USA news on Youtube Jun 14 2018

good evening welcome to tucker carlson tonight well it turns out the DOJ failed

to dictate the final result of the 2016 presidential election despite the

fervent efforts of some of the bureaucrats who work there but a year

and a half into the Trump administration the Justice Department still seems at

times to be operating as a kind of shadow government a place that considers

itself beyond the reach of normal oversight back in the real world

congress has the explicit constitutional power to oversee the FBI and all other

executive agencies that's the way it's supposed to work apparently that fact

infuriates the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein earlier this year in January

Rosen Stein threatened to subpoena the emails and the phone records of staffers

on the House Intelligence Committee because the committee was being too

aggressive in its probe of the Russia investigation the message from Rosen

Stein back off you won't investigate us we will investigate you

Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge broke that story she

has more on tonight Catherine well thanks Tucker the emails written on

government accounts formally documented the January meeting for the House Office

of General Counsel the hell's top lawyer who is charged with protecting Congress

and its oversight bonds abilities those two are meeting included Deputy Attorney

General Rod Rosenstein FBI director Christopher ray their senior advisors as

well as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunez and his senior

staff and it came with the height of alleged government surveillance abuses

aimed at the Trump campaign today senior lawmakers responded to allegations the

Deputy Attorney General rod Rosenstein threatened to subpoena records and

turned the tables on the republican-led House Intelligence Committee and staff

over the Russia case it is deeply concerning that instead of having a

cooperative relationship with this agency respectful of the importance of

the Congress having access to documents regarding matters that they're

investigating that they have oversight responsibility for and this is not a way

to conduct that the FBI Justice Department strongly dispute the

characterization of Justice Department official told Fox News Rosen Stein never

threatened anyone with a criminal investigation House Intelligence

Committee Democrats took aim a chairman Nunez who staffers documented the

incident I know the reputation of rod Rosenstein

that is one of impeccable character and I know the reputation of Devon Nunez and

that is one of misleading obstructing attempting to intervene in an

investigation late today chairman unas and Republican

members of the House Intelligence Committee signed this letter to rod

Rosen side rejecting another briefing by the FBI

Justice Department tomorrow saying anything short of providing the records

that are under subpoena in their opinion is an obstruction of justice Tucker

Catherine thank you for that and for breaking that story in the first place

rod Rosen Stein's recent behavior is not the only example of the DOJ apparently

viewing itself as beyond normal oversight months ago we discovered that

FBI agents Peter Strock and Lisa page were political ideologues whose personal

views intruded on their law enforcement duties how far did their misconduct go

and who else might be involved the public has a right to know that but we

don't because the DOJ keeps trying to censor the text messages between struck

and page before releasing them here's one example in a September 2015 text

wrap complain but the do J's handling of a case but his exact complaint was

redacted why we don't know but thanks to work by Senator Ron Johnson office we

know that struck was complaining that the DOJ wanted to quote bargain away

everything and that it had quote Stockholm Syndrome castrati been

referring to how the DOJ handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation and

