All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2023 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
25:24
EPISODE 372: DAVOS DAY THREE

On today’s episode of Human Events Daily, Poso is back breaking down day THREE of the World Economic Forum’s global summit in Davos, Switzerland. PLUS - Alec Baldwin has finally been CHARGED with two counts of involuntary manslaughter following nearly 15 months of investigation. AND, Derek Chauvin has officially filed for an appeal to have his guilty verdict voided. All this and more on today’s episode of Human Events Daily!Support the Show.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hashtag justice for Helena Hutchins.
Alec Baldwin has been charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
We're going to get into that and everything else that's going on as well as continuing our coverage.
Day three of the World Economic Forum.
Day three of Davos.
We're going to break everything down from transhumanism to transnational control of our governments and our societies.
But I also want to remind you, That there is still time, still available, slots open for you to sign up for the Poso Daily Brief.
What's the Poso Daily Brief?
Well, it's very simple.
Read what I read when I do show prep.
I'm constantly reading, I'm constantly consuming information, constantly consuming reporting, but I know that there's no one place where it's all aggregated.
Well, now there is.
You can get one email sent directly to your inbox every day and that's called the Poso Daily Brief.
You just go to humanevents.com slash poso.
humidevents.com slash poso sign up and you will get it completely free delivered to you every single day.
The Poso Daily Brief.
Read what I read.
Let's get into it.
Who will really command the Force Industrial Revolution and its technology like artificial intelligence?
What's your sense of who's best placed at this time to lead the world into the 4th Industrial Revolution?
Because you pretty much created this term.
We're seeing the kind of technological strides that China has made with Huawei, with the 5G technology.
Do you believe that this could potentially be China's time once again?
We should make here again a, let's say, a differentiation.
On the one hand, we have state capitalism.
On the other hand, we have shareholder or private capitalism.
So it's a clash between two systems.
I believe that state capitalism in the short term provides certain advantages because you can mobilize in a concentrated way a lot of resources to reach a specific objective.
But I believe that the future is not state capitalism or shareholder capitalism.
The future is what I call stakeholder capitalism, which is combined with the social responsibility.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily.
Today is January 19th, 2023.
Anno Domini, what you heard there Klaus Schwab.
So we're in day three of Davos, Davos, Switzerland.
Klaus Schwab, that's a clip from him explaining the different systems that we've seen before between China and the West.
Let me break down what he's explaining to you.
He's saying the China system is state capitalism, whereas he's saying in the West, You have a system of private capitalism, which of course is obviously not true.
The government plays a massive role in our economy and it has for decades.
Some would say even all the way back to the creation of the Federal Reserve, our central bank.
But what Klaus Schwab says there that's so interesting for us, that we all need to take note of, is that at first he says it would seem that the two systems are clashing because they're different.
But then he says, what will win over?
In the end, and what we're moving towards, in his view, is an era of stakeholder capitalism.
Stakeholder capitalism.
What does this mean, stakeholder capitalism?
This means, boys and girls, a connection and a merger.
Between the two systems and the World Economic Forum is positioning itself and has positioned itself for years to be the point of that merger.
That's why when we had Savannah Hernandez yesterday, and she went and did those great man on the street interviews where she was asking, Why can't we talk about Taiwan?
Why are we only allowed to talk about Ukraine?
Why are we allowed to demonize Russia, but we're not allowed to talk about China?
We're not allowed to talk about Taiwan.
Why aren't we allowed to talk about these things?
And there was a delegate, an official delegate to the World Economic Forum who said to Savannah Hernandez, I'm not allowed to talk about that.
I'm not allowed to talk about it.
And here's why.
Because what we're seeing is a merger.
Between the systems of the West and the Chinese Communist Party, they're seeking to implement their model, their model of control and power across the West and across all of our countries.
So Schwab realizes that he can't just come out and say that.
So what he's got to call it, he's got to use these fancy phrases, phrases like the Great Reset, which if you notice the phrase the Great Reset has been completely dropped this year after when I came to Davos last year.
And I was detained at gunpoint by the World Economic Forum police.
And I'm going to call them that because that's what their badge says.
In fact, that's what their badges this year say as well.
Go look at Masako.
Go look at Sav.
They've all got photos of this.
And by the way, how incredible has Masako's coverage been of the World Economic Forum as well?
So really have to just give her a huge shout out.
She came on the show.
Right before, literally as she was flying to Davos, we had her on the show.
We talked about the CCP's rise in Japan.
She flies to Davos all by herself and she's been absolutely killing it.
