Nancy Guthrie, Nanos, and Kelsey Fitzsimmons: The Full Investigation

Tax season has arrived and doing taxes without the right help can feel overwhelming.

Into it, TurboTax is here now to guide you through it with confidence.

Match with a TurboTax full-service expert who handles everything for you from start to finish.

Your dedicated expert checks every single deduction and credit to help you get the best possible

outcome so you can feel confident you're getting every dollar you deserve.

And the best part, you'll see real-time updates on your expert's progress right on your phone

while you live your life. Plus, you get unlimited expert help at no extra cost,

even on nights and weekends during tax season. Visit TurboTax.com.

Only available with TurboTax full-service experts, real-time updates only on iOS mobile app.

Bubble Wall is here from 2311 Racing. You know what's slower than a paste car?

Waiting at the car wash. That's when I fire up Chumbacacino.

It turns those slow minutes into fast fun. With new games every week,

you'll never get bored. Next time you're stuck in the slow lane, speed up with Chumbac.

Play now at chumbacacino.com. Let's Chumbac.

Sponsored by Chumbacacino, no purchase necessary, VGW GroupFord, where prohibited by law,

21 plus terms and conditions apply.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Chumbac by my side.

Race to chumbacacino.com. Let's Chumbac.

No purchase necessary, VGW Group. Voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus, sponsored by Chumbacacino.

Planning to move? With pods moving in storage, the price week quote is the price you pay.

Just choose the container size you want delivered and pack at your own pace.

When you're ready, we'll take it to your new home or store it at a secure pod storage center

until you need it. No surprise costs and no deposit necessary.

Just more control, more certainty, more value.

Book your container today and see why pods are in 4.8 out of 5 stars on Google in 2025.

Visit pods.com today.

This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dream.

All right, we got a lot to get there today and it's your questions and we got answers again

because we're radio shack. We bought the rights to it and we're also selling AA batteries

right back over here in case you need any. They're really overpriced and they're not going

to last you very long, but they're radio shack. Anyway, we are here. We're going to break down

the latest and the Nancy Guthrie case. It's becoming about the Sheriff Nanos case. It's like

two separate things at this point, but all intertwined. So leave us your questions in the comments

section for that and we're going to try and answer them live here during this, during this

discussion and we'll also of course continue the conversation off the air after the fact.

And we're also going to be talking about the latest and the Kelsey Fitzsimmons case. Let's

start out with Nancy Guthrie. You've been sending in the questions, not about this aspect, not

about the evidence, but the man running the investigation, how the sausage is made. And maybe

because there's a problem at the sausage factory, nobody's getting their sausages. So Robin

Drink is where this is always retired FBI Special Agency for the Counterintelligence Behavioral

Analysis Program. This is fascinating. I was working on a story about Nancy Guthrie just the

other day. And then this popped up into the ether of the 200 in some like 240, I don't know

the number directly in front of me to zero. No confidence. The yeah, voting against him. 60,

some did not vote, but there was not one, not a single one who said, maybe he's just misunderstood.

You know, maybe we're like, I like him, but I don't know why not one person voted in confidence.

I'm sure of Nannos. You know all about leadership. You know how everything starts at the top. What,

I mean, what's your reaction when you hear that? You know, sadly, I wish, you know, this is one

of those cases and what we're covering with the Nannos angle. I wish there was solid answers on

this only because I don't get shocked by this kind of stuff because I was surrounded by this kind

of stuff. You know, anyone that works in an organization, and even some organizations that are

for profit, but if you're going to work in a government organization where people don't have to

produce something to sell for profit to actually fund everyone, you're going to wind up with

situations where you're going to have leaders that really suck. And unfortunately, you get a lot

of them. And what happens is when systems become institutionalized around dealing with just bad

leaders and learning how to work around them, that's what's become sad because you start tolerating

morons at the top. And so yeah, seeing this, I wasn't shocked by it, not surprised. Actually,

kind of impressed that they so many would put their names on the line saying, we want this guy gone.

Now, is it going to make a difference at the end of the day? Only if Nannos will make the choice

himself because there's really not much animals to do. I know the talent council is meeting on it.

Yes, they hold a supervisor's. But all they're going to do is ask him to step down. I didn't hear

the results of that yet, though. The level, I mean, the levers that can be pulled are slim to

nil because the way, and I just did a whole piece on this. So I'm trying to go off of memory.

Essentially, if he refuses to provide this report that he needs to provide about his

responses and what's going on, if he refuses to do that, then he can be removed. But as long

as he complies and provides the report and shows up to answer the questions like he's required to do,

they can request he gets stepped on, but they can't remove him. So that's independent of what

those answers are. He can completely he can hand them the menu to Applebee's and go, here's my

report. And well, he did turn in what he's calling his report. He's he's going through the motions.

And that's essentially how the law is written is if you go through the motions and do what

what is asked of you, does mean it's good or acceptable. But as long as you do it, then you have

you've checked the boxes. It's one of these things where it feels like when these laws were made and

these rules and you know, were put in place, nobody was was thinking somebody may try and circumvent

these in such a ridiculous way that we're going to be put into the situation. There's such assumptions.

It seems on so many of these these standards, procedures and practices that people are going to

be acting to the best of their ability. When a reality, you were running into situations here where

they're just not. You know, it'll be really good to I mean, it'll be interesting. So he appears

to be living in the in the court of public opinion. I mean, this is one of the reasons why he ran

for Sheriff to begin with is if you only run for those positions because you want to be out front,

you want to be seen, you want to be heard and you want to run your mouth. And so I mean, just think

about this. If he stays in place and doesn't step down, even if they completely want 100% solve

this case, he's not going to benefit from that in a court of public opinion. They're going to say

they did it in spite of him. Right. So he's not going to win if he stays, you know, in the court of

public opinion. And the only way he can actually preserve what he has left of any reputation, try

to salvage it is take one for you could say I'm taking one for the team. They've locked the public's

laws confidence to me. I get it. I'm going to step down and I'm going to let it let it play out

because I care more about the investigation rather than and my negative impact on that I'm

having on it because that's what happens. You know, when I was getting ready to go on a show

the other day, you know, I was researching the impact this has on cases cross the board for one

thing. Typically, I haven't been able to find a case where people have actually said the

leadership out front did a great job. You know, when it hits this level, I just can't find one

where people are jumping up and down said, Hey, the frontman was a great guy ends the investigators

underneath them were good. Typically, we say the frontman sucks and the investigators doing a good

job. That is typical. And but being able to come back from that, it's I don't know how you would

ever do it. I don't see it. That was kind of what I was thinking earlier too. When I was working

all this out, it was just there, there is no upside to this to stay in power. And it's like you're

almost I mean, he's retirement age, like just just just just be done. I mean, come on. Consider

consider yourself lucky that for 42 years, nobody checked your resume that you were able to just sit

there and get away with a bullshit resume for all of that time. And it took 42 years for it to

finally come out. And it was by his own his own, you know, verbal diarrhea that it was found out

because he lied. And then and then he lied and he backs it up. And well, I didn't think you were

talking about everything's beyond Pima County. The question was in your career that doesn't mean

exclusively Pima County. And maybe he's just an idiot. Maybe he really did think they just

meant Pima County. I wouldn't put that past him. He doesn't seem like the sharpest crann in the box.

