Latest / The Matt Walsh Show / Do Juries Still Work In Modern America?

Transcript

Do Juries Still Work In Modern America? · The Matt Walsh Show

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: If you're starting to wonder if there's maybe something toxic
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: in the water in Massachusetts, if you're beginning to feel
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: the righteous anger of a colonial official in Salem circa 1692,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: then you should know at the very least that you're
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: not alone.
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: Far from it.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Your sentiment is completely justified. It was just a year ago,
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: you may remember, that a majority female jury in Massachusetts
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: determined that a financial analyst named Karen Reed was had
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: somehow been framed for murder by about four or five
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: dozen people, including first responders, forensic investigators, police officers, the
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: medical examiner's office, prosecutors, even friends of her boyfriend, who
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: was the victim. The jury was apparently swayed by deranged
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: TikTok theories that appealed overwhelmingly to women looking for some.
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: Excitement in their lives.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: It was a very unseemly and disturbing display that played
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: out all over the Internet. But if you're the optimistic type,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: it was easy to write off as a fluke. A
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: rare case where an American jury was led astray by
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: online brain rot on its way to reaching an extremely dubious,
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: not guilty verdict. But as the Lindsay Clancy jury, also
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: in Massachusetts, it just so happens, approaches a week of
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: deliberations without a verdict in the single most straightforward murder
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: case imaginable, in a case where any sane juror would
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: immediately return a verdict of guilty for first degree murder,
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: then vote to send the woman to prison for the
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: rest of her life. There's no denying that our jury
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: system is actually compromised at a fundamental level. It's not
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: simply the fact that two majority female juries in the
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: same state are inclined to legalize premeditated homicide. It's also
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: a very obvious fact that millions of women all over
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: the country are on board with this. If they were
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: on the jury, they would do the exact same thing.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: They would happily subvert the criminal justice system in service
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: of their own narcissism. We're seeing many other cases like this,
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: although most of them don't get much attention. For example,
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: you probably have not heard the name Heather Cushman. But
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: late last year, Cushman, a 33-year-old Colorado woman, was found
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: not guilty of stabbing her 60-year-old father to death in
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: his home. She stabbed him 15 times after an argument,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: puncturing both of his lungs, butchering her father, essentially. Cushman
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: claimed self-defense, arguing that she somehow feared for her life
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: as she was carving him up. And, you know, that
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: defense might have been plausible on its face, except for
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: the fact that she texted a friend on the night
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: of the killing saying, and I quote, I effed up
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: really bad.
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: I'm so sorry.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: There was also evidence that Cushman chased her father throughout
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: the home. She told detectives that, quote, I just felt
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: like an effing animal at that point. I'm pretty sure
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: I bit him. And there was forensic evidence showing that
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: Cushman's injuries, quote, were not consistent with taking the knife
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: from her father. And the more you read, the more
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: it gets worse for her case, or so you would think.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: This is from the Loveland Reporter-Herald, quote, After being arrested,
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Heather Cushman reportedly told police she and her father got
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: into an argument that escalated into a physical fight before
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: she stabbed him. During witness testimony, Loveland Police Department Sergeant
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: Brad Templeman said three 9-1 calls were made by or
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: about Heather Cushman on the night of the incident. He
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: said in the first call, Heather Cushman said she was
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: suicidal and seeking mental health treatment at a hospital. The
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: second was made by Heather Cushman's sister, in which she
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: said Heather Cushman had stabbed her father. The third was
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: another call made by Heather Cushman, where she said she
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: had stabbed her father. At the risk of understatement, none
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: of this is remotely consistent with a claim of self-defense.