how we did everything it could to avoid bringing charges against any of

Clinton's team it looks that way from the context but it's still not clear

what is clear is that nothing struck said was a security threat that would

require a redaction in order to protect this country

the DOJ was just trying to cover itself to keep the public from learning the

truth about what was going on is that a defense Jonathan Turley is Professor

George Washington law school and he joins us tonight professor it's a very

simple question is the Department of Justice allowed to redact information

solely for the purpose of protecting its own reputation it is not even though it

has a long history of doing so not just in Congress but in the court so it's

really funny is that they will charge someone who gives the

misleading information but they'll tell Congress that they've redacted

classified information that proves entirely unclassified and there is this

sense of acting with utter impunity when you redact these types of documents if

you look at the language that was uncovered by Senator Johnson and his

staff that material is could not be considered classified under any

definition so the question is why the committee has long accepted this type of

conduct including Democrats they can disagree with chairman Nunez they can

disagree with the White House but they should all agree on the fact that this

is an improper use of redaction and it's been going on you said for quite some

times this is basically the status quo this is not a new way of doing business

unfortunately it is I've been counsel in national security cases against the

government where they have redacted material where I've objected to the

courts that it's clearly not classified I've been allowed into skiffs or

classified setting I've reviewed the material and this is a recurring

complaint among council and national security cases so in this specific case

you have the Deputy Attorney General and no one disputes these facts that the

characterization is different on either side but nobody disputes that rot

Rosenstein went over to the congress and threatened to subpoena the personal

communications of members there have you ever seen anything like that and what

does it suggest about the relationship between the DOJ and the Oversight

Committee well first of all it's it really does reflect a long mistreatment

of Congress you know these committees have not had a robust oversight record

they often roll over this is something new and frankly those of us who've

wanted more oversight have welcomed the last year because finally you have a

committee saying wait we're not just going to accept any reactions you have

we're not going to take no for an answer on something we clearly have oversight

duties now threatening whether it's criminal or civil staffers or members is

clearly inappropriate you know Stanford Rose insane May felt that he

was being mistreated it doesn't matter you have to get over it

he Congress created the Department of Justice this isn't personal

it is oversight business so no matter how aggrieved you may be you cannot

speak to an oversight committee and threaten those staffers with taking

something like subpoenas to their doorstep the Congress does have

oversight over the executive agencies including the Department of Justice

correct or is that I mean watch the other channels and you'd think that that

was something that right-wingers made up last week that's a constitutional

principle and I might that sounds absolutely right and you really

shouldn't pick fights with people like with oversight power yeah I guess you

shouldn't professor thank you very much I appreciate it Thank You Tucker Deena

Goldman is the former federal prosecutor named to insist mr. Goldman thank you

for coming on my pleasure so you just heard Jonathan Turley make I

thought a good point and what I've heard others make before that this has been

going on for a long time not just in this administration but in previous

administrations where the Department of Justice withholds information

inappropriately from Congress claiming that that information is classified

and when unredacted it turns out to have been not classified others they were

lying why would anyone ever defend that practice well these things can often be

subject to interpretation and the prosecutor may have some belief at an

initial stage that there are or the Department of Justice may have a belief

an initial stage that things may be classified out there in relation to that

case or in other cases or there may be some theory that it is classified the

defense attorney disagrees that it's and says it's not classified and ultimately

a judge decides it this is no different than let me give you an example yeah

this is a little bit different so for example the Department of Justice the

Trump Department of Justice I'll say withheld this information from the

Congress that Andrew McCabe spent $70,000 on a conference table now you

could argue the right to do that or it was repaired or whatever but you can't

argue that that information is itself classified or critical to American

national security that's but covering why would anyone defend

well you're very you're trying to hone in on one particular reason why things

are redacted or why things should not what would be the justification for

redacting Andrew McCabe spending 70 grand on a conference table I don't I

don't know you know and I don't know the the detailed circumstances I think the

the point that I would want to make to you and listening to what Jonathan

Turley just said as well first of all is we're looking at these as redactions and

we're looking at the oversight role into the Department of Justice I think you

have to draw a very clear line between investigations that are over such as the

Clinton email investigations and investigations that are ongoing such as

the Trump Russia investigation and there is a long-standing practice that the

Department of Justice does not give over information relevant to ongoing

investigations to Congress and that's something that the House Intelligence

Committee in you through the use of their purported oversight role has sort

of a done away with and is driving a purported oversight role do they not

have an oversight role they have an oversight role but I mean purported

oversight role well they're using the guise of their oversight role to ask for

information that they should either that they should not get or that they are

potentially and and by all by many accounts coordinating with the White

House and others who are the subject of the investigation that's a little higher

lien but I understand that you're a partisan involved in a partisan debate

but take three steps back there's a public interest here so we know that the

last administration had a paid informant spying on at least three members of the

Trump campaign now maybe there was a good reason for that maybe there wasn't

but the fact of it is true and it's known by the public and the fact of it

shakes the public's faith in the integrity of the Department of Justice

so why wouldn't responsible people do their very best to explain why the hell

that happened as soon as they possibly can and calm public fears that the

system is corrupt because public is beginning to believe it is including me

why wouldn't we have right to know why that happened I

actually think I'm not at all partisan I think the people who use the term spy in

