephen Janis:

I will.

Taya Graham:

What you don’t hear is a question and it’s a simple one. It’s actually just a one word question. Why? Why do you think voters want change? Why did so many young people show up at the polls when socialists are on the ballot? Why were their candidates funded by APAC and other Super PACs unpopular? And in many cases, they just outright lost. And what? I know this is really crazy. What do the voters actually want? Why have they rejected the status quo? Why have they set aside fear for something different? And why aren’t they buying the consultant class talking points that have been shoved down their throats for decades while wealth inequality flourishes and they just can’t get ahead? Why? It’s a much better question than trying to characterize every socialist Democrat as a burden. Maybe, just maybe legacy media. That’s the question you should be asking in your multimillion dollar studios with ultra rich consultants trading barbs as if there’s some sort of substantive difference between a high price democratic operative and an overpaid Republican pundit.

Perhaps you should try to understand what motivates people to support candidates your infrastructure of manufactured consent has rejected. You should ask, be curious, be interested in the people who’ve expressed dissatisfaction with the state of America today. They’re actually important. They’re just as important as the Trump voters you fetishized and chased down. Really, they’re not as irrational as you often characterize them. They’re not monolithic or unreasonable or even unreachable. Stephen and I spoke to them during Mondami’s campaign and they were more than happy to share their thoughts. Legacy media, please try listening, try understanding, try empathy. You might learn something. You might learn that while our concerns for our hyper expensive healthcare system tops poll after poll, you never talk about it. You might learn that while the earth is consumed by a historic rise in heat, you talk about wildfires, but not the policies and oil subsidies that fuel them.

Well, for those of you out there watching, I want you to know that here on our show, we’re going to try to do the opposite. We are going to listen and we’re going to learn and we promise to keep doing so in order to bring you the truth, not the truth of the pundits, not the truth of corporate media, but the only truth that matters. And that is the truth that belongs to and is spoken by we, the people. My name is Taya Graham, along with my reporting partner, Stephen Janis. Thank you so much for joining us on the Inequality Watch. And as always, we are reporting for you.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Inequality Watch Report, a show that examines government policy and action through the lens of extreme economic inequality, the existential issue of our time. Today, we’re going to discuss a technology which we’ve been told will transform our lives, an invention that has been touted as the ultimate arbiter of our collective futures, whether we like it or not. Of course, I’m talking about artificial intelligence, but with the promise also comes doubt and questions and most of all, a lack of clarity on how we’ll impact the working people of this country. AI leaders have casually warned us that their products could eliminate 40 to 50% of white collar jobs more than the losses in the Great Depression. They’ve promised that technology will be so disruptive that even staunch capitalists have discussed providing a UBI or universal basic income for Americans who will be left out.

They’ve borrowed money at such predigious rates to fund data centers that even Wall Street is beginning to just say no. And now some of the biggest names are saying it’s not working out as planned and an America’s already historic wealth imbalance and government hamstrung by the self-interested impulses of a single man. And you have a situation that could brew a toxic stew of making the already rich even richer and leaving the rest of us even further behind amid all the societal chaos and upheaval. And are the cracks just starting to show? Just this week, one of technology’s greatest apostles made accusations that AI has become a nemesis for his business and others. And capitalists who have gladly loaned billions to build data centers throughout the country are now starting to push back at the ever increasing demand for cash. Of course, the point of this show is to examine this topic through the lens of inequality and how it affects our political and social institutions and what it means for working people.

And to do so, we are about to be joined by an economist who has been thinking and writing about this very topic with insight and clarity, Dean Baker. But first, I want to check in with my co-host, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, hey Taya, how you doing?

Taya Graham:

Steve and Janice, it’s great to have you. Thank

Stephen Janis:

You for having me on.

Taya Graham:

Now first, can you give us a broad overview of how inequality and AI are teaming up?

Stephen Janis:

I think in a way, this is the greatest American kind of ripoff in the sense that they’ve spent about the past four or five years mining all our data, taking everything we posted online, and they’re regurgitating it back to us and want to charge us for it in some way. And so to me, I think what is most missing for me besides the promise of huge economic disruption is what the value proposition is for the American people. I mean, they took everything that we wrote and now they want to repackage it and sell it as some sort of deity that we have to worship. And so I’m a little worried, a little worried, a lot worried that we’re all going to be casualties of a great wealth concentrator, which remember, OpenAI was supposed to be a nonprofit. Now it’s a for-profit company. All these huge IPOs, I’m afraid they’re just taking everything we’ve created, sell it back to us and become even richer, and there’ll be a greater concentrate of wealth and power.

So it’s just a bit concerning to me.

Taya Graham:

Actually, Steven, when you mentioned it turning into a deity, we already have some issues with AI psychosis. Maybe we should discuss that on our next show. Yeah,

Stephen Janis:

We’re just going to be praying to the AI deity and offering 19.95 a month to it. So yeah.

Taya Graham:

Actually, that’s about right. And now I want to introduce our guest, Dean Baker. Dean Baker is the co-founder and senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. For decades, he’s written about inequality, labor markets, financial bubbles, corporate power, and economic policy. He’s also written extensively about AI and how it’ll affect everyday workers and even journalists just like us. He wrote the book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy were structured to make the rich richer, and its newest project is the AI Bubble Monitor. Dean Baker, thank you so much for joining us.

Dean Baker:

Thanks a lot for having me on.

Taya Graham:

Well, we’re glad to have you. Yeah, absolutely. And I have the honor of doing the first question. And so my first question for you is this. Artificial intelligence has been described as the biggest technological revolution since the internet, and yet you’ve argued that the economic data simply doesn’t support a lot of the claims being made. What are people missing here?

Dean Baker:

Yeah, so I think to a very large extent, we have people who are really good at hype. People like Sam Altman, of course, Elon Musk, absolute master of hype. These are the Donald Trumps of the business world. They’re selling this stuff and they’ve been very successful. I mean, Elon Musk just had his SpaceX initial public offering, which is primarily AI. I mean, that’s their own assessment. I’m not trying to attribute things to them. If you read their registration statement, they say 90% of their expected market is in AI. So SpaceX is an AI company. So they’re looking to get rich by this. And I don’t mean necessarily because they’re going to have huge profits. They have huge stock prices. So Elon Musk became a trillionaire, not because SpaceX has enormous profits. It actually loses money hand over fist. He became a trillionaire because the stock price is ridiculously high.

So step one, is it creating inequality? Absolutely. By a stock bubble, bloated bubble. Now, in terms of what it delivers, they’re saying this, is it going to have massive impact? I’m sure it will. And the model I look to is the internet. Had massive impact. Does that mean that it’s going to lead to mass unemployment? Well, a lot of people lost their jobs to the internet. I mean, Amazon put a lot of small sellers out of retailers out of business.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Dean Baker:

But you still have a lot of retailers there and everyone didn’t lose their job. I think think of AI the similar way. It will change the economy in a lot of different ways, but that doesn’t mean everyone’s going to lose their job. And if we look at the data, we look at productivity, which is what that means. If people are losing jobs, that means we’re producing more in an hour of output. They’ve actually been very weak the last three quarters. Now it’s erratic. So I’ve followed the data for a long time. So I know you could have real weak quarter and next quarter could be really weak. And then we’ll come around the second half of 226 and who knows, be 5%. Very rapid productivity growth. Could happen. But the point is we’re not seeing it. And there have been a number of economists I’ve tried to look through this very carefully and look at sector by sector, look at retail, look at healthcare, look at the different sectors of the economy.

And invariably, they find relatively modest impact of the studies I’ve seen. And I’m sure we missed some, but these are credible studies. The highest number was a half percent a year increase, half a percentage point a year increase in annual productivity growth, which matters. I mean, that’s noticeable, but that’s not massive unemployment. And one of the leading economists in the world, Darin Asamiglu, Nobel Prize winner, he had it at just seven hundredths of 1%.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Dean Baker:

These people could all be wrong, but they’ve tried to be very careful in it and they find very modest impacts. I shouldn’t say very modest. I mean, again, a half percentage point a year. If you had that, that would be a big deal. But the internet, when we had the internet in the ’90s, the internet boom is about one and a half percentage points a year. So we’ve seen this.

Stephen Janis:

Wow. Dean, that’s kind of. But these people are hyping valuations. They’re borrowing billions and billions of dollars, I think, based on a higher rate of return. I mean, is this like a house of cards? I mean, they’re hyping this over and over again saying it’s going to be transformative. But now you’re saying the impact so far has not been. Does that put at risk all these billions of dollars they’ve thrown at this problem?

Dean Baker:

Absolutely. And this is why I’m calling it a bubble. I’m old enough, I’ve been through two really big economy moving bubbles. In the ’90s, we had the tech bubble. And I was out there saying, “This is bad news. It’s going to burst. It’s going to burst.” And it did. It burst in 2001. The S&P 500 big stock index fell 50% from peak to trough. The NASDAQ where you had most of the tech stocks, that fell 80%. And it had a huge impact on the economy. I mean, for stock investors, I go, “You should know what you’re doing. Many don’t, but you should know what you’re doing. So I can’t cry too much.” But it had a big impact on the economy. We lost jobs into the 2000 recession. We didn’t get them back till 2005. That was the longest period with our positive job growth since the Great Depression.

We had a longer one after the Great Recession. But that was a big recession from the standpoint of the labor market. Also, real wage growth just stopped. We’d been seeing good real wage growth in the late ’90s, just stopped almost instantly. So that was a really bad story. And then we had the housing bubble. Again, same story. And that town in turn was more severe. We had close to 10 million people lose their home to foreclosure. The unemployment rate peaked at near 10% in 2009.

So bubbles can have very bad consequences. So that’s why I’m very worried about this one. They’re selling this and Elon Musk undoubtedly is stuffing his pockets. And Sam Altman and the others, they’re stuffing their pockets. But no, I don’t see that these stock prices make sense. And when does the music stop? I don’t know. Both those bubbles went way longer than I expected them to. But all I could say is the sooner it bursts, the better it will be for the country.

Taya Graham:

It was really interesting that you compared the AI investment boom to the dot-com bubble. Maybe you could just go into a little bit more depth about some of the similarities that really concern you. Yeah.

Dean Baker:

Well, there are two things there. One, from the standpoint of the firms, that you started to see companies that were just pushing nonsense in essence. I’m going back to the dot-com. So it became almost a joke. And I shouldn’t say almost a joke. It was a joke. And this was in the business press. So the Wall Street Journal used to highlight the most ridiculous initial public offerings. So people were coming up with crazy public offerings and they could still raise hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars in their first issue. There was one company even that took the cake. I wish I could remember the name. They said, “We don’t know how we can make a profit.” So you work from the assumption, okay, they’re not profitable today, but they have this great plan, software, whatever it is. And two years, three years, four years, they’re going to be a next Microsoft.

That’s what people were betting on. And of course they weren’t. But you had one literally said, “We don’t even know how we’ll make a profit.” So you had a huge amount of misdirected capital. And that was, of course, a huge voice for the economy. But the standpoint of the stock market, again, I was saying we want stock investors or we think they should be knowledgeable. They aren’t. And people were spending based on their stock wealth. So you had a lot of people that were saying, “Oh, I had money in the NASDAQ and just doubled,” which it might well have. A lot of people owned stocks in the NASDAQ and over two years they would’ve doubled. So they said, “Oh, I’m going to buy a new car, get a bigger house, go on a big vacation.” Well, when those prices plummeted, that consumption stopped. So it was a very, very big hit to the economy.

And I worry very. I should add one more thing on the craziness that companies discovered that if they added dot-com to their name, their stock price would go up five or 10%. We’re seeing that today. If you add AI to your name, and someone did that, I’m trying to remember what it was. I think it was- Was it like

Stephen Janis:

Diapers.com? I think, wasn’t there like diapers.com or something or something?

Dean Baker:

Yeah. And their stock price went up five or 10%, which tells you. I mean, it’s utterly nuts. You’re the same company. It doesn’t matter whether you call yourself. Com AI or anything. You’re the same company. It shouldn’t make any sense.

Stephen Janis:

Well, now speaking of a bubble, Palantir CEO, Alex Carp, had kind of a meltdown on CNBC. Let me play a little bit of it so you can watch it. And maybe you can explain what he saw. It sounded to me like he was panicking, but it was hard to figure out what he was talking about. David, if you could play that clip and we’ll just watch it and we come back, we’ll talk about it.

Alex Carp:

Everyone who uses LLMs on the battlefield runs on top of our ontology. And our clients are just, to say they’re unhappy with the Frontier Labs is to say I’m welcome at the Berkeley faculty. It’s like there’s just a level of discomfort and loss of trust that also made it really, really –

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Unpack that. What do you mean by that?

Alex Carp:

Well, you have, okay, so when you’re using large language models, at this point, everyone technical realizes they’re like a critical resource. To make them valuable in an enterprise like battlefield context or regulated context or manufacturing, you have to have what’s called an application layer. We have this thing called ontology that now everyone’s copying, but defacto, it takes a large language model. It makes it safe and useful and precise. So safe because it doesn’t touch your unlearning data, safe because it prevents the large language model from caching your data and replicating your business. Safe because it doesn’t transfer your IP of how to fight secret data, top secret data or in a clinical context. So the general way these things were sold, and again, these people are. Sam and Dario, there’s nothing more fun than debating Dario in private. So I’m not throwing shade at them,

Taya Graham:

But

Alex Carp:

Something has gone completely wrong. And the basic view among enterprises in this country is I’m going to chill lax and waste my time with tokens. I’m going to get no value and they’re going to get my IP.

Stephen Janis:

Okay, Dean, like I said, I haven’t heard the word ontology since my religious studies class in undergraduate, but it sounds to me like there’s buyers remorse or panicking among the top people, including Mr. Carp. What’s your take on what he’s saying? Does he sound like he’s panicking?

Dean Baker:

He sounds panicking. And just to be clear, I don’t know Alex Carp, never met him. But as best I could tell, he’s an odd guy. But as best I can tell, his complaints are first and foremost that you have companies spending a lot of money on AI and you had a lot of companies that were spending literally hundreds of millions a month. And they weren’t getting anything obvious for that. So they were actually encouraging their staff, their mid-level staff. So I was mentioning, I was talking about Amazon, where they literally had a leaderboard where people were posting how much AI they were using. And I don’t know if they got a bonus or whatever it was exactly, but the more AI, the better off you were. And just like to me, Amazon’s obviously a big business in any ways very successful, at least from their vantage point of profits.

Why would you ever encourage people to use AI for the sake of using AI? And the analogy I’ve

Taya Graham:

Made is

Dean Baker:

It’s like using paper. Oh, I used five reams of paper today. And you go, okay, great. What’d you do? I mean, that’s kind of nuts, but that’s what they were literally doing. So you’ve had companies looking to cut back hugely on the AI they use because they want to see that they’re actually getting something for it. And in many cases, their conclusion was that they weren’t. The other part of the story that he’s raising, Carp is raising, is they’re worried. They don’t know what’s happening with their data. So when you’re running your programs through Anthropic, through OpenAI and whoever else, they have your data. So using the example of Amazon, that data’s worth a huge amount. We know, we complain about that. Amazon, they know everything we’ve purchased, what we’ve looked at. They have an enormous amount of data on us. That’s a lot of money to them.

They don’t want to give that away for nothing to Anthropic, to OpenAI, whoever. And they don’t know whether they are or they aren’t. So that’s what he was talking about. He’s saying you need software that regulates the usage. And as it is, a lot of companies don’t have that. Again, I’m not going to advertise for your software. I have no idea what it does, but you probably don’t want to give these AI companies all your data.

Taya Graham:

Actually, Steven and I go and cover Capitol Hill, and we saw Senator Bernie Sanders arguing that if AI creates extraordinary wealth, then the public deserves a share of that wealth. And he announced an AI sovereign wealth fund proposal. And I think he’s talking about a 50% stake for Americans. Now at first glance, this sounds like a progressive idea, but I read your article. Why do you disagree?

Dean Baker:

Yeah, I’m a big Bernie Sanders fan, known him for years. I have enormous respect for him, but I really think this goes down the wrong path. To start with, just from the word go, if you’re giving the US government a large stake in the AI companies, you’re giving Donald Trump a large stake in AI companies. I know that’s not Bernie’s intention, but look at what the Supreme Court has been saying. I’ll guarantee you, this isn’t even a debatable point given the recent Supreme Court rulings. If we get the ability through an ownership stake to put people in top positions in Anthropic and OpenAI, whoever else we might buy a stake in or take a stake in, Donald Trump is going to pick those people. It doesn’t matter how they wrote in the law. That’s what the Supreme Court has said. The unitary executive, he decides, I can’t imagine in the current environment wanting to give more power to Donald Trump.

In general, I’m not sure I want the government to have a 50% stake, but certainly not Donald Trump. So that to my mind’s a no-brainer. Secondly, from the standpoint of regulation, we know there’s all sorts of ways we need to regulate AI. It’s not an option. They want to build data centers everywhere. Do you want a data center in your backyard? Should we be able to tear down Grand Canyon to put a data? That’s their dream. That’s what they want to do. We already are having massive battles on this. I don’t trust that with the government having a direct stake that we would get the right outcomes. I don’t trust we’d get the right outcomes anyhow. But I think we really tilt the playing field and just the environmental issues, that’s just one of them. When you’re talking about ownership of data, access to privacy, there’s a whole range of issues that come up with AI that are unavoidable.

I mean, it’s not a question, oh, we should leave it to the market. There is no market. We’re setting the rules. So I worry very much about that. The third point is just what I was saying before. A huge amount of this is hype. And unfortunately, I think Bernie’s feeding the hype. Oh, they’re going to have massive wealth. I don’t see that. I think there’ll be big profitable companies here, just like going back to the ’90s. You look at the providers of internet, Cisco and Verizon and Comcast, they’re big companies. They’re profitable. They aren’t earth shaking. They aren’t the biggest companies in the world. So why are we contributing to the hype? I don’t think that’s a productive thing to do.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Yeah, go ahead, Ed. No, go ahead.