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: She was obviously an unstable, violent woman who needed to
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: be institutionalized, but the jury voted to acquit her anyway.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: She's free to walk the streets, walk next to you
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: in the grocery store, sit next to you on the
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: bus as if she's done nothing wrong. This was a
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: case that did not cause TikTok hysteria at anywhere near
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the same degree as the Clancy trial. It wasn't everywhere
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: on social media. Nevertheless, the jury decided to let a
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: woman get away with killing someone in a decision so
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: terrible that it basically amounted to jury nullification. Cushman claimed
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: that her father had abused her when she was a
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: child without actually proving it, but the jury didn't need
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: any proof. You see, once a woman claims she has
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: no choice except to kill someone, that's all that's necessary
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: at this point. In states like Massachusetts, it's a get-out-of-jail-free card. Now,
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: what's so extraordinary about decisions like these, aside from how
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: common they become, is that not too long ago, we
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: actually had real standards for juries. We didn't simply select
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: people at random. I'm going to read the text of
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: a law that was enacted by the state of Alabama
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: in the early 20th century, and it was fully enforced
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: through 1970. The law stated that all jurors must be, quote,
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: generally reputed to be honest and intelligent and esteemed in
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: the community for their integrity, good character, and sound judgment.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: Commissioners had wide latitude to reject jurors who didn't seem
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: to be particularly bright. If you wanted to sit on
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: a jury, you generally had to have people vouch for you,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: maybe your co-workers or your church. You had to be
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: a serious person, somebody with a reputation. Someone who doesn't
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: just sit around on the couch all day with a
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: glass of wine, scrolling TikTok.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: You also had to.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Be a man to serve on the jury on the
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: really crazy theory that women can sometimes tend to be
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: guided more by emotion than by sober analysis of the facts.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: A crazy theory that, incidentally, is now being endorsed in
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: a much more extreme form by everybody who supports Lindsay Clancy,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: as well as the entire feminist movement, who all claim
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: that women are not only hormonal and emotional, but so
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: lacking in self-control that they can't be held responsible for
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: murdering their children. So, in other words, the idea that
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: juries should reflect a cross-section of the community is actually
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: very new. Up until the late 1960s and early 1970s,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: getting on a jury was more of a privilege than
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: an obligation or a right. Not incidentally, for a large
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: portion of our country's history, voting was viewed the same way.
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: As a country, we wanted to make sure that before
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: we sent somebody to prison for the rest of their lives, knowledgeable, reliable.
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: Intelligent people had reviewed all the facts.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: This is how juries worked for centuries in our common
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: law tradition, ever since the Magna Carta was signed in
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: the 13th century, stating that men should be judged by
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: a jury of their peers. And in that context, peers
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: meant members of comparable status to your own, meaning that
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: if you were a typical landowner, you weren't going to
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: be judged by criminals or people who didn't own property
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: or women. Jurors who were familiar with the law were
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: actually preferred, which is the exact opposite of how we
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: do things today. The idea that juries should be representative
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: of the population was never even considered. In the 1800s,
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: England's juries were so selective that they excluded two-thirds of
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: all adult men from the jury pool. Any man who
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: didn't pay taxes or own land wasn't even considered, and
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: juries remained like this throughout England and the United States
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: until the arrival of the one-two punch of civil rights
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: and feminism. Now, once the revolution began, very quickly, juries changed.
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court determined that laws like the one in Alabama,
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: which required that juries be intelligent and have good reputations,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: had a disproportionate impact on black people, they decided, as
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: the laws were being applied anyway. And therefore, simply because
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: of this statistical imbalance, the state was required to change
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: the way that they selected members of the jury. The
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: law regarding jury selection remains on the books, but they're
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: not allowed to enforce it in a way that eliminates diversity.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: So effectively, the law is neutralized. And around the same time,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: courts also mandated that women should be allowed to serve
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: on the juries on the theory that there are no
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: relevant differences between the genders when it comes to the
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: way that they reason, deliberate, and assess the facts. So
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: in the span of just a few years, the American
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: jury system was totally overhauled, mostly through judicial rulings and
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: bureaucracy rather than, you know, something we voted on. We
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: entered into very uncharted territory where for the first time
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: in human history, jurors didn't have to be men or
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: intelligent or reputable or knowledgeable about the law or knowledgeable
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: about anything. All this to say the jury system we
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: had throughout all of human history until about 15 minutes
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: ago might as well have been designed on a different planet.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: One by one, in the name of progress, we dismantled
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: every single aspect of the jury system that our ancestors
