The David Knight Show - Interview: Comey’s “86-47” Case Puts Free Speech on Trial

Episode Date: August 7, 2026

From government intimidation and COVID-era censorship to social-media algorithms quietly deciding which voices get amplified or buried, Cancio argues that free speech cannot survive if its protections change depending on who controls Washington. Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Joining us now is a lawyer who has an excellent background. And of course, I had to look this up when I saw this. He has an AV preeminent rating. I thought, what is that? I've never seen that before. It's something that only 5% of the lawyers get. It is something that is based on what their peers rate them on in terms of their knowledge and their integrity.

And so I wanted to get him on to talk about this situation. He's also an author as well, I should mention. And we're going to talk about his book that's coming up. He's got a couple of fiction books. He's just released a second in the series of these fiction books. But I wanted to talk to him about speech because of the situation with James Comey and the 86-47. What constitutes free speech and what constitutes a threat? I think this is something that all of us need to understand because we have seen this weaponized, I think, on both left and the right, haven't we, recently?

And so I think this is something it really behooves us to talk about. Thank you so much for joining us. Our guest today is Umberto Cancio. He is a lawyer in Florida and came at the age of eight, is that correct, to the United States. Six, age of six, to the United States. And he's been here, he got here before the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was just telling him, I was in elementary school. We're only a couple of years different than age.

And I was in elementary school when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened. So we've got some commonality there in terms of the things that we've seen. of clothes and personal, but I want to begin with the case here of what really constitutes threat or protected speech. Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. Now, of course, yeah, let's talk a little bit about this. Everybody's familiar with this. It was a meme that was put out. He put in seashells. It's at 8647. And of course, just to say to 86 something isn't necessarily even a threat in English, I don't think. But let's talk about the legal aspects of this. What is your opinion about this?

Well, a threat is an exception to the free speech. It's a very narrow exception, and you really have to qualify for it. And what does it qualify for? Well, it has to be explicit. It has to be direct or contextually unmistakable, and many courts have asked it to be repeated more than once. So if you can fulfill all of those, you get past the judge, and then the jury decides the factual question of, was it really a threat? But first you have to get through the judge.

The judge has a legal standard that he has to meet that I've just described. And then if you meet that minimum legal standard, then you go on to do a jury trial, and the jury finally decides whether it is a threat or was not. Okay. So this is something that as I look at it, I don't really see this as a serious threat. I would guess that maybe this is not going to get through the judge. What would you guess just as a lawyer who's been around for a while? What do you think about this threat? I think it's long, hard road. I do. That's very diplomatic way to put it. Yeah. Do I think you can get there? Yes, I do. And this is how I would argue it if I could. The first, thing that I would say is that in this context, because remember, you can do it

contextually, the president had been shot at twice at this point, if I remember correctly. Excuse me for a second, but what was the timing in terms of this and the Butler situation? How close were they? This was, well, it was post-butler. Okay. Butler got a huge thing, and then it was quickly followed by the incident at the golf course. And then Comey comes along and says, I found these seashells by the seashore. And then it looked to me like it was 86-47.

Okay. So that's the context. And you really interpreted it in a way that seems to me is fairly explicit if you put it in the context. Now, if the president had never been shot at, I would say you have. have no opportunity to get past the judge. But he was shot at. He was, well, two attempts on his life. In the first attempt, they actually killed somebody who was behind him, and they missed the

president and killed the man behind him. So it would not be beyond reasonable doubt to believe that the 86 means kill. if you take it in that context. So as you're looking at it, I think that that's fairly explicit. Is it direct? Yes, if you believe the context and you follow the context

that I just described, it is. The next thing is, have they repeated it? Well, there was one case where the man wrote to the other man threatening him about 150 times, and the court found that there was no threat. So it is a high, it is a high standard. But there is a repetition in the fact that here, unlike the other cases, we had already had attempts on his life. I think that is the basic differentiating point of this case as opposed to all the others that I found.