the context of a confidential informant are doing so only for partisan reasons

because a spy does not exist within the FBI so when you're going down the road

of using the spy speaking plain English and what you're doing is carrying water

for a political party I am saying that they spied on members of the Trump

campaign to gathered information without the knowledge of the people they were

speaking which happens in thousands of investigations it happens it may it may

but it doesn't answer the question which I think I have a right to know which is

why did that happen you don't have a right is not normal this is not you you

don't confidential FBI investigations are confidential for very important

reasons including the protection of people who aren't charged including for

the protection of sources and information you don't have a right to

you understand actually I would disagree with you completely and I know that you

are a former prosecutors are coming at this from a different point of view

obviously but we know that this happened no one is disputing it happens we know

the names of the people involved and so all that information is public it's been

in the New York Times you don't acknowledge that there's a public

interest in explaining this to the public so they can trust their

government again why was the Obama administration spying on the Trump

campaign you don't like to work I don't dispute that there is a public interest

I I don't dispute there's a planner absolutely a public interest it is

outweighed in the current moment by an ongoing and confidential investigation

the public does have a right to know at some point after the ongoing

investigation is not jeopardized me who are asking honest and in my case

sincerely nonpartisan questions like how the hell did this happen why am I being

attacked as someone who was challenging the rule of law or seeking to undermine

the system my position is I'm trying to preserve public faith in this system

with sunlight I mean I thought that was a traditionally liberal position is it

not I agree with you but I I'm all I'm saying is that there there absolutely is

a public interest I do think that you and others have a right to know what

happened during the course of an investigation just not while the

investigation is going on and that's the critical difference by preserving the

rule of law you have to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation so

witnesses can't tailor their testimony so sources are protecting ultimately it

will all come out and you will do have a right to know and that's why I draw the

distinction between the client email investigation which is in which is over

and an ongoing investigation where this confidential informant is very relevant

Daniel thank you for that I appreciate it thank you House Republicans making

another push at immigration will their bills fulfill the president's promises

during the campaign or are they yet another sock to the donor class we'll

get to the bottom of that question next

For more infomation >> Tucker Carlson ON FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR - Duration: 14:11.

-------------------------------------------

Just In: California Just Passed Measure Awarding Federal Money To Illegals, Benefits Shock. - Duration: 6:56.

Just In: California Just Passed Measure Awarding Federal Money To Illegals, Benefits Shock

My own home state of California isn't even trying to hide its lunacy anymore.

We all already know very well that California seems to have a fetish for disobeying the

federal, and even state, constitutions in the name of social justice and to get more

Democrat voters.

But now they have taken it a step further.

Illegal immigrants are not only a danger to society since we don't know who they are,

but they are also a huge drain on the American taxpayer.

And now the former Golden State wants to make the drain even worse by mandating that American

citizens fund Medicaid programs to include Illegal aliens from the moment they step on

American soil.

This is a move that will mean that while citizens like you and me have to work our butts off

each and every day to be able to provide health care for our families, all foreign nationals

have to do is take a stroll across the U.S. Mexico border and they get it all for free.

The ludicrous measure was passed in the extreme far left California General Assembly.

AB-2965 gives "illegal immigrants access to full-cost healthcare."

This was predominantly supported by Democrats in a 33-21 vote on Wednesday of last week.

Here is more information on this bill via The Conservative Daily Post:

"Many California policies are deliberate Constitution violations as illegal immigrants

are welcomed in the same way that American citizens are.

This not only endangers national security, but is also highly disrespectful to taxpayers

given that they are essentially funding illegal immigrants' lifestyles after they cross

the border.

In the most recent horrendous California legislation passage, the state mandated that it will now

fund its Medicaid program to include illegal immigrants.

This will now mean that while American citizens work hard to obtain healthcare benefits, illegals

will automatically be granted such.

The outrageous measure passed in the California General Assembly, AB-2965, gives "illegal

immigrants access to full-cost healthcare."

Unsurprisingly, this was predominantly supported by Democrats in a 33-21 vote on Wednesday.

While former President Obama ensured that the average worker would be fined for not

having healthcare coverage, liberals continuing his unpatriotic legacy are disgustingly proposing

that those in the United States illegally will be granted such protections automatically.

This will obviously be economically taxing on the state and will cost it an estimated

$3 billion every year that the program continues.

The only thing stopping this from coming to pass would be if the bill is stopped in the

state Senate, again, an unlikely possibility considering the liberal lean of the state's

politicians.

While this robs the average taxpayer to benefit those who have in no way contributed to society,

liberals who support the bill have noted that they do not fear that illegals will take advantage

of the system.