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: thought was important. After all, what did they know? All
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: they did was build civilization. So the only thing we've
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: kept intact is the general concept of a jury that
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: decides cases instead of a judge. We've preserved the notion
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: that juries are a good idea while also gutting all
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: of the qualifications that members of the jury need to have. Now,
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: of course, if our ancestors, including like the king who
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: signed the Magna Carta or the lawmakers in Alabama, could
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: have envisioned what America would look like in 2026, the
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: idea of a jury wouldn't have even occurred to them.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: It would have been too absurd, even with all the
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: qualifications they had in mind. Juries make sense when you
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: have a relatively homogenous population, one that is not fractured
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: by racial, economic, religious and ethnic tribalism. And even then,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: once you've established a coherent society and set all sorts
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: of requirements to serve on a jury, it could still
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: be a difficult balancing act. I mean, towards the end
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: of the Republic, the Romans, who banned poor people and
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: women from juries, constantly changed the jury system to account
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: for the prejudices of senators, governors, and property owners, all
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: of whom at various points were seated on juries. And
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: since you've been getting into the problem of mass psychosis
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: fueled by constant access to the internet and media coverage,
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: we have to keep in mind that juries only seemed
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: like a good idea before all of these developments. Today, though,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: it's abundantly clear that our experiment with jury trials in
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: a so-called diverse society is rapidly failing. And we've talked
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: before about the various studies showing that black jurors are
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: overwhelmingly more likely to vote in favor of black defendants.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: We don't need to rehash all the studies again, although
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: we'll put some of the data up on the screen
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: in case you missed it. But really, we don't need
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: the studies because we can look around. We can observe
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: what's happening in trials all over the country and how
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: various demographic groups rally behind defendants that they can identify with.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: And we can also see how easily jurors are swayed
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: by the threat of mob violence, which was very obvious
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: in the trial of Derek Chauvin in particular. We can
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: observe incidents like this one from yesterday afternoon when a
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: 56-year-old woman was arrested for allegedly filming the Clancy jury
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: outside the courthouse shortly after deliberations ended for the day.
• 10:33
  Speaker 3: Watch. Breaking tonight, Sean, the Massachusetts State Police confirms to
• 10:38
  Speaker 3: Fox that a 56-year-old was arrested after court was dismissed
• 10:44
  Speaker 3: today here at the courthouse for witness-juror intimidation or intimidating
• 10:50
  Speaker 3: someone in connection with a criminal proceeding. It is possible
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: that either side could ask for a mistrial over this.
• 10:57
  Speaker 3: We'll have more details tomorrow. That person expected to be
• 11:00
  Speaker 3: arraigned here in the morning.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: This is yet another reason why the jury should have
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: been sequestered from the beginning of the trial, as we
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: talked about yesterday. They've seen the mobs of crazy women
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: in pink outside the courthouse. They've been exposed to endless
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: slop on TikTok. And now they're getting harassed fairly directly
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: by the lunatics who have made this case a part
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: of their identity. The alleged culprit here is apparently a
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy fan.
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: Big surprise.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: Who says that she was trying to take a picture
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: of her hero, Lindsay Clancy. She ended up filming jury
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: members by mistake, supposedly. But whatever her motives actually were,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: the fact is that brain-rotted weirdos like this are everywhere,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: corrupting our justice system. Locking the jury in a hotel
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: room doesn't solve all those problems, but it could certainly
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: have helped if they.
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: Didn't do that.
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: The bigger issue, though, is that juries are much easier
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: to intimidate as a general matter and influence than judges.
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: And intuitively, we all know that's true. Jurors mostly just
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: want to get back to their families without their community
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: burning down, which makes sense. They're not used to people
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: following them around or attempting to intimidate them. Judges see
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: this kind of thing much more often. Typically, judges hopefully
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: aren't spending all day on TikTok, although I'm sure some
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: of them do. And they usually have security to protect them,
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: at least at the courthouse. So to give just one
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: historical example on this point, think of the troubles in
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: Northern Ireland from the late 60s through the 90s. At
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: the height of the conflict, hundreds of people, mainly civilians...
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: were dying every year in shootings and bombings and assassinations.
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: It was difficult to find a jury to handle these
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: cases because the jurors feared retribution. So they passed a
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: law giving judges the ability to try terrorism-related cases without
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: a jury, and it worked pretty well for decades. It
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: was much more efficient and reliable than trying to find
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: an impartial and unafraid jury, which was often impossible. Now,
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: does this mean judges are infallible?
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: Of course not.
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: We've talked about plenty of corrupt judges on this show.
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: In fact, just a few weeks ago, we covered the
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: story of Precious Bland, who drowned her 15-month-old daughter before
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: stabbing her husband. The defense came up with a ludicrous
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: theory that COVID somehow made her do it, and therefore
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: she shouldn't spend a day in prison.