So does he have a shot at getting past the judge? Yes. But even if they get past the judge, then a jury has to decide whether it really was. In other words, the judge decides legally and the jury decides factually. So yes, the judge says this case and this exception. This case fits the exception. It is not free speech because of this fact, this fact, and this fact. But you, jury, have to decide now whether it was a threat.

I simply decide that it was an exception to free speech. So this is the structure. It's not an easy structure. It's very difficult to get past, and I think it should be. Yes. And haven't we had situations? I think this came up when we were talking about J6. And you had people who were making statements and a lot of people said, yeah, but that is protected speech.

Because even if somebody is actually there, unless there is the ability to do this or something like that, what were the determining factors, even if you say make a threat and you're there, that many times has not been considered to be a threat because you can't take action or action was not taking? What is the difference with that? Well, I'm kind of foggy. I can't remember exactly. but go ahead yes yes for more for most uh crimes there has to be an avert act or the ability to do the act in other words i may not be pointing a gun at you and i may not say i'm going you know this i may not have enough life but if i say i'm going to kill you and i make a move toward you And I'm six foot, eight, 350 pounds, and you're a woman and just five feet and maybe, you know, barely 150 pounds.

Then there is the possibility that I could actually kill you by hitting you. So that would be an assault. That would be something that could be carried out. Here, there is no way that James Comey could personally carry out his threat. He's on the middle of it. He's standing in a beach. and the president is in the White House. However, he does take a picture of it,

and he does publish the picture into the Internet. So what was the purpose of that? Well, it was to make a statement, according to him. Other people would say it was to continue the mentality that the president should be shot at. And that's really what this case boils down to. Let me ask you, if it is a threat, I mean, is this, you know, what is the charge? Is it, because it's not assault, it's not attempted assassination?

It's threatening the president's life. Threatening the president's life. That's the thorough statute. And is that a felony? What is the maximum? It's a felony. Yeah. Yes, it is.

And how serious would that crime be if they found him guilty? You know, he's not going to face life. in prison. It's going to be a few years, somewhere between five and ten. But I'm not sure that this would have been the hill that I would have died on with Comey. I think that there were other things that he may have done. Yeah, I think so too. When you look at it, I've said this from the very beginning. I think there was a lot of really nefarious stuff that was obviously done to Trump. And I always said that I thought the best course of action, which would have been to take the high ground and say, we're going to reform this and make sure that type of weaponization never happens again.

Instead, he decided that he would settle the score with his own weaponization, I think. Well, look at it, but that's just my opinion. Well, you know, I think that Comey appeared before the Senate several times, And I think that he was disingenuous in his testimony in certain places. And I think that that's a much better charge if I'm looking to charge him. Yeah, I agree. I would not have selected this charge, as I stated before, because this one has a long road to hoe before they can get anywhere.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it seems like the phrase even, 86-47, I mean, it seems like satire. I mean, where does that play into? Is that going to be what you think the defense warriors would bring up? Yeah. Something like that can give you two reactions. One is, oh, look at this guy.

Or that's kind of cute. And that's where I have a problem with it. And so I'm not sure why the charge was even brought. But can they make it stick? Yeah. Do I think it's possible to make it stick? Yes. Do I think it's probable they'll make it stick?

No. So, you know, what are things like hyperbole and satire and all these different things? How does that figure into issues like this? I imagine it's pretty strong, isn't it? Very strong. Because all of that political speech, hyperbole, political hyperbole, All of that fits within protected speech. That is the basis of our Constitution.

Yes. So when you're looking for an exception to a general rule, especially a constitutional one, you're looking at a very, very high point, a very high level of proof, a very high level, a very high standard before you will move away from the protection. and move into a realm of criminality. So that's why I think that this was not a good choice.

And I pity the U.S. attorney that's going to have to try this. It's going to be another one of these reflecting pool cases, perhaps. I don't know. Yeah. As a matter of fact, I don't pity the U.S. attorney. I pity the assistant U.S. attorney that's going to have to try this. End of career, right? He has only his boss to blame.