Taya Graham:

I was going to say, when I was reading your article on your substack, Dean Baker, that your first objection wasn’t really economic, that was more political. And I was just wondering why you think having a government-owned AI investment fund would be particularly dangerous under the Trump administration? Or could you just not trust any administration with it?

Dean Baker:

I’d have problems with any administration, but let’s just focus on Donald Trump. Donald Trump has made it clear. He sees the government as his tool to enrich himself, to enrich his friends. So he will put his friends in top positions there. He will have his friends, people contribute to his campaign or give him kickbacks. They will be the ones that get contracts from these companies. He’s anti – DEI. Well, women in top positions, forget it. Blacks in top positions, forget it. He’s applied that through government as much as he could. You’re just giving them a whole new area to apply this in. And again, if AI, I don’t think it’ll be the massive thing, at least these companies will be the massive things that they’re hyping. But again, I don’t want to give Donald Trump yet more power.

Stephen Janis:

Wow. Well, listen, to your idea of Bubble Watch, which I think is kind of fascinating, well, also terrifying. So for example, in the private credit markets, people started to panic and private credit is lending a lot of money for these data centers. Last week, IBM lost 20.% of its value in one day because people were panicking about software. Where do you see this starting to unravel? I mean, we’re not economists, but we’re people that read. What should we be looking at? What should anyone be looking at actually to see where this bubble’s going to start to unravel if indeed it does?

Dean Baker:

Okay. Well, let me be as honest I can be on this. I didn’t know until this date, I can’t tell you what caused the collapse of the stock bubble or for that matter, the housing bubble. I mean, I could all point to all sorts of vulnerabilities, but when they collapsed and why? Both went on much longer than I ever thought they would. I’ll say that. So I’m saying that now what I have been looking to and will continue to look to is increasingly the companies, and these are big companies, these are Meta, Alphabet, the biggest companies in the world. They’re having to borrow. So even though they’re very profitable, they’re undertaking such massive investments that they’re having to borrow. And you’re seeing a very interesting story here that investors in bonds are starting to get worried. We actually saw this with SpaceX. It was really striking.

One of my AI bubble monitors was about this, that SpaceX bonds are being sold at a discount, meaning that bond buyers see a risk that it actually could default, that they might actually go bankrupt. So here on the one hand, you have stock investors going, “Oh, SpaceX is going to be the most profitable company in the history of the world.” You have bond investors going, “It might go bankrupt. It might not be able to pay its bills.” So I would look at the bond market and it seems to be. I recently saw some data showing that there’s much less interest in Alphabet, Meta, the hyperscalers are called, that are involved in building the data centers for AI. There’s much less interest in their bonds than for other investment grade debt. And that’s who I’d look to first, because if it ends up being the case that you can’t get the bond issues to finance it, then it’s going to fall apart.

We may be seeing the beginnings of that. I mean, it’s a little early, but we may be seeing the beginnings of that. So if they start to cut back their lending, this thing could collapse fairly quickly.

Taya Graham:

If we can, I just would like to pivot for a moment to affordability. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one out there seeing their gas, their car insurance, their groceries going through the roof. There are so many Americans that are struggling with housing costs and healthcare costs and groceries and childcare and utility bills. And I was just wondering how much of today’s affordability crisis has to do with AI, will be impacted by AI, and how much stems from our much broader economic policy?

Dean Baker:

I would say most of it is broader economic problems, but I will say one that I can pin on AI, and that’s a housing market, particularly in areas like the Bay Area. So you actually saw this when you had the SpaceX, their initial public offering, you suddenly had all these people that were doing well, obviously, were highly paid engineers in positions at SpaceX, but they’re maybe getting hundreds of thousands a year. Maybe some are getting low millions. They suddenly have 10, 20, 30 million because there’s SpaceX stock, and that’s what the evaluation would be. They suddenly turn around and go, “Oh, I want a really big house.” Well, there’s only so many really big, really nice houses in the Bay Area. So those go through the roof. And there is a trickle down here. Trickle down not in a good way. So if you’re a lawyer, you’re doing well, you make three or 400,000 a year.

Well, suddenly the home that you were looking to buy, which would’ve been a million you might have been able to afford, now it’s two or three or four million. So you look at a middle-class house and you’re suddenly prepared to pay one and a half million for that. So then the person who’s a teacher or a firefighter that maybe, maybe, maybe could have scraped together enough to buy that for five or 600,000,

No way on earth they could pay one and a half million for that. So there is a direct impact on housing, not necessarily nationwide. I don’t know how much it affects things in Ames, Iowa, but certainly in tech centers like in the Bay Area, like Seattle, other places where there are likely a lot of people involved in the AI economy.

Stephen Janis:

Dean, when the Great Recession hit, even though it was caused by bankers’ greed, a lot of it really the working class suffered. Do you think AI could have the same impact if it does start to collapse, that it will hurt working people and that the bankers will catch a cold and will catch the flu or whatever? Do you see it trickling down again to people who had nothing to do with this, what I would call a mess at this point?

Dean Baker:

Yeah, because that’s the problem with bubbles when they start driving the economy, because our economy does not turn well. So what happened in the ’90s, we were being driven by the tech bubble. Tech bubble collapses. Nothing else to come in its place. In fact, what came in its place, it took a couple years to do it, a few years to do it, the housing bubble. And then that collapsed and well, that took a long time to recover from it. We really didn’t get back to a strong labor market, lower levels unemployment till 2016, 2017. So what I worry is that the AI bubble’s definitely driving the economy, both through investment in AI stuff, AI related stuff, and then also the consumption effect that people go, “Oh wow, I now have five million in the stock market,” which some of these people do. And then they go out and spend a lot of money, housing being one thing, they get cars.

So those stocks go through the floor. Suddenly nothing’s driving the economy and we start to see the unemployment rate rise. Wages don’t keep pace with prices. It’s a bad picture.

Taya Graham:

I actually just went to a doctor’s appointment to go to radiology, just getting exams, and they said to me, “Oh, would you like to get the AI version of this and pay an extra $40?” And I said, “Well, how’s it different than my normal exam?” And they said, “Well, actually, technology is pretty much the same.” So I’m wondering how much are they overselling how beneficial this technology actually is and how much of it is just pure hype?

Dean Baker:

They’re hugely overselling it. Again, I’m not down on the ground in all these businesses, but you hear accounts of this. So you have a lot of companies where software coding, where it’s probably at the biggest impact, where they do AI and it’s often very useful, but the problem is it makes mistakes. So you still need someone who really knows the coding to check it. And I think that’s a good story really everywhere. You could use the AI, it could be very helpful, but you still have to check it. I know my own usage, which is very limited. I had it do a reference section for me. I was writing a paper and I was going, I can type up. I’m sure there’s software that could do it too, but I was going, okay, if I type it up, it’s going to take me two or three hours and I’ll make mistakes because I’m a sloppy typist.

So I’ll have AI do it and did it for me in, I don’t know, 20 seconds or something. I still had to review it because it had some references that were improper, but it was certainly much, much faster than if I had to type it myself. So I think there’s going to be a learning process. We will be able to use AI, use it beneficially, and there will be a productivity gain, but nothing like what they’re telling us.

Stephen Janis:

Dean, why do, in your estimation, we’ve heard all the incredible stories about tax incentives for data centers. If these companies are going to be so profitable and so amazing and going to create all this value, why do they need whopping tax incentives to build out these data centers? I just don’t get it. I don’t understand. And I’m not asking you to explain for them, but what do you think is the operative motive here of having all these tax breaks?

Dean Baker:

Well, there’s a crude joke with the punchline I could use because they can.

But there is a logic that from the standpoint of a state or county, they’re saying, look, we have people lined up that want our data center and we’re taking bids from all of them. So you have to beat the others. And from the standpoint of the county or state, they’re going, “Well, this will create some number of jobs.” They lie about the number. And it’ll create some amount of tax revenue. And they might go, “Well, we’re better off even giving them an incentive. Give them 50 million off on their taxes.” And you can’t say that’s necessarily wrong because in some cases it probably is right. In many cases it will be wrong. And certainly if they end up going under, it almost certainly will be wrong because having a big data center sitting there that does nothing is not going to make your county or state more attractive for people to live in or for other businesses to come and invest in.

Taya Graham:

We’ve talked about a wealth fund and even a UBI. What do policymakers need to do to protect workers and make sure that if this actually really makes generational wealth, that working people can benefit? Or maybe I should just say, if you have a magic wand and you could design your own AI policy, what would you want it to look like? Or what do you want policymakers to do?

Dean Baker:

Well, I’d go into the old bag of tricks and just start using them and ramping them up. So one of the things we used to do shorten the work week. We haven’t done that. We had the Fair Labor Cancan Act 1937. It’s almost a hundred years now. We’re getting close. So we thought 40 hours was right then. How about making it 36, 32? That would be a great thing to do. Raising minimum wage, make it easier for workers to organize. We have it so stacked against workers organizing unions now it’s become near impossible because employers could. It’s illegal to fire people, but what’s the sanction? What’s the punishment? So someone’s organizing a union. Elon Musk says you’re out the door. You could file a National Labor Relations Board complaint. Good luck. Maybe they’ll rule for you two years later, you’ll get your job back.

Kind of moot at that point. So we have a basket of things. Also, again, finishing the welfare state. Every other country in the world has universal healthcare. We should have universal Medicare. So those are some good steps. Again, I’m not opposed to UBI, but I just think back to under President Biden, he wanted to have the expanded child tax card. He put it in as a pandemic measure. He wanted to extend it and he couldn’t get that. He had Democrats opposing him. So the idea, this is children. We’re talking about a relatively small sum of money for children. He couldn’t get that through. So can we get a UBI through? Yeah, maybe, but that looks like a real uphill battle for me. I’d rather stick to the old favorites that we know work. And there’s a Well, lot of political support for them.

Taya Graham:

Okay, Steven. Well, obviously I’m in the wrong line of work because it turns out that you can lose millions or even billions of dollars and somehow make money. Is this dystopian enough for you? I mean, what are your thoughts here? I’m obviously in the wrong line of work. Well,

Stephen Janis:

Like I was kind of alluding to before, I feel like we’re kind of participating in new theology. The value here is purely theocratic, that there’s some divine power that is being burked in a lab that we’re going to have to pay penance to, whether or not it makes our lives better or not, and whether it has any influence on anything we do. So I was really glad to hear Dean kind of cut through all that BS and give us sort of a pragmatic view of what’s actually going on. And one thing, I don’t want to refer to the Tower of Babel, but that was an awfully tall tower of cards. And when AI comes bursting down on all top of us, I think it’s going to be quite cataclysmic. So yeah, apocalyptic is probably in line there.

Taya Graham:

That’s a great point. I mean, everyone is so excited. They’re hoping for artificial general intelligence where they’re going to be curing cancer and saving the world. Which would be great. And all I just do is see people losing jobs.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I’m waiting for the cure for cancer. I

Taya Graham:

Would be so happy to see it. I would be so happy to have AI genuinely help people. Not just help students cheat on their home.

Stephen Janis:

Or not just create 100,000 songs on Spotify every day. I think it would be more useful for humanity. Just my opinion.

Taya Graham:

Steven, you know me, as always, whether it’s on our show, the Police Accountability Report or our coverage on Capitol Hill, my concern is the working people of this country. And just like with all the other tech upheavals, the elite who taught them, forget those who are going to be impacted by them. And this particular iteration could really be devastating. And that’s why we have to remain vigilant. If AI actually lives up to the hype, the concentrated power it would confer would be absolutely death to a democracy. I mean, that much wealth in so few hands is simply unsustainable. I mean, it will literally adulterate the process of governance with self-interest, and it’s going to warp accountability around the curvature of a technology that seems more and more singular in its appetite for resources. And I do mean a literal appetite for land and water. And that is why we’ll continue to report on it and have discussions with innovative thinkers like Dean Baker.

And that’s why we will continue to report to you from the nation’s capital, asking questions about how the government by and for the people will actually protect them from the ravages of AI Avaris. And that’s why independent journalists like Steven and I will continue to investigate and try to comprehend and share with you the truth because that’s all we have in the end, for better or worse. Thank you for joining us for our inequality watch report. And as always, we’re reporting for you.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

My name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report livestream, the great American Copwatcher debate edition. Tonight, we are going to be exploring the controversy surrounding a popular Copwatcher, Long Island audit, specifically his encounter with Suffolk County Police Union officials that was the subject of our last episode. Now, a confrontation that started with Sean showing up at union headquarters to ask questions and then escalated when union officials stormed out of the building and put Sean Paul into handcuffs. Let’s just watch a few seconds of the encounter to set the scene.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Have you seen me leaving? I immediately began to leave. Lucivillo, would you like to come on? I am leaving. Would you like to come on the channel? I’m leaving. I am leaving. You seem to leave me? I am leaving. I’m leaving. I’m leaving. Lucivillo, you go on talk, you go, I’m leaving. I am leaving. Immediately begin to leave. That’s how the law works. Yes, I’m leaving. Get off the property. I am leaving. I’m getting off the property. You are trespassing. I am leaving. You will be placed. I am leaving. I am leaving. I’m going to place you under arrest. Do what you need to do. I’m identifying myself as a police officer. So do what you need to do. I am leaving. You need to leave. I am leaving. You’re such a tough guy. Do it then. Do it. Do it. I’m leaving. I’m leaving.

I’m leaving. Not resisting. I’m not resisting. Have you seen me leaving?

Taya Graham:

Okay. Now this video and our discussion with Sean set off a heated debate and it was so, let’s say lively that Steven and I decided that we needed to do a show to respond to your comments and discuss their implications. And luckily we were also able to get the man himself Long Island Audits to participate. But before we get to Sean, I want to give you a sense of the format of the show and how we’re going to handle the debate. And remember, this is very live, so please bear with any technical difficulties we might have. And I’m going to do my best to put on any comments from the live chat on the screen as we go through. So over the past week, Steven and I have been reviewing hundreds of comments on our YouTube channel and on Facebook and selecting what we hope is a representative sample of your thoughts.

Our goal is to select what best represents the framework of the discussion about Sean Paul’s work. And we’re going to show them on the screen. I’ll read them and then Sean, myself and Steven will discuss. But a big part of that is going to be what you think. And I mean the police accountability report community, in my personal opinion, is one of the most thouhtful and insightful collection of rebels. And yes, rebels I think is the right word on YouTube. Believe me, we feed off your ideas and your insights and tonight we need you to chime in. So Steven, first off, welcome to The Great Indoors.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you so much. Oh God, it’s some nice to be inside. Although yeah, it’s good to be back. It’s good to be back in the studio. Yo didn’t even have to coax me. I came in voluntarily.

Taya Graham:

Yes. Well, we gave you some coffee and left out some candy and he just followed them in.

Stephen Janis:

Free coffee. Though Max said it might come out of my paycheck, but that’s okay. It’s good coffee.

Taya Graham:

But look, before we introduce Sean, why don’t you explain a little bit why you felt like this debate needed to continue? What struck you as the critical question at the heart of it? So

Stephen Janis:

The critical question for me is the question of dissent, right? Democracy doesn’t function without free, fair dissent. And to me, journalism is the epitome of dissent because it’s saying the oligarchy truth is not the final truth. We can challenge that truth with a different reality. And when I see Sean entering the space of power and being challenged, just to ask a question, I think we have to ask critical questions about how do we preserve dissent and what this is really about. I mean, why would they just storm out at him and not allow him to ask a question? And to me, one of the defining points of this is we cover inequality in another show called the Inequality Watch. And I think as wealth becomes more and more concentrated in this country, I think the fight over the truth is going to become more important and therefore dissent is more important.

And to me, journalism is quintessential dissent. It’s organized, constructive and thoughtful dissent. And that’s what Sean was doing. I mean, he was just showing up to ask a question. That is our only army. He wasn’t ambushing them or doing anything. He just had a question. He did have a big truck. Yeah, I’ll admit that was kind of cool. We’ll talk about that. But it was just dissent. And to me, that’s what this is about. I mean, if they could take away our ability to show up at a building and ask a simple question about what they are doing with taxpayer money, then we’re done.

Taya Graham:

Then

Stephen Janis:

The oligarchs have won. So that’s why I though it’d be interesting. And I want to debate the people who somehow think that journalists are a pain in the ass. So hopefully we are. Yes. Anyway, that’s my though.

Taya Graham:

Thank you for asking. Technically, journalists are supposed to be a pain. We’re supposed to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Exactly. And honestly, what you mentioned is something that is a classic part of journalism, which is to follow the money. And I believe that’s what Sean Paul was trying to do. He’s just trying to find out where taxpayer money was going. But before I bring him in, let me just first shout out some of the people that I see in the chat. I’m going to look down here. I see Noli D. Thank you so much for being here. Lacey R. Thank you so much for being here. I think Joe Cool’s here, which is amazing. Oh wow. Joe Cool. Amazing copwatcher. And there’s another copwatcher down there. I’m not sure if I should shout him out. Yes, you should. Should I shout out the name?