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: And guess what?
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: A judge in Miami-Dade County agreed with the defense. For
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: killing her child and attempting to kill her husband, this
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: woman received no sentence whatsoever. Doesn't even need to go
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: to a mental institution or anything. So judges are far
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: from perfect, which is an understatement. Indeed, a lot of
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: what has corrupted juries has also corrupted judges, namely that
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: judges are increasingly selected based on diversity and not on
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: their abilities and intellect and capacity for making rational decisions.
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: And yet juries can have these problems in even greater abundance.
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: That's how big the problem is now. Several countries have
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: abolished jury trials entirely for this reason, which isn't what
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: I would suggest at this stage, but it's instructive to
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: look at their example and what we can learn from it.
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: So consider what Lee Kuan Yew did when he was
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: a prime minister of Singapore. As of 1970 or so,
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: Singapore eliminated jury trials and switched to bench trials where
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: a judge decides the case. Lee was motivated in large
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: part by his own experience as a lawyer doing jury
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: trials when he realized that in order to be effective,
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: he had to play to the jury's prejudices. So when
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: he took office in multiracial, multireligious society with a lot
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: of Chinese and Indian people, he simply got rid of
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: juries entirely. Unlike juries, judges could not simply return a
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: verdict of guilty or not guilty and go about their day.
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: They had to justify their decision.
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: In a thorough, usually written opinion that cited precedent, explained
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: all the reasoning. Judges had to reach their decisions promptly,
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: which wasn't terribly difficult since they didn't have to deliberate
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: with anybody. And no matter what the judge's ultimate decision was,
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: guilty or not guilty, was open to appeal to a
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: higher court. So unlike in America, where a not guilty
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: verdict means that the defendant has nothing to worry about,
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: the system in Singapore allows for the possibility of convicting
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: the defendant on appeal. This is how they avoid the
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: OJ Simpson problem or the Lindsay Clancy Karen Reid problem.
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: If there's an insane miscarriage of justice in Singapore, the
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: prosecutors are allowed to appeal it. Now, this system has
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: worked extremely well by every metric. Criminal cases are resolved
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: much more quickly than ever before. There's no need for
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: jury selection. The lawyers don't have to explain any legal
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: concepts to the jury. There are no deliberations. There's no
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: risk of a hung jury. There's no risk of the
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: triads intimidating the juries and so on. And there's also
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: no risk of a jury getting squeamish about sending a
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: defendant to the death chamber, which is where you go
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: in Singapore when you commit a serious drug crime. And
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: the results have been positive, in part because they abolished
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: the jury system while also enforcing zero tolerance laws. Singapore
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: now has one of the lowest crime rates anywhere in
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: the world. They have something like 0.1 homicides per 100,000
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: people compared to the global average of seven homicides per 100,000
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: or the U.S. average of six. Back in the 1960s,
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: it was a very different story. Gangs operated with impunity
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: and now law and order have been restored. And that's
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: why to this day, jury trials remain abolished in Singapore.
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: They recognized that Lee Kuan Yew was onto something. He
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: succeeded because he didn't back down in the face of
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: all the Western NGOs and media outlets who accused him
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: of humanitarian abuses or implied that he was an authoritarian.
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: Here's how he had handled aggressive, inane questions from Western journalists.
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: Watch.
• 16:20
  Speaker 4: You also have one of the highest rates of capital punishment.
• 16:23
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 16:24
  Speaker 4: That's for drugs. That's for drugs. Because you think drugs
• 16:27
  Speaker 4: deserve to be treated with the maximum.
• 16:32
  Speaker 5: Punishment. If we could kill them a hundred times, we would.
• 16:35
  Speaker 5: Because you destroy the whole families. It's terrifying to see.
• 16:41
  Speaker 5: Because you are then drug dependent. You steal, you cheat,
• 16:46
  Speaker 5: you rob your own parents. I mean, it's soul destroying.
• 16:52
  Speaker 6: And they come in knowing that death, if they are
• 16:57
  Speaker 6: found with these goods on them, But the rewards are
• 17:01
  Speaker 6: so great. And they try very, very unusual people. Women
• 17:07
  Speaker 6: from Africa, big mammies come to sell clothes. And in
• 17:11
  Speaker 6: between the clothes are kilos of heroin.