Confronts Klaus Schwab directly.
Confronts him directly.
The only person so far who's been able to do that.
So huge shout out to Misako as well as everybody else who's covering this event, who's out here.
What do we need to explain?
Schwab realizes that terminology is key.
That's why he's throwing out the phrase polycrisis.
We have to face the polycrisis.
We have to create a new system of stakeholder capitalism.
What does stakeholder capitalism mean?
It's exactly what the World Economic Forum does.
They bring together leaders of business, BlackRock, Blackstone, Vanguard.
Then they bring together leaders of government.
This sort of Davos model where you have a Biden and a Trudeau that are running your economy, that are running your government.
Now, Jacinda Ardern, who had been one of the greatest accolades of the Royal Economic Forum around the world, she's just resigned.
She's going to go work on her teeth.
Maybe she can afford a pair of braces now after being in government for five years.
Hopefully she can, because even though Klaus Schwab, another guy, by the way, I'd put him as another candidate front of the line for orthodontics.
What is it about globalists and not having good teeth?
I don't know.
But here's my point.
Even Hunter Biden could at least afford a pair of veneers.
But then again, we know it hard minded you have to be able to afford that.
They want to institute a policy whereby in its organizations like the World Economic Forum, the kind of set the agenda for the entire world.
They come in with transhumanism, digital surveillance, quantifying and measuring how you live your life.
Remember carbon footprint?
Why do we all know that phrase, carbon footprint?
Why do we even think about that phrase?
Because this is going to go towards your social credit score.
And we already have credit scores here in the West.
It's called your ESG score.
That's why these companies all throughout Wall Street are now enforcing things like critical race theory, carbon footprints, carbon quotients, et cetera, et cetera.
By the way, another thing that you're not going to hear Elon Musk talk about too much because Elon Musk has has received and made a lot of money, billions of dollars on the basis of electric vehicles.
And having this ESG score, in fact, going back to Misako, she published a video of someone saying that they weren't allowed to have electric vehicles, EVs, at the World Economic Forum because they were dangerous.
And then Elon responded to Misako on that specific comment.
So we have to understand what's going on here.
These are decisions that are being made.
They want to implement the China model.
They want organizations like the World Economic Forum to be the face of this.
They're not the ones making the decisions.
They're not the ones calling the shots.
Klaus Schwab is no billionaire.
They're a PR firm.
And as we're looking at things right now, we look at the escalations in Taiwan.
We look at NATO forces now sending tanks.
German tanks might be rolling through the Ukraine.
Yeah, I think there's some history behind that one.
This is how they're moving our world into a new system of what they call multipolarity, but what really is going to be a loss of sovereignty for the United States and every nation that falls under their umbrella and is enwrapped by their dirty tentacles.
This is a major, really significant finding here.
When you talk about Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, for starters, she was just 24 years old.
It was her second time serving as an armorer on a movie set.
And she has said all along, through her attorney, that this was simply Alec Baldwin's fault, point blank, that he pulled the trigger.
Of course, you know, In that now infamous interview that Alec Baldwin did with George Stephanopoulos, he denied, he disputed ever pulling the trigger.
The FBI has now said that based on their findings that they have concluded that the gun otherwise would not have fired.
Now, in recent months, Alec Baldwin has filed cases against, lawsuits against the crew, including Hannah Gutierrez-Reed saying that it was their fault that a live round should never have made its way onto the set.
And so he has said, really, that he's been a victim in all of this.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is also filing a suit against the prop company, saying that they had given live rounds in addition to the dummies.
So lots of finger-pointing here, but in the end, the district attorney's office saying that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and Alec Baldwin 15 months.
It's been 15 months since Alec Baldwin shot and killed Helena Hutchins, the director of photography and cinematographer for the film Rust.
criminal, or it could be both.
And now it seems that they're coming out, rendering a decision. - 15 months.
It's been 15 months since Alec Baldwin shot and killed Helena Hutchins, the director of photography and cinematographer for the film Rust.
As a producer, Alec Baldwin himself was one of the people putting together the movie.
She worked for Alec Baldwin.
She was a staffer.
He shot and killed her.
Now, we don't have any evidence that he did this intentionally.
But we also have yet to see the full footage of what exactly went down on that set in Santa Fe, New Mexico in October of 2021.
We know it was a long day.
We know that Alec Baldwin was getting irritated.
We know how Alec Baldwin gets when he gets irritated.
He gets upset.
He snaps.
And here we are 15 months later.