That is a ridiculous anticipation considering that they already do exactly that in seeking

emergency care and "health care at community clinics."

Of course, there is a moral obligation to help someone who is seriously injured or in

need; however, it is not Americans' responsibility to fund preventative care.

Yet it soon will be in California, a sanctuary state, which will now take care of illegals

above its own people, further encouraging illegal immigration from Mexico.

This will also encourage immigrants currently residing in other states to move to California

where their healthcare needs will be met.

While it is only common sense to expect this, some Democrats in the state will defend such

ideas in their continuing apparent desire to help non-citizens.

Thankfully, there are some who understand the importance of limiting immigrants' rights.

Health policy and economics professor from the University of Southern California Joel

Hay rightfully opposed the state's need to continue to protect illegals, saying that

the ModernHealthCare.com organization "hasn't seen evidence" that illegals need any additional

protections.

It should not require an official organization to determine this, yet it may be the only

one that was willing to "question whether the law was necessary."

However, necessity is apparently questionable under liberal logic considering that back

in April, a judge unsurprisingly appointed by Obama mandated that pregnant illegal immigrants

in U.S. custody may remain in the country to have abortions.

While many immigrants come to the United States to escape other oppressed societies, the way

that liberals appear to be welcoming them undermines actual necessity and instead implies

that America is a socialistic society which will assist anyone in need, regardless of

urgency.

However, such protections are not extended to law-abiding citizens while "the proposal

would eliminate legal residency requirements in California's Medicaid program, known

as Medi-Cal."

Prior to the recent amendment, illegal immigrants under the age of 19 were entitled to American

healthcare benefits, but the recent allowance now extends this to adults who should be held

responsible for obtaining their own healthcare.

Of course, in siding with illegals, the California Immigrant Policy Center Deputy Director of

Programs and Counsel, Almas Sayeed, defended such rights on the basis that mandated emergency

care previously provided is "not the same as having a general practitioner" and that

providing healthcare to immigrants "would be a systematic way to keep communities healthy."

This is admittedly true not only for illegals but also for American citizens who cannot

afford to provide their own healthcare.

They too would be admitted under emergency circumstances but would, of course, benefit

from receiving preventative care.

This outrageous new provision shows that California has an unexplainable desire to help foreigners

above its own residents.

This can be said to be a state-wide problem; however, the way that it is implemented promotes

socialism on a national level.

Healthcare is in no way universal in the United States, unless, of course, one is in the country

unlawfully."

When I sit and look at what Democrat rule has done to my home state of California it

just breaks my heart.

Unless you are a high paid Silicon Valley leftist fascist you can't afford to live

here anymore.

But if you are poor, or an illegal here you will be ok.

The state is being overrun by illegal immigrant gang crime from ruthless gangs such as MS-13

but lawmakers are ok with it since they don't have to live in the areas that are affected

by these downright treasonous legislations.

what do you think about this?

Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe

Top Stories Today.

For more infomation >> Just In: California Just Passed Measure Awarding Federal Money To Illegals, Benefits Shock. - Duration: 6:56.

-------------------------------------------

Beijing Warns US on 'One China' Policy Over New American 'Embassy' in Taiwan - Duration: 3:47.

For more infomation >> Beijing Warns US on 'One China' Policy Over New American 'Embassy' in Taiwan - Duration: 3:47.

-------------------------------------------

Footage of Meghan Markle to Be Used by Lawyers in Topless Kate Middleton Photo Appeal - Duration: 2:34.

A 2013 Men's Health video shoot featuring Meghan Markle is be used by lawyers appealing a ruling in France over topless photos taken of Kate Middleton in 2012

The appeal involves the compensation awarded Prince William and Princess Kate after they brought a case against Closer magazine

The Men's Health video describes Meghan, 36, as "the ultimate guy's girl" and is entitled "Grilling Never Looked So Hot with Meghan Markle

"Closer published photos of Kate sunbathing while she and William vacationed in the south of France villa owned by royal relative Lord Snowdon in 2012

The magazine was ordered to pay $120,000 last year.But Closer's lawyers in Paris say that an especially aggressive case was made against the magazine, "exaggerating" the damages

Often token amounts of around $150 are awarded for breach of privacy. The palace's lawyers had asked for $1.6 million in damages.