• 17:15
  Speaker 4: And if you say, if you bring heroin into Singapore...
• 17:18
  Speaker 4: You hang. You hang. You hang. Anything beyond 10 grams,
• 17:22
  Speaker 4: you hang.
• 17:23
  Speaker 6: Below 10 grams, maybe you can say.
• 17:25
  Speaker 4: If you are convicted of bringing in more than 10
• 17:27
  Speaker 4: grams of heroin.
• 17:28
  Speaker 6: You hang.
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: You hang.
• 17:29
  Speaker 6: That's right.
• 17:29
  Speaker 4: After jury trial. Yes, of course. No, no jury trial. Judge.
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: Judge.
• 17:34
  Speaker 4: Judge listens to the evidence presented. Yes, of course. And
• 17:37
  Speaker 4: if he says you're guilty, you hang.
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: You hang.
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: That's the attitude you need to adopt if you're going
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: to have a functioning society where a relatively small number
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: of criminals cannot destroy the fundamental rights of everybody else.
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: He's unapologetic.
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: He says, yeah, I'd kill heroin traffickers 100 times over
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: because they cause extraordinary damage to the country. They get
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: a speedy trial in front of a judge and they
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: get put to death.
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: That's how it works.
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: Other countries like India, for example, have followed suit. Although, again,
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: the example only goes so far where we're concerned because
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: our judge pool, like our jury pool, is also corrupted.
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: But the problems with juries are still undeniable and we
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: have to face them. As John Doyle put it, Quote,
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: it would be terrifying to be on trial and have
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: your fate decided by a dozen people randomly selected from
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: the American population. Imagine delegating justice to the kind of
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: person you'd bump into at an airport. I'd literally rather
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: just flip a coin. Lindsay Clancy is in a way
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: lucky since she, as an insane and deeply narcissistic woman,
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: seems to truly have a jury of her peers. Is
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: there anyone who can seriously disagree with that? A jury
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: from the 1950s would look absolutely nothing like.
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: A jury from today. They'd be far more intelligent, engaged,
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: and well-informed.
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: Anyone who has to face a jury today, particularly when
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: the mob takes an interest in the case, is not
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: going to get a fair trial one way or another.
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: And that might benefit them if they're guilty, but it
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: doesn't benefit society. It's simply impossible to randomly select impartial
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: people out of the general population in high profile cases,
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: and even in many low profile cases also. I mean,
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: at this point, the whole concept of a fair trial
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: rests on make believe. People are being told to trust
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: the process when the process is clearly overwhelmingly corrupt and broken.
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: And meanwhile, every adult in the country under the age
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: of 95 uses a smartphone and social media and is
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: plugged into every news story and controversy happening in the
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: country every day. Jury trials are built on the assumption
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: that juries will be, among other things, impartial. Like they
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: won't come into the trial with an opinion already decided.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: And 200 years ago, that was a perfectly reasonable expectation.
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: But today, in the case of a high-profile trial like
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy or Derek Chauvin, it's preposterous to believe that
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: an average person pulled at random won't already have an
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: opinion on the subject. Even back during the OJ trial,
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: it was a fantasy. We all knew it was a fantasy,
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: that the jurors didn't already have opinions about the murder
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: and about OJ Simpson himself, even leaving aside the racial
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: tribalism aspect. Modern media had already rendered the impartiality of
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: the juries obsolete. That was 30 years ago. And the
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: situation is a thousand times worse now. The fact of
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: the matter is that every member of the jury, in
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: the case especially of high-profile and contentious cases, is definitely
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: sitting down for the trial, aware of the case, aware
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: of their own opinions about it, and crucially, aware of
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: public opinion about it. If they use social media, which
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: everybody does, they will already know all of that. And
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: we all know that they know it. And in particular,
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: when you're pulling, not only do you have social media,
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: but you're pulling from a local, you know, as big
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: as the Lindsay Clancy case is now nationally, it's even
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: bigger locally. So we're supposed to believe that the people
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: sitting down in the jury didn't already have opinions about it.
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: It's absurd. And we're supposed to pretend that juries are
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: impartial anyway, but it's a fantasy.
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: It's a farce.