That's right. What about the deletion of the post? Of course, he responded as people criticized him. He deleted it. He said he did it because he thought, you know, people were offended by instead of thinking that it was funny or clever. But does that indicate any kind of culpability on his part? Are they going to argue that?

I don't think you can, you know, he's a very smart man. And he realized that he, he, could make that design. Of course, he allegedly did the design. He says that he found it that way. That's a little bit harder to believe. Sarcasm. Yeah.

Oh, yeah. A little bit. Anyway, he has set it up so he knew it was going to be very hard to bring any kind of charge against him. He's a smart man. He protected himself correctly. And so he has set it up. Why did he erase it?

Who knows? But I can tell you that erasing it doesn't necessarily mean that he thought he had threatened the president. I just don't get that meaning from there. And we talk about the crime of threatening the president. I mean, where I worked prior to this show, one of the first things that happened when I was there, we had the police knock on the door, not the police, but I guess the Secret Service or whatever. and they said somebody left a comment on the website and they need to get information about this

because they interpreted that as a threat against the president. And it's like, well, I don't know that I would necessarily interpret that as a threat against the president. But the reaction was that the company decided that, hey, we're just not going to manage any of these comments anymore. We don't want to get caught in the middle of this stuff. So they farmed it all out to another source of that. Talk a little bit about that in terms of threats to the president. Because that's the type of thing that can affect not just James Comey,

but it can be something that if somebody is passionate about a principle or passionate in their opposition to a politician, they can get caught up in, and people don't really realize that. But that's something especially true of social media. What is it that constitutes a threat? Well, there was a case. It's very difficult when you state a general statement, and it's not absolutely explicit. I'm going to go kill the president.

That's very explicit. But anything short of that is basically not going to be actionable. Yet every single one is actually investigated. Yeah. Just in case. From there, bringing charges is night and day. There's a case where a young man, it was during the Vietnam War, was drafted.

He was against the war, but he had to go. And his comment at a protest was the first person that I want to get in my the sights, in my sights, obviously of his rifle, is LBJ. Now,

that is a threat to the president. Is it actionable? Should he? No. As a matter of fact, it went all the way up, and the court said, no, this is not a threat. So when you get something as direct as that is, and the court says no,

you know, that says something. It's just very difficult. And let me tell you, judges from the right and the left have been in agreement with the fact that the level of proof is very high. And the level of, to prove there's something is explicit and it is not free speech is extremely high. So I don't believe that this is going to go forward past the judge. Well, I agree. I'm something of a free speech absolutist, and I see erosion

that's happening all the time. So I would interpret it very broadly in terms of what is free speech, but I seem to be the minority, certainly the politicians. Politicians seem to be looking constantly to see how they can restrict free speech, whether it's criticism of a president, whether it's criticism of Israel, for example, in Florida. That's now a crime, you know, that DeSantis put in place there. So it's, it's, true speech is under attack everywhere, isn't it? Everywhere. And, you know, that is the basis of our society and is the basis of our freedom. Not only that aspect of the First Amendment, but the other aspect of, religion and other and association and so forth.

We see that a preacher who prays in front of a clinic gets a visit from 20-odd FBI personnel and with machine guns and gets arrested in front of his multiple children. and, you know, when you get to that point, there is a factor not only of stopping the actual free speech at that moment, but creating an effective intimidation. That's right. Let's talk about it. Yeah, and we look at what is happening in the U.K. I mean, there's one woman who in a particular jurisdiction, she's gone to court several times, and each time the court has started out.

But she's been arrested multiple times by the local British police because she was praying. silently in front of an abortion clinic. They walk up to her and say, are you perhaps praying silently? Well, come with us. You're under arrest that time of thing. That is almost comical, but it's not funny because it is really a new kind of tyranny that we haven't

seen in the West for a very long time. There is a movement to squash, actually, free speech. And it's, I don't know where it's going to stop. Let's remember, I am science and you are going against science, and you are.

That's right. That's intimidating. And especially coming from an official who is not even an official that's been elected, but rather simply appointed. And they somehow believe that they are entitled. to rule people's thoughts and minds and voices and actions. So I consider the pandemic and the behavior in the pandemic a very dangerous thing. Oh, I heartily agree. Absolutely. Let's talk about this in terms of, okay, threatening the president, that's a crime.