Yeah. Eric Brant. Wow. Eric Brant, the man is in the chat. So we definitely have some copwatchers here who I’m sure have a lot of strong and thoughtful and insightful opinions about the nature of cop watching and journalism. Oh, and let me also say hi, Katie Keyne. It’s really great to see you again. Okay. And you too, Prairie745. All right. Now, without further ado, I want to bring in the man himself, Long Island Audit, also known as Sean Paul Reyes. Sean Paul, thank you so much for joining us.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Thank you so much for having me. It’s great to be here. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

We are so happy to have you. So now first, before we completely dive in, there’s been an update with the arrest that occurred during your encounter with the leadership of the Suffolk County Police Union. Can you tell us a little bit about it?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

So the update is that the criminal charge of trespassing in the third degree that I was originally arrested for has been dismissed by the district attorney’s office. That charge required that the property being closed in a manner to exclude intruders, i.e. An offense. It wasn’t the case for that property. So they dropped it down to a trespassing charge, which is a violation, not a crime, which requires unlawfully entering or remaining on a person’s property, on private property. So that’s where it stands. And I mean, we can get into more detail on the order of protection and ex parte hearings, but I’ll defer

Stephen Janis:

To you. I mean, I don’t really understand. You were exercising your First Amendment as a journalist. You have some privilege to be able to go to places and knock on doors where you’re not wanted, right?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Right. Yeah. So generally the Supreme Court case, I don’t really remember what it is right now, but there is a Supreme Court case that even with a no trespassing sign, the public and people say, “Well, you don’t get extra rights because you’re a journalist or a YouTuber or whatever they want to call me.” And that’s the topic of today’s discussion. But generally, anyone has a license or privilege to approach someone’s door and do a knock and talk. You can knock and ask questions the same way a law enforcement officer can knock on your door, same way the solar panel, Girl Scout cookies, whatever. People knock on people’s doors and ask them questions. Once that privilege, that license or privilege has been revoked by the private property owner, then you must vacate the property.

Stephen Janis:

Which is what you were doing. But anyway, not to digress, Saya, go ahead. Sorry.

Taya Graham:

Okay. And let me just give a shout out to HBO Matt. HBO Matt, great to see you there. Another cop watcher. Wow. 1A and 2A auditor who’s in the chat as well right now. We got to shout out all those people out there doing that work. Okay. So Sean, now here’s the tough part. We’re going to start going through the comments. Now we’ve tried to pick a representative sample. And though I will say in general, more people support you than not. Some of your critics are pretty adamant that your work doesn’t benefit the community. So let’s start there. Okay. Let me hit you with comment number one. Okay. A clout chasing provocateur whose approach is ambush journalism. Real journalists make an appointment. People at work don’t just drop everything because this YouTuber shows up. Wow. Okay. So Sean, let me start with you. What do you think?

Is this a valid critique?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

I don’t think it’s. I think anybody’s opinion is valid. Everybody can have their own opinion on what I do and how I go about it. So I’m not going to say that their opinion is invalid, but I would push back on their opinion that it’s ambush journalism. I mean, I’m asking questions. I don’t have to make an appointment. I can just walk up and ask the question. And really, to the person who made that comment, do you think if I would have called and made an appointment, they would have let me in and give me an appointment? Let’s be real here.

Stephen Janis:

I’m just laughing. Sory. I’m

Taya Graham:

Sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt you.

Stephen Janis:

But go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. Sorry.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Okay. No worries.

Taya Graham:

It just seems unlikely. Yes.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Yeah. More likely than not. They wouldn’t just, “Hey, yeah, we’ll pency in for 2:30,” right? Especially with the questions that I’m asking. I’m not asking, “How does it feel to save lives every day and put your life on the line, Mr. PBA president?” I’m asking why hundreds of millions of dollars of Suffolk County taxpayer money, hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 15 to 20 years have been put in the pockets of other people who have had their rights violated. So that’s my tax dollars. I’m a lifelong resident of Suffolk County. I’ve been investigating the police union and their power structure, and it comes from their donations to the legislators, to the county executive. There is more to the story than just showing up with my billboard truck. And again, I will say that most journalists don’t have a billboard truck. I do. And if you want to paint me out as it’s advocacy journalism, whatever word you want to put in front of journalism, it’s still objectively journalism, opinionated journalism, advocacy journalism.

It’s still journalism. Journalism is asking questions, doing investigations and disseminating that of matters of public interest to the public. Maybe it doesn’t interest you, but it interests me and it interests a lot of people out there, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people across my social media platforms. So if you don’t like the topic, you can tune into your favorite journalist that you want. I highly recommend the police accountability report here. Well, thank

You. But at the end of the day, ambush, whatever adjective you want to describe how I operate, it still doesn’t make what happened to me any less unlawful and any less a violation of my First Amendment rights.

Taya Graham:

Steven, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, I mean, I don’t like the word ambush because I don’t think asking a question. Ambush has militaristic overtones, but if we had to make an appointment with every person that we wanted to ask a question that they didn’t want to answer, we wouldn’t have a job. Now, we cover Capitol Hill, right? Reporters roam all around confronting people who don’t want to answer questions. The entire process is about people showing up when you don’t expect them. That’s the whole way it works. There’s no journalism without the so-called ambush. And so I don’t like that term because that’s not what you were doing. You were asking a question which is about as passive as you can get. But yeah, so that’s just BS because almost our entire work centers on the fact that we can just walk up to someone and put a mic in their face.

If we can’t do that, we can’t do our jobs.

Taya Graham:

Steven, I really do have to agree with you on that. I mean, we show up to all sorts of places without an appointment. I have to say, on occasion when I have asked for an appointment, there was a particular time in Trenton, New Jersey where I made an appointment with their press information officer, told her I was going to be there, and she ghosted me. Just a little TikTok about the fact that I had made the effort to travel there, confirmed everything with her. She wasn’t there. And perhaps she should have been at her desk and she wasn’t. But I can tell you within eight hours, my entire TikTok account was banned and taken down. We’re just posting – Questions are not

Stephen Janis:

Ambushed.

Taya Graham:

Questions

Stephen Janis:

Are.

Taya Graham:

So it can be difficult for a traditional journalist to get an appointment. And even just reporting on the fact I didn’t get the appointment, got my TikTok account banned, which I think was a little mean, to be perfectly frank. I agree. But before I go on to the next criticism, I want to shout out Ophelia Moonrose. I thought you had a great comment there. Big G audits, good making case precedent in your state. That’s awesome. So one of the criticisms that we’ve seen of auditors like Sean is that they’re all after clicks and views, but I thought this was an interesting take on that critique. So let’s put up comment number two. Okay.

And also, I apologize if I mispronounce names, please give me some grace there. I’ll do my best. Gerek Diffelton says, “Clicks and views, spreading awareness and capturing focus for issues you want the public to see is exactly the point of journalism. Sean uses outrageous reality to catch attention and the New York Post uses lies and misinformation.” Now, Sean Paul, I think you said something quite similar, right? And Steven, can a journalism org survive without clicks? No. I mean, if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did the tree fall? I mean, if no one sees your journalism, does it even count? Yeah.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Yeah. I mean, my response to that is obviously all journalists want clicks and views. All media outlets want clicks and views. And I can give you just a recent story. CNN ran a story on First Amendment auditors just recently, and I’m actually going to do a video of this on my channel. They reached out to me and their question was, “How much money do you make? Can you provide us with your financials?” And I answered them back. Yeah. I answered them back politely and I said, “I would love to discuss with you the financial aspects of what I do in a video format, just like how we’re talking right now in a Zoom or a live stream.” And they said, “Oh, we’re going to move in a different way for our story. No problem.” And then they came out with a story and it was about how First Amendment auditors make money.

And they found two random individuals who have no idea who they are. They’re a couple. They curse a lot. They scream a lot. The video was just them cursing and screaming at members of the public and law enforcement and getting kicked out of this public building. And they went over and these two, I call them useful idiots, that’s what they were because they didn’t even shout out their channel or anything like that. So I have no idea who these people are. And most probably in our community don’t know who they are either. But they went and they showed them their YouTube studio. Yeah, I made $600 on this video. I made this and the CNN reporter’s there and they followed them around when they did these audits. And it’s crazy because the goal of the CNN story was to portray First Amendment auditors as only wanting clicks and views and being provocative and looking for negative interactions.

The ironic part of that is that’s exactly what CNN did in their story. They didn’t want me to come on their story and be a part of their story because I would talk about boring things about how I’ve been invited to train police departments, district attorney’s offices. I’ve done ride alongs with law enforcement. I’ve worked side by side with law enforcement. I investigated corrupt mayors. I’ve broken stories on mayors using federal funds for receiving federal funds that they voted on for their construction companies. So again, and I don’t curse or scream in my video, so it wouldn’t be as entertaining for people, but CNN selectively chose these two useful idiots so that way they can get what clicks and views on their video. So again – Right.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, go ahead. Maybe CNN doesn’t like the competition from you

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

From people. I don’t think so. I think they see it as a threat. I think that’s a good valid point because even Newsday is our local newspaper here on Long Island. News 12 Long Island is the broadcast arm of that. And none of them have covered, the New York Post covered this arrest because Lucavila wanted them to, the police union president. But none of the local outlets have covered this story. And I would argue that it is the quintessential public interest story. Whether you want to hit me out as a YouTuber, a gadfly, an agitator, whatever you want to call me. I’m still a public figure. And Lucavilla was the police union president and there was a confrontation where I was arrested. That seems like news that would be interesting for the residents in Suffolk County or Long Island that they report to, but they choose not to.

They pick and choose their stories. They pick and choose the themes of their stories. And I do the same thing. And my themes are focusing on police accountability, exposing what’s happening inside our police departments. I’m telling everybody watching now, and I say this on my channel, the police unions, especially here in the Northeast and specifically Suffolk County, they receive. Again, I don’t just go up there with a camera. I was just working before looking up. It’s a 501C. I’m looking up their financials. They have $15 million, the police union in Suffolk County, $15 million in assets. They bring in $5 million a year in annual revenue. They get paid through the contracts, through the contracts from the county. They get paid canine time, canine a pay. They don’t have a canine. I want to make this clear. There is not one canine that works for the PBA, the police union.

They get canine pay. They get hazard pay. They get a midnight pay. It’s a nine to five

Stephen Janis:

Job. One thing, Sean, that you’re touching on, which I think is really important, is how lucrative policing is in terms of their relationship with the government. Because I remember in Baltimore, we had take home cars. All officers had take home cars and they could drive back to Pennsylvania and the city paid for the gas. And it was like $100,000 benefit, but the mainstream media doesn’t want to take it on because they want police officers to feed them crime stories, which is more of their fodder. But what you’re doing is amazing because you’re actually challenging their lack of good reporting, which probably embarrasses them. I mean, to hell with the truck.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

And I completely agree with you when they want the murder scenes, they want the vehicle pile ups, they want to get that call. And if they’re adversarial, which you guys were talking about how a press should be adversarial. And I completely agree. I think that’s the foundation, an adversarial press towards the government. But they want those stories. And then it’s such a big story because they just got an 18% raise. Lucivillo, for example, gets paid $265,000 a year as the police union president. He keeps his full law enforcement officer capabilities, yet he doesn’t patrol, he doesn’t investigate crime. He sits in a desk defending officers who are accused of misconduct all day long and pushing his propaganda out to on. They own radio stations. They have podcasts. They’ve embraced social media in order to brainwash the people.

Stephen Janis:

Do you know where the $5 million revenue comes from? I mean, do they get it from donations or do they charge for services or something? Are they doing moonlighting or where’s it come from? Do you know?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Yeah. So I just started looking into it before I

Stephen Janis:

Came

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

On here. I was just looking at everything, all the documents –

Stephen Janis:

I’ll look into too. Yeah.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

501 documents, but their revenue comes from union dues. And again, they’re in violation of election law. In New York State, you can’t force somebody to donate to a candidate. So what they’re doing is they’re collecting union dues. And whether the police officer is a Republican or a Democrat, sometimes that money goes to somebody who the police officer doesn’t want it to go to. And that’s in violation of election law. And a Suffolk County legislator, Rob Trota, a former detective for the Suffolk County Police Department, he blew the whistle on this. So I give him all the credit and the district attorney said, “You know what? I don’t have jurisdiction.” It’s funny how the district attorney didn’t have jurisdiction for a New York state crime, but the district attorney can receive $500,000 in campaign contributions from the PBA. The Suffolk County executive gets a million dollars.

These legislators think about this. How can anybody be okay with the system where Suffolk County Police Union can funnel money into the pockets of politicians and those same politicians get them elected? They go door to door for them. They mail out, they have mailers, the whole apparatus. And then they get elected and then they in turn vote on these 18% raise increases, hazard pay for police union. 20

Stephen Janis:

Year pensions. 20 year pensions. 20 year

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Pensions.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Like that. They make these backroom deals where there was an officer that was accused of using the surveillance apparatus for his own personal gain. And he went on to have 14 years. They said, okay, admit to this misconduct. And in 14 years, 14 years, when you get your full funded pension, you have to leave. That’s not accountability.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, and we’ve had multiple officers who have been charged, committed, charged, convicted of crimes who are allowed to keep working. I mean, the basic thing is you pointed out, I think, in both your Brian Fahey case, which we’ll get to, is these pensions are golden parachutes. Absolutely. They are multimillion dollar bonuses for these people. So a lot of what happened in Baltimore is that even though you’ve been convicted of a crime, they keep you on the payroll so that you get your pension qualification, which is like that’s when you hit the jackpot of the library. So that’s great work you’re doing there. You want to get to the next one so we don’t –

Taya Graham:

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So I have another comment here. I shouldn’t point that way. Give you some fair warning. Here is a proponent of police power urging you to obey a lawful order, which of course has some pretty broad implications. So this is Jim 0417 commenting on the Sean Paul Reyes arrest coverage. I agree there is free speech. However, don’t push your luck. Just leave. Then no problem. No arrests. I am a retired police detective. And if I’m told something by the police, I comply. It’s just that easy. Now, Steven, I think this refers back to some of your thoughts on police power. What do you think?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, I think the idea that there is this police control over space that somehow, if they deem a space to be theirs is sort of an extension of some of the worst aspects of this country’s lessening democracy. So I mean, I didn’t say this in the beginning, but I think one thing that Sean Paul exposes by going into police space and pointing a camera at them is their absolute thought of control over space, which I think is a way of showing how latent authoritarianism in America kind of makes its way through policing. Because it’s really weird when you think about it. You show up with a camera, they could have ignored him. They could have just answered his question. They could have done a lot of things, but they decided to confront him with power, with power and command over that space. So I think disobeying orders from police about space is pretty much the most fundamental American kind of descent you can do.

So I’m all for Sean going and pointing cameras because what amazes me of what you see. I mean, someone points a camera at you and you start ordering around and say you’re going to arrest him. What does that mean? What is that telling you about this country? What is it telling you about authoritarianism? Sean, are you surprised sometimes when people freak out because you show up just by showing up, not even doing anything?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Yeah. I’ve been doing this five years now and it still surprises me to this day because it’s so nonsensical. You’re 100% right. The police union president could have. He was upstairs in his penthouse suite. He didn’t have to come down with five other officers from the

Police union. He could have stayed up there, told the receptionist, “Tell him he needs to leave. He’s not welcome here.” And I would have left and there would have been no incident. There would have been no clicks and views. There would have been no story for that particular video. I just would have left. I was leaving. And these people, like this former officer that commented that, and I see it, especially in my county. I want to use my billboard truck to bring awareness to this and my voice and my platform, especially I’m going to focus on my county moving forward because it’s important to me. When I was protesting, one of the neighbors of the district attorney told me, “You’re a liberal communist.” And they were so violent in calling me a communist. And these people don’t even know the definition of communists, but they just repeat what they hear.

They have no idea what a communist is, what communism is. They have no idea what these terms mean, but they’ve heard other elected officials call people communists because of they don’t like them. And they say, “Oh, you’re a communist. You want to hold the police accountable? Then you’re a communist.” And it makes no sense. So I still get shocked to this day. Lou should have done that. Lucivilla, the police union president should have just told someone else to tell me, but he was looking for the confrontation. He came out with handcuffs in hand. He was looking for that to happen. Oh, so Sean, he

Stephen Janis:

Had his handcuffs. Had his handcuffs in hand?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

He had his hands. Remember, he’s not a real law enforcement officer. He doesn’t do law enforcement activity, yet he gets paid for law enforcement activity, but he doesn’t do law enforcement activity. He actually does the opposite. He shields officers in this county and they introduce legislation. They just introduced a bill into the New York State Senate where you have to be 15 feet away from a law enforcement officer. That came directly from him. He’s the one pulling the strings. And it doesn’t matter, Democrat or Republican, they all take PBA money. They all want to be seen as back the blue, especially in my county. And it’s just sad to me that people like that commenter, I don’t blame him. I think his ignorance comes from his lack of critical thinking skills, his lack of a variety of media consumption. And he just wants to blame somebody, just comply.

But the most ironic part is I was complying. I mean, how can you watch that video and not see that I was complying? Maybe I wasn’t complying in the way that you wanted me to. Maybe I wasn’t complying in the way Lucid Villa wanted me to, but legally I was complying.

Stephen Janis:

What was interesting is it was almost the opposite of when police use the stop resisting to do it. You were saying, “I’m leaving. I’m leaving. I’m leaving.” And basically making it clear that you were retreating and following and obeying the law and their requests. So it was just weird and ironic that they kept confronting you even when you said you were leaving, which I think has to do with this police preoccupation with space and dissent because you are showing them up for what they’re doing to the taxpayers of Suffolk County. And they don’t want that. And it’s interesting that it’s you that’s doing it and not the people, the mainstream media with all their money and power that are doing it. But it’s one guy with a truck and a YouTube channel that is actually doing this, which I think. Well, I mean, I think it’s really telling, right?

Because I’ve covered this kind of stuff in policing and you get so much pushback when you talk about their pensions or about the fact that they can work. The guys you’re talking about get some sort of dumb desk job where they sit and they file. They don’t do anything. I mean, we had the gun tray task force where they literally went on vacation in the Bahamas and got overtime. So what police are able to do with money and what they’re able to do with the resources of a community is confounding.

Yeah, they use that money.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Go ahead.

Taya Graham:

Oh no, I was just going to say, I think you explained that basically Suffolk County is the home of the million dollar pension, right? Yeah. So I actually did some calculating on how long it would take me to save that type of pension with a little bit of money I put aside each year. I would need to work 200 years to be able to have that be my pension. Yeah, it’s a Ponzi scheme. So that’s something to look forward to. It’s a

Stephen Janis:

Ponzi scheme.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

It is a Ponzi. They’re extorting the police officers in Suffolk County through the police union are extorting the taxpayers. And they put out buzzwords like, “Oh, because we protect you. We keep you safe. We do this. We put our lives on the line.” All propaganda, that means nothing. They’re law enforcement officers. Even for body cameras, we had to pay them. We had to pay them more money every single year. I believe they got an extra $2,000 a year each just for them to put on body cameras. In what other profession does your boss tell you, you need to put this on your uniform? And then they’re like, “Well, I’m not going to do it unless you pay me.” It is a racket. It is a racket and the people need to know about it. And a lot of people know and they don’t care. They back the blue regardless of what.