So I guess that is possible, but I don't care. I don't care if it's possible. The question was

clear. You didn't apply the standards of the question to your knowledge. And the answer that

came out of your mouth was inaccurate. That's called a lie. And how you do one thing is how you do

everything. And so when you see it in one aspect of his life, then you're going to see it manifest

ever else because why would you change that behavior in one place? Yeah, we are the same person

everywhere, especially when time has an effect. I mean, people can act for a certain amount of time,

but if you're in place for more than a couple days, week, month, or definitely years, who you are

at your core is going to come out. And we don't shift who we are in major swings. We shift who we

are, even if we have an aha moment in awareness take hold, it's a slow rudder shift. And since he

very clearly has not gotten over to himself, and it's all about him, and trying to please,

and again, he's trying to please a public by making it about him. I mean, just it's all over

the place, but again, it's sadly predictable. That's why I haven't really personally focused on it

because I've taken it for a grain as a grain of salt that typically I ignore the top because

because the point I was meant to make a signal I forgot was this, what happens is guys like him,

they don't derail the investigation, but they damn well slow it down. Because of this mixed

messaging, because what happens is when you have this kind of public, the only public facing front

of the organization, people see this organization, so they don't trust the organization, which means

people aren't going to trust whether if I send an elite anonymously, whether it's going to be

handled properly or even handled it at all. And so, and also the biggest thing ever is, and we

talked about the other day, his ability for interagency operation. That is so critical on major

cases like this that all the investigators, his investigators have the resources they need to

execute the investigation to find Nancy and find a culprit. That is it. And all those things

typically get handled at the top level or while you're working on something else, it's your team

that's going to do it. But he typically is the individual that should be reaching out, that should

be accepting offers of help and assistance as well as reaching out and getting offers assistance. But

when you don't have trust in an organization, it slows down or his own ego and vanny to get

in a way or he gets stove piped into I'm going to do it this way because I've done it this way

before, like where he's going to send a DNA to or how he's going to do his messaging, whatever it is,

he's thinking like this and he's got zero apparently, who knows, but it looks like zero loving

critics in his life saying, Hey, you might want to consider this. You can see him railroading right

through with his agenda, but what he wants to do. It's and it's worked for 42. He's got 42 years

of reps of doing it successfully. So I mean, so someone telling him like you can't do it this way.

Yeah, good luck. Like good luck telling him it doesn't work that way because it has. It's worked

all the time for him for all those years when he's not the first time I'm sure he's been told this

is not the right way to do something and he just keeps doing it. I mean, that's that's how he

seems to operate and has been allowed to operate for all of that time. A lot of people, I mean, the

question I think so many people are asking because they're good moral human beings who who wouldn't

imagine going into a job and having lied on your resume in such an extreme way. Can everybody

pads their resume to a certain extent? You know, we all like we talk ourselves up a bit, but like

blatant lying is a little different like no disciplinary issues. I mean, just completely flat out

lying about your history is different than making yourself sound a little better than you actually

are. And that's clearly what it looks like he allegedly had done and got away with for 40 some

years and people like how? How does someone then function for 40 some years knowing that that

shoe could drop at any day? Because I think most of us, if we did that and we got into that position,

we were able to create that ruse enough to get to where we were at. I think the whole time I'd be

in that position, most of you like wait till they do it audit of this and check this out. But

some people never do. It's like once they get past that the gatekeeper, it's like I'm in. And

that seems to be and why? Because for a lot of people, that's just how it works. Yeah, you're

seeing nepotism at its best, not nepotism from the standpoint of your higher friends in there,

but we had there's this phrase inside the bureau. I don't know if it's still there, but it was

we had the rabbi system. It's called if you had a rabbi above you and you got in their good

graces by taking care of them, making the boss look good, focusing on their career. You'd be

included in that club and you know what we're going to take care of your career too. It was always

important for me as an investigator, especially on these massive operations I'm doing and as well

as consulting for my agents that I was consulting for on the behavior side of the operations. Again,

we said this numerous times too. Strategizing the operation or the investigation for my case

agent clients when I was running the behavioral team, that was the easiest part in the world.

Because you're dealing with one or two individuals, how to have a great conversation,

inspire them to trust you to solve a critical life challenge in their lives. That's really what

everything comes down to. Even when you're trying to get someone to confess, you're trying to

inspire them to share information in exchange for helping them solve a critical life challenge

going to jail for the rest of your life. Potentially, I can maybe mitigate that. I can be a resource.

I can actually speak on your behalf. So there's lots of ways in which to communicate. That's the

easiest part in the world. My entire energy, both in my own career and then consulting with our

case agents in the field was, what kind of leadership are you dealing with? My first question

always with every single case agent is, what does your bosses think about this case?

That's the first thing I'm going to deal with because I will always assume that a case agent

and investigator is doing the right just work. If they're going at it, when you've got a

plate of a million things in front of you and you only have time to hit five, there's a lot of

trust that they're going to pick the five most pressing things that could make a huge difference

in people's lives, national security, whatever it is. And so when I got a case agent,

it says these five things are the most important thing and this one thing is most important

out of its whole buffet. All right, I'm all in. I will do all I can. Now we have to think in terms

of how do we inspire management or a guy like Nanos to support us to do this?

And so you start managing that. We called it, this is what organizations call leadership up.

This is where you got to lead your bosses to your conclusion so you can do the right just work

while you're managing their career for them because mostly not most who knows. A lot of these people

like Nanos, they care so deeply about their career, which is that public image, which gets me

elected that they lose sight of the actual operations and things that matter to their citizens.