I have a lot of people who's going to investigate that. What's the difference between that and two citizens and one of them charged with threatening the other one? What is the difference in the way the law is handled in that? kind of situation. Because honestly, the president gets protected a little bit more than everybody else does. And we need to understand that, and that was a decision made by the legislature of this country because the harm to a president can have horrendous consequences for the nation. So I have no problem with the president, with the members of the Supreme Court,

with the Speaker of the House, the Vice President, being protected a little bit more than others. We certainly don't have the personnel to be protecting everybody like we protect the President. But when we're talking about individual citizens, I mean, what kind of threshold do we see there before you would, you know, if you get very angry with somebody online

and you start saying something on social media, for example, you know, what is it that is the threshold for, you know, peers threatening each other. Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Again, it has to be explicit. It has to be continuous. It has to be unmistakable, and it has to be direct. The threshold might be, you know, if you keep on saying this,

I'm going to kill you, and then they find you with a gun on the corner of the guy's job waiting for it. that would certainly do it. Short of that, I can't see anybody being arrested for violent speak. So it's not actually a crime, there's not like a threat crime like theirs for the president. There has to be something there that is. There has to be an overt act. Something definitely going that way. I can't picture it being any other way.

Again, the court has ruled that you don't need a specific overt act. But I don't think that a police department will actually pick you up unless there is an overt act. I'm sorry, go ahead. think about the difficulty of an abused woman to prove that she's being abused that's right yeah seeing that over and over again so if you think about that and then put it in the other context you'll see how really a police department is not going to make a move against somebody simply for what they say they may appear at their doorstep and knock on the door and say hey listen you've been doing this knock it off you can see that but arresting the guy

probably not. Let's talk a little bit about political speech on social media because if, you know, we have always seen a lot of, a lot of criticism of all presidents on social media. And perhaps this president more than any other because there are a lot of people who don't like him personally. It's not just the policies that he's doing. And so how do you think this is going to fly, whether it's dismissed or whether it proceeds, what kind of effect do you think that's going to happen on political speech and not social

media? I think that we have a big problem with social media, to the point that I think that Section 203 of the law should be repealed, which gives them immunity. I think that the moment that you have mathematical formulas that act upon the different speeches that come into the internet and then according to popularity, multiply the effect. I think they're doing more than just publishing what gets put on the internet. The original idea was, before all these algorithms, the original idea was to protect the infancy of the internet so that people could express themselves.

That has gone way beyond. And now with the algorithms, again, multiplying popular points of view, the companies are actually expressing themselves. And so they are no longer a neutral party simply permitting anything to be put on their screens. They are an active party because of their algorithms. Well, I would agree with that from the censorship side. I mean, I've had situations because I was pushing back against the pandemic, as well as other things that were not popular with the social media people. We got singled for cancellation in various ways by these people. And when we go back and look at it, I can see the fingerprints of government.

And later on, we did see the documents released from X saying that the government was really behind this. And they were using corporations to do that. But certainly there is a bias. whether they allow or promote a particular type of speech or whether they cancel or shadow ban that type of speech. So they are actually involved in that. And I think in terms of, let me just see what you think about this. My take on it, when I look at it as a journalist, for example, I don't think there is such a thing as objective journalism. And the argument I make is with Matt Drudge.