And he's been charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
One of which includes a recklessness charge and a modifier because of the use of a firearm, of a handgun in this case.
Human Events Daily has told you from day one that Alec Baldwin is criminally liable here.
We also explained that when Special Prosecutor Reeb was appointed and that the New Mexico government was petitioned for further and advanced budget because they knew they were going to be going into litigation and prosecution of obviously a high profile Hollywood actor with more than substantial resources.
That they would need as much budget as they could get for this.
There's a political angle here, not just the obvious political angle of Alec Baldwin being an arch liberal, someone who routinely went on Saturday Night Live, was a point man to make fun of Trump, to attack him and lampoon him on SNL.
But there's also the local politics angle.
And we need to get into that because New Mexico as a state has been trying to establish itself as a place where Westerns can be filmed and to attract more Hollywood business.
So imagine the amount of political pressure that the governor and the state legislature was putting on this DA's office to tell them, look, we want there to be an open door for Hollywood.
And now you're going to go around and charge one of Hollywood's biggest stars the first time they come into our state.
So neo-westerns, because of Yellowstone, 1883, 1923, some of these other shows have really been going through something of a rebirth lately.
And so there's some of the hottest commodities out there.
And New Mexico wants to get in on that.
But here's the problem.
Alec Baldwin shot and killed his staffer.
And so the question becomes.
Is the law enforcement and the justice system of the state of New Mexico going to allow, right, going to allow people to come into their state and shoot and kill members of their own staff while they're there?
The other two massive shows that were just filmed in New Mexico, of course, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, two of the most successful TV series of the past decade.
But I don't think anyone ever got shot and killed, at least not when it wasn't on, uh, you know, part of the show.
So we need to look at this situation clearly because that ABC clip that we just played for you actually left something out.
The assistant director in this case has already pled guilty.
He took a plea deal.
What does that mean?
He's getting six months probation, negligent handling of a firearm.
Okay.
Slap on the wrist.
But here's what they're not telling you.
There's no way that he got a plea deal like that without having to agree to testify against Alec Baldwin at trial.
The assistant director will testify against Baldwin.
Those interviews that Baldwin did with George Stephanopoulos, those stupid, idiotic, egotistical interviews that he did.
We'll be dissected, where he admits that he had firearms training, where he admits that he's worked with guns for years, which you already know on set.
Prosecutors don't even need to pull that stuff.
Certificates and training dates and cycles and instructors, they don't need to.
Why?
Because they have it in his own words.
And all of this will be played for the jury.
Now, if Alec Baldwin were smart, not an egotistical maniac, When this happened, he would have opened up his checkbook and gone to the now widowed husband, widower, and said, how much do you want?
But instead, Alec Baldwin has been countersuing the family, claiming that he himself is a victim, saying that he shouldn't be financially liable, again, for shooting and killing his staffer, and that he shouldn't even have to pay any money.
He offered to them Let me finish making the film and I'll pay you from the proceeds of the film.
That's the level of ego that Alec Baldwin has.
Tell the house man, you killed somebody's wife.
You killed somebody's mom.
No one's above the law.
I believe in that.
But I also want everyone to know that from a basic standpoint of gun safety, firearm safety, and law, criminal justice, There's no such thing as an actor exemption.
If someone hands you a firearm, if someone hands you a gun and tells you it is unloaded, I don't care if it's your mom or your dad.
I don't care if it's your best friend.
I don't care if it's the Pope.
You open it up.
If it's a revolver, drop the clip.
You know, if it's a handgun and you check, you verify every single time yourself.
Helena Hutchins would be alive today if Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, and the assistant director had done their jobs.
None of them did their jobs.
And that's why they've all been charged.
That's why one of them has already pled guilty.
And that's why in a just society, you would also receive guilty verdicts for both of them afterwards.
So Alec Baldwin, congratulations.
There is a high, high probability That you will see jail time because of this.
The primary issue on this appeal is whether a criminal defendant can get a fair trial consistent with constitutional requirements in a courthouse that's surrounded by concrete block, barbed wire, two armored personnel carriers, and a squad of National Guard troops, all of which or whom are there for one purpose in the event that the jury acquits the defendant.
Please state your name for the record and the party you are representing and you may begin when you are ready.
Thank you, Judge Reyes, and may it please the Court.
Judge Cahill specifically answered what you heard today about the security concerns and the barbed wire and the like.
What he said is, and this is quoted in our brief at page 16, that having the trial at the Hennepin County Government Center would be safer and reassure the jury and make them more impartial, not less, because the security could be folded into So I posted something online yesterday, and I think it's been enough time.