Now The Daily Telegraph reports that Closer's legal team is expected to use the Men's Health footage from 2013 — before Meghan met Harry and while she was starring on the USA legal drama Suits

They are expected to argue that female members of the royal family are "happy with sexy photos," a source tells The Daily Telegraph

Kensington Palace had no comment on the latest developments, but when William and Kate won their legal case last year, the palace said, "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are pleased that the court has found in their favor, and the matter is now closed

This incident was a serious breach of privacy, and Their Royal Highnesses felt it essential to pursue all legal remedies

They wished to make the point strongly that this kind of unjustified intrusion should not happen

For more infomation >> Footage of Meghan Markle to Be Used by Lawyers in Topless Kate Middleton Photo Appeal - Duration: 2:34.

-------------------------------------------

After arrest, Farrah Abraham insists there's more to the story| American Today - Duration: 1:40.

For more infomation >> After arrest, Farrah Abraham insists there's more to the story| American Today - Duration: 1:40.

-------------------------------------------

Los Angeles prosecutors reviewing sexual assault allegation against actor Sylvester Stallone - Duration: 2:15.

Los Angeles County prosecutors Wednesday began reviewing whether actor Sylvester Stallone should face charges in connection with a sexual assault reported last year to Santa Monica police, a spokesman said

 A special entertainment task force in the Los Angeles County district attorney's office was handed the case against the Hollywood legend by Santa Monica police, district attorney spokesman Greg Risling confirmed

Risling would not comment further on the nature of the allegation. Advertisement  The alleged victim reported the assault last November to Santa Monica police, and the incident dates to the 1990s, according to police

A criminal allegation dating to the 1990s cannot be charged under California law because it is past the statute of limitations that existed at the time

 Prosecutors reviewing cases in the wake of #MeToo movement have repeatedly run into issues of crimes being too old to prosecute under California law

Despite hundreds of women accusing director James Toback of sexual misconduct, Los Angeles prosecutors declined to file charges after five investigations were forwarded by police, mostly on grounds that they were beyond the legal statute of limitations

 In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that amends the penal code so that some sex crimes, including rape, forcible sodomy and molestation of a child, can be be prosecuted, regardless of how long ago the crime occurred

The legislation was prompted by allegations against comedian Bill Cosby.  Stallone's attorney previously said the star of such movies as "Rocky" and "Rambo" had been notified of the allegation and categorically disputed the claims

The actor was set to file a complaint asserting that the allegation was a false police report, the attorney said

For more infomation >> Los Angeles prosecutors reviewing sexual assault allegation against actor Sylvester Stallone - Duration: 2:15.

-------------------------------------------

Pilotos britânicos vão aos EUA para treinar no F-18 - Duration: 1:27.

For more infomation >> Pilotos britânicos vão aos EUA para treinar no F-18 - Duration: 1:27.

-------------------------------------------

6/13/18 6:25 PM (I-80, Laramie, WY 82070, USA) - Duration: 15:03.

For more infomation >> 6/13/18 6:25 PM (I-80, Laramie, WY 82070, USA) - Duration: 15:03.

-------------------------------------------

RAY-BAN " THE GENERAL " U.S.A. 1937-1987 50TH YEAR COMMEMORATIVE SUNGLASSES - Duration: 2:55.

RAY-BAN " THE GENERAL " U.S.A. 1937-1987 50TH YEAR COMMEMORATIVE SUNGLASSES

TO BUY THESE SUNGLASSES FOLLOW THE LINK GIVEN IN THE DESCRIPTION

https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/omniintelligence

Ray-Ban W-0363 and W-0364 50th Anniversary " The General " RB-50 Sunglasses

BAUSCH & LOMB MADE IN U.S.A.

Vintage Ray-Ban W-0364 50th Anniversary "The General" sunglasses from the Classic Metals collection are a collector item must have not to mention beautiful to wear.

Featuring highly reflective Bausch & Lomb RB-50 lenses, pearled "General" brow bar.

An Arista 24kt gold plated frame inscribed with all the anniversary limited edition marks.

It's one of the classics, but they're still so fashionable and distinctive that they look cool, modern, and far from an antique.

This is an original Limited Edition "The General" commemorating the 50 year anniversary,

incorporating the Arista 24kt gold plated Bravura frame, thicker and tougher than standard Ray-Ban aviators, and B&L RB-50 lenses that eliminate glare and ultraviolet radiation.