It's amazing how that can, you know, it's amazing because I think you probably go into it,

you know, with those things being very close to the best, very close to your heart,

very close to your goals and your identity and slowly that it erodes over time in that quest

for power and control. And some people, I guess, are more drawn to that, to the, what was the

someone said, the siren song of celebrity? Some judge said that recently in a case. I forgot

what it was, but somebody said the siren call of celebrity. It is kind of that. I mean, whether

it's celebrity or not, but it is, it's being the top dog. And it's more important to be the top

dog than to actually be right or do things in any sort of way that you're being held accountable

or effective. Think about that. We see this all the time. So, I mean, we've been talking a lot about

not just, you know, Nanos in the Guthrie case, but we've been talking about the Duggers.

Yeah. So here you got Jim Bob in IBLP, you know, a ultra conservative religious offshoot of

baptism, of Baptist church, right? Yeah. And so the initial, so I just finished the book that

his daughter, one of his 19 kids wrote, as well as the special shiny happy people. And what's really,

really interesting is we see the exact same thing. So he, let's presume he joined and went into

this organization because of great family values centered on family, children are blessing from

God. All these great, beautiful things that fathers are the protectors and then the church above

that. I mean, on paper, without doing very, very surface level, it sounds very nice. It sounds like

they're doing it for very altruistic, you know, humanity, family centered reasons. But then over time,

he starts making money. He gets deals with the learning channel with 19, you know, that the 19

kids and growing, whatever, you know, show. And he gets all these deals. And I think the number came

out in the book. They said he probably made about 14 to 16 million dollars that he'd never give

any of his kids one cent to and then finally, his eldest daughter is battling because she's, she's

under, she's undergoing tax stuff where he was claiming that he paid her, but never gave her

the money. And so she's actually having to claim the, she's getting hunted by the IRS. Yeah,

they're having. So he's, she's having to battle her father, who's then just to find his actions.

Why I did this? Because I gave you a roof over your head. I gave you a car insurance. And you

know, so here's a dad that said he did everything for his family, that mission statement. But in the

end, it was greed, control, and power. But he's believing his story, I think the whole time.

And so is Nanos. So that's my circle back is that. So here's a guy that joins law enforcement.

I will always presume the best because people don't join organizations. I'm going to join this

organization and just be an ass. But it happens. And so he joins the organization for all the

righteous reasons why people go on to law enforcement to protect serving and take care of your

community, right? But then along the way, he gets that taste of power. The dopamine starts flowing.

And then in his mind, you see a whole pattern throughout his life, the ends just to find the

means. Well, if I want to be a leadership and take care of my people, I'm going to have to

fudge my resume a bit. I'm going to have to exaggerate it here. And you know what?

All my buddies will back me up because we got the blue wall going. So you can kind of envision

this is what's going on his mind. And then then you get addicted to dopamine to get addicted to

power. And so as as the as a sense of me takes over the sense of other starts shutting out. Hence,

my book is not all about me because that's exactly what happens is that we get so addicted to ourselves

with no checking balance from a loving critics saying, this is my wife's famous quote all time is

anytime it's something to come up a potential thing in my career. She'd always looking at me and

goes, why you? It'll totally derail anything is like, you know, why indeed? You know, what are my

what are my goals and priorities in life? Because she would always say you're going to be home more

around the family or home less. We that's all we care about. It was always having someone

ground you in people like nanos zero granted people like Jim Bob Dugger zero because his wife

had to be subservient. She had to be. Yeah. So that's how the systems get corrupted. It's like

no checking balance from the top. Mm hmm. It's a people like us. And then people. Yeah. I mean,

yeah, I mean, it's it's it's we're seeing that in so many situations. And and and when when

one is in that sort of state where they're so insulated from any outside exposure or opinions or

voices or thoughts, then you also completely fail to see the long term effects of of your existence

of being even in that position of power to which he's in to which he has the power to to solve

cases to to affect people's future existence freedom. I mean, down to granular levels, the power

that is there in a position he lied to get into. Now, now, what does that do to 40 some years of

cases when we look back on it now because you I can guarantee after his testimony the other day of

basically he lied to get this position and to maintain this position about his track record there.

All of these cases basically saying, you know, he was hired under false pretenses. All of those

cases are going to take a look at that and go, Oh, so if he hadn't been here, then this couldn't

have been done in this case. That couldn't have been done. And that led to a guilty verdict over

here. I think this is a new evidence or I think I mean, I can't say how far any of that's going to

go in a court of law. But if you have anything that is, you know, reasonably questionable and just

needs to be pushed over that edge a little bit to be re looked at, it probably will be and maybe

that's a good thing in a lot of cases to have them re looked at if things were pushed in one direction

or not. But it can also be a bad thing for cases that really were solved justifiably. The right

person went away, where's punished the way they were supposed to. But now all of those go out to

be questioned as well because he existed in a position that he wasn't supposed to be in in the

first place because he lied. And that's one of those things he never thought of because it was

all about him going into it and maintained for 42 years. Yeah, because guys like him think the

ends justify the means. Yes. So if as you know, and it's it's guys like Bob Mata who would actually

have a heyday now going back to looking at. Oh god. You know, you know, defences that might have

been tainted because he was the one that the ends justify the means. So we're going to reexamine

all the evidence, reexamine how it's all collected. So I would think that they're going to go back and

look at or someone would look at the cases that he was investigating. Now, granted when he hit the

leadership positions, it'll get harder to do that. But again, they'll probably do and I would say

that anyone that was dismissed any cases that he personally touched anything that he personally

had an interaction with will get a second glance or a third glance or fourth glance by a lot of

people for a long period of time, which creates again, it creates chaos. And and the sad thing is

is that I really do think he's got a good department because again, we went through those numbers

to clear its rate of his detectives is really, really good, which means they figured out how to work

around this guy and and but what happens is when you get some self-centered narcissist at the top,

he'll claim credit for all their work. And so it keeps serving well. I'm doing a great job in my

way of hammering them. My way of doing this is working because look at our clearance rate.