Matt Drudge doesn't write content. Matt Drudge just simply puts up the headlines from various people that he thinks are interesting. And he moved from the right. He moved from being basically conservative libertarian and supporting President Trump to being very much against Trump and moving to the left and really supporting Democrats in their agenda. So he saw that happen. But all of that happened without him doing anything other than just deciding what he was going to talk about. And I would argue that our own personal biases are always evident in terms of what we talk about,

what we think are important. And it's not even really gets to the point of what's something. said in the article, but what we think is important. And so I've always been of the opinion that I prefer to get somebody who's going to give me their strong opinion, make it clear that it's opinion and tell me why they think this or why they think that rather than pretending that there's some neutral observer who doesn't really have a dog in the fight because everybody really does have a dog in the fight to some degree or the other. And so I see it working that way. And I look at it as kind of a digital public square where we've had a Supreme Court decision a long time ago, which

unfortunately, I think, is basically disregarded now. It was about a public square and it was Marsh v. Alabama in 1946. And what they said was even though the public square was privately owned, it was like a corporate town. They said when they stopped a person who was doing, handing out religious tracks, the Supreme Court said, even if the public square is privately owned, you can't censor speech. And I always looked at that and said, well, I think that really applies to social media. We had Jack Dorsey say several times in congressional hearings

that he thought that social media was the digital public square. And so I guess that's my question is, you know, how do we patrol this and should we patrol this? Because, yes, we have people who have a point of view. And when you have people who have a point of view, you're going to have people that you disagree with and you're always going to have people who are really, you strongly disagree with.

with. It might be extremely hateful that are out there. But you can't really purge those people in terms of censorship. If you're going to have free speech, you have to allow that and allow the debate against that type of speech. What do you think about that? Well, I think, again, going back to what we're speaking about before, is that as long as the public square doesn't take their point of you and enhance one of the arguments, I have no problem with a public square concept. But the reality is that that's not what's going on on the internet. The public square is very much enhancing one point of view or another for their own interest. I agree.

They do it commercially and they do it not commercially. They enhance sometimes political positions because if that, happens to be the popular position at that point. They want people viewing their screen because that heightens how much they can charge for their commercials that are running on the side. So they're going to enhance that point of view, whether temporarily or permanently, it doesn't matter, to make money. So the public square concept is not really applicable as long as they have the ability to enhance whatever point of view is commercially profitable for them.

So we need to go back and rethink that and say, okay, if you don't use enhancements, I'll buy the public square. But if you begin to enhance one point or the other, one point of view or the other, and I don't care which one it is, they're equally dangerous if you don't permit the other side to be heard, then it's not a public square anymore. I agree.

And of course, you know, they can either promote one side or they can try to silence one side in terms of promoting a point of view out there. I always felt that the way to handle the Section 230 was to say, okay, well, you're going to have to show to us that you don't do content moderation, yet we don't have a government anywhere in the world that doesn't demand content moderation.

I mean, for it to be a real public square, there would be zero content moderation. and you would have to prove that there's zero content moderation. Correct. And you're not using all these. But they have to use their, in order for them to be commercially viable, they have to use it. So you have to start from the point of view of you are not the public square, therefore you are open to suits for liable, for wrongful death, and for everything else

as a consequence of your publication. You are no longer a public square. You are a publisher. And as such, you are just as liable as the New York Times or any other publication. And that's what I think we need to do. And maybe that will help getting back into the line. I realize that I am one-sided because I'm an attorney.

But I think that attorneys filing lawsuits does wonders. it makes some products a lot more safer than they were, and it sometimes straightens things out. That's right. It is necessary sometimes. Yeah, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's a travesty. What would you say is there a difference with intentional changes

versus what's promoted versus an algorithm that they might show is objective, and maybe it's just looking for a particular term, something like that. It's been my experience that algorithms are inherently not subjectful. You're talking theoretical there. Yeah. And I think that that was well proven during the Biden administration.

And, you know, and the movements that the FBI made to make sure that, that the famous Hunter laptop was considered Chinese or Russian disinformation and so forth, I think that proves that those systems can be manipulated. And the problem is that when people think they're not being manipulated and they are being manipulated, that creates an even greater danger. When you know that it's being manipulated, well, you take things with a grain of salt. I agree. When you think that it is a public square, then you think that everything on there is true, and it's not.

I agree. And I say that's true. You know, when you look at different news sources, if somebody says, oh, we're neutral and we're objective versus somebody says, no, here's my opinion. Here's why I think that. I think, you know, then you got your guard up and you're thinking critically, whereas the other one, it kind of lulls you to sleep. And I've always felt that way when I looked at different publications. I've said many times in the show, I didn't really like Newsweek. time because they put themselves out there as objective and I didn't really think they were objective.