And that’s why we call them bootlickers.

Stephen Janis:

You know what?

Taya Graham:

I’d like to go onto the next comment. I think it’s very appropriate because it’s apparently, Sean Paul, you’re just not nice enough to rich people. That’s what this comment’s saying. I thought it was a little odd, but I thought it was worth talking about. So this commenter, Alma Adams, 3631, wrote on a recent episode, “I was on this guy’s side until he brought up Bezos and Musk.” How are they the bad guys again? I mean, did this guy go to Comedy College? I mean, I guess they all are these days. Comedy College. Okay. I’ve seen –

Stephen Janis:

Just a public service announcement. So we are very welcoming of a Marxist here and communists at the Real News Network. And

Taya Graham:

Libertarians and libertarians. And libertarians. And any

Stephen Janis:

Ideological strike

Taya Graham:

Really. Okay. We welcome all political viewpoints to have all types of thinkers with all types of ideologies who support democracy and want to have an interesting conversation about it. So communists, come on in and have

Stephen Janis:

Conversations. Why would you critique him that way when he’s talking about police pensions? I think that’s an interesting connection, right? Symbolic, Sean?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Yeah. I mean, again, there goes the commi thing. These people are, they’re just brainwashed. And it really disheartens me as an American and somebody who loves this country that there’s so many people out there who have been brainwashed by people like Elon Musk. I’ll call them out again, Jeff Bezos. They’re an oligarchy. They’re no different than And the oligarchs in Russia, the only difference is that you love them. The people love

Taya Graham:

Them. Exactly.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

You worship

Taya Graham:

Them. Well said.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

They’re no different. They’re celebrities here. That’s the only difference. The oligarchs in Russia are just hiding behind their fortresses and that’s going to happen too. Listen, in another life, I would have been a history teacher. I love history. One of my favorite quotes is, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” And you, we are on the track for the oligarch. Thank you. Look at the wealth separation in this country. It doesn’t make any sense. You could call me a communist or whatever you want. I’m telling you, these billionaires don’t have the everyday. You’re sitting here, that person, the sad part is that person is defending the oligarchy and yet they’re living paycheck to paycheck every week. And that’s the sad part to me.

Stephen Janis:

And I think that’s the point of police power to project the idea that you’re not worthy of an equal society with an equal sharing of wealth. I think part of the thing is that police make you feel that there’s some sort of chaos outside of this constructed oligarchy. And that if you challenge police, you’re challenging law and order. And then there will be this chaos of, like you said, like commies, like Long Island Olives knocking on your door. And I think that’s part of the point of why policing fuses with Bezos and Musk in that sense.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

They’re meant to protect the oligarchy. That’s the whole point in

Stephen Janis:

Case

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Things go south. They’re the defense against the oligarchy. That’s the part. They’re not here to protect you. They’re here to extort you through tickets and everything else. You get pulled over, you’re paying hundreds of dollars for tickets. I don’t understand. Can police officers be heroes individually? Sure they can. Sure, they can engage in heroic activity. And I will admit that, but to call law enforcement officers generally heroes is disgusting. To me, it’s like, it just doesn’t make sense.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I just have to jump in here because when I heard you talking about oligarchy, and I think in a past life, you were a history teacher. I have no doubt. But when I think about Jeff Bezos and his net worth, and when I think about Elon Musk, our newest trillionaire on the planet, that kind of money, that kind of money is more than some countries have. That kind of money, it absolutely influences our government. It influences public policy. So to say that we shouldn’t criticize these people, hold them accountable is absurd to me. These people don’t deserve some sort of unique protection because they manage to win out in the lottery of life. These people, if they have the power of a government because of their bank book, they deserve to have questions answered and we deserve transparency.

Stephen Janis:

Great.

Taya Graham:

So I’m sorry, that just gets me a little heated because we actually have a show called the Inequality Watch, which I think Steven would argue is the oligarchy accountability report. I mean, how would you answer that comment or really?

Stephen Janis:

And it’s interesting because the two fews, like Sean has pointed out, Sean Ray has pointed out policing and inequality and oligarchy all kind of come into one big problem for all of us working people in a sense. So you want to do the next one?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Yeah. The people are working against their. I’ll just end with this. People need to stop working against their own interests and

Stephen Janis:

Fighting

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Against their own interests. I mean, you’re defending a man that has more money than he could ever spend in a million years and you can’t afford to pay your electric bill. It’s bizarre to me. It’s bizarre.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. I completely agree. I really don’t understand it. I try to understand the psychology of it, but it does allude me. But let me go to another comment here for you because I want you to see all of them. So this is someone who looks at Sean Paul’s work in kind of a broader context. And I’m wondering what you both think of it in terms of what at stake and whether we’re overlooking some of the broader implications of what auditors and First Amendment activists do. So let me read it and I’ll have Dave put up clip five. Okay. So democracy itself is at stake. Being ruled, terrorized, controlled, manipulated, dominated and lied to is not freedom. Okay. So to me, that’s very heavy, very powerful. So what do you think? Do you believe you’re fighting for democracy, Sean Paul?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

I think I’m fighting for accountability and democracy. Anything that gives power back to the people. That’s why I wear my we the people hat everywhere I go. I want the people to have the power and I want people to act in their own interests when it comes to power because the people that are elected in our offices do not have our best interests at heart. It’s because you see the ads. Money controls politics between campaign spending. It all revolves around money. Look how much money Elon Musk put into the election. No one man should have all that power, right? Right. In the words of Kanye. But it’s crazy to me that people, even with flock cameras, the advent implementation of flock cameras, they’re here for your safety. Another favorite quote of mine is by Benjamin Franklin, “Those who give up their essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” And it’s so sad how quickly we’ve forgotten and have handed over all of our rights.

We’re going to have a surveillance state, police state, and all of these people in power that have all of this resources and money. And no one does anything about it. Most people don’t even go out and vote. Most people don’t make their voices heard because they’re too busy working. They have their own family drama, everything else, and they don’t pay attention or they only watch CNN or they only watch Fox News. They don’t broaden their horizons to try and really critically think and analyze what’s going on in our country. And I think that needs to change. So my platform is to try and bring accountability to those in power. And I can’t. I can’t do it by myself. All I can do is put it out there for people to see. And what they choose to do with it after that, I got to expose it.

I’m going to expose the police union here.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, I think of all institutions, policing is the most anti-democratic. And like we said before, kind of the authoritarian impulses of society kind of course through it. And so your battle with them and the battle over space is pretty much to me the most so pro-democracy thing you can do as a reporter. I mean, in some ways the battle over democracy is incremental. When I worked for a TV station, when we go out to film, we had one space, which was a sidewalk because you couldn’t go on private property and you couldn’t go on the road because then they charge you with obstructing traffic. And yet even though the sidewalk was like the one place we could set up our camera and our tripod, police would still try to kick us off it. We constantly were battling. And it kind of was illuminating to me because here we have this one little space to do our jobs to expose X, Y, and Z, and we can’t even do this.

And so that’s why I think that sort of sense of taking all space over and sort of forcing people not to confront, not to ask questions, not to have a circulatory system to this democracy. I think that’s why it does make your work sort of pro-democracy because you’re fighting in some sense the most anti-democratic force. This doesn’t mean I’m anti-police or anything like that. I just think the institution itself, as you talked about before, is corrupted by the political economy that sustains it. So yeah, I think democracy is at stake in a sense, along with the broader issues that we covered on Capitol Hill, but this is an important component of it.

Taya Graham:

Steven, you were talking about how we’re covering Capitol Hill and it definitely seems like our democracy is under stress. I mean, what do you think about this idea in a broader context?

Stephen Janis:

Well, yeah, in the broader context, we just covered the federal government or the Republicans voting for a reconciliation bill that gets $70 billion. Let’s talk about real money. ICE has a hundred billion. Republicans get up and they give the ICE another 70 billion with absolutely no details or explanation of why. The point was just to fund ICE for an infinite length of time to fund ICE to do anything. So we’ve seen how ICE uses law enforcement tactics to disrupt democratic processes like in Minneapolis. And then of course killed two people that didn’t need to die. And so they give him $70 billion. And so I think here’s Sean fighting it on a local or a local level. In the national level, the same thing is going on. I mean, talk about giving unlimited money to law enforcement. I think there’s parallels there. Suffolk County has $5 million a year, 15 million here, extravagant pensions.

And then on Capitol Hill, $70 billion to an agency that doesn’t need it. They still had a hundred billion in the bank and they’re funded not year over year, but until 2029. So

Taya Graham:

The

Stephen Janis:

Unleashing of law enforcement through money, which we’ve seen in Suffolk County, we’ve written about this, is now playing out on a national level. And now you have a national federalized police force with unlimited funds.

Taya Graham:

You know what? Let me jump to our next comment because I want to make sure to get to as many of them as possible. Absolutely. And we’ve had some great comments that we’ve been putting on the screen from the live chat. I appreciate you. And don’t worry, I will ask about the tiger picture. Not now, but I will ask about the tiger pictures. There’s a person who’s obsessed with your painting, Sean. So before you go, you’re going to have to talk about it. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Stephen Janis:

I don’t know what you guys are talking about. Sorry.

Taya Graham:

It’s okay. I’ll

Stephen Janis:

Tell you. But I sure I’ll find out hopefully.

Taya Graham:

Back to police unions, one of our favorite topics. And full disclosure, I am a member of a union. I am a union steward. And I can let you know that the Communication Workers Association does not receive any taxpayer dollars. And I’m not receiving a million dollar pension. Like I said, I would need to work 200 years to earn that pension. Anyway, Sean, you explained on our show that you wanted the police union to answer questions about how they protect members who are accused of brutality and misconduct. One of the viewers weighed in on the power of police unions. Dave, if you don’t mind putting up comment six for me. Okay. Here we have Charles Harmon, 4159 says regarding the police union, “Police unions throughout the nation are the problem. Unlimited power and authority, the unions, qualified immunity, rampant racism and corruption. Nothing will be correct until we check this.” Wow.

I mean, Sean Paul, from your experience, how is bad policing a consequence of the power police unions?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

So because they shield officers who engage in misconduct and brutality against accountability. They’ll tell you that. That’s what they do. They say buzzwords and things like, “Oh, we’re just making sure they get due process, that they need to have the same rights as everybody else and everything else.” But there is no due process when there’s no accountability at the end of that process. That’s like if people would be happy if they said, “Oh, we’re going to give due process to immigrants and then we’re going to let them stay here.” People would be upset with that. When you bring up ICE, that’s a hot button topic on when I talk about ICE on my channel.

I completely agree with what you’re talking about. And again, that’s by design, the division. We can’t say that the ICE is receiving too much money without accountability, without body cameras, without having to take off their masks, not violate people’s rights. I went to the location and flew out there to Minneapolis where Alex Pretty was murdered and I was at a eulogy there. And it really hit me that a man was murdered and executed by ICE. And people say, “Well, he kicked a car two weeks ago and broke the taillight.” And it’s like, come on, you need to understand something. That is not. Yes, Alex Pretty engaged in violent behavior two weeks before he was executed. Even if he was executed that same day, kicking a taillight is not a death sentence. We need to understand this. Wanting accountability for ICE is not pro-immigration or pro-illegal immigration.

These people, they have this in their mind where if you criticize ICE in any way, it’s now you’re pro-illegal immigration, you’re pro this. When I talked about judicial warrants, the differences between judicial warrants and administrative warrants. And I put this on my channel and people, I got so much blow back from my community about, oh, but Sean, you’re just trying to protect illegal immigrants. And no, I’m trying to protect you. I’m trying to protect me. I’m trying to protect our country. Because there’s a big difference. You cannot go into someone’s house on an administrative warrant because an administrative warrant is basically like a decree from the king. Then we’d be going back to the decree from the king where he says, oh, that’s the warrant. And then we’re going to go. A judicial warrant is necessary to have a third party look at the facts of the case.

I’m trying to protect everybody’s rights, including illegal immigrants’ rights because whether you like it or not, they do have rights and it was by design. And you don’t have to like it, but you have to accept reality for what it is. And police unions generally in this country, but specifically in the Northeast, specifically in the Northeast, they are so powerful, so well funded through tax money. And they shield officers from accountability every single day. It happens all the time. And I think police unions should be abolished across the country.

Stephen Janis:

Sean, Ray, one time I went to police union headquarters and they actually have a bar in there and they offered me a beer, which is kind of funny. But when I asked Congresswoman Mike Lawler about ICE funding about $70 billion, you know what he said to me? He said, “Do you want to abolish ICE?” That was his answer to my question. Of course. So what you’re talking about, this sort of. Well, it’s part of the culture of policing, right? You are for or against. When someone says you can either be for or against something, you know you’re in really treacherous territory. Tay and I always make this joke, do you have to be for and against the sanitation department

Taya Graham:

To

Stephen Janis:

Ask us? Well, if you ask a question about why we’re spending so much money on sanitation,

Taya Graham:

You’re against

Stephen Janis:

Sanitation.

Taya Graham:

Right. If you criticize that we don’t get Tuesday and Thursday pickup anymore, we only get Thursday pickup, then you’re anti-sanitation. You hate sanitation workers.

Stephen Janis:

And you’re somehow un-American.

Taya Graham:

There’s no other organization and agency. That we can’t just criticize.

Stephen Janis:

And part of that is the union themselves because as Sean Wright points out, they have five people that are getting paid by the taxpayers sit there and espouse the perspective of the union. And let me tell you something, union officials have great relationships with the media. They didn’t have it with me when I was covering them, but I got a lot of crap because the media was so intertwined with the union officials on police uni officials. They are so much more powerful, even more powerful than union officials for other aspects of government. There’s no comparison to the power of the police union with the power of other public services.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

I mean, just as I’m sitting there chained to a desk within hours of my arrest before I’m released, before anything else, the New York Post has an article out. Do you think that the New York Post was just looking at. No, they made a call to somebody at the New York Post and even they got a title change. The New York Post reporter that spoke to me when he went to my court, when it went to my arraignment, I said, “Why did you change the title of your second article? It was very critical of the police union because he was talking about how the video doesn’t seem to. It raises questions.” He said it in a very nice way too. He said, “It raises questions as to what the police union president stated in his original comments to the post. They changed the title of that article to Police Union President Receives Death Threats.” And I said, “Why did you do that?” He said, “Well, my first title, the police union president called my boss and he made a big stink and we had to change the title.” You want law enforcement officers to have that much power – That’s incredible.

Over the media, over your politicians, over your money, everything. That’s incredible. All because they’re heroes and you want to idolize them.

Stephen Janis:

Is he like the editor of the New York Post? I mean, just so people know, when Sean Ray, after the encounter, the New York Post ran very, I would say, inflammatory articles about your encounter with them. Not mentioning the pension or any of the questions you were asking, but simply talking about how once your video aired, people called, which happens with any publication. When I worked for a newspaper and we published a story, people didn’t like. We get tons of calls in hate mail. That’s normal. That’s not like you doing something. They made it seem like you had somehow corralled everyone to call. Yeah.That was something that you had done like, “Hey, everyone, call the police union. No.” And that’s extraordinary though that they have that kind of power.

Taya Graham:

It really is. You know what? Let me jump forward to comment eight because there are a few more comments I want to get to. I really want to check in on this one because – Give me some hard ones.Come on Tara. Because I’m going to try. People are going to town about qualified immunity in the comment section in our live chat right now. Favorite topic.

I think this is a really great time to discuss it. Yes. Okay. I mean, any discussion would be remiss without mentioning qualified immunity. And you know what? Let me just give a little explainer. I think everyone in our live chat, our PAR community knows qualified immunity, but just for anyone who might stumble across us, basically qualified immunity is a legal loophole that makes it extremely difficult to sue the police. So qualified immunity was created as sort of a threshold to give public officials immunity from violating people’s rights. And that was a consequence of a law passed during Reconstruction. I think it’s a 1983 part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which was actually passed during Reconstruction to give people the right to sue again for the violation of their rights. But the qualified immunity loophole basically says you can’t sue someone if the right hasn’t been established, which means it has to been put through some sort of adjudication before you can sue someone like a cop.

And it has to be a case that is incredibly specific to your situation, but if it hasn’t been adjudicated upon, it’s going to be really difficult to sue. And I think Liberty Freak in the comment section and Mr. Brandt know a little something about that. Okay. With all that said, here’s the comment about it. Now this is from American Patriot 3515 on qualified immunity. We the people are getting sick and tired of that document known as the Constitution being used as toilet paper by law enforcement all across this country. We need to ban qualified immunity. That would be a good start. Okay. Sean Paul, to you. How big of a problem is qualified immunity when it comes to holding police accountable?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

I think it’s a huge problem. Again, but I don’t want to minimize. I think the number one problem is the police unions. That is the number one problem because as things qualified immunity is horrible, but a lot of people focus on qualified immunity. That’s probably the number one thing that people who want police to be held accountable are saying, abolish qualified immunity, get rid of qualified immunity. But even if you did, the police unions are going to run rampant. It’s not going to change anything. I mean, you might be able to sue them and get some additional funds and everything, but most of the rights have been clearly established. But what judges, some judges will do, not all, but some judges will find a wiggle room. And this is what makes qualified immunity dangerous is that they’ll take, “Oh, well, this fact doesn’t add up right.” Or any layperson would be like, “Well, you can film,” for example.

I’ll give you an example of probably what a judge could do, is that you were filming the right to record the police on a public sidewalk is clearly established. But if you recorded them from the public parking lot, that’s not clearly established. So therefore right next to the sidewalk, so therefore he’s going to get qualified immunity. So eventually they’re going to run out of little loopholes to try and get people because it is qualified immunity. It’s not what prosecutors have, which is absolute immunity. Judges have absolute immunity.