Yeah. Not taking to account that your clearance rate is great because you because you happen to have

great people in spite of you. And imagine how much better it can be if everything was working as

intended. You know, and like if it's working that good and you're shit, imagine if there's

somebody good here in that position, how much how it could be like if this is how good you are

firing on not all cylinders, if you were firing on all, oh my god, let's get there. That's what the

public wants. That's what that's so you're serving and protecting wants. Not this

whatever the hell we have going on here. But there's so many questions. It's going to be very

fascinating to watch and see if if nanos takes what I would say at this point is the righteous path

and and just steps down and it's like I'm okay. And we're going to get into that here in our next

segment. Your thoughts in the comments section on substack in YouTube. The links are in the

description and be sure to press subscribe wherever you are getting podcasts. Here's what keeps

showing up in a lot of your messages. We're going to be getting into the Nancy Guthrie case a

little bit more today and the latest with the the nanos investigation. Forget the board meetings.

Forget the recall signatures. Forget the politics. You want to know one thing with all of this

happening is Nancy is Nancy Guthrie still the priority is somebody still fighting for her.

You got a lot of questions about that. There's a lot of noise as you've been hearing us talking

about with with sheriff Nanos Robin Drake retired FBI special agent chief of the counterintelligence

behavior analysis program is always my coast with us as we're discussing this today. Let me ask you

this Robin even if nanos has changed over at this point. Let's say he steps down and you get

somebody new in there. It's a new position. Somebody's going to hit the ground running but they're

hitting the ground running from somebody else has been in that position for quite some time.

So it's all going to be a bit new territory. How does that affect this investigation?

So that's a great question. I don't think it would affect the investigation and the investigators

and what they're doing in their day to day. I think they're locked in. I think they're doing

and I think they're working very, very well with what they have. Now what'll be very,

really, really interesting if that does happen is a fresh set of eyes looking at what they do have

and seeing what new decisions they make on what to share with the public. I think you need to...

So here's what the public would love. The public would love some transparency about what transpired,

what incongruencies meant, what nanos said. They looked for explanations behind. He says this

and he says this. He says this and he says this. And so someone with a new set of eyes looking at

what they have right now would then be able to hopefully put out some corrected information,

some more accurate information, consistent information and hopefully a little more nuggets that

would help generate leads because that's what they still need more of. They still need more

information coming in because if we're not on someone, if we don't have an arrest, they obviously

aren't zoning close enough to be able to do that. So maybe with a fresh set of eyes at the top,

taking a little bit more of a concise angle on what to put out to the public would help that a lot.

Like, so for example, I don't know the impact on this yet, but Savannah, she just did this interview

as of the recording of this so earlier, earlier today or yesterday and she's talking about the

back door being propped open. I'm like, huh, that completely added some new data points to

way I was thinking about this because remember, I'm like 60, 40, 60 on the home invasion for

attempted burglary gone sideways, but back door propped open. I got to do some more research now.

I got to take a look a second look at this because how does that affect just that one little nugget

that she put out there kind of shifts this whole thing. Now granted, is that going to help bring

Nancy home sooner or later? Don't know, but that couldn't kind of information might have helped

early on. And there's, there's a psychology behind, you know, releasing some of that information

or not and it's very investigating and it makes sense because you're going to get a lot of people

that are going to claim they have knowledge of this or that and there's certain details that

need to be held close enough to the vest so you can determine whether the person actually knows

what the hell they're talking about or not or they're just making up a story. But sometimes

revealing some of that information earlier on gives you a better idea of who to be looking

out for profile wise in the general public. Now it's one thing, you know, the investigators to

know who they should be looking out for, but there's only so many of them and there's, you know,

it's a gazillion to one when it comes to the general population versus an investigator.

There's a lot more eyeballs out there on the streets. And it felt like this case with everything

and we've seen so many cases where things get held so close to the vest. A resource of the

general public was not being used to help find an answer. And then I get it can create a lot of

noise and there's different, you know, strategies depending on the investigator of how they're going

to use the public if they're going to use a public or not. But in so many cases, especially today,

the information that is found that the public comes out with because they're given

enough to work with, ends up solving so many more cases than not, than holding the information back

than just being like, we're going to solve it based on our handful of people who hear who are

investigating into the information. Only we know. This seemed like there was a very large

missed opportunity and there could have been a lot more information, maybe thrown out to the public

that maybe would have resulted in more valuable leads early on. I don't know. I mean, that

seems to be true in a lot of cases. What's your thoughts on Adam, this one? Yeah. And also the

reverse of that, you know, not just getting leads in for more information again, because again,

as most of us in law enforcement do, we don't really like second guessing what law enforcement

is doing because we don't have the full picture in their decision process and he granted. He's

as NANO as dumb as he's made some of these things. He's got a lot more experience than I do,

you know, about twice and much really I did 22 years with the FBI. But so I always discount

everything they're doing because there's some some thought going behind it. Who knows what the

impact of it is. But to that end, when it's not just about the impact that that information has

on the public for generating leading leads, but also we've talked about a lot you and I about the

pressure that information then puts on the perpetrator or the people surrounding them. So so imagine

this. If NANO sat again, just the thought experiments, who knows the difference would have made,

but just a few more nuggets of details like the door being propped open or maybe one or two others,

what kind of message that not just sends about who to look for for the public for leads, but also

the perpetrator and or their tight circle of people that might know about this. Oh my god,

they actually saw that. They paid attention to that. I didn't realize I did that. Oh my god,

they're on to me. Again, that pressure valve starts pushing on it because they think they're

closing in and pops and someone leaks and someone gives a tip. So and so by by not again, I don't know

their decision process on what to do or not to do to kind of put that and apply that pressure

publicly, but we've seen so little for such a long time that why not try it? Why not do something

more? But all that's that's how I think and make it not just for the leads generated by the

public, but also by putting pressure on the perpetrator themselves and their very tight circle

that may or may not know this put that pressure on their on me. I better I this is my only chance

to save myself as it turned him in and get the million dollars. Where do you think that's that

because that certainly has been an angle that we've talked about for for quite a while in this case

is is the how do you inspire someone to come forward with information? If no one's been inspired

by now, is anyone ever going to be inspired? I think it diminishes every day over time,

but what will happen? So here's what does happen over time. As the perpetrator of this gets more

comfortable with the fact they got away with it, their mouth starts running and they start and they

start leaking information, you know, and so that could happen. He might get arrested for something

else and so he'll start doing a jailhouse kind of leaking, you know, about how I did this, this

and got away with it. So it could happen that way. And also, but if the people surrounding him

don't feel the pressure that they're getting close to them, why would they turn them in? Because

they have more to lose than they would to gain potentially. Because again, people fear jail more

than if more than they want money. What the study shows anyway. Does someone like Nana

seem to care about credibility? I mean, or is he completely, is he tone deaf to it? You know,

because the way that he's been acting, the statement that he's made, he doesn't seem to be affected

by the ridiculousness of some of his statements and the criticism that comes after it. It's just

kind of like, and it just brushes off his shoulder. And I think we all know folks like that. It's

it seems to be a lot more dangerous when you have someone who has this level of power that

doesn't seem to care. But, but does credibility matter to someone like this? Especially, you know,

we, and I get like making forward thinking statements about we're getting closer and bullshit

like that. And they keep, you know, he said that a thousand times. We're getting closer. Are we?

