Sean Kent

Correct. That's the correct way of saying it.

Correct. And probably the easiest way to say it is that position will be working on the side to take away his freedom because that person from that press conference is no longer going to be here because as soon as the new president takes office, they're going to replace that individual. And I think he's already announced that he will be retiring.

Correct. And probably the easiest way to say it is that position will be working on the side to take away his freedom because that person from that press conference is no longer going to be here because as soon as the new president takes office, they're going to replace that individual. And I think he's already announced that he will be retiring.

Correct. And probably the easiest way to say it is that position will be working on the side to take away his freedom because that person from that press conference is no longer going to be here because as soon as the new president takes office, they're going to replace that individual. And I think he's already announced that he will be retiring.

Correct. And don't forget, this is the government's position. They're like, we have this evidence. The easiest way to describe it is it's their opinion of what the evidence shows. They're saying this is our position of what we believe when we get in front of a jury, this is what the evidence is actually going to show. The defense will, of course, say we don't believe the evidence will show that.

Correct. And don't forget, this is the government's position. They're like, we have this evidence. The easiest way to describe it is it's their opinion of what the evidence shows. They're saying this is our position of what we believe when we get in front of a jury, this is what the evidence is actually going to show. The defense will, of course, say we don't believe the evidence will show that.

Correct. And don't forget, this is the government's position. They're like, we have this evidence. The easiest way to describe it is it's their opinion of what the evidence shows. They're saying this is our position of what we believe when we get in front of a jury, this is what the evidence is actually going to show. The defense will, of course, say we don't believe the evidence will show that.

Now, if we go a little further, and I've told everyone, specifically with the freak-offs, At the time of the indictment, the allegations were only dealing with adults. And so dealing with adults, it's on the government, it's incumbent on the government, no matter what is in the video, they must prove coercion. They must prove they forced them to do something they weren't likely to do already.

Now, if we go a little further, and I've told everyone, specifically with the freak-offs, At the time of the indictment, the allegations were only dealing with adults. And so dealing with adults, it's on the government, it's incumbent on the government, no matter what is in the video, they must prove coercion. They must prove they forced them to do something they weren't likely to do already.

Now, if we go a little further, and I've told everyone, specifically with the freak-offs, At the time of the indictment, the allegations were only dealing with adults. And so dealing with adults, it's on the government, it's incumbent on the government, no matter what is in the video, they must prove coercion. They must prove they forced them to do something they weren't likely to do already.

So the government can play the videos and the defense can come in and say, yeah, they're nasty and all of these people were voluntary participants.

So the government can play the videos and the defense can come in and say, yeah, they're nasty and all of these people were voluntary participants.

So the government can play the videos and the defense can come in and say, yeah, they're nasty and all of these people were voluntary participants.

Hence the issue. And that's always the problem is going to be the coercion aspect. And so it's going to be a back and forth of were you actually coerced or were you a voluntary participant? So long as it stays this way with adults.

Hence the issue. And that's always the problem is going to be the coercion aspect. And so it's going to be a back and forth of were you actually coerced or were you a voluntary participant? So long as it stays this way with adults.

Hence the issue. And that's always the problem is going to be the coercion aspect. And so it's going to be a back and forth of were you actually coerced or were you a voluntary participant? So long as it stays this way with adults.

Here's why it's so scary. Because, of course, in America, I'm like, oh, we have guns everywhere. And our gun laws are pretty arcane and archaic. The problem with scratching serial numbers off on a gun is we cannot tell where the gun came from, where the gun was initiated, who owned the gun originally, what crime was a gun possibly used on. And that's what ends up happening.

Here's why it's so scary. Because, of course, in America, I'm like, oh, we have guns everywhere. And our gun laws are pretty arcane and archaic. The problem with scratching serial numbers off on a gun is we cannot tell where the gun came from, where the gun was initiated, who owned the gun originally, what crime was a gun possibly used on. And that's what ends up happening.

Here's why it's so scary. Because, of course, in America, I'm like, oh, we have guns everywhere. And our gun laws are pretty arcane and archaic. The problem with scratching serial numbers off on a gun is we cannot tell where the gun came from, where the gun was initiated, who owned the gun originally, what crime was a gun possibly used on. And that's what ends up happening.

Absolutely. It's a federal crime. It's a state crime. Not only is it just illegal to scratch it off, it's illegal to possess a firearm with an obliterated serial number, again, for tracing purposes.