So eventually they’ll run out of the little work. And I think qualified with the workarounds, I think qualified immunity is very important, but I want to stress to everybody that the police unions and the way they operate within the political system is far more dangerous when it comes to the lack of accountability and police power.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Steven, I think there’s a case that talks a lot about qualified immunity. It’s the Eric Brandt and Liberty Freak case in the 10th Circuit. Maybe you want to explain

Stephen Janis:

About that? Well yeah, in 2021 or no, I think they actually, it was in 2019 that Eric Brandt and Liberty Freak were filming a police officer. They were filming just a traffic stop. And then a police officer drove up and got in front of them and then her drove his car at Eric. And this is in the 10th circuit. And I think the case was adjudicated in 2021, 2022. The initial district court said that the officer had qualified immunity because the right to film police had not been established. Now they won that case. The ACLU joined in, even the Cato Institute joined in, Electronic Frontier joined in. So they won it, but it can show you, as Sean, as you’re pointing out, that sometimes things slip through the cracks. And at that point in the 10th circuit, the district court judge had said, “Oh, there’s no established right to film police.” And this is in 2021, 2022.

Now, of course they won, but it just shows you sometimes these things can be a little more complicated. But I do agree with you that police unions are this source and locus of power when it comes to policing. It’s almost impossible to battle police unions.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Yeah. I mean, I’m taking it on now and I’m not going to stop. And I don’t see an end. I think this is going to be for the rest of my career because what I’ve seen is just horrible, especially in my own county. And I want to bring awareness to it. But the machine is just, it’s so big that it would take people really waking up and voting out these politicians who can end these contracts, who can make sure there’s accountability. But again, they have a propaganda arm. They have everything. They’re an S corp. They get paid a salary. They have expenses. They do this. It’s just such a machine.

Stephen Janis:

And a lot of times they fund. If a police officer gets into trouble, I don’t know what goes on in Suffolk County, but the police unions, like all the officers who were charged with the death of Freddie Gray, which for everyone who doesn’t know, Freddie Gray was a young man who died in police custody in 2015 and set off basically an uprising here in Baltimore. But all the police officers didn’t have to worry about hiring a lawyer because the police union pays for the lawyers for police officers who get in trouble in Maryland. I don’t know how it is in Suffolk County, but they have a lawyer on twenty four seven for them. If anything happens to them, they get free legal services from pretty well-paid law firms. Very well paid

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

First. Yeah. But that’s the secondary, that’s like the safety net. Most times in my experience, police officers get indemnified by the county or municipality. We’re going to get to

Stephen Janis:

That. And yes,

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

You are correct. They get taxpayer funded lawyers and they’re not getting the county attorneys, especially in Suffolk County or Nassau County, the neighboring county on Long Island. They hire $2,000 an hour attorneys, private attorneys. And I’m sure if I looked into that, I’m sure those attorneys probably donated those law firms. Oh

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely. We had the same thing going on in Baltimore. Absolutely.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

It’s a whole racket. It’s a whole

Stephen Janis:

Racket.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

It’s a whole big club and we’re not in it, just so people

Taya Graham:

Know. We are not in it.

Stephen Janis:

It’s a classic political economy. We had law firms were getting millions of dollars from Baltimore City to handle these lawsuits and basically –

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Instead

Stephen Janis:

Of settling,

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

They couldn’t use that money to settle the case.

Stephen Janis:

Well, exactly.

Taya Graham:

Right. But

Stephen Janis:

That’s the

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Thing. Fight it. It’s insane.

Stephen Janis:

They would spend millions. We have a municipal cap in Baltimore in Maryland. It’s 500,000 or 900,000. And they would spend more money defending than just, might as well just pay it out. They would spend five, six, seven million dollars just to defend a lawsuit. They’d eventually pay out. But instead of just paying it out, I think they wanted to run up the billable hours, which is to your point. You have the law firms getting involved, making millions and millions of dollars. The politicians getting donations. It’s a pretty nice business. Nice work if you get it. And the amazing thing about it that you point out, I think that people don’t understand, is if you mess up, the more mistakes you make, the more lucrative it is. In our city, after the Justice Department investigated our police department and found the Department of Justice found it practiced unconstitutional and racist policing for like a decade, the police department got $70 million to fix the issues.

Tons of consultants

Taya Graham:

Like you said tons of work. That was the first thing that happened. They were handed millions more dollars.

Stephen Janis:

70 million. And it just went to all sorts of extracurricular activities, which eventually ends up in the pockets of the union.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, absolutely. You know what? Let me grab comment nine because I think it’s an interesting one because it kind of is a dig at me and Steven. There’s someone who thinks we shouldn’t even be talking to you, Sean Paul. Dave, can you put up comment nine and I’ll read it. Sean Frey, excuse me, 7975 says, “You going to hitch your wagon to that mule. Lost all respect for you.” Wow. Yeah. Steven, I’m not sure exactly where that’s coming from, but I’m sure you have something to say about it. Well,

Stephen Janis:

First of all, I want to say I have tremendous respect for Sean Ray and all the work that he does. I don’t even care what they say about that. But also I think we should disabuse ourselves with this notion that interviewing someone means somehow you’re hitched to their wagon. Covering what Long Island does, Long Island Odds does, does not mean we endorse anything he does. It just means that we feel that he is newsworthy and that what he does is worth showing to our audience. That’s all it is. It’s not like we’re saying we’re endorsing everything Sean Ray does or we’re in. Sean Paul, sorry. Sean Paul Ray does. We’re not saying that at all. What we do as journalists, we interview all sorts of people. I mean, should we not interview Republican politicians who disagree with us or should we not interview people who we don’t think are perfectly suitable?

That’s not what we do. That’s not the kind of judgment we make. We judge things based on their newsworthiness. And Long Island Audits has made a lot of news for a good reason, for accountability reporting, and therefore we will cover him. And I don’t really care what people say about it, but I do have tremendous respect for your work. So

Taya Graham:

Either

Stephen Janis:

Way.

Taya Graham:

Steven, I agree with you. What we do is cover things that are newsworthy. For example, we have covered victims of crime and we have also interviewed people who have gone to prison for crimes. Does that mean I shouldn’t interview someone because they’ve gone to prison? Right. Does that mean I should only interview people that I like and never someone that I might have some fundamental differences in? Half the politicians

Stephen Janis:

In Maryland have gone to prison and we’ve interviewed all of them.

Taya Graham:

Oh my gosh. And they’re Democrats for the record.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. So we interview

Taya Graham:

People all the time. They actually did go to prison. Our previous mayor did actually, and I had a lovely interview with her. So I should not interview people because they’re problematic. If they’re newsworthy, if interviewing them is going to reveal something important, then I should interview them for the benefit of the public. It’s not about liking people. It’s not about hitching your wagon to a star. It’s about giving the public information that they can find useful. Period. Case closed. Case closed. Now, Sean, I’m not going to force you to react to this unless you want to. I will.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

I will. So first of all, to me, this is indicative of the tribalism and the death of nuance. And these people, they want to be closed-minded. They don’t want to have conversations. And this person probably, he says, if you asked him, you do support the First Amendment, do you support the free press? Do you support? And you probably say, yes, yes, yes. I love the Constitution. But the minute that someone engages with somebody that they don’t like or starts talking to them, again, just because I’m on your channel doesn’t mean that I am not. We do not endorse each other for everything that we do. If tomorrow you did something I didn’t like, I have full rights to talk about that as well. I don’t have a blind loyalty to people. I love the work that you guys do and I appreciate it. And I think what you guys do on Capitol Hill is great.

I watch you guys all the time. And you really speak truth to power. It’s great. I wish I could be up there on Capitol Hill agitating people and provoking people. I wish you could too. I

Taya Graham:

Was going to say,

Stephen Janis:

You

Taya Graham:

Can join

Stephen Janis:

Us. Can you bring your truck up to Capitol Hill one time at least once? I

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Would love to bring the truck. Yeah, I

Stephen Janis:

Would love to. All right. We’ve got to do the truck one

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Time. I would love to join you guys over there a Capitol Hill.But again –

Stephen Janis:

We’re doing that. That’s the date.That’s the date. I love it. I want that truck on Capitol Hill, man. Right on the triangle. It would be

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Great. It’s crazy. And people are like, “Oh, journalists don’t have billboard trucks. That’s true. Most journalists don’t.” I wish we did. Right. I’m sure most journalists wish they did too. It’s a good way to spread your message around. And again, I’m not saying I’m not Caitlin Collins of CNN. I’m not – Neither

Taya Graham:

Am I.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Whoever from Fox News, I guess. I’m not those people. I’m Sean Paul Reyes. My platform is my platform. I objectively engage in journalistic activities. I objectively exercise my First Amendment right. And again, if you want to call it advocacy journalism, opinionated journalism, yeah, I have opinions. And I don’t hide that. I talk about things that interest me and interest my audience. And I think that me building platforms that have over two million subscribers and at this point, probably a billion views, 500 million, 600 million on YouTube alone. These are matters of public interest that people want to see. People are very passionate about it. I get death threats. I get people are passionate on the other side too. People threaten to kill me, threaten to kill my family. There’s a lot of things that go into this. And it’s sad to see that people can’t have conversations anymore.

Even if we were totally different, I would still come on your channel. I invited Lou, when the body camera footage comes out the Sunday on my channel, the Sunday morning at 10:00 AM, I invited him to come on the channel and he accepted. So Lou, if you’re watching this, you’re still welcome to. I think that he is a despicable thug with a badge, but I would bring him on my channel. Absolutely. Great point. So that way I can debate him. Absolutely. But he would never come. He says it on the body cam. “Yeah, I’ll come on your channel. Yeah, let’s do it. “While I’m sitting in handcuffs, while I’m standing there in handcuffs with a pinched nerve in my wrist because he put the handcuffs on so tight, he says,” I’ll come on. “I said,” Come on the channel. “Because I would have anybody on the channel if I thought it brought value to the greater conversation.

Absolutely. I think him speaking to me on my channel, I think it’s going to show you exactly what I’m talking about when it comes to the police union. They talk just generalities. Oh, they don’t get into any specifics about anything. It’s just you’re an agitator, how? You’re a provocateur, how? You hate the police, how? I’ve had police officers on my channel, I’ve gotten pushback from, if you want to talk about the other side of it, I’ve brought chief of polices, detectives, I’ve had law enforcement on my channel. I’ve done ride alongs, I’ve done trainings, I’ve done command staff meetings, district attorney’s offices, and some of the more anti-police who have just a bad taste in their mouth for police and don’t think that police should exist whatsoever, they’re like, “Why would you bring on a cop?” Because I want to have conversations with people who have different views than me.

I do so I can understand what it is I need to do and how I need to tackle a problem better. I would

Taya Graham:

Bring

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

On anyone. I would.

Taya Graham:

You know what? Steven, you know what this sounds like?

Stephen Janis:

What?

Taya Graham:

This sounds like a journalist.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Let me just make one public service announcement. I know, because I know he’s watching our editor, Maximolia Alvarez. We would like a truck. So just put that on our budget because I’m jealous of Sean. I want to show up at Capitol Hill with a truck.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

You can use my truck. We will definitely collaborate

Stephen Janis:

And I will. Oh, you were coming out with that truck. Absolutely. We would love that. We have to do a collab. I would love to do

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

It. After how it works and everything. It’s

Taya Graham:

Great. And I just want to shout out some of the people in the comments. First off, hi Car Thief News. Thank you. And also, I want to say hello to Wrights Crispy. Hello, another wonderful cop watcher out there. We still have Joe Cool out there, hippie auditor out there. I think I even saw John Felix. I don’t know if I hallucinated it, but I’m almost positive I saw the John Felix out there. And I just

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Want to –

Taya Graham:

I

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Like Joe Cool.

Taya Graham:

I know. I know. As a matter of fact, Steven, do you have a DVD next to you?

Stephen Janis:

Oh yeah.

Taya Graham:

You know what? Why don’t you show that DVD?

Stephen Janis:

Okay.

Taya Graham:

If people are interested in learning a little bit more about Copwatchers, there is something you can watch. It’s called I Am But the Mirror. The

Stephen Janis:

Story of American Copwatching.

Taya Graham:

Story of American Copwatching. Lacey Arnold D, if you wouldn’t mind dropping the link in the comments. It’s on Fossum. It’s an amazing documentary where we followed Copwatchers and in particular a very controversial one for several years. And we share their story. We share the story of how we learned about Copwatchers, their lives. Just about some of the

Stephen Janis:

Topics we talked about tonight too.

Taya Graham:

A lot of the things we. No, no, it’s okay. A lot of the things that we touched on tonight, it’s a very personal and intimate look at the lives of Copwatcher and some of the very personal costs that happen when you put everything on the line because you believe in accountability and transparency. So if you’re interested in Copwatching, definitely recommend it. Okay. I just had to throw that out there for people who might be interested in continuing this conversation in another way. Okay. I’m going to go to the comment 10, and I have to admit this as a little bit of a personal peeve for me. Okay. This is the infamous democracy versus republic debate. I know there’s some historians in the comments, so you’re welcome to weigh in on this. This is from Edward Cominar 1493. I stopped watching when you called us a democracy.

We are not a democracy. And since you believe that, I will not sub to your channel. Bye. Okay. Well, all right. I hate to say it, but this is not an airport. You did not have to announce your departure. It’s okay. I love that. But secondly, I want to put this up because very often when I use the word democracy in the show, someone brings up that it’s formerly a constitutional republic as a point as if I didn’t know this or wasn’t aware. So please let me break it down so maybe I don’t have to go through this again. One is a legal framework or structure of governance, i.e. A constitutional republic. And one is a process for conferring power within that structure. Neither are mutually exclusive. One does not preclude the existence of another. We can live within the structure of a constitutional republic while simultaneously participating in a democracy.

I mean, Steven, am I wrong here?

Stephen Janis:

No, no, no, no, no. The two exist, coexist. I mean, the process itself of voting is democratic. So I just wanted to put that up there because people say this constantly when we have this discussion. And just remember, they’re not mutually exclusive. They really work well together. So when we say one, we’re not precluding the other is the point.

Taya Graham:

Right. Just

Stephen Janis:

Wanted to make that point quick.

Taya Graham:

Yes. Think of the republic is the building in which the democracy is housed. How about that? That sounds good. Okay. So we don’t have to argue about this, you guys. I promise. I promise. Okay. I won’t ask you to. Let’s get to 11 because we’re – Running out of time. We do have some time. Yeah. We do have to watch out for time. Last

Stephen Janis:

Comment.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Last comment that we saved from earlier from Facebook and YouTube. Okay. Who is footing the bill? Okay. So I think this comment makes a really good point, so we need to highlight it. Dave, thank you so much for putting it up. This is Sean Strauss’s point. Remember, everyone, cops never pay a single cent for lawsuits. Even in a successful lawsuit where qualified immunity is denied, individual LEOs are still literally always indemnified by the municipality. It’s the taxpayers who pay for the lawyer’s fees, court costs settlements, and even judgements issued against them. We the people currently have no meaningful legal recourse to hold our LEOs accountable, neither civilly nor criminally. So either one of you can take this. Well, let’s have Sean do it. Yeah. Is it true that police are indemnified by the taxpayers?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

In most cases, yes. There was actually a case that I brought up. I’d covered this case where this man was walking down the street in New York City and officers hopped out like a gang. Literally a gang hopped out of a patrol vehicle and started going into his pants, checking him, searching him. He was just walking down the street, minding his own business, but apparently he must have looked a certain way or walked a certain way. Who knows what they were thinking? But they hopped out and they started searching him. They ended up grabbing his genitals and doing all types of craziness to him. And he got upset and I raid about it. He ended up filing a lawsuit. I covered this story probably three years ago. And then he had texted me, told me, “Hey, they ended up settling for $100,000.” And I bring this up because out of that $100,000, well, they had to hire their own attorneys, but as Steven indicated earlier, they hired their attorneys through the PBA, through their union.

They don’t call it a PBA, but their union, they hired them attorneys. And then they had to come out of pocket out of that $95,000 of that $100,000 settlement this gentleman got was taxpayer money. And the other 5,000 had to be split between the two officers who violated his rights. So at the end of the day, cops can be held accountable civilly, but nine times out of 10, 99% of the time they are indemnified by the municipality and the taxpayers end up funding the bill. I completely agree that there’s such a lack of accountability when it comes to government officials and our public servants, whether it’s locally, on the state level, federally. Federally is even worse. Federally, you can’t even. I didn’t know this until recently when I was unlawfully detained by border patrol and they went and cut open my suitcase, searched my vehicle, deleted the video from my phone.

Thankfully it was my recently deleted, put me in a jail cell.

You cannot sue the federal government under the 1983 civil rights lawsuit. You can’t. They’re not named as a. It’s for state actors, not federal actors. So you can file what’s called a tort claim, which that’s for actual damages. I could have filed a tort claim for the damage they did to my suitcase. It’s almost impossible to hold the federal government accountable. So it goes all the way. The lack of opportunities we have and the lack of avenues, I should say, that we have to hold state actors or federal actors accountable for their misconduct is basically nothing because they have unlimited money because it’s our money. It’s our money. They have unlimited money. They can just pay out lawsuits because it’s our money. Even if the federal government, they print the money. So they literally have unlimited money. And the state governments, they can’t print money, but they have a lot of it, especially places like New York, Maryland, where there’s high taxes.

They have a lot of money to be able to spare. They factor this in and they say, “Well, it is what it is.” It goes away. The person gets their money and they move on. And there’s never any accountability. If it came out of the law enforcement officer’s pockets.