Are we, I mean, are you just saying that allowed? I mean, and is it wrong to say that, I guess,

allowed in something like this? I mean, there's people want to have hope, people want to have

faith, but they also want facts and reality. And when I, when I go to police, I kind of want

facts and reality. I don't necessarily want, you know, hope and conjecture. Yeah. I think he's

more on the hope and conjecture credibility. It's a, you know, I can't think of how we would even

think of that. I don't think he thinks in terms of credibility. I think he, his entire laurels,

I imagine, are resting on the success of his department. So credibility doesn't really come in

to play that. And because, because he's been in charge, I mean, also, he's got 42 years of being

undoculated against public opinion. Yeah. Hasn't bothered him for that long. So it's not going to

bother him now. I mean, this, this, this just, this is just another day to him. This just,

that's why you, that's why it's interesting because people keep knocking him on going to the gym,

going to basketball games, doing, driving his sports car around, you know, because the image

is putting out there is not a good one, right? Well, he, he's an oscillator gets it because,

you know what? He does it every day. He, he don't care. It's just another day. This is just another

investigation for him. And it happens to be that there's far more eyes on him than there ever

have been. But that doesn't appear to affect him in any way, shape or form. He doesn't care.

Can you know why? Because he knows the odds of removing him from office. Yeah. When you have that

kind of, when, when you yield, I mean, is that, I mean, is that something that really should

be reviewed across departments, across, across municipalities, across the country of what levers

do we have in place to remove someone? Should we get someone like this in power? And it's going

to be interesting because, you know, some places, you know, there already is leadership in there

that is running and existing because this kind of structure exists. So there's not going to be a

whole lot of interest in changing that up. But there will certainly be municipalities and

jurisdictions where, where they, they're open and they have the ability to make some change. But

again, like I said in our other piece, it really feels like these sort of considerations were not

made when these sort of rules and laws were put in place because the assumption is made that

everybody is going to be really on the up and up and nobody's going to be in there that has some

sort of a toxic personality or some sort of narcissistic type personality. And I'm not diagnosing

it. But that, that is, is incapable of seeing their own flaws and, and just running the ship into a

wall saying, there's no wall ahead. It's like, no, there clearly is. He doesn't see it. He doesn't

see it. He's going straight towards it. Well, what levers can we pull? We don't have any to pull.

That seems to be kind of where we're at. Maybe we should get those in place to prevent the next

nanos. It's really interesting. It's a great question is I don't know. I have never, because you

know what I'm going to do after. It's like a deep dive in research, right? But I'm really curious

too. Because so here you have, he's elected official. And now if he's treated like every other

elected official, but he's in this position, that's an interesting dilemma because if you look at

a politician, like say the, the county supervisor, if the county supervisor there isn't elected

official, who really is the county supervisor leading or are they just managing? Are they managing

resources or managing budgets? They're really in a position where they're not leading. They're managing

the welfare, the structure, the infrastructure, all the things we need, water, power, all those

things. That's what that mechanism set up for, the small local governments. But nanos, now here's

another person that's in elected position, just like that. That's more of a management role.

Now you have someone who's actually elected to lead hundreds of law enforcement sworn officers

and protect public safety at a very personal one-on-one level. That requires it. I would think a

hugely different skill set and different, I would think different level of accountability for

their actions, because it affects many more people on a much more grander level. So you wouldn't

think that the lever to remove a town supervisor would necessarily should be the same as the ability

to remove a sheriff who is inept, corrupt or incapable of performing the function of their job,

which is public safety. Yeah. I mean, nanos, I mean, he's not striking me as someone who's like,

malicely trying to do harm. He just incompetent. He's like, just go retire, just go enjoy your time,

whatever. Definitely incompetent messaging, because it's messaging what it comes down to,

who knows behind the scenes, but obviously behind the scenes, he's all his cops that sign the

petition saying you're incompetent. So it's well-themed public opinion as well as internally.

You got to choose. What if he was? What if he, I mean, I'm not saying he is, but they essentially

the way it's structured right now, you could have somebody who's doing a lot of nefarious stuff.

And there's really not a lever to get rid of them. I mean, I mean, there is the,

there's like, oh, there's the recall. Good luck with that. I mean, just good luck. I mean,

honestly, I think there's five to ten percent. I looked up, I did the research on how that would

happen. It's like five to ten percent chance that that even would be effective. And maybe that's

a lever where it's like maybe like the, because it's a set number. It says it has to be X amount.

And it's basically they need a hundred and twenty thousand signatures verified signatures. Not

just let's go on a website and click a box. Now, we're talking like literally going door to door.

What's your name? What's your address? Can I see some ID? And then we got to find a way that we

can actually back this up so they can't just go and, oh, you made up all of these. No.

So as I be verified, as I remember it from the research I did, again, I'll probably get it

wrong. So correct me. But it is, it has to be 25% of those who actually can be verified that

actually voted for him in the first election or voted in the first election. So they have to

verify that they actually voted in the election of him. And it has to be at least 25% of that voting

population. It's something like that. I don't know the exact stat. Yeah. But it is something where

it's like, I mean, can it be done? Yeah. I mean, in theory, I mean, I guess my microwave could

also power us to get to the moon, too, if it were like reprogrammed. But it's a coin to happen.

No. I mean, it's just it's a feat that is is almost impossible to reach with the amount of

manpower you would need to get there. And I think you'd almost need a sheriff in place

that's really doing absolutely horrible shit, not just incompetent to, I think, drive that level

of turnout to sign this thing to really, and I don't know what they have it. I don't

there's enough motivation here to do it. Just being incompetent, I don't think drives that level

of outrage. Super bad, the board suit. I mean, you're too bad that the board, you know, like my

town I live in here in Virginia, you know, we have a board of supervisors and each of those board

of supervisors are elected by their districts and in our county. And I think we have like five or

six of them in my county that are on the board of supervisors for each of the districts in the

county like Nana's would cover like our sheriff. You would think that all right. So the recall

won't work or is an effective, how come the board of supervisors, you can make a simple rule like

it has to be a unanimous decision by the board of supervisors based on what the union says or

based on what, you know, that they could actually call for a vote of no confidence by the board of

supervisors to have a reelection. Now, granted, he could run again and maybe he wins. All right,

but how not why not just trigger that if, in extreme cases, you know, and all it would do is to

and if they could get the signatures, it doesn't remove him. It just triggers a new election. Yeah.