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: You know, the only way to compensate for the fact
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: that juries definitely aren't going into these cases, at least
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: the high profile ones, impartially, is to ensure that juries
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: are made up of intelligent and responsible people who can
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: be trusted to overcome their own partiality.
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: But we don't.
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: Do anything to ensure that. When this goes on long enough,
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: it erodes all confidence in the rule of law. No
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: one will take the court seriously anymore, and in the
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: long run, that's a fatal problem for any country. A
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: country without courts inevitably becomes barbaric. Disputes are settled with violence,
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: and the people who commit the violence aren't punished. As
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: long as they have the support of the mob, they
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: can do whatever they want. The bigger issue, the one
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: that goes beyond the criminal justice system, is that a
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: large portion of the population, whether they serve on juries
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: or not, is divorced from reality. They have no respect
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: for our laws or customs or basic observable facts. Their
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: brains are controlled by algorithms feeding them schizophrenic nonsense. We've
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: had decades of mass migration, people coming to this country
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: who have no respect for the traditions or any tie
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: to it anyway. We have even more than a justice problem.
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: We have a democracy problem. Like jury trials, our democracy,
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: or more accurately, our republic, has its roots in a
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: very different, now unrecognizable period in history. The founders recognized
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: that democracy was prone to these kinds of problems, which
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: is why senators were appointed and why we have the
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: Electoral College. But the safeguards they put in place are
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: rapidly getting overwhelmed. Your bed has one job, which is
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: to provide a comfortable place for you to remain unconscious
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: for several hours. Nowadays, there are sleep trackers and apps
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: and supplements and elaborate nighttime routines. People are monitoring 17
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: different metrics to determine whether they successfully went unconscious for
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: eight hours. Maybe all that has some value, but before
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: you redesign your entire life around sleeping, you might want
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: to consider the thing you're actually lying in every night,
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: which is your bedding. That's why I like partnering with
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: Bowlin Branch. Their bedding makes your bed noticeably better without
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: requiring you to develop a new lifestyle around it. Their
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: sheets are made from 100% organic cotton and woven specifically
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: for airflow. There's no synthetic cooling technology or chemically treated
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: fabric involved. It's simply the way the cotton is woven.
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: They're incredibly soft and breathable, and the quality is obvious
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: as soon as you get into bed. And Bowling Branch
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: makes the rest of the bed, too, including pillows, comforters,
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: and their waffle blankets. So if your bedding has been
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: around longer than some of your children, perhaps it's time.
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: Bedding wasn't something I thought too much about, but after
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: trying Bowling Branch, trust me, it's worth it. Upgrade your
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: sleep with Bowling Branch. Get 15% off your first order,
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: plus free shipping at bowlingbranch.com slash Walsh with code Walsh.
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: That's bowlingbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com slash Walsh, code Walsh, to unlock
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: 15% off.
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: Exclusions apply.
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: I'd like to tell you about something unusual. Something has
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: gotten cheaper. Yes, I realize that sounds implausible. Everything costs more,
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: food costs more, houses cost more, cars cost more. Basically
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: everything you need to remain alive now requires some form
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: of financing, but your wireless service doesn't have to follow
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: that trend. Right now, Pure Talk is offering any plan
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: for $ 15 a month for your first three months. That
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: includes their top tier unlimited plan, normally $ 65 a month, $ 15.
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: which means you can save up to $ 150 over those
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: first three months per line. Imagine the savings for the
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: whole family, and you're not signing your life away to
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: get the deal either. Pure Talk has no service contract
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: and no cancellation fee. They also have 100% U.S.-based customer service.
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: So if you need help, you're talking to someone here
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: in America who can help you. It's one of the
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: few bills in your life that you can actually make smaller.
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: You probably should take advantage of that. For just a
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: few more weeks, you can get any Pure Talk plan,
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: including unlimited data, for just $ 15 a month for your
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: first three months. Simply go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: claim this offer. Again, it's puretalk.com slash Walsh to start
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: saving today. Now, if there's any solution to the jury problem,
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: it's the same as a solution to our voting problem.
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: It's a solution that will almost certainly never be enacted,
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: but it would be this. Don't abolish juries or abolish voting. Instead,
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: put more standards in place or restore some of the
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: standards that had been in place before they were all
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: foolishly torn down. Treat both of these things, serving on
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: a jury, voting, as privileges reserved for competent, responsible, intelligent Americans.