Law enforcement is designed, is supposed to be, right? This is what they tell you to hold people accountable for their criminal actions, is to enforce the law. And the criminal justice system, again, I’m not co-signing their view, but they’re saying the criminal justice system is supposed to stop people from committing crimes. Not only the individual that’s being charged with a crime, but it’s supposed to serve as a deterrent to society as a whole to say, “Hey, you can’t do this because this will happen to you the same way it happened to this guy.” But in law enforcement, when there’s no accountability for the individual officer, that breeds a lack of accountability across the whole department and across the police as a whole. And because they know that, “Hey, I can do this.” Just recently, somebody was charged with a crime for using flock cameras to stalk their girlfriend.

And the investigator, the IA investigator who investigated him was arrested as well for doing the same thing after he did it. So it’s just the lack of accountability is astounding and it breeds more misconduct and more misconduct. And unfortunately, unless we change up, unless we get the right politicians in there, public servants to legislators, executives in the executive branch to hold them accountable, it’s not going to change.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, it’s really interesting. I want to make this point before we wrap things up because one of the first times we started talking to Sean was when his encounter with Sergeant Fahey in Connecticut. Connecticut state trooper that seemed like his overtime was a little excessive for someone who worked at a desk and then retired with a pension. And I’ve been doing some digging on it. And it turns out that the couple thousand retired state troopers cost Connecticut taxpayers $110 million a year to fund their pensions. And we started looking at some of the last couple years, because the last couple years is what defines your salary. So what happens is that they start collecting a lot more overtime and therefore their final average pay goes up and therefore their final average pension becomes larger and more lucrative. And I think the point is in what you’re saying is that you are really attacking the crux of the matter in the sense that this is real dollars.

I mean, $110 million a year to fund the pensions for a couple thousand people is really an extreme use of resources in a country that purports not to be able to pay for healthcare for average working citizens. This is real money that keeps getting tossed around. When we looked at the budget for Suffolk County, it was like $1,400 a year for each household to fund police. I mean, think about that. So we are talking about hundreds of millions of billions of dollars being funneled into one organization that represents a very small number of people and hundreds of billions of dollars not going to pay for people’s healthcare or for childcare or for whatever, for education, you name it. So this is not a minor, this is a kind of a crux issue. And I think Sean, as you point out, these people are really the warriors on behalf of the oligarchy.

So yeah, I just want to make that point because that money struck me, $110 million. What could we do with that?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

The Suffolk County Police Department has a billion dollar budget. It’s insane that the amount of money that goes into these six figure pensions for the rest of your life, for the rest of your life, but yet I might not even get my social security one day, but yet they get from. They’re going to get six figures for the rest of their life.

Stephen Janis:

For the rest of their lives. Yeah. I mean, it’s extraordinary. And Suffolk County’s like the hotbed of crime that I

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Know of. No, it’s not. You know what they do? You know what they do, Steven? Again, I like the rank and file people of Suffolk County. I do. People, I’ll probably get chewed up for that. I like the rank and file officers because I think they’re pretty cool guys, but it’s the system, the police union, the administration. But what they do is they hide behind firehouses and just sit there all night long and just hang out. That’s what they do.

Stephen Janis:

Right. Right. Meanwhile, collecting $100,000 a year. Yeah. 200,

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

300, 400, $500,000 a year, that much.

Stephen Janis:

I mean, Suffolk County’s like Stony Brook University and a couple malls. I mean, seriously, a billion dollars, what? What’s going on there?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Keep us safe.

Taya Graham:

I wanted to say there have been some really great comments. And unfortunately, I didn’t get to ask some of the questions that were on the screen. So I just want to shout out a few people. I see Garden State Accountability, San Joaquin Valley Transparency. Otto, the watchdog is out there. Hey, Otto. It’s good to see you. How are you? One of our favorites. Leroy Truth. There’s a vigilance committee. Joe Kool is out there holding it down in the comment section. I love it. Big Nick South. Saw Rice Krispy. So I just want to make sure. I’m sorry if I didn’t get to mention everybody, but the comments are kind of flying by. I just want to thank all of you for participating. And I just want to ask, and there’s a great question on the screen of whether or not people. They want to know, do we think that this kind of cop watching, this kind of auditing, this kind of First Amendment activism, do you think it’s making a difference?

That was a question. It’s a good question. I’m so sorry. The name flew by too fast for. But I want you to know out there whoever’s in live chat, that was a great question. So Sean, I just wanted to ask you, do you think it’s making a difference?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

I think it’s making a difference. I don’t think it’s making enough of a difference, but I do believe it’s making a difference. Even in the last five years, there’s a bunch of, you just named a bunch of people. There’s so many people that came before me. I’ve been doing this for five years. These people have been doing this for the last decade, 15 years. And I give them all the respect in the world for starting this. And I think it’s made a huge difference, but not enough of a difference. And I think law enforcement officers, they won’t just grab you and arrest you at a traffic stop anymore. No as much. I’ve noticed that when I walk into a public building now, most people, they’re like, oh, they know what you’re doing and everything else. And they treat you with respect and just the basics that should have been happening from day one.

But they don’t want to be famous online or infamous, I should say, online. So I think all of us together have really accomplished a lot. And I think my platform is really branching out into actually investigating in particular mayors, particular just like Lee Roy Truth or others out there who are focused then on one person or one organization. Because I feel like over the last five years, I’ve been stretched out and I feel like I’ve failed my county. Again, I’m proud one raised resident, Suffolk County, Long Island. And I feel like I failed my county by not taking this police union head on from the start. I’ve been all over the place from California and Hawaii, Florida and everywhere in between. And I think I need to focus my resources in one area and be able to really affect change, maybe even run for a legislator just to make them, even if it’s just to make them

Stephen Janis:

Spend money against me. Wait, wait, wait. So you’re going to run for office?

Taya Graham:

I’m

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Thinking about running for legislator in Suffolk County.

Stephen Janis:

That’s news. Okay. Can we just break news? We just break news.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

I mean, listen, my legislator, I looked it up. He won with 8,000 votes. Oh my

Stephen Janis:

God. I’ve got an audience of a million. You got

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

The senate. My district is like 75,000. So 8,000. Get out to vote people. Come on. Whoever supports the police unit support, vote the opposite. I don’t care if it’s a Democrat or a Republican. Whoever the police unit supports, vote for the opposite of that person. Whatever it is.

Taya Graham:

That’s solid platform. That’s a solid platform. We

Stephen Janis:

Are covering your campaign beginning to end. One thing I want to say –

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Great campaign. I got the billboard truck already. It’s going to be great.

Taya Graham:

You’re

Stephen Janis:

Already

Taya Graham:

Halfway there.

Stephen Janis:

Taya’s from Long Island. My family’s from Long Island. Several of our other coworkers, we have a very strong Long Island.

Taya Graham:

We’re Long Island strong here at The Real News. So

Stephen Janis:

Just so you know, we’re in solidarity with you on Long Island.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Absolutely. I spent summers in Stony Brook in Suffolk County. And I spent summers in Stoney. I know how quiet it is. Okay. Last question. Last question, you guys, so we can wrap up. I just wanted to ask what you envision for the future of your work and perhaps kind of YouTube auditing in general. Do you think it’s going to evolve? Do you think the police are going to push back harder or where do you think we go from here? Because I think there’s going to be an auditor summit coming up. There are people who still want to get involved, become auditors, become First Amendment activists, become cop watchers, but there are some challenges there. So what do you see as its future?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Yeah. I’m familiar with the 1A auditor summit that’s supposed to be held next year. And I think it’s important. I kind of got into it already. I think it’s evolved to where. One of the things that frustrated me about First Amendment auditing is that there was never any follow up. And I think that’s what I would see somebody whose rights get violated and then I would never know what happened after that. I would never see them file a complaint. I would never see the results of the complaint. We all know that they’re going to investigate themselves and find out what we’re doing, but take that step because it’s important to show that’s part of the story. It’s important to show that you are filing a complaint with Internal Affairs who’s supposed to be an independent part of the police department, which they’re not. And it is important to show that they’re going to unsubstantiate it.

When your own eyes tell you exactly what happened, they will lie to you straight to your face. And I think it’s important for follow up. And I think more and more, I’m starting to investigate more into an investigative journalism kind of phase where I’m looking at the numbers, I’m looking at the papers. I’m talking to informants sources that are. I just got off the phone with a former law enforcement officer right before I almost was late because I was talking to a former law enforcement officer giving me all this information. And it’s important to evolve what you’re doing and to be passionate about it. And I think that moving forward, I think people like Leroy Truth, there are so many others out there that have really changed when it comes to actually focusing on particular issues and really digging into those issues because recording in public spaces is very important.

Recording law enforcement on a traffic stop is very important because it shows you what happens when power is challenged in any little way. These people with their ego, when you challenge their ego, I was arrested by Lucavillo because I said, “You’re such a tough guy, then do it. Let’s be real. Not because I broke the law. It’s because I went there asking questions about how his agencies are costing us hundreds of millions of dollars and I challenged his ego.” And he couldn’t control his emotions. Now imagine when you see those people, when you see these videos of these law enforcement officers who can’t control their emotions, if they’re doing it to me, if that man, Lucivillo, the police union president, is willing to do that to me, somebody with over two million subscribers across social media, hundreds of millions of views, what do you think he’s doing to John Smith down the street with no family, no money?

Stephen Janis:

Exactly.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

They run them through the system. The process is the punishment. The difference is that what law enforcement hasn’t figured out yet is that the process isn’t the punishment when it comes to people like me because the process, you’re thinking of I’m being punished. I’m not because I have a bunch of supporters that help me out with legal bills. I have a bunch of supporters that will write letters. So the process isn’t the punishment for me, but they’re so ingrained in that kind of way of thinking that this might not hold up in court. It’s probably not going to hold up in court, but he gets to sit in jail for seven hours. He has to pay a lawyer. He’s going to end up taking a deal anyway. And at the end of the day, if it all goes to shit, it’s going to get paid by his money anyway, taxpayer money.

It’s not going to affect me in any way. I’m not going to be held accountable.

Taya Graham:

Steven, let me ask you, what do you see as the future? I mean, you worked on that documentary, I am But the Mirror. You should know a little bit about Copwatching by now.

Stephen Janis:

Well, first thing I want to say is my editor-in-chief Max is in my ear and he’s telling me that this truck is on order for our billboard truck. So yes, I’ve been informed. I wanted to break that news that we will have the Tay and Steven billboard truck in operation shortly. But I think Sean injects creativity into journalism. I mean, journalists, we have a little high priestess sort of priest sort of feeling about bureaucratic. We can be a little bureaucratic and a little full of ourselves. And people like Sean come in and say, “Well, I’ve got a whole new way of approaching this, billboard truck included.” And I think that creativity is what flows from copwatchers because they went out – Yeah, that’s a great way to describe it. And they’re evolving, right? Sean says, “Yeah, I used to first film cops. Now I’m investigating overtime and going through public records and making record requests and following up.” It’s like we’re watching a whole new sort of journalism emerge.

And I think what’s great about copwatchers is they challenge the orthodoxy of what we do, which has a lot of orthodoxy in it and a lot of assumptions we make about the aesthetics of it, how it should be done. And Sean says, “No, I’m going to do it this way.” And actually it’s really effective and kind of very similar to what we do, but it kind of gives us a new way of looking at it. I mean, I have learned a tremendous amount from the copwatching auditing community as a journalist myself who came from a very conventional background. I work for a newspaper. If anyone knows what that is, I’m not sure if people are familiar with them, but they used to be delivered in your mailbox. And so I myself have said, wow, that’s a really cool way of approaching this. Or wow, I never thought of that.

Or just exposing things like now that I’m looking into the Connecticut State Pension System, thanks primarily to Sean and his encounter and what happened with Sergeant Hayes. So I think it’s a great way, a catalyst for journalism to change and evolve and adopt to an audience where audiences are, which is on YouTube and Instagram and places where Sean is quite popular. So yeah, it’s a good thing for all of us. And I’m looking forward to driving that truck

Taya Graham:

To Capital. Steven, that’s such a great point. I mean, in a way, you’re kind of making me think that it’s not as much about the future of copwatchers, but are journalists going to become more like cop watchers? Are we going to become more independent, more creative, more untethered from institutions, which can be controlling? We’re very fortunate as independent journalists that work for a nonprofit org to let you know, if we get five views on this or five million views on this, we don’t get a single nickel more. We’re a nonprofit org. We don’t run any ads on our channel. So literally we can report on what we want. So we are so lucky to be independent in that way. And I think copwatchers and the power that they show that basically a regular person who cares, who cares about transparency, excuse me, transparency, accountabilities, got a camera, willing to follow the money and do the work can actually make a difference in their community and help protect people and make change.

So I think if anything, if journalists are smart, they’re going to become a little bit more like copwatchers.That’s

Stephen Janis:

What I’ll say. Maybe should all become copwatchers. I’m an auditor. Sean, do you think I qualify to be an auditor or a copwatcher?

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

I’ve seen the work that you’ve done in Baltimore, both of you, and you guys do great work and I think you’d be perfect copwatcher. Thank you. And listen, I got to say that part of it’s waking up the public. The public is asleep. And sometimes you need a billboard truck, a flashy billboard truck to wake them up. I totally agree what you said, Steven. The institutions of journalism and everything else allegedly. I hate it when journalists say, allegedly, when I just watched the guy get punched in the face and allegedly he was punched in the face. And it’s too cutesy, too wanting. Instead of trying not to take a side because you don’t want to be part of the story and you don’t want to be in journalism. I’m going to tell this objectively. Sometimes there is no two sides to the story. Sometimes the police unions are just corrupt and you got to call them corrupt.

Stephen Janis:

Anything we say in journalism is like, it’s either raining or it’s sunny, but it’s not like there’s two sides to that, right? So yeah, good point.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I just have to say some of the folks, for example, Liberty Freak says that the police are going to push back harder. And you have a good point. I mean, I was just thinking about how there’s somewhere between 80,000 to 120,000 flop cameras across the country. The surveillance state is increasing. At the same time where there’s laws being made to say, stay further back while you’re recording, stay further back while you’re recording for us regular folks. Sure. Yeah. So it’s going to be interesting. Police like to

Stephen Janis:

Turn the cameras on up. As Sean has pointed out, they don’t like to have the cameras turned

Taya Graham:

On up. Exactly. Exactly. So Sean, we want to thank you so much for your time. And before you go, people want to know about the tiger painting. I’m sorry. I think

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

We’re going to get to that. So I’ll show it. This is not my portrait. I am in a hotel in Louisiana right now, so I have no idea what this is. And I was interested when I first saw it in my hotel room too. Okay.

Taya Graham:

So it’s not a family heirloom. Okay.

Stephen Janis:

No. So people are asking about a painting in

Taya Graham:

This

Stephen Janis:

Hotel

Taya Graham:

Room. Well, because Steven can’t see it. So there’s a tiger and this pretty woman wearing a dress with kind of like a boostier and petting a giant tiger. I’ll show you a screenshot of it later. It’s quite a shot. That’s pretty cool. Sean Paul, we have to thank you so much for your time. We took up more of it than we should have. I apologize for that. Thank you so much. We really appreciate you so much, your work, your willingness to speak about it, and your very singular insights into government accountability. And we look forward to speaking to you again soon and going to Washington DC with you.

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Love it. Can’t wait.

Taya Graham:

Thank you for

Sean Paul Reyes (Long Island Audit):

Having me and keep up the group work. Thank you

Taya Graham:

So much. Oh, thank you. You as well. Take care. Thank you. Okay. Steven, how was that for a conversation? I am so amazed about the things we learned from folks about talking about police power. And of course, one of my favorite topics, cop watchers. I got to do it. I got to say it again. Anyone who’s interested in the subject, check out the documentary, I’m But the Mirror. Steven, hold it up. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah. The story of American Copwatching and either Lacey R. Noli D. That’s me right there. If one of you put a link in the chat, I would very much appreciate it. And I just want to thankry a goofball. Everyone who was in the comments. And I really do apologize if I didn’t get to everyone’s comments. I tried to, with Max’s help, to put as many comments on the screen as I could.

And I just want to thank every single one of you that took the time to show up at this live. I appreciate it so much. And I’m going to make a point later on tonight to go through the comments that you guys leave underneath, give out some hearts, give some of my own personal responses. And I’m also going to go back to doing a comment of the week. So your comment might end up being highlighted on our channel if you take the time to make one. So if you can take a moment to leave a comment, maybe give us a little thumbs up, we really do appreciate it so much. So Steven, I’ve got to give you a chance before we sign off. Well, okay. And before I say thank you to all of our patreons, before I sign off, do you have any thoughts about tonight’s

Stephen Janis:

Discussion? Yeah, no. I mean, it was really interesting. And I think we’ve created a vicious cycle of comedy on comments, the comment on comments.

Taya Graham:

It’s very meta.

Stephen Janis:

It’s totally meta, so I’m pretty happy. But this is really cool to have this kind of debate and have the opportunity to hear what people think, because that really informs everything we do. If you don’t give feedback, you don’t think we read comments because sometimes you get like eight or hundred or thousand. I read a big majority of them and this time we really went through them. And what emerged was a really interesting dynamic debate that should be had every day about democracy, about journalism, about what we do, about how we should do it. That’s a great point. About how government kind of hoards resources and then uses them to attack us. And then how people on Long Island Audits are being creative and approaching it in their own way. I wish they had these debates when we go to conferences on journalism. I’d be much more interested to hear what people had to

Taya Graham:

Say

Stephen Janis:

If they were this vital.

Taya Graham:

So all

Stephen Janis:

Credits to the people on YouTube and to Long Island Audits for the way they bring out people and to talk about this. You don’t hear people debating democracy other than on CNN with a bunch of highly paid hairstylists. This is great because this is the people talking.

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Stephen Janis:

And more I hear, the better I feel about democracy.

Taya Graham:

Oh, Steven, that’s actually really beautiful. Yeah. It’s really beautiful. And I’m so glad – And the truck. And the truck. And the truck.