I don't think anybody's really objective. I would go to a right-wing opinion journals and left-wing opinion journals and let them duke it out with each other on paper. I liked that kind of argument that was there. And I think that is the heart of free speech that is really so important. And I think your point in terms of the things that Comey did, I think we all understand that there a lot of things that he did that were suspect and should have been some accounting for, some reform or whatever. And there would have been much better ways if you wanted to settle the score, even if you wanted to do it personally rather than doing it with reform, which I'd prefer to see him do it with reform. But even if he's going to go on a personal attack, there would

have been much better things to come after than a meme of seashells on the shore. But it's going to be an interesting case, I think, just from that standpoint. Let's talk a little bit about your books. You've got a second book in the series. Tell us a little bit about the series. Tell us a bit about the first book as well and what is coming up. What's the name of the book, the first book? Well, the first book is Gabriel Lock, bound by law. And the series is about a young lawyer and takes place in the 1980s, Miami. It's not about the Miami vice aspect of Miami. It's actually a book about how all people from all over the world met at Miami during the 80s. He and his dad have a civil practice,

and they represent people who have come from all over the world, including the United States, and have moved to Miami in search of the better tomorrow. And so you basically get into the minds of, the characters, the lawyers, there's a group of young lawyers, all his friends that are lawyers and so forth. And you can see how they do cases. We wanted to emulate a real law firm. In most legal dramas, the lawyer has one case and it's the whole book. That is not the case here. In this first book, Gabriel confronts eight or nine cases that intertwine one with the other.

They're not connected, but they are connected to him in the fact that this is his first year as a civil lawyer. He used to work for the prosecutor's office as a difference with the office in how to represent, I'm sorry, as to how to try a case or how to represent a case or how to represent the state in a particular criminal case, and he decides, he's given the option to resign, and he resigns and walks away. He goes to practice with his dad. The dad is a prominent lawyer in Miami. He was a single practitioner, and he joins his dad. So he begins to practice, and he begins to learn what it is for a lawyer to have a relationship with a client, and how the client looks at the lawyer for protection and for guidance and how the lawyer has to think and the

loyalties involved and how the difference between justice and truth and and representing your client's point of view and how things don't always coincide and so you he we take you through that I mean I've been in the practice now for 47th going on 48 years and it It has given me a background to be able to write this. I thank God for my son, who's a better writer than I am, quite frankly. I've lived through the experiences, but he's been able to put it into English as opposed to legalese. It's kind of like Rose Wilder Lane and the Little House on the Prairie thing, right? The mother went through all the experiences, but the daughter wrote the stories out there and put them together.

It was a compelling story. And you know when I listen to you talk about this. I'm thinking about AI and how AI is being touted as, oh, they're going to take over everything. They're going to take over lawyers and anything. And I'm listening to you and how this is a web of interconnected human relationships that are here when you're talking about all this kind of stuff. I mean, what do you think about AI in law? Well, you know, I have a funny story to tell you. I have a client who is very well-versed on AI.

And he calls me. And I know that before he called me, he ran it through AI. So I know he's already got an opinion on the other side. And I love testing myself against it. I think it's tremendous. AI at this stage is a wonderful compiler of information. It can gather information faster than you, that I could believe.

And they'll put together a little report on the information that it gathered. But AI doesn't think. You prompted to think. So unless you have the experience to ask the correct question, you're going to get an answer that is deficient. And that's something very important for people to learn. I think even from the standpoint of the facts, We've had a couple of high-profile cases.

I can't remember off the top of my head, the details. But I remember that these people came up with the legal brief. And in terms of let's let it do some research for the facts, it hallucinated some case facts. And that made its way into the legal brief. And the judge was quite upset with that. They quoted cases that never existed. And these guys got into serious career-level issues with that. Yes.