I think people need to just hear this plainly.
in Minnesota in a smaller venue.
He said the security would stand out and you'd have the same fears of civil unrest there.
So I posted something online yesterday and I think it's been enough time.
I think people need to just hear this plainly.
And we covered the trial of Derek Chauvin day in, day out.
I covered every single minute of it.
And I'm just going to come out here and say something as plain as I can.
Derek Chauvin did not murder George Floyd.
Derek Chauvin, the police officer, did not murder George Floyd.
We as a country need to have a system of criminal justice.
We do.
But we can't have a system of political justice.
Of woke justice.
It was woke justice that put Derek Chauvin behind bars.
It was woke justice that got OJ Simpson out of prison when he killed his ex-wife, nearly chopped her head off and killed a waiter.
This country stands at a precipice right now.
Are we going to allow the forces of political correctness, political opinion, public opinion, mob rule, and mob justice to determine the course of our country?
Or are we going to live in an ordered society where we can look at facts, we can look at reason, we can use rational argument to determine the outcome of events?
We can't redefine murder.
Because we want a police officer to go to jail and because we want hashtag justice for George Floyd.
The regime launched a color revolution, a domestic color revolution in 2020 in this country because they wanted to enact domestic change in our country and they used and exploited the shocking and tragic death Of Mr. Floyd as a means to their end.
Derek Chauvin didn't receive a fair trial.
Because here's how a trial like that would go.
Was this hold permitted under the Minneapolis Police Code?
Yes, it was.
In fact, there are training slides.
I pulled them up within a day of the video coming out.
Shows you exactly how to do that.
What did the autopsy say?
The autopsy said there were no evidence of life-threatening injuries and the autopsy said there was a lethal dose of fentanyl and other drugs in Mr. Floyd's system.
So you can call that a lot of things you can discuss it at length, but you can't call it murder because it's not it's just not murder.
And in addition when you have a trial like that not just and this is where we don't have the whole clip yet.
But this is where I would correct something that Chauvin's lawyer just said, because not only did you have the mob justice outside putting pressure on the jurors, in fact, there was a shooting outside in George Floyd Square, that's what they call it, still an autonomous zone to this day, during the trial.
People were being shot during the trial of George Floyd while the jurors were driving by.
But you also had another juror who was on there.
We call him a rogue juror.
This is Juror 52.
Juror 52 was a Black Lives Matter podcaster, a George Floyd supporter, someone who even had ties through his family to the Floyd family.
This was someone who lied his way onto the jury and did everything he could to make sure that he was there.
And we know that this was a jury that was compromised.
We know because of his own statements.
We know because of his own podcast that we've looked at.
We know specifically that Juror 52 would never even considered the fact that Officer Chauvin was in fact not committing murder.
He was committing an arrest.
An arrest of a six foot five criminal who was on drugs.
Derek Chauvin, by the way, 5'9", weighed about 115, maybe 120 with all of his kid on, asks Mr. Floyd to go into the car.
He's simply saying, go into the backseat.
Floyd struggles.
Floyd resists.
Please just go back in the car.
Floyd starts screaming, I can't breathe, even when nobody's putting any pressure on him other than trying to put him in the back of the car.
He starts screaming that.
At them.
We also know that there was fentanyl in the car.
But the fentanyl was later not found.
Where did that fentanyl end up?
We know that on previous occasions, George Floyd and other individuals swallowed fentanyl whole because they didn't want to get caught with it.
We also know there was another individual in that car along with Mr. Floyd.
Who was that person, you ask?
That person was George Floyd's drug dealer.
So George Floyd was in a car.
With his drug dealer, we know there's fentanyl in the car because there are traces of fentanyl found in the car.
There are also fentanyl found inside George Floyd during his autopsy.
Why was it that George Floyd's drug dealer didn't testify at the trial?
Well, we know because we were told.
The lawyer for George Floyd's drug dealer, who disappeared this guy, Said that he didn't testify because he was worried of being found liable for the death of George Floyd, which is considered a third-degree murder charge in the state of Minnesota.
Why?
Because if you sell someone enough fentanyl to kill them, and it does kill them, you can be charged with murder in the state of Minnesota.
So he pled the fifth.
All of that amounts to a complete miscarriage of justice, a takeover of our court and our country by the woke industrial injustice system.
And if this appeals court wants to take a stand against that and stand for the rule of law and stand for order and stand for justice, they can make things right.
▲
Export Selection