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: Stop pretending that somehow competence, responsibility, and intelligence are irrelevant
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: to to these functions. That is the fiction that we've
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: been laboring under in this country for decades now. That
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: being responsible and intelligent should have no bearing on whether
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: you get to vote, whether you.
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: Get to serve on a jury. That's insane.
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: It's completely insane. Of course these factors are very relevant.
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: Of course it is absolutely disastrous for our country, catastrophic
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: in every respect, to have stupid, irresponsible, incompetent people deciding
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: murder cases and deciding who gets to run the country.
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: And nobody can claim that opening these things up to
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: everybody with no standards at all is somehow the more American,
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: the more traditional, the more constitutional approach.
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: It isn't.
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: As we've already established, the founders of this country believe
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: that there should be standards. Modern Americans abolish the standards.
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: We could talk about, should there be different standards? Should
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: we adjust it? There should still be standards. So the
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: idea there should be none is a modern invention, not
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: a traditional one. Right now, the only qualifications for serving
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: on a jury are merely that you're 18 years old,
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: you're a citizen, supposedly, you're a resident of the state
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: where you're serving, and you can at least vaguely understand
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: English in both written.
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: And spoken form, generally.
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: And beyond that, some states have varying rules related to felons,
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: I think. In some places, being a felon disqualifies you permanently.
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: In other places, it only keeps you off juries for
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: a set number of years. But there's no state that
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: requires a prospective jury member to be a taxpayer or
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: to be employed or that they have an IQ above
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: 70 or that they're contributing... respected members of their communities
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: in good standing or anything like that. All of those
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: are very basic and reasonable qualifications.
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: I mean, think of it this way.
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: If you were on trial and were actually innocent, you
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: would want your jury to be comprised of intelligent, respectable, rational,
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: responsible adults. If you were on trial and you were guilty,
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: You would want your jury to be comprised of irrational,
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: gullible morons. The dumber the better, right? In other words,
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: you'd want precisely the kind of jury that our system
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: intentionally provides everyone. But it's not an oversimplification to say
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: that a functional jury system would seek to assemble the
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: kinds of juries that the not guilty would want and
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: the guilty would not want. We have the opposite because
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: we don't have a functional system. We have a declining
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: dysfunctional system to match a declining dysfunctional society. The Clancy trial,
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: which has been described as the OJ trial for white
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: women or more dismissively as the HoJ Simpson trial, is
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: simply the most visible sign of this decline at the moment.
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: It's a symptom of a larger cancer, which is being
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: amplified by social media. the dumbest and most narcissistic, vindictive
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: people are more empowered than they've ever been. They can
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: easily connect with other narcissistic, vindictive people, and the results
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: are impossible to ignore. Yesterday, we talked about the deranged
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: woman who was shot in Times Square after she charged
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: at police.
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: With a knife.
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: And this is a woman who, using the logic of
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: the Lindsay Clancy supporters, simply can't be held responsible for
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: her actions. After all, her hormones were probably out of whack.
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: Certainly something was out of whack. So we can't possibly
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: hold her responsible for killing a random woman on the street. Women,
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: as we discussed, are now immune from responsibility for their behavior.
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: In other words, feminists have now adopted the talking points
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: of the anti-suffrage movement. But there was a part of
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: the story we didn't spend much time on, which is
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: how leftists are gloating about the death of the white woman,
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: a Bank of America employee who was killed by this
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: lunatic before before the lunatic was put down by police. Now,
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: by all accounts, the white woman who was murdered did
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: everything right in life. She went to law school. She
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: got a highly competitive job in finance. She was not
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: a high ranking executive yet, although she had the title
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: of VP, apparently a common thing in banks where thousands
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: of employees have that title. She was basically a middle manager.
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: She had just gotten back to work from maternity leave.
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: She had a very promising future. And in an instant,
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: she was stabbed to death without any provocation by a
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: schizophrenic from the third world. And yet, if you go
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: on X or Blue Sky, you'll find posts like this one,
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: which has thousands of likes. Quote, I'd feel bad, but
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: then I'll be charged overdraft fees. You see, it's clever
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: because the bank doesn't let you have free money. Therefore,
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: it's good when random bank employees are gutted in the streets.