A graduated mirror coating is applied to the base lens to create the mirrored finish and add extra glare blocking power for strong glare conditions,

a unique general purpose specialty lens for moderate to extreme glare conditions.

B&L Ray-Ban RB-50 lenses also feature 100% ultraviolet protection and an ability to, "filter out scattered blue light to enhance contrast and sharpen details with true color recognition".

The exclusive, anti-reflective coating on vintage RB 50 lenses reduces back glare and sunburn problems associated with traditional mirrored lenses.

The unisex Ray-Ban 50th anniversary General frame measures approximately 5.5" temple to temple,

and the 58 mm Bausch & Lomb RB 50 lenses measure approximately 2.5" x 2.125" at the widest points

with both lenses laser etched BL near the hinges and right lens laser etched Ray-Ban 50 (FADED).

The Arista gold Bravura frame is impressed B&L Ray-Ban USA above the nose bridge and B&L Ray-Ban 58 [] 14 below the bridge,

and the inside of one gold ear stem is impressed 1937 - 1987 while the inside of the other stem is impressed " The General ".

O M N I I N T E L L I G E N C E

TO BUY THESE SUNGLASSES FOLLOW THE LINK GIVEN IN THE DESCRIPTION

https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/omniintelligence

RAY-BAN " THE GENERAL " U.S.A. 1937-1987 50TH YEAR COMMEMORATIVE SUNGLASSES

For more infomation >> RAY-BAN " THE GENERAL " U.S.A. 1937-1987 50TH YEAR COMMEMORATIVE SUNGLASSES - Duration: 2:55.

-------------------------------------------

6/13/18 6:10 PM (I-80, Elk Mountain, WY 82324, USA) - Duration: 15:00.

For more infomation >> 6/13/18 6:10 PM (I-80, Elk Mountain, WY 82324, USA) - Duration: 15:00.

-------------------------------------------

'Teen Mom' star Farrah Abraham arrested for attacking Beverly Hills Hotel security guard| ... - Duration: 1:13.

For more infomation >> 'Teen Mom' star Farrah Abraham arrested for attacking Beverly Hills Hotel security guard| ... - Duration: 1:13.

-------------------------------------------

sounds - Duration: 8:59.

>>RAFEEO: HA HA! [RAFEEO theme music]

>>RAFEEO: Hello everybody!

>>RAFEEO's Dad: Hey.

>>RAFEEO: Who's this random dude in the car? This is my dad. I'm gonna be doing something a little different today. It's called

>>RAFEEO: sound hunting, and it's when you go to public places and try and find sounds

>>RAFEEO: and turn them into music. >>RAFEEO's Dad: Let's do it.

[Cork popping, chimes, horn, bubbles]

>>RAFEEO's Dad: Right now we're under a bridge trying to get some sounds. We're gonna go over here

in a minute. Probably over here by where this factory is and get some over there too.

>>RAFEEO: Let's do it.

>>RAFEEO's Dad: Jam on it. Jam on it.

[Hand slap beat]

>>RAFEEO's Dad: [offscreen] Crunch that broken glass. >>RAFEEO: [offscreen] Okay

[Glass crunching]

>>RAFEEO's Dad: [offscreen] Scoot it.

[Glass crunching]

>>RAFEEO's Dad: [offscreen] That sounded good. [Whistling]

>>RAFEEO's Dad: [offscreen] Hey, get a rock. >>RAFEEO: Okay

>>RAFEEO's Dad: Here, I'll get you walking in the gravel. >>RAFEEO: Okay

[Gravel crunching]

[Rocks hitting cement wall]

>>RAFEEO's Dad: [offscreen] Do it again.

[Rocks hitting cement wall]

[Stick hitting ground]

>>RAFEEO's Dad: [offscreen] It broke before you even got it down.

>>RAFEEO: Hang on. Let me try it on the other side.

>>RAFEEO: You ready? >>RAFEEO's Dad: Yeah

[Stick hitting ground]

[Stick hitting ground]

[Dragging stick along cement]

[Straw scraping drink lid]

[Straw tapping top of drink lid]

[Straw scraping drink lid]

>>RAFEEO: Story time. Go! Tell me one of your best stories. Everyone wants to know the

>>RAFEEO: amazing stories. >>RAFEEO's Dad: I can't think of one right off of the top of my head.