So easier. I mean, I feel like maybe maybe the entry level, the point of entry should be a little

more realistic when you have a situation like this. Don't make it so like anybody can just keep

recalling back and forth. That gets to be a little monotonous and unproductive. But maybe make it

so it's not like end of the world type scenario where you need, if you need to pull this lever,

you can do it more like there's smoke and there's fire over here. We need to put it up before

it completely engulfs the whole building. We got to wait till the fire catches a majority of

the structure before we do that. Well, it's really bad right now. Why don't we do it? We got to

wait. That's the price. That's the criteria. And that's kind of where we're sitting.

Yeah. The union's actions on this sort of ones that really kind of shifted shift in my focus

because until the union like voted unanimously, a vote in no confidence against him, I was like,

I was literally just, he was in the back of my mind at this time. It's the first time though.

I know. But I mean, it was one of those things I was like, I was disregarding him as just regular

noise and level level management because I'm so used to seeing it not just on this on cases

that we cover, but all over, all over. And that's why when you have, I always used to say, no

matter what job you had inside the bureau, it didn't matter. If you found the great boss,

that's who you hold on to and you never leave their side because it's because they're that rare.

And so when the analyst is totally dismissing them, but when you actually have such an outcry

eternally, that's what really got my attention on this and yeah, he needs a go.

And that's what I was surprised because when I saw the headline yesterday, I'm like, well,

I know this vote happened a while ago, one day. No, this is yes. This is like two days ago.

Like this is a brand new vote. Yeah. So it's not the first time that they've gone through and

done this poll and gotten this response because you know, it's interesting because I mean,

so you put yourself in those union members shoes. This is them now saying, oh my god,

this might be our chance to finally get rid of him. And so that's what triggered it because

they see this as an opportunity to write their own ship as well. We'll see if it does anything.

You're thoughts in the comments section on sub-stack and YouTube, but we will continue our

conversation there. Be sure to press subscribe wherever you're downloading podcasts so you don't

miss any of our coverage of this and the many cases that we're following for you right here.

Let's move over to this one, Kelsey Fitzsimmons. Yeah.

You've been following this case from the beginning and your messages have made it clear.

It's gotten under your skin in a way that most cases don't. I mean, this is a case. It's really

emotionally triggering, I would say, to a lot of people and for a lot of reasons because

I think a lot of people can can almost put themselves in this person's position or that person's

position. And there's a lot of emotions that get caught up in here. And at the end of the day,

there is the law and there's procedure and then there's people and humanity. And humanity doesn't

always work cleanly with all of this over here. Kelsey Fitzsimmons is on trial right now.

By the time you watch this, there may be a verdict. It is a bench trial. The question is,

and it really just kind of comes down to one thing with a lot of minutia around it that influences it

is did she aim the weapon and pull the trigger at a fellow officer while she was really experiencing

some of the worst absolute moments of her life. Her baby was being taken out of her home at that

moment in time. Her job was on the line. Everything was up in the air. I mean, mentally she was not in a

good place whatsoever. That's not an excuse to pull a gun and pull a trigger at somebody.

But it's also part of the recipe for what we're actually dealing with here. Robin Drake,

retired FBI special agency for the counter intelligence behavioral analysis program is with us as

always. Let's start with one of the questions from the audience. As Kelsey said, in the ambulance that

she kept repeating, she was an idiot. This is kind of what I've been saying. It's like it was a

mantra almost that she kept telling herself. This is what she was saying on the stand that she was

an idiot for trying to end herself with an unloaded gun. She tried to pull the oxygen mask off

because she still wanted to die. Doesn't sound like someone who just tried to shoot at a cop

after hearing that testimony. Does that change how you see the whole case? Robin, what are your thoughts?

She's compelling. I mean, she really is. This whole thing is so heart-wrenching. I mean,

I've got my goosebumps right now of sadness. It is really just a sad situation.

All I can say is she's compelling. She makes very powerful statements. She's very consistent

with what she's saying, the messaging she's putting out. When you have someone so consistent,

that means their memory is very clear on what was going through their head. It's not wavering,

it's not deviating. There's no saying this in one moment. In other words, there's a lot of

congruency throughout from every second of this entire thing, which makes someone extremely believable,

extremely plausible. Again, we've already known the perception of the officer. He's not under

investigation for a bad shoot. He's just coming down to what was in her head. Granted, we have what

he said happened, but understanding what's heard in her head for the intent, because I think that's

what she's on trial for really is what was her intent. I think her intent, as she's been stated,

is pretty clear. I do too. I don't think she intended that. I mean, it's not to say that her intent

and her recollection are accurate or inaccurate, but the possibility for either of those, I think,

exists. I think the possibility of either of those also exists for the officer who pulled the

trigger in what he believed was self-defense. I think anytime you have a weapon that's pulled out

in front of you, and the trigger is, I mean, it's almost irrelevant. I mean, it's more relevant to

me if she does, if she did aim it and she pulled it and it clicked. But almost, I mean, either way,

you got somebody with a weapon and they pulled the trigger and they're trying to re-rock it,

because it didn't go off. There's .05 of a second where that gun can go that way or at her,

and you don't know where it's going to go next, and she just knows that the bullet didn't work,

and she's trying to do it again. She's not putting it down or dropping it. She's actively engaging

with the weapon. I don't know what the training is. I'm not a cop, I've never been a cop,

but you're also a human too in that moment and you're wanting to prevent this from going.

Luminate the threat. That's the training.

Luminate the threat.

So it's not a crazy thought to me that the cops are going to shoot her.

You know, could things have been done differently? Sure, maybe, but again, you're dealing with

two human beings in a life or death situation, and that's the call that was made. Is it the best

of the options that were available? Maybe not, but is it one where it was the wrong one?

I can't say it was the wrong one, but if you get A, B, and C, and they're all viable options,

you're asking a human being to make a split second choice and hope to God it's the right one.

You know, it'd be interesting. You know, hindsight is always interesting to examine and look at,

but I don't have any researches that people typically don't do this when they're in these

kind of moments where we're on YouTube, so I won't say it, but they want to do self-harm.