Stephen Janis:

And

Taya Graham:

That’s why I’m really so glad that we had this discussion and this debate to let people know we really do pay attention to your comments. And these spaces on social media, I think in particular YouTube, are places where we can really show that our democracy is so vital, that our First Amendment is still incredibly important. And that there’s real lifeblood in us that wants to have a healthy, equitable society where there’s not government overreach that is harmful. I agree. I agree. Honestly, Steven, our civic life in a lot of ways is becoming more and more precarious. And I think the right to disagree and to dissent is the most important part of it. Agreed. I mean, it’s the mechanism that keeps our democracy healthy. I would say this, this will be my little rant.

Stephen Janis:

Okay.

Taya Graham:

The right to dissent is a critical ingredient of our democracy, or if you’d like to call it constitutional republic. If you think about it, the right to vote is a form of dissent. It’s a right to express your disagreement with the people in power by voting to remove them. It’s actually the most potent form of communal dissent, actually. Our ability to collectively express dissatisfaction with political leaders and effectuate change is fundamental to who we are. But as Steven pointed out, it’s a facet of our system that can be easily manipulated or eliminated altogether. And it’s fragile and often challenging to preserve. Otherwise, I think copwatchers like Sean Paul wouldn’t continue to be arrested if the right to dissent was not in some sense provisional. So keeping dissent healthy and vibrant requires work. And that work can often lead to uncomfortable truths. So one of those truisms is that dissent, which makes us uncomfortable, is just as important to protect as that which we agree.

So what do I mean? So let me give a little bit of an analogy to explain. So imagine our collective discourse is a spectrum, a broad range of frequencies and colors intertwined, but separate. And in many ways, a spectrum of light is nature’s representation of the great Variety of colors and frequencies, all separate but equal, just like all of us in our different voices and ideas. And we need all of it because all of it is us. But acknowledging the existence of the spectrum requires acknowledging its full intensity. Let me give you an example. When noted cop watcher Eric Brandt, let’s say some people would say he provoked cops and waves, and please excuse my language, he waved a flag that said F cops. Well, a lot of people were made uncomfortable. And when Sean Paul shows up at a police union spontaneously, some people think his tactics are aggressive or even rude, but dissent does not always conform to our expectations of politeness or comportment.

It doesn’t always work when it complies with our expectations. Not every disagreement can be settled by a stoic debate or a polite exchange or even nuanced, reasonable discourse, even though sometimes I wish it could. No, I think sometimes these extremes are necessary to help keep the entire concept healthy. Sometimes more vibrant or discordant colors are necessary. Sometimes a more extreme approach is critical to making our entire project of finding ways to hold power accountable through public pushback, relevance. Sometimes dissent is just going to be ugly whether we like it or not. But my point is here that ultimately dissent must be created to survive. It must evolve to exceed the limits, as Steven pointed out, of the authoritarian impulses that exist within every government. It must be something that can accommodate citizen journalists with cell phones just as much as it protects reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post.

It has to be flexible, adaptable, and sometimes even confrontational. But the key is it’s up to us to define it. That is we, the people. It’s up to us to judge and debate what works and what doesn’t. It’s up to us to decide what we support and what we don’t. And that’s why we had this debate tonight and that’s why we ask for your comments. That’s why we do what we do. It’s an essential part of who we are. Proponents of free speech and protectors of the right of others to criticize our government and even us. Key to preserving it is discussions like this. And cop watchers are part of that recipe and so are you. So please help us fight for it together and argue like true Americans with courage and conviction and freedom to speak the truth even loudly to each other. And in the end, that’s all we have.

And I hope it’s all we’ll need. Once again –

Stephen Janis:

Very well done.

Taya Graham:

That’s my rant.

Stephen Janis:

It was a great

Taya Graham:

Rant. I had to do it.

Stephen Janis:

I agree with it entirely.

Taya Graham:

Well, Steven, I want to thank you for all the work you did to make this livestream possible today. Thank you so much. It was a very robust conversation. It

Stephen Janis:

Was. And we can disagree too. We disagree a lot of times. So just so people know.

Taya Graham:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

It’s not all perfect

Taya Graham:

Here. No, we actually agree pretty often. Except when we just disagreed now.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, we just disagreed that we didn’t agree. Oh my God. Irony.

Taya Graham:

Okay. And I also want to thank Long Island Auditor’s time today and all the amazing folks that showed up in the live chat. Thank all of you. And I have to give a very special thanks to moderators Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you both. Hi, Noeli D and hi to Ryan. Can I just

Stephen Janis:

Say quickly how good

Taya Graham:

Long

Stephen Janis:

Island Audits is? How good he is and how interesting? You’re

Taya Graham:

Going to blow your objective journalism cover here if you do that.

Stephen Janis:

Okay.

Taya Graham:

Right. I take that back. It’s not supposed to be about interviewing people we like or don’t like. It’s about to do the world. No, I’m just saying that

Stephen Janis:

His interview

Taya Graham:

Was

Stephen Janis:

Really good. He brings up a lot of points that surprise me. And yeah, so go ahead. I’m sorry. I just wanted to say that.

Taya Graham:

No, you absolutely have the right to say that. I just don’t want people to think that you were biased. Okay.

Stephen Janis:

Good point.

Taya Graham:

But you’re right. He was a terrific interview and that is fair to say. But we have to thank our very special helpers who might be unseen. Maxime Alvarez. Oh yes. Thank you, Max. Who’s getting the truck apparently. Jocelyn, Brian and Corey for moral support. And like I said, at the very end, I’m going to thank every individual Patreon. So I’m just letting you know because I love my patrons. I do. And I’ve got to say it, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tipsprivately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Point on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly at TeasBaltimore on Twitter or Facebook or Tea Graham on Facebook or Instagram.

And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. I think we proved that we read your comments. And we’re probably going to have a Patreon link pinned in the comments and maybe even the live chat below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. You know we don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything could spare is greatly appreciated. And as you see, I do shout out my patreons. My name is Tea Graham. I’m your host of Police Accountability Report. And for all of you, please be safe out there.

And now we’re my patrons. Real quick, I got to run through. I got to thank these good people. Are you ready, Steven? Hang on. Yes. I’m going to try to do this. Okay. Matter of rights, Tamara Anderson, XXX, Chris Robinson, David Keeley, Ronald Hensley, Gary T, David Bach, BD Gates, Calvin Mack, True Too Blive, Martin G. Nope. Talia B. Louie, Artemis LA, Lacey R. Steven J, John P. Alan J, Kyle R. Keith Bernard, M. Marcia E. Don T. Kipke, Cameron J. Joe Six, Donald, sorry, Daniel W, Frank FK, Mary M. John K. Kurt A, Steven B, John M. Conrad B, Siggy Young, Joel A, Patty Blibbets, Sescal Samian, Jimmy Touchdown, who is my very first patron. Thank you. Bill D, Rhym P. John K. Dean C. Umish H. Graham Graham, B. Joseph P. Durdevil, William T. G. Kemmy, Steven D. Just my two cents, Peter J, Sean Best, Julius Geezer, Linda Orr.

Hi, Linda Orr. Cindy K. Social Naturalist. Douglas P. Tim R. Laurie. L. D.B.M. Hugo Flores Noli D. Chris M. Shussant. Kimmy Kat P. Janet K. Omar O. Potshot and Ron Fried. Thank you. You guys are great. We appreciate you, and I hope you all have a great night. Take care. Take care. We appreciate you. Say goodbye, Steven.

Stephen Janis:

Bye.

Taya Graham:

Be safe out there, folks. Be safe.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose holding the politically powerful institutional policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we will achieve that goal by talking to one of the most popular cop watchers and independent journalists on YouTube about his recent arrest, which we are showing you right now. It occurred at the police headquarters of a powerful law enforcement union. It’s an encounter that left him injured, but also drew the attention of the mainstream media. It’s a controversy that has thrust his tactics and unique approach into police accountability into the national spotlight and raised questions on how he approaches pushing back against law enforcement and power in general.

But before I get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police AccountabilityReport on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at TAS Baltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. I give out all those little hearts down there and liking and sharing and hyping can also help our guests and get their stories seen. So please take a moment if you can. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we have reported consistently on this show, police power is far reaching and in some cases insidious, but often its implications aren’t fully understood.

Meaning the way police power infiltrates our system of government can often be hidden and not fully obvious. Well, the man we are going to speak to today is trying to expose the excesses of law enforcement by confronting its power head on. And it’s that work and the consequences for him that we will be unpacking for you today. His name is Long Island Audits and his videos of police encounters have literally been seen by tens of millions of people. But most importantly, he’s not just a random cameraman filming a car stop. He has continually confronted police over a topic that rarely gets the attention it deserves, law enforcement spending. And that’s where our story begins today because recently Sean Paul ventured into a pinnacle of police power, namely the headquarters of a police union. Now this bastion of law enforcement was located in Suffolk County, a jurisdiction that spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on cops.

And Sean had some questions about that as you’ll see that the police simply didn’t want to answer. Now to help me unpack and share his perspective on what happened, I’m joined by the man himself, Sean Paul Reyes, also known as Long Island Audit. Sean, we are so glad to have you. So let’s get right into it. Now first, to set the scene, you arrive in the parking lot with your billboard truck. What prompted you to take your truck and show up at basically the summit of Police Power in Suffolk County? Let’s watch a little bit of the video and then we can discuss. All

Sean Paul Reyes:

Right. So the reason why I went there is because there’ve been multiple reports in my local newspaper Newsday about police misconduct lawsuits, settlements and there was recently a story that was just published regarding law enforcement officers in Suffolk County who agreed to general misconduct who have been found and plead to misconduct, who get to stay on the job for an X amount of time in order for them to collect their full funded taxpayer pension. And I thought this was very concerning these backroom deals happening between the police union and the Suffolk County government. In one instance, there was an officer who had used the surveillance tools improperly and he was given 14 years. In 2031, he will separate from the Suffolk County Police Department with his full taxpayer funded pension. And I believe that if you engage in misconduct, you should be immediately separated, not given some sort of deal where you can collect a full funded taxpayer pension.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So you go to the front door and there’s something interesting you discover. Let’s watch. And as we do, can you talk about what you’re seeing?

Sean Paul Reyes:

This is an interesting sign here. It’s a thin blue line gang flag of course with the text, “No body-worn cameras in building. Please leave your body-worn camera in the lockers at the security desk.” Yeah, so it probably is the body camera signage that’s posted on the front door. I thought it was very interesting that they have to remind officers to turn off their body cameras inside the police union headquarters. I would assume so that way their dealings inside remain private. The police union is a private entity that receives taxpayer dollars. So the lack of transparency there is already, they’re already not subject to any open records requests or anything like that. So I assume that they’re just trying to keep their dealings private. That’s why they have to remind their officers to turn off their body cameras, which again, I’m for transparency, not secrecy.

Taya Graham:

So you mentioned in the video you wanted to speak to Louis Cevello, the president of the Police Benevolent Association, the union. So you go to the lobby and ask to speak to him just like any journalist would. Let’s watch what happened and talk about it after.

Sean Paul Reyes:

So we’re trying to get ahold of somebody here. It doesn’t seem like anybody’s coming to the door. We just wanted to speak again to the president of the PBA, Lou Cevello. Two people working in the front desk at the PBA here or the PMA. Again, there’s nothing benevolent about the police union.

Taya Graham:

Just to just let me in. I have a

Speaker 3:

Lot to do with it. I know. Seems weird. Hello. Lou Savello, how are you? Sure, no problem. How are you? Have you seen me leaving? I immediately began to leave. Lou Savello, would you like to come –

Taya Graham:

Okay, so he appears and is immediately hostile and threatening arrest. He doesn’t really give you a chance to ask a question. So why is he so hostile about something reporters do all the time?

Speaker 3:

Have you seen me leaving? I immediately began to leave. Lucivillo, would you like to come on? I am leaving. Would you like to come on the channel? I’m leaving. I am leaving. You seem to leave me?

Sean Paul Reyes:

Yeah. So I really can’t speak to why he was immediately hostile with me, but I can speculate. And as far as you’re right, that’s what reporters do. They ask for comment, they show up to places. And I even had my reporter Mike with me to try and look a little bit more mainstream and legitimate, I guess. But I went there. His hostility probably stems from the… I’ve never had any previous interaction with the police union president, Lucivillo, but I have covered misconduct and lawsuit settlements by the Suffolk County Police Department and the Suffolk County government. I’ve covered Internal Affairs coverups. So I’ve been very critical of the Suffolk County Police Department.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So you exit the building and yet the threat of arrest continues. Let’s watch and I’ll ask you a question on the other side. I’ve

Speaker 3:

Seen your podcast. What do you think I’m doing? What do you think I’m doing? I’m leaving. So would you like to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars withNo, I’m not? Would you like to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Suffolk County law enforcement agencies have?

Taya Graham:

Okay. So first you said you’re leaving. So why does he keep confronting you? It’s not like you weren’t obeying his order, but you were also asking questions that he ignored. What were those and why did you think they deserved answers? Well,

Sean Paul Reyes:

I think the Suffolk County residents here deserve the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and especially to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars at this point in misconduct settlements. They have the right to know about these backroom deals regarding the pension. And that’s what I was asking him. Did he have any comment on the hundreds of millions of dollars in misconduct that is flown out of our tax dollars to victims of police misconducts and constitutional violations? I also in that time asked him to come on my show to talk about it, invited him there. But you’re right, immediately after he said this is private property, because I knew full and well that it was private property. Again, they received tax dollars. It’s a gray area, but it is private property and I knew that going in. I did my research, but it’s publicly accessible private property that I have every right to knock on a door and ask questions.

And when I was told to leave, he said, “This is private property, you need to leave.” My exact words were, “Sure, no problem.” And then I began to back away towards the door.

Speaker 3:

Have you seen me leaving? I immediately began to leave. Lucivillo, would you like to come on? I am leaving. Would you like to come on the channel? I’m leaving. I am leaving. You seem to leave me? I am leaving. I’m leaving. I’m leaving. Lucivillo, you go on talk, you go, “I’m leaving.”

Sean Paul Reyes:

And I continuously backed away continuously saying that I’m leaving. He continuously said, “You need to leave or you’re going to be arrested as I’m leaving.” So why it escalated that quickly and without any cause because I was leaving, I don’t know. I think it could only be his ego because at the end, I guess we’ll get to it, but at the end, before he puts the handcuffs on me, I told him, “You think you’re such a tough guy,” because he was bullying me. I think anybody who watches the video can see he was bullying me. He was trying to exert his authority. Pulled out his badge, identified himself as a Suffolk County police officer, which by the way, he’s not fighting crime or anything. He is a full-time police union president. He’s just a law enforcement officer per their contract. I believe there’s five different law enforcement officers that work.

Their detail is specifically the Suffolk County PBA headquarters. So it’s not like he’s investigating crime or doing or protecting the citizens. He’s just collecting a six-figure taxpayer paycheck to cover up misconduct. In my opinion, that’s what they seem to always do. So I mean, that’s why he became very aggressive. He wasn’t used to it and he wasn’t used to somebody asking him questions.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Now at this point, it seems clear he’s not going to answer your questions, but then he escalates and starts talking about arrests. Let’s watch and discuss.

Speaker 3:

I’m leaving. Get off the property. I’m leaving. I’m getting off the property. You are trespassing. I am leaving. You will be placed. I am leaving. I am leaving. I’m going to place you under arrest. Do what you need to do. I’m identifying myself as a police officer. So do what you need to do. I am leaving. You need to leave. I am leaving. You such a tough guy. Do it then. Do it. Do it. I’ leaving. Okay. I’m leaving. I’m leaving. No resisting. I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting.

Taya Graham:

Okay. It seems to me like you were retreating and yet he handcuffs you. What does the law say and what are your thoughts about the arrest itself? I mean, it seems to a certain extent he takes the bait. Let’s watch and discuss.

Speaker 3:

To do, I am leaving. You need to leave. I am leaving. You such a tough guy. You’re not going to do it then. Do it. Well,

Sean Paul Reyes:

It’s a completely retaliatory arrest. It lacks probable cause, a violation of my Fourth Amendment right. It’s pretty clear. The actual charge I’m being prosecuted on is criminal trespass in the third degree. And on the desk appearance ticket that I received seven hours later, it specifically says enclosed or fenced in and designed in a manner to exclude intruders. That’s the way the criminal trespass in the third degree statute is written here in New York State. That property is neither enclosed designed in a manner to exclude intruders or enclosed and fenced in any way. So the statute itself is just baseless and it won’t apply.

I guess shouldn’t have charged me with anything, but if there was any charge, it would be the charge of a simple trespass, which again, it doesn’t meet the statutory requirements because I have to remain and leaving while albeit slowly, and I will admit that I was leaving slowly, but I was continuously leaving slowly and backing up for a purpose. The purpose is that I knew I was dealing with bullies and thugs with badges and that wanted to do me harm. So the best way to keep myself safe is to make sure that they could see my hands at all times. If I turn around and leave, they can’t see what I’m doing with my hands in front of my waistband. Obviously I would never hurt a law enforcement officer or anyone, but they want to hurt me it seems.

Taya Graham:

You make a really good point about moving slowly and not turning around. If it was Baltimore City, if you turned around, a classic thing police would say is it’s a furtive movement, which has led to violence against suspects or arrestees.

Sean Paul Reyes:

Catch 22, right? Because either you’re moving too slowly, which appears to be the case I wasn’t moving at the speed that he liked or I moved too quickly and he had to take my life because he didn’t know what I was doing. So you can’t win either way, but I’m hopeful that I’ll win this in court.

Taya Graham:

As we’re watching this, I have to ask a bit more of a personal question. But what is the effect of being arrested? I mean, I’m not trying to trivialize it, but are you used to it? I mean, does it impact you beyond what we see on YouTube? Has it, I guess, taken a personal toll on you?