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: You know, if you spend more money than you actually
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: have in your account, you get charged a fee. Ooh,
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: what an outrage. No, if you don't have money, the
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: bank should just give you more money is apparently what
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: these morons think. Yeah, I only have $ 50 in my
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: checking account. I want to spend 75, right? So the
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: bank should just give me, they should spot me the
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: 25 with no fee. This is something that's become extremely
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: hard to ignore, especially after Charlie Kirk's assassination. Every few weeks,
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: we see leftists openly cheering for the murder of anyone
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: who makes them feel insecure about their own failed lives.
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: Here's another post from Blue Sky to give you an idea.
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: Somebody writes, I actually don't think this person was evil
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: and deserved to be stabbed to death. And the reply,
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: then you're a person who hates the poor and does
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: not value life. And then, for good measure, the original
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: poster is accused of being violent. because he doesn't want
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: Bank of America employees to get slaughtered in the street.
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: In other words, according to socialists, anyone who doesn't want
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: to murder white bank employees is the violent one. And
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: by the way, even the people who are criticizing these
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: posts are, you know, in their own way, are validating
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: the point of view. So here's one example of what
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: I'm talking about. This is a very, very common reaction
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: I saw. Somebody writes, quote, y'all are discussing the comments.
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: A Bank of America VP is like a mid-level manager,
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: not a next in line to be CEO. This woman
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: was just 32, going about her business, going home from work,
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: probably only making $ 100, 000 to $ 150, 000 a year, really effing despicable,
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: celebrating this. So the implication is that if she had
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: made more money, say a million dollars a year, then
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: it would have been justified to mow her down in
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: the street. You know, past a certain income, which remains unspecified,
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: it's totally okay for a leftist freak to execute you
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: in broad daylight. This is very dark, of course, almost
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: unimaginably so. Not too long ago, nobody would say anything
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: like this in public. You could listen to any shock
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: jock in the country and they wouldn't stoop to celebrating
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: the brutal execution of a young mother for no reason whatsoever.
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: Nor would they justify killing people once they make a
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: certain income. But now it's commonplace. The most degenerate and
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: evil people in society, with the help of social media,
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: have banded together and formed a political movement. They have
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: real power. They aren't simply compromising juries. They're winning elections.
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: It's yet more proof for the theory that over time,
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: democracies tend to collapse precisely because they award so much
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: power to so many people who are clearly unfit to
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: wield it. These are people who see a dead mother
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: and brag about it. They look at photographs of three
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: dead children and they see their killer as the victim.
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: And increasingly, they're running our courts. They're running our major cities.
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: And unless we find some way to get a handle
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: on this, these demons will systematically destroy everything that their enemies,
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: mainly competent white people, have built. The real story is
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: not that the Lindsay Clancy jury is deadlocked because a
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: certain portion of them apparently believe that it's sometimes okay
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: for a mother to kill her children. The real story
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: is that we're foolish enough as a country to allow
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: people like that to sit on a jury in the
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: first place.
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.
• 34:23
  Speaker 7: But in all of my years of public life, I
• 34:26
  Speaker 7: have never profited from public service. I welcome this kind
• 34:30
  Speaker 7: of examination because people have got to know whether or
• 34:33
  Speaker 7: not their president's a crook.
• 34:35
  Speaker 2: Well, I'm not a crook.
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: For more than five decades, from Iran-Contra to Monica Lewinsky
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: to Russiagate, every political scandal has been measured against one,
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: the Watergate affair.
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: But what if Richard Nixon was telling the truth? What
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: if Watergate isn't what it seems?
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: What if hundreds of thousands of pages of sworn testimony, memoirs,
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: and newly released government documents tell a different story than the.
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: One you learned in school?
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide in modern
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: American history with grand plans to remake the federal government.
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: Two years later, he was out of office. You were
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: taught that Nixon's men broke into the Democratic National Committee
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: headquarters to spy on his political opponents. You were taught
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: that when he found out, Nixon covered it up, and
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: that the cover-up was worse than the crime.
• 35:24
  Speaker 2: You were taught that two heroic Washington.
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: Post reporters, guided by a righteous FBI whistleblower, brought the
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: most powerful man in the world to justice.
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: But you were never told what really happened.
• 35:36
  Speaker 7: I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: The real history of the Watergate scandal is available now
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: on Daily Wire +.