As a matter of fact, there was a lawyer. Florida that lost his license. Because that happened to him. Yeah. And it's sad, but it's true. So you have to spend almost as much time fact-checking the AI as you would to try to go find the legal citations to start with, right? Yes, because the problem is they tell you, make AI your friend.

So always ask, please, and always say thank you and all of this. The way it's been programmed is for it to be your friend. So AI says, well, you know, you're really going to lose this case unless there's a case that says this. And if there isn't one, there's been the occasion when they make it up. Now you walk into court and the judge looks at you and says, Mr. So on, so I've read this brief with great curiosity because I've never heard of this case. I looked it up and it doesn't exist. You won't tell me where that case came from? And then you start swallowing very quickly and you start sweating.

And so, yeah, you have to be very careful with the AI. I do worry about one aspect. And it's this. AI can do a lot of the, when you're a young lawyer and you go into a bigger firm, a lot of your job is to put together things for the lawyers with a little bit more experience. because they start you with the bottom rung. What's the bottom rung? Well, you organize the evidence, you put it in order,

you do the research, you find out what the case law is. And the problem is that the experienced lawyer can give some instructions to the AI, and the AI will do it for you. So you're cutting off the lower rung of people getting into it, right? So if you cut off the lower rung, where are these young people going to get the experience? That's right. That's right. So what happens to the guys at the top?

Yeah, exactly. Where do we get these experienced guys at the top if we can't get any people to learn at the bottom level and come up through that? Yeah. Yeah. And so that's the aspect I worry about, and then I worry about that in other professions.

Mm-hmm. And, you know, so you go from there. And so for limited uses, I see it. I sometimes wonder, how that will go if we try to, you know, if we try to spread it before the machine can actually do what we needed to do. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, your new book is bound by fate, and you're talking about the original book is a guy who's getting into this practice, and, again, he's doing some of the things that may be cut off by AI in the near future, but it's all the interpersonal relationships that are happening there, the multitasking that he has to do with different. types of cases that are out there. I'm sure there's a lot of people who would love to see the inside of the legal profession that way. Bound by fate is his second year. Now he's, now he's

doing cases that are a little bit more complex. He's going into a series of motions and hearings. he's dealing with matters that are, well, put it to you this way. Our editor said that she loved Book 2 because of all the twists and turns that the cases took. And so we purposely designed a book 2 to take those twist and turns to keep it with within the same realm as book one, but a little bit more higher level. And then in book two, we gave them a romance. Because one of the criticisms that we got from some of our readers was that there was no romance in book one.

Well, it happened in 2020, right? It was forbidden. And, you know, we told them, listen, we wanted you to get you to know Gabriel and his buddies as lawyers first, and now we're showing them as human beings with a full life. And so book two takes on the balance between life and work and between relationships and work. And it concentrates in that area a little bit while it gives you these intriguing cases. It sounds fascinating.

Has it been released yet? Both are on both Amazon as well as Barnes & Noble and books a million. You get on the internet and order it, you'll have it at your house within a couple of days. Book three will be out next year. And that again, is a new adventure.

He will be traveling to Europe as well as New York on a big case. And things will become even more complicated. Well, we look forward to seeing this on Netflix as a series. But in the meantime, people can get the books. And there is Gabriel Locke. The second one is bound by fate. What is the subtitle of the first one, Gabriel Locke? And bound by law.

Bound by law. Okay, so bound by law and bound by fate, Gabriel Locke. And the author that we're speaking to is Umberto Cancio. Yes, thank you so much. It was fascinating talking to you. And I think everybody loves a great mystery. And of course, that is always a situation in these cases where you look at it from the perspective of a detective or you look at it from the perspective of a lawyer. And it sounds like you've really got the human relationships down that that's an important.

important part of the book. And of course, that is the ultimate thing that we don't want to lose that we're trying to fight in terms of artificial intelligence, trying to take that away from us. So it sounds like a very interesting series. I'll have to look that up. Thank you so much for joining us and telling us about that. Well, thank you for having me. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good day. Appreciate it. You too. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us, their commons project, to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.

They see the common man is simple, unsophisticated, ordinary, but each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing.

If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidnightshow.com.