Sean Paul Reyes:

My family does not like to hear that I’ve been unlawfully arrested. I definitely don’t like it. I was chained to a desk for nearly seven hours. My back was killing me. And when he put on the handcuffs, he put them on… I’ve been unfortunately arrested a lot of times since I’ve started auditing. I think this is my 13th time. Zero criminal convictions in that time. But he put the handcuffs on so tight that I’ve never felt it that way before. And it was that way until uniformed officers came in about 10 to 15 minutes later and actually loosened them. I was in excruciating pain. I felt tingling in my right hand and I went to go get checked out two days later and it turns out that one of my nerves has been damaged. I have a pinched nerve and the back of my thumb, I can’t feel it.

I have pain when it changes temperature, just a bunch of pain associated with change in temperature, taking a shower, going in the pool, things of that nature. It’s just been very annoying and it reminds me every time I feel it of what a tyrant Lucivillo is and what he did to me. But yeah, it definitely affects me. No one wants to lose their freedom. I tell people who want to follow my footsteps and audit and film the law enforcement, I tell them their number one job is to not be arrested. And I thought I was doing that job. I thought I was complying. I know I was. I saw the video and I was there. So I was complying with his directives. I did everything I was supposed to do from a legal standpoint, but yet you still get arrested. And it’s because the process is the punishment.

They towed my 14-foot LED billboard truck. I had to pay a thousand dollars to get that out of tow out of impound. And I have to hire a lawyer to go back and forth. He hurt my wrist, pinched a nerve there. So the process, seven hours being hunched over, tied to a table, chained to a table where I can’t move. And it was definitely a horrible experience. It is unfortunately part of the job that I do. I’m not naive. I know that when I go out and record law enforcement and ask questions about their corruption and misconduct and these settlements, especially at a police union, there’s always a chance for retaliation. First amendment retaliation is a count you can sue for, for a reason. It happens not just to me. It happens to people all the time who record the police and are critical of the police.

I am blessed enough to have a big platform to share it with the world. But again, I’m not used to it. I don’t think I’ll ever be used to it. It definitely affects me. It affects my family the most. And it’s unfortunate, but it is part of the job and I have to accept that it is unfortunately part of the job. Hopefully one day it won’t be.

Taya Graham:

So was it just retaliatory? I mean, what does the law require you to do and do you think you were complying with the law? Yeah,

Sean Paul Reyes:

So the law requires you to immediately leave the property, but you have to have time to leave the property. You can’t teleport off of the property as much as he probably wanted me to teleport in that.

Taya Graham:

That’s very true. I didn’t think teleportation was an option.

Sean Paul Reyes:

This was escalatory by Lucivillo and the rest of the PBA from the moment they came down. They did not need to come down. There was a receptionist there who could have told me over the intercom, “You’re not welcome here. You need to leave.” And I would’ve left without backing up because I wouldn’t have to worry about armed me on my back. So I would’ve just left probably a lot quicker. But Lucavillo had the President of Police Union wanted to come down personally because of his ego. I do trainings with law enforcement all the time, and one of the big things I talk about is ego. His ego, he knew who I was. He wanted to come down and he wanted to tell me personally and he wanted to do harm to me. That’s clear from the video. So the legal standard is you have to leave from a place that you weren’t licensed or privileged to be at.

So everybody has a license or privilege to walk on any property that’s not restricted and ask questions. And just like solar panels, girl scouts, you have a right to just go up and ask questions or just knock on the door, a knock and talk. Law enforcement does it to us all the time.

Taya Graham:

Now, since this encounter, the right-wing Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post wrote a story claiming that your video has led to death threats against the union president. However, it didn’t really explore your allegations. First, what is your impression of the fairness of the story? And did they actually ask you for comment? So

Sean Paul Reyes:

Neither story that was printed by the New York Post didn’t reach out for comment to me for either one after, and hopefully on this next article that they say that they’re writing, that they will include my comment on there. But apparently it looks like to me that Lucivillo, the police union president, has contacts with the New York Post. Within hours of my arrest, it was on the New York Post saying that I did a billboard truck stunt and that I threatened the law enforcement officers, that I wouldn’t leave the property when told to leave. And I will say to the New York Post credit, to this particular writer’s credit, that once the video came out, he did call into question. He said the video calls into question some of the statements made by the police union president Lucivillo. But again, he wasn’t able to reach me for comment.

He said that he reached out via Instagram. I wouldn’t check Instagram. I’m better off emailing me. But either way, I’ve been in contact with him since and I’ve sent him the medical report for my pinched nerve. I gave him my version of events, which my version of events, lawyers always tell you not to talk to the press or to anyone and make any public statements, but anything I’m going to say is already in 4K, 60 frames per second online for the world to see. So I’m not really worried about… I’ll talk to the prosecutor right now. I don’t have no problem. It’s not a big deal. It is what it is. They’re the ones that try and distort reality and to fit their narrative and their crime and the statutes or whatever else. But I think the New York Post obviously could do a better job with the reporting to make the highlight of it that he’s receiving death threats without any proof of any death threats.

I didn’t see that included in the article. There wasn’t any proof. Just again, the word of a liar who is a proven a liar at this point since the video came out doesn’t hold any weight, but yet I have to provide medical documentation for my pinched nerve. But I have no problem doing it. I supplied the district attorney, the Internal Affairs and the New York Post with the unedited video. There is nothing I have to hide. The video speaks for itself. And I just hope in their third article, they keep asking me when I’m going to file a lawsuit. I think they want to see that. They want the headline, Long Island audit files lawsuit against the… Maybe I’ll put a number on this one so they can have a headline, but I think that’s what they’re waiting for. But we’ll see how their reporting involves.

And I think that for the Year Post, the second article was a lot better. Again, the title just trying to drag in clicks and views. So with the death threats against the police union president, again, none made by me. I can’t control what other people do. If somebody sees his actions and wants to commit a crime and send him death threats, I advocate for peaceful petitions of grievances to governments, not violence whatsoever. I’ve never even cursed in a video, but I would say I feel bad for him, but I don’t. When you take away my freedom and you put me in a predicament where my family’s worried about me and I’m suffering and all because you don’t like what I have to say and you want to disrespect the oath that you took to uphold our constitution, which I hold sacredly, obviously Lucy Miller doesn’t.

So we’ll see what the New York Post continues with, but at the end of the day, I’m not going to hold my breath for anything really groundbreaking there.

Taya Graham:

So just to directly adress the basic thrust of the story, it seems they’re imitating other critics who say your work is just about clicks and views. How do you respond to those critics who dismiss what you do? Well,

Sean Paul Reyes:

As I stated earlier, they put the headline police union president is receiving death threats for clicks and views. Let’s be real, that’s not the story here. The story is that the police union president unlawfully clearly from the video evidence arrested a journalist for his First Amendment protected rights. That’s what happened here because the ego couldn’t control his ego. So the framing of everything and the way sometimes people frame what I do for clicks and views, clicks and views are important to get your story out there to be seen by as many people as possible, especially for somebody like me who’s independent. I don’t have million dollar backers or anything like that. So I require or I hope for my audience to hit the like button and sharing it so that way it could be seen by as many people as possible because I think tyranny and I think misconduct and corruption needs to be seen by the American people, especially here in Suffolk County when it directly affects you and your tax dollars.

But most of the critics, it’s actually quite ironic that my biggest critics are I support them. I support their rights to be my critics. The police union and the police department do not support our rights to criticize them, but yet I support the rights of the police union and anyone else. They called me a thug in their posts. They called me an agitator, a thug, every name in the book trying to discredit me and paint me in a bad light when I’ve been nothing but polite to everybody I’ve ever come encounter with. I do police trainings. I’m not anti-law enforcement. I work with law enforcement. I’ve done ride-alongs. I’ve covered stories where law enforcement officers did the right thing during my audits. I don’t hide those videos. So it’s very unfortunate that some people want to see bad in what I do. I think what I do is a service for the community and I hope that people will see that you can respect the police and respect law and order as I do and at the same time hold the police to account.

And even with security of lock cameras and everything else. And it’s important. One of my favorite Benjamin Franklin quotes is those who give up their essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security or safety, whatever the quote is, but it’s one of my favorite quotes. I might not always get it right, but the theme is don’t give up your liberties for this security of law enforcement officers. It’s very important. And I hope that people who are critics of me can see the other side and see that this is not about hating law enforcement. There are people who just hate law enforcement and there are people who just hate law enforcement that watch my channel, sure. I

Taya Graham:

Love that quote too. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. It’s simply brilliant. Finally, after all of these encounters and the pushback you’ve received for what you have called accountability reporting, what scares you about police power in America? I mean, how formidable is it and can it truly be held accountable given what you have witnessed while covering law

Sean Paul Reyes:

Enforcement? Yeah. Well, I think the only way it could truly be held accountable is with public servants. County executives, mayors, administrative rules holds them accountable. They need to make policies and procedures that hold them accountable. They need to make the union less powerful because they’re very powerful. I don’t think that unions should exist in law enforcement whatsoever. I think unions are great when you’re trying to take on Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk’s of the world and all the rich, powerful elite. I think they’re great for that. I think when you are a public servant like a law enforcement, especially a law enforcement officer, you shouldn’t have a union because it leads to corruption like we see today. PBA endorsed candidates donating to support specific candidates that are going to make law enforcement less transparent, less accountable. So another way is to evoke people in that are going to hold law enforcement accountable.

And honestly on both sides, it really doesn’t matter who you choose. They seem to all want to be buddy-buddy with the police officers because at the end of the day, law enforcement is what separates the politicians from the people. I’ve seen it all over this country. They’re locking down every single county building, every single city hall, you’re making key card access and everything else. And I say to my viewers all the time, the reason why they want to keep you out is because they know that they’re not serving your best interests and they don’t want you anywhere near them. Why would they want you access to them? They’re scared of you. If they’re scared of you, there’s a problem. Why would they be scared of the people that they’re supposed to represent?

Taya Graham:

Long Island Audits, thank you so much for joining us. We are absolutely dedicated to covering your work on police accountability, and we look forward to speaking with you again in the future. And now I want to turn to my reporting partner, Steven Janis, who has his own perspective on the intersection of money and police power and how it alters our system of governance. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Tay, thanks Army. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Now first, Steven, what are your thoughts on what you just watched? Why do you think the police union responded to his questions the way they did?

Stephen Janis:

Well, usually I say in journalism, people will answer questions if they have nothing to hide. However, I think this is a perfect example of overreach by police who are just accustomed to not being questioned too intensely by the media. Generally speaking, media relies upon police for sourcing, for crime stories, for whatever. And police also have a lot of rhetorical power in the sense that you’re either for or against us. And I think in this case, they just didn’t like being put under the microscope.

Taya Graham:

Now, Steven, as a member of the media and a person who’s covered policing for over two decades, what do you think about how the New York Post covered Sean’s encounter with the union?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I think there’s a couple issues going on here. Number one, there’s this intense pressure to cover social media, YouTube as a phenomena that doesn’t really make it easy to apply the same standards we do to regular journalism. But I think they should have gotten Sean’s side of the story and looked at the video too before. It was a very short story. It didn’t have a lot of details and didn’t really give Sean’s perspective. So I have to criticize him for that. But to that end, we did contact the Police Benevolence Association in Suffolk County through their Facebook account, through their email and through a submittal form on their website. So we have reached out to them for comment to ask them what they have to say about what Sean has said. In other words, he was retreating, he was trying to leave. He couldn’t teleport and why they arrested him.

So we have reached out and tried to do our due diligence. Hopefully the Post will do more to correct some of the things in the story.

Taya Graham:

Okay, last question. You’ve worked on plenty of stories involving police pensions and spending. What are some of the critical takeaways from Sean reporting on Suffolk County and police spending in general?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Suffolk County has some of the most generous police spending in terms of salaries and benefits I think I’ve ever seen as a reporter. I mean, it’s always very treacherous when you approach police on the thing that matters to the most in many cases, which is money. I mean, we published all the overtime earnings for police about 20 years ago and we almost got sent to jail. Well, my editor did get arrested. So they get very touchy about it because they really have better benefits than almost all of us. I mean, as we’ll see later on when you’re talking about in the show, they get very generous pensions. They can retire very early and that’s like a lightning rod for them because I don’t think they want people knowing how much better they’re doing than we are. So I think this is a typical standard case of follow the money.

And I think Sean did the right thing in asking these questions and expecting answers.

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Steven. I really think you bring a unique perspective to the topic of police spending. It’s a focus that your past reporting reveals is something we as journalists cannot take our eyes off of, especially if we truly want to hold police accountable. Now, one of the oldest adages in journalism is a fairly simple demand that often requires more than just a cursory glance at the numbers on a website. A requirement that we dig deeper to not just report on how much the government spends, but why. And that adage is a simple one. Follow the money. It’s a process every reporter knows is essential, but often doesn’t have the time to pursue with enough vigor. It’s a key factor at the heart of almost every political scandal in our country and also the ingredients that inform every bad public policy we witness in governance today.

Now the reason I’m talking about following the money is I want to do a little though experiment with you. I want to compare what the taxpayer of Suffolk County commit to funding the police department and by extension their union and the willingness of police officials to answer questions about how they use that money because that’s really what’s at the heart of the conflict we just witnessed. Not are you for or against the police or not that you back the blue until something happens to you or even whether or not you agree with the media coverage this incident has elicited? No, this is entirely unlike the typical American ideological rift that seems impossible to repair. This is simply a story of how much of our precious tax dollars we give police and how they treat us when we ask for accountability in return. So here’s a little rundown on what the hardworking taxpayers of Suffolk County fund to keep the police department running and their subsequent retirees happy.

Now all this information is courtesy of the Suffolk County budget documents or other media outlets. And just as a note, I have to say as a reporter who’s read a lot of budget overviews, we What they provide is not exactly easy to navigate, but let’s share a few facts we’ve gleaned from their own reporting. According to a section of the budget documents posted online, the burden of funding police is steep, roughly $1,400 per household. That’s $1,400 per household just to keep police on the street. It should be noted that the biggest line item in the documents other than the general operating fund, which costs taxpayers a meager $80 per homeowner. It also should be noted that police spending accounts for the largest net increase in the budget for that year according to those same documents. Now, next on the list is something that, again, often slips below the radar, but is worth noting employee pensions.

Now first, Suffolk County has some very generous police pensions. A study by the Empire Center for Public Policy found that officers who recently retired from Suffolk and nearby Nassau County qualify for a pension in excess of $100,000 per year. And that’s especially lucrative and costly for taxpayers because Suffolk County officers can retire after just 20 years in service. I mean, even my hometown of Baltimore with one of the largest police forces per capita in the country and a very powerful police union requires 25 years of service to retire. But I’m not done because I haven’t even mentioned one of the biggest contributors to police salaries, namely overtime. That’s right. The great amplifier police paychecks that can cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in extra spending. Now it was hard to obtain exact figures, but in 2025, overtime spending cost taxpayers an additional $74 million according to Newsday.

Almost 130 employees earned more than $100,000 in overtime pay, most of them police officers. So that’s quite a hefty amount of money taxpayers are being asked to fork over to keep Suffolk County Police working. And that doesn’t include all the multimillion dollar settlements Sean was talking about in the video we just watched. So how do these exceptionally well-paid people with extremely lucrative pension benefits treat a taxpayer when he arrives to ask questions about spending? How do they respond to very basic accountability questions when someone who pays their salary shows up? Well, let’s watch again and you can judge how they behave.

Speaker 3:

So would you like to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars? No, I’m not. Would like to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Suffolk County law enforcement agencies have on pasta? Leave. Do it. I’m leaving. Okay. I’m leaving. I am leaving. No resisting. I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting.You were won multiple times. I’m leaving.

Taya Graham:

That’s right. The people who benefit from the generosity of Suffolk County taxpayers actually arrest a Suffolk County taxpayer for, wait for it, asking questions. And then a newspaper writes a sympathetic article to the police union officials who arrested him for asking questions. Now call me crazy, but why on earth is it a threat to ask a question of a public official whose salary you pay? Why is it so controversial for a resident of a county to query the people who work for the county they fund? Why is it so wrong for Sean to want to know where his tax dollars are going and expect the people who are spending them to explain how they spend? Let’s remember a simple principle. Government officials are spending other people’s money. Although the law requires people to pay taxes, it’s still not their money. It’s ours. And in this case, Sean’s, which gives him, in my humble opinion, the right to ask as many questions as he wants.

Just think about it. The union chief is paid by taxpayers, not to patrol the streets or assault crimes, but just to represent the union. That’s right. Taxpayer dollars to pay a salary, to run an entity that won’t answer questions. It’s really hard to fathom how that is even remotely fair, but I think this is also a cautionary tale about funding people with guns and badges wherever they are. Law enforcement has unique power granted them by us, the citizenry. They can take our freedom and even our lives. Now couple that with the ability to spend taxpayer dollars without accountability and you have a dangerous mix that I don’t think any healthy democracy can abide. The ability to rest and the ability to tax should never be one and the same, which is why the work of Sean and other copwatchers is so important. Why his showing up at police union headquarters, which has been depicted as a stunt or worse yet harassment should be viewed through a different lens.

I mean, what if the officials just calmly answered his questions? What if they just took the time to explain their side of the story instead of brandishing handcuffs? The point is that what Sean is doing is an essential task to preserving our freedom, asking the questions nobody in power wants to answer. That’s why both Sean and I and Steven will continue to ask them because I believe democracy itself is at stake. I want to thank our guests, Sean Paul Reyes, also known as Long Island Audits for his time, his insights, and his patience with my technical issues. Thank you so much, Sean. And I have to thank Intrepid reporter Steven Janis for his writing, research and editing for this report. Thank you so much, Steven.

Stephen Janis:

Tay, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank friends of the show, Noli D and Lacey R. For their support. Thank you both. Thanks Noli D. And a very special thanks to our accountability report, Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream. And I especially want to thank you for your patience with us. And I have to thank Patreon Associate Producers Johnny R, David Kay, Louis P, Lucia Garcia, and our super friends, Shane B, Kenneth K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and of course Chris R. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct.

You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or at yesonpolice on Twitter, or of course you can message me directly at TeasBaltimore or Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment. I do read the comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you do feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.