>>RAFEEO: And my camera work of holding it, is um...I'm doing very well at it. [Laughter]

>>RAFEEO: I'll tell you a story. As you know, or as you don't know, um, I've had a lot of pee

>>RAFEEO: stories in my... that I probably haven't told you. Weird way to go-weird way to go into

>>RAFEEO: that. Anyway, um, I was at the theater and we all went to go see Ghostbusters....

>>RAFEEO: 3?

>>RAFEEO: The new one.

>>RAFEEO's Dad: Well it's.. that's just the uh...remake, I guess. >>RAFEEO: The...the remake. [laughter]

>>RAFEEO: And I remember sitting there. I thought to myself...my god, I cannot- I'm

>>RAFEEO: horrible in movie theaters because if I- if I have at least one sip of a drink, I

>>RAFEEO: have to pee really bad, and it's always it's always in like, it's always in a

>>RAFEEO: movie theater when I have to do it the worst, cuz you're watching the movie and

>>RAFEEO: you're like [grunting] Like you can't hold it in. And you're tempted to go in your seat. But yeah

>>RAFEEO: you're just sitting there [grunting] what am I gonna do? So I was- I was sitting there and I was like I

>>RAFEEO: can't hold this in. Cause I don't want to miss the movie. Well I mean, I kind of

>>RAFEEO: wanted to but [laughter] but it was the only way to to go, so I literally left while the

>>RAFEEO: movie was going and I went to go pee and it was like during like a ghost fight

>>RAFEEO: scene or something so I was like I might as well go anyway. Uh the

>>RAFEEO: Sun is blinding me. But yeah, that's just one of my many

>>RAFEEO: pee stories that I will probably tell you guys very very soon. >>RAFEEO's Dad: Today is March

>>RAFEEO's Dad: 4th, 2018 and we're still on the quest to find our sounds for the day. Let's go.

>>RAFEEO: [offscreen] I'm super excited. >>RAFEEO's Dad: Hey look, look at this. >>RAFEEO: It's beautiful. >>RAFEEO's Dad: Why's this still got leaves on it? >>RAFEEO: Yeah [Laughter] >>RAFEEO's Dad: Thru the whole winter?

>>RAFEEO: [laughter] It's like I'm still going strong. >>RAFEEO's Dad: This is crazy. I've never seen this before. Look.

>>RAFEEO: Never in my whole life. >>Rafeeo's Dad: These leaves have not fallen off all the

>>RAFEEO's Dad: way through the whole winter. >>RAFEEO: Okay I'm gonna go give this tree a hug. >>RAFEEO: And they're still alive? >>RAFEEO's Dad: And they

>>RAFEEO's Dad: survived the whole winter without coming off? >>RAFEEO: Dang. We have just experienced [laughter] >>RAFEEO's Dad: I've

>>RAFEEO's Dad: never seen anything like this before, honestly. >>RAFEEO: What should- what should we call

>>RAFEEO: this? Should we call it like Sunday Sound-day or something? >>RAFEEO's Dad: Yeah. >>RAFEEO: Some weird... >>RAFEEO's Dad: Yeah. We just

>>RAFEEO's Dad: made that up. Sunday Sound-Day. >>RAFEEO: It's copyrighted.

>>RAFEEO: Alright, see if we can get a sound off this... >>RAFEEO's Dad: Now watch, the wind probably won't blow at all. >>RAFEEO: We come all the way down

>>RAFEEO: here and the wind doesn't do anything.

>>RAFEEO: Hang on.

>>RAFEEO: This could be. Something on this..

[Dry, crunching grass]

>>RAFEEO: This is another one of those fancy sounds.

[Air screeching through cracked car window]

>>RAFEEO: Is it me or did that sound like when Harry Potter opened up that thing? [Laughter]

>>RAFEEO: The- I'm sure Harry Potter fans are probably gonna be in the comments like it was

called that. Um, but it sounded exactly like it.

[Upbeat music]

[Upbeat music]

[Original arrangement accompanying sounds by RAFEEO]

>>RAFEEO: Thank you so much for watching this video. Click right here to SUBSCRIBE. It

>>RAFEEO: helps me out a lot.

>>RAFEEO: Click right here to watch more and look over here to find me.