If she had stated that as she's taking that action, that probably would have come out

differently as well. Like, stand back. This is what I'm about to do. It's what I'm going to need to do.

Because again, when you are in that position and you see someone try to take a shot,

and then you see them reattempted to reload, the vast majority of the time, the reason they're

trying to reload is not because they're trying to do self-harm. They're trying to take you out.

Well, and there also was not the expectation of a weapon. They did not walk into that bedroom

expecting. It wasn't, hey, Kelsey, go give us your gun, which is kind of what I had thought was

the situation to begin with. It's not. She was going to go get baby clothes. The guns they

believed were locked up in the basement. They weren't expecting you to pull a weapon out.

So it does add that little, and if you think you're, if you think you're going there and you're

accompanying your coworker, your friend, to go get the baby stuff that she needed to pack a bag

for it. And suddenly she pulls a weapon and pulls the trigger. I don't care what direction it's

pointed. You're in a very different situation at that moment. You're with an unhinged individual

with a weapon. But again, at the end of the day, what was going on here? And that's the human

side of it by definition of law. And I think that's when we get to the legal end of it. But we're

not talking to legal end of it. But the legal end of it, I think she's in the wrong.

Does that, does that mean she should go away for five years? Does that help anything? No.

This is someone who, this was a mental health crisis at the end of the day. I think she

can admit herself. It was a stupid thing to do. She will stand by for the rest of her life as she

didn't aim the gun at them. And I believe she believes she did not. Unfortunately, we're never

going to know the truer answer to that. And regardless of whether she aimed it or not, the

consequence was, you might get shot. She knew that. I mean, you pull a weapon out in front of

an officer. She's a cop. She knows how deadly that can be. She can't in one sentence be like,

I don't know why I'm so surprised. I was shot. And then the other being like, I get how it

works. I'm a cop. You can't have it both ways. And so here's the other thing too. Granted,

granted, regardless of what her intent was, as she's maneuvering that weapon and handling that

weapon, that barrel at some point was not pointing at her. Yes. And so, because so part of training

is this, you only point your weapon at something you tend to shoot. And as soon as that barrel

goes through something else, you don't think it's going to intend to shoot themselves. So,

I mean, that's, it's a, there's a lot of reps. There's a lot of training. I'm like, I know

all local jurisdictions have different requirements for their annual training in the Bureau.

We trained quarterly. Yeah. Like, I went to firearms training. I had to get certified four times a

year to be able to legally carry my firearm. It's a lot of training. You know, think about that.

Local law enforcement generally at least twice a year to maintain their firearms provisions.

A lot of them do four times a year. This guy, the guy that was in there was on the force for 20

years. That's a lot of reps of that same verbalogy, that same training of, you know, you eliminate the

threat, eliminate the threat, eliminate the threat. You know, a lot of talkies made on this. And

rightfully so, of, you know, could they have done this better? Could they have done this differently?

Should they, could they bought a crisis counselor or a social worker or something to help with the

human aspect of this? And I know every department has slightly different policies. Everyone has

slightly different resources. Some have someone in that position. Some do not at all because they

don't have it. Ultimately, as all of the cases seem to come down to funding, it's like, well,

what do they have the resources to do? I'm just going to throw this out there. And I don't know the,

this is kind of more of a broad statement, a police department and such, especially ones that are

very well armed like militarily armed to the point of like, you know, a war when they're

a relatively small department and maybe don't need tank-like vehicles and other shit that they

end up getting. How about we use some of the money to, I don't know, higher mental health

counselors and things that deal more in the world of mental health rather than arming ourselves

up to such a degree that will never truly be needed against the citizenry that we're supposedly

serving and protecting. Maybe spending some of the money there, maybe while we got it because,

well, sell it. I don't know. Use some of the money for that rather than larger,

bigger guns and weaponry that you're rarely ever going to use if at all. Maybe spend some

money on the mental health and of things and maybe you don't need such big guns and war-like

equipment. Yeah. And just more fail-safe protocols. Yeah. You may just make it standard instead of

making it optional or making it subjective about who we're going to send and how we're going to

send. You just make it standard that, hey, we're going to send a mental health professional. We're

going to send the counselor when executing these things. I mean, just update the policies. Make

sure they actually are coherence with what the reality on the ground is in these situations where

mental health is going to be an issue. Or even anytime, because again, we looked up the numbers

on this the other day when we were doing this live also was, I think it was with Bob. A lot of

that. We're talking about the potential of violence escalates dramatically when you start serving

orders to remove children. Yeah. And so when something like that is triggered and there's been

claims of mental health issues, you would think that we need to update our policies rather than

just sending three badged individuals in there to serve the restraining order. That would shift.

And if you're in a mental state and you think that that's a wrong, that's being executed upon

you at that moment in time, you're not. I mean, most people aren't going to go, oh yeah,

I'm batshit crazy. Come take my kid. You know, I mean, and I'm not saying she was batshit crazy.

But but people are those are the least times that people are in touch with the reality of their

emotions. If if the authorities are literally coming in to take your child from you, you might

not be in the best state to evaluate where you're at or the others around you. Yeah, I mean,

just just the whole everything that all of it could have been handled differently. But again,

we're dealing with with what what they knew, what they were equipped with what they were trained

to do. And it is easy on the outside to say, well, if they would have done this or done that or

known this or known that. I mean, again, she was a 20 some year old cop. I mean, there's other

cops in this force that are young too that may not have the experience of their training. People

are only as good as what they know. Again, it goes back to the fundamentals, I think, of can we

can we just do better as a whole rather than we have to just keep litigating all of the

mistakes that are made in every department here? How about we just as a whole go, let's just fix

this shit. So we don't end up in these situations to begin with. One of the viewers, I can't say

your name so sorry. Is it Chowsky put up there? They had social workers available and were approved

thanks Todd, approved to spend money on body cans, but did nothing. So this is kind of what I was

talking about. So I just know about that being a factual statement. But regardless, let's say in

theory. Right. So in theory, let's say that's exactly right. But how can that get circumvented

because the guy that got assigned to serve the orange is I know her is not a big deal. I'll go

talk to her. We're good friends. Yeah. And they're the subjective choice comes in when they

shouldn't be having one because if something, in other words, you put protocols in place and

SOP standing on a procedure in place so that those subjective calls that could be come disastrous

can't be made. And that's where, you know, regardless of what was available, not available,

this is the protocol we're going to follow when x, y, and z is triggered so that we don't have

a misstep. Even though I know your great friends with her, you got a great, you know, great

rapport, whatever it is. But this is the procedure we will follow because of this x, y, and z.

And we got a question there because that's the other part of the story. I'm curious about her

fiancee. What's up with him? Does he really have the best interest of the child at heart or does

he want to extract some sort of rinse? I don't know the answer to that. He's not a child. I brought

that up the other day. And I don't know the answer to it. But if we were, if we're going to honestly

look at it and examine it, you could look at the angle because people weaponize this shit all

the time for so they can have control over the kid. But every person who does this or has to get

the authorities involved or has to get a child taken away from someone who is not mentally stable

is not weaponizing the system. They're doing the best thing for the child. And one side of that

equation is going to think the opposite. One side is always going to think, well, they're weaponizing

it. They're trying to do this to me and they're going to they're going to have a very different

story than the other side. One has been institutionalized recently for very serious mental health problems.

The other has not. There is a small child involved in the number one priority for every single

person in the circle should be the well-being of that child. You could look at this scenario and go

he was really thinking of the best interest of that child. The child shouldn't be with that mother.

But a child was for a long period of time. There was plenty of times where he didn't seem to have any

problem with this. Why suddenly now? I mean, there's a lot of and that gets into the domestic

angle of all of this. But just because because one person is saying or trying to get a child

removed from the others doesn't mean that they're there trying to to steal the kid or do something

a furious or prevent the child from being there. Yes, it can be weaponized as weaponized all the

fricking time. But there are certain modalities in certain situations where look, somebody's going

to be upset here because they're not dealing with reality on reality terms and they are a danger

to the kid. Whether they realize it or not, do you think Kelsey thought that she was a danger to

herself or others before those officers walked into the house and then suddenly she found herself

being quite a danger to herself and others. The second that some of the the constructs of her

life changed around her. I mean, she wasn't in a good place and that's just the reality of it.

She just wasn't in a good place and this was handled very rough in a way where you stir a pot

this way and you have very volatile chemicals in there and you stir it too much. Guess what? It's

going to explode kids. Don't shake the bottle. Don't stir it that way and they went in ready to

shake it and stir it and then they're why wonder why this happened. It's also it's really curious

to me about were they going in there thinking that this was a simple of giving of a restraining order

which is a whole lot different than you're getting involved with a child custody issue.

Because that is a whole different ball of crazy that's going to potentially go on there because

it's much more emotional. It's much more inflammatory and there's a lot more agenda is going on

between not just I thought Bob Mona did a great job the other day of highlighting that it wasn't

just about the biological father and Kelsey but there's other parents involved the grandparent.

I mean there's a lot of dynamics going on in here and a lot of potential for inflammatory

horrendous things going on. I mean things that evolve then and things like the Ailsen family.

You know that's why as soon as you start hitting that domestic issue with child custody issues

that should automatically trigger hey why don't we leave some goods out of this and actually pull

back a little bit more and think about how we're going to engage. And there might have been a

sense of false confidence for the officers going in going she's one of us you know she's one of us

we're going to handle this it's not one of the it's not some crazy domestic situation where we don't

know the parties involved you don't know how volatile they are we know where we've been on calls

there we you know we're good like this will be fine it's going to be tough and she loves me to

cop too yeah she understands the dynamics but it's going to be tough on her but you know we're

going to handle because we're friends I mean you I mean in some ways you think of it well this

couldn't have gone any you know more securely she had friends doing this it wasn't just

stranger showing up to her house and it still went completely sideways there's just there's no

right answer to this damn case at all in it's it's so wrapped up in emotions at the end of the day

I don't even she I mean technically she probably had to be charged for what happened but I think

we hit it well where she needs to be accountable for doing dumb things but does she deserve to go

jail for it I don't think so yeah we'll see what the judge decides and if that was a good call to

ask for a bench trial versus a jury trial and we're all this lands your thoughts in the comment

section on sub stack and YouTube we will continue the conversation there be sure to press subscribe

wherever you get podcasts you know miss any of our conversations about this in the many cases

we follow for you right here Robbins book is out it is new it's available wherever you get

it's not all about me go check it out and and get that book all right until next time for

Robin for Todd and myself I'm Tony brusky we will talk again real soon want more on this case

and others then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony brusky

and the hidden killers podcast Tyler reddick here from 2311 racing another checkered flag

for the books time to celebrate with chamba jump in at chamba casino dot com let's chamba no

purchase necessary vtw group void were prohibited by law ct and c 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino

Tyler reddick here from 2311 racing another checkered flag for the books time to celebrate with

chamba jump in at chamba casino dot com let's chamba no purchase necessary vtw group void were

prohibited by law ct and c 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino Tyler reddick here from 2311 racing

victory lane yeah it's even better with chamba by my side race to chamba casino dot com let's

chamba no purchase necessary vtw group void were prohibited by law ct and c 21 plus sponsored by

it is ryan c crest here there was a recent social media trend which consisted of flying on a

plane with no music no movies no entertainment but a better trend would be going to chamba casino dot com

it's like having a mini social casino in your pocket chamba casino has over a hundred online

casino style games all absolutely free it's the most fun you can have online and on a plane

so grab your free welcome bonus now at chamba casino dot com sponsored by chamba casino

no purchase necessary vtw group void were prohibited by law 21 plus terms and conditions apply

Tyler reddick here from 2311 racing victory lane yeah it's even better with chamba by my side

race to chamba casino dot com let's chamba no purchase necessary vtw group void were prohibited by

law ct and c 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino Tyler reddick here from 2311 racing another checkered

flag for the books time to celebrate with chamba jump in at chamba casino dot com let's

chamba no purchase necessary vtw group void were prohibited by law ct and c 21 plus sponsored by

chamba casino here's the truth you could literally be adored by everyone and then come home and

still get completely ignored by your own cat it's classic cat behavior but new sheba premium puree

is a lickable treat that changes all that their protein rich made with bone broth and have the

smooth creamy texture cats go crazy for especially when it's hand fed yeah it's more than a treat

it's a fast pass to favorite human status so feed your cat sheba and go from totally ignored

to truly adored in just 12 days guaranteed or your money back learn more at sheba dot com

Tyler reddick here from 2311 racing victory lane yeah it's even better with chamba by my side

race to chamba casino dot com let's chamba no purchase necessary vtw group void were prohibited by law

ct and c's 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino