Latest / The Matt Walsh Show / The Shiloh Hendrix Verdict Is A Horrifying Sign For America. Here's Why.

Transcript

The Shiloh Hendrix Verdict Is A Horrifying Sign For America. Here's Why. · The Matt Walsh Show

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Everybody has that list. The things you know you should
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: get around to eventually, organizing the garage, updating important documents,
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: taking care of long-term financial planning. Life insurance tends to
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: live on that list for a lot of people, not
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: because it isn't important, because people assume it's going to
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: be complicated. That's why PolicyGenius exists. PolicyGenius is an online
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: insurance marketplace that helps you compare life insurance quotes from
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: top insurers in one place for free. Their licensed team
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: helps explain your options clearly, compare coverage amounts and prices,
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: answer questions, and help you find a policy that fits
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: your needs. No guesswork, no confusion, just clarity. And while
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: they're helping with the shopping, you can get back to
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: enjoying summer with the people who matter most. PolicyGenius has
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: helped thousands of families find the right coverage and has
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: earned thousands of five-star reviews in the process. because some
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: items on the to-do list are worth checking off. With PolicyGenius,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: you can see if you can find 20-year life insurance
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: policies starting at just $ 276 a year for $ 1 million
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: in coverage. Head to policygenius.com to compare life insurance quotes
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: from top companies and see how much you could save.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: That's policygenius.com.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: When a Somali child took Shiloh Hendricks' property in a
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: park last year, she had a few options. She could
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: have ignored it, which is how white people are expected
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: to respond to rampant theft by the Somalis who have
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: taken over their communities. Alternatively, she could have complained and
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: called the police, who would have taken two hours to arrive,
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: at which point they would have dispatched a Somali police
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: officer who, of course, wouldn't have done anything. But Shiloh Hendricks,
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: as we all know, didn't choose any of those options.
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: She opted for a different forbidden route. She verbalized her
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: frustration with the Somali takeover of Minnesota. She made it
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: abundantly clear that she's tired of third world dysfunction, which
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: is so pervasive that it's impossible to enjoy a nice.
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: Day in the park.
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: And for doing that, Hendricks has now been forced to
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: endure yet another hallmark of so-called Somali culture, which is
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: the punishment of free speech under the color of law.
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: Now you see in Somalia, if you say the wrong
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: thing to the local warlord, If you're not happy with
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: how things are going in your local garbage dump or
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: your row of mud huts or whatever, then the warlord
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: will take your goats away if you're lucky enough to
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: own any. I mean, this is a country so primitive
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: that they only passed a law against sexual assault a
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: few years ago. So they don't respect the freedom of
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: speech in any way. And now because Minnesota has become
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: a colony of Somalia, Minnesota does not respect the freedom
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: of speech either. We now have Somali courts in the
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: United States, and this is what that looks like.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: New from overnight, a Rochester jury reaching a late night
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: verdict in the case of a woman accused of calling
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: a little boy a racial.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: Slur at a park.
• 3:03
  Speaker 4: Shiloh Hendricks was facing two counts of disorderly conduct.
• 3:07
  Speaker 5: Hannah Flood is in the Live Center with how this
• 3:09
  Speaker 5: trial ended and what this means going forward.
• 3:11
  Speaker 6: Hi, Hannah.
• 3:11
  Speaker 7: Yeah, good morning.
• 3:12
  Speaker 8: You may remember this case because of that now viral
• 3:14
  Speaker 8: video that started all of it. The video shows Shiloh
• 3:17
  Speaker 8: Hendricks allegedly calling an 8-year-old boy with autism a racial
• 3:20
  Speaker 8: slur while she was out at the playground with her child.
• 3:23
  Speaker 8: It was posted last year and it led to community
• 3:25
  Speaker 8: rallies and an outpouring of support both for the child
• 3:28
  Speaker 8: and family it featured, but also for the woman, for Hendricks.
• 3:32
  Speaker 8: She was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct and
• 3:34
  Speaker 8: took the case all the way to a jury trial.
• 3:36
  Speaker 8: According to KTTC, late last night, the jury returned a
• 3:39
  Speaker 8: split verdict, finding her guilty of one count but not
• 3:43
  Speaker 8: guilty of the other count. The count she was found
• 3:45
  Speaker 8: guilty for was not related to the racial slur thrown
• 3:49
  Speaker 8: at the child, but instead conduct against the man who
• 3:52
  Speaker 8: took that viral video. During the trial, the Rochester branch
• 3:55
  Speaker 8: of the NAACP submitted a victim impact statement and asked
• 3:59
  Speaker 8: the judge for the stiffest sentence possible, saying, quote, the
• 4:02
  Speaker 8: words and actions of Ms. Hendricks caused tremendous fear and
• 4:05
  Speaker 8: trauma to a defenseless child. For many members of our community,
• 4:09
  Speaker 8: this was not simply an isolated playground incident. It was
• 4:12
  Speaker 8: a painful reminder that the hatred represented by that word
• 4:16
  Speaker 8: still exists today.
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: So there it is.
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: Hatred is now illegal, by which they mean hatred of non-whites. Now,
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: they can hate you as much as they want, and
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: they do, but You're not allowed to express any degree
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: of hatred or just displeasure with the third-worlders who now
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: inhabit this country, even when they rob you. You're not
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: allowed to say anything to them or else you're causing
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: tremendous fear and trauma. I mean, we're meant to imagine
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: the Somali community huddling together, trembling in fear, paralyzed with
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: grief and trauma because a tiny blonde woman said a
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: mean word on a playground. I mean, indeed, the Somalis
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: in Minnesota were so traumatized that they couldn't even go
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: to work at their fake autism treatment centers. for days afterwards,
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: which was okay, it turns out, because they don't actually
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: work at the fake treatment centers.
• 5:04
  Speaker 3: That's why they're fake.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: Now, anyway, this is the impact of a naughty word,
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: according to the NAACP, an organization that, according to your
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: history textbooks, was allegedly founded to promote racial equality. And
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: now they want you to suffer criminal consequences if you
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: say words they don't like.
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: That is, if you're white.
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: Now, black people can, of course, continue to say whatever
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: they want to anyone using whatever language they want in
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: whatever context all the time. There is no single word
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: a black person could ever say that would lead to
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: a court case, much less a conviction. I mean, in
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: this country, bad language has apparently been criminalized, but only
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: when that bad language is used by one particular race.
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: You should also note that, contrary to what the NAACP
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: implied in their statement, Shiloh Hendricks was not convicted of
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: any crime relating to the child who stole from her.
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: This was a child who incidentally had a history of
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: taking things that didn't belong to him, unsurprisingly. Now, instead,
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: she was convicted of disorderly conduct with respect to the
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: Somali adult who decided to harass her on camera after
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: the fact, which is what makes it an incoherent, one
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: of the things that makes it an incoherent verdict, which
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: is also why the NAACP wants to confuse the issue
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: as much as possible. So we're going to go in-depth.
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: We're going to analyze the trial of Shiloh Hendricks at
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: some length because it's easily one of the most important
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: criminal cases in memory, even if much of conservative media
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: is ignoring it. The First Amendment protects the most fundamental
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: rights we have. That's why it's the First Amendment. It's
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: what separates the United States from almost every other country
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: on the planet, including countries like the UK and Australia
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: and Canada, which share our common law.
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: Tradition, or at least supposedly they do.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: Every other country with any degree of influence has abandoned
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: the right of free expression. So when a court in
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: the United States decides to suspend the First Amendment, which
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: is what they've done, When a court decides to make
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: it illegal to offend black people, especially if they're foreigners,
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: then we have a major existential problem on our hands.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: This is a problem that demands an immediate response from
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: the federal government, including civil rights investigations into Minnesota officials
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: and the dramatic acceleration of deportations, especially in the state
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: of Minnesota. Anything less is unacceptable. Anything less, and this
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: will fester until we don't have a constitution anymore. Now
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: to set the stage, we're going to begin to refresh
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: our memories with the now infamous video of Shiloh Hendricks
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: in the park. Other than the testimony of some barely
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: literate Somali witnesses, this was the only relevant evidence in
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: the case that the jury was allowed to be presented.
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: And so let's go back and watch it again.
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: Here it is.
• 7:51
  Speaker 9: You call him a child? Did you call the child
• 7:55
  Speaker 9: a n * * * a? It is my own business.
• 7:58
  Speaker 10: You call him a n * * * a?
• 8:00
  Speaker 9: Okay, why don't you have the boss to say it
• 8:02
  Speaker 9: right now again?
• 8:06
  Speaker 10: Alright, that's what you say. Nobody digging to.
• 8:14
  Speaker 11: You.
• 8:14
  Speaker 9: That little kid, you call him a n * *
• 8:16
  Speaker 9: * a? The little child? Are you about to hit him?
• 8:20
  Speaker 9: You chase him here?
• 8:21
  Speaker 10: He took my son's stuff. So that gives you the
• 8:24
  Speaker 10: right to call the child five-year-old the N-word? If that's
• 8:28
  Speaker 10: what he's going to act like. That's what you're going
• 8:29
  Speaker 10: to call him? That's what he's going to act like.
• 8:31
  Speaker 10: You know, that's a hate speech. And you can't be
• 8:33
  Speaker 10: f * * * ed for that. I don't give
• 8:36
  Speaker 10: a f * * *.
• 8:38
  Speaker 11: Huh.
• 8:38
  Speaker 10: Okay, we'll see about that, what the internet has to
• 8:39
  Speaker 10: say about you.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: Now, notice that she does not make any threatening gestures
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: or movements towards anyone.
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: She can't. She's holding her own child. She's unarmed.
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: She does not threaten to harm anybody. Instead, a Somali
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: adult begins accosting her, saying she directed a slur against
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: a child who stole her property. Now, the man follows
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: her around, encourages her to say the slur several more
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: times so that he can record it. And as he
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: puts it, we'll see what the Internet has.
• 9:09
  Speaker 3: To say about you.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: And then the interaction comes to an end. There's no
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: panic in the park. There's no disruption. The other people
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: in the park don't even seem to care or barely notice.
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: The whole incident ends in a matter of seconds. Under
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: the well-established laws of this country, as well as just
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: common sense, this woman, even if she hurt your feelings,
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: did not commit any crime at all. But Democrats in
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: Minnesota ordered a prosecution anyway for the same reason they
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: ordered the prosecution of Derek Chauvin. They wanted to send
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: a message that blasphemy against their favored racial groups and
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: against the Democrats' open borders agenda will not be tolerated.
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: And that's why the judge in the case, Krista M. Daly,
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: who was, of course, appointed by a Democrat, didn't throw
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: out the charges on First Amendment grounds. That's what she
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: should have done. That's what any— legitimate judge would do,
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: laugh at the charges and throw them out because they're
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: a blatant violation, a blatant attack on the First Amendment.
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: That's what she should have done when the prosecutors announced
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: the charges, but she didn't. Instead, this judge here, Krista, who,
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: of course, is a white liberal woman, as we can see,
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: did everything she could to rig the trial so that
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: Hendricks would be convicted. And we'll start with her response
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: to the defense's motion to dismiss the case. In her
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: denial of the motion to dismiss, Judge Daley states that
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: personally directed, inherently abusive language likely to provoke an immediate
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: violent reaction falls outside First Amendment protection. This is known
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: as the fighting words doctrine. The Supreme Court hasn't upheld
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: a based on this doctrine in 80 years, and that's
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: for good reason.
• 10:53
  Speaker 3: It's nonsense.
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: There are no words in the English language that justify
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: the use of violence in response. Saying that the N-word
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: is likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction would seem
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: to be more of a statement about the group that
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: claims to find the word offensive than it is a
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: statement about the word itself. Okay, because there are a
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: lot of bad words in the English language. There are
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: a lot of slurs of various kinds. Why would that
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: one particular word be so likely to provoke an immediate
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: violent reaction?
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: Why is that?
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: Is it because the offended group is statistically more likely
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: to be violent in general? If that's the case, and
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: it is, then the answer is not to throw the
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: book at somebody saying the word, but rather to throw
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: it at anybody responding violently to it. But even if
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: we pretend that the fighting words doctrine makes sense, Shiloh's
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: behavior doesn't qualify. In her ruling, the judge states that, quote,
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: the defendant directed an extreme racial epithet at both adults
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: and a child and chased a child in a confrontational manner.
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: This is targeted face-to-face verbal abuse coupled with aggressive physical conduct.
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: Language that is inherently likely to provoke an immediate breach
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: of the peace, particularly when directed at a vulnerable minor
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: and accompanied by pursuit. Now, the problem here is obvious.
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: I mean, there are many of them. There is no
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: evidence that.
• 12:27
  Speaker 3: Shiloh chased a child or pursued a child.
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: And even if she had, it would obviously be reasonable
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: because the child just stole from her.
• 12:34
  Speaker 3: She wanted to get her stuff back.
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: That's presumably why she was acquitted of committing any crime
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: with respect to the child. Therefore, there is precisely zero
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: additional conduct by Shiloh beyond the racial slur that the
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: judge can point to as evidence that there was aggressive
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: physical conduct or anything along those lines. Now, nevertheless, the
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: judge continues by stating that the direct face-to-face use of
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: highly inflammatory language in a confrontational setting together with circumstances
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: indicating the a foreseeable risk of immediate escalation, create a
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: situation where Shiloh Hendricks was using fighting words. So she
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: loses all of her First Amendment protections because of these
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: alleged aggravating circumstances. Nowhere in the ruling does the judge
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: explain what these aggravating circumstances are with respect to the
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: Somali adult. Under the fighting words doctrine, even under that doctrine,
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: this prosecution is unconstitutional. And so was the verdict. I mean,
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: you can't convict somebody of using fighting words against an
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: adult man simply because she directed a racial slur at
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: him upon his request. And the latter fact there should
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: have been enough on its own to shoot down any
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: notion of charging Shiloh with any crime at all. The
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: Somali guy dared Shiloh to say it. He coaxed it
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: out of her explicitly. He literally asked for it. How
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: can somebody be the victim of fighting words when they
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: are the ones who prompted those words? But Judge Daley
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: and her jury instructions continued to push this theory, and
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: she did so in a way that misled the jury
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: and violated the Constitution. That's the theme here. For one thing,
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: the judge made sure that the jury instructions did not
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: contain any mention of the First Amendment whatsoever over the
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: objections of the defense. The defense wanted the jury's instruction
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: to read, quote, The First Amendment to the United States
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: Constitution limits what speech may constitutionally be punished. Speech alone
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: cannot constitute disorderly conduct unless the state proves beyond a
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: reasonable doubt that the words used were fighting words. Now,
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: that's obviously a correct judgment, a correct statement of the law,
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: but the judge refused to provide that jury instruction. Even
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: though the jury instructions were 11 pages long, the First
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: Amendment was not mentioned a single time. I mean, this
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: entire case revolves around that question, was she within her
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: free speech rights or not, and the jury was never
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: told in the instructions. Instead, the judge simply asked jurors whether, quote,
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: the defendant engaged in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct,
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language, tending reasonably to
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. Now, specifically, the
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: judge told the jurors, quote, if you find the defendant's
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: conduct consisted only of offensive, obscene, or abusive language, then
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: to convict, you must also find that the words used
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: were fighting words. Speech is not fighting words merely because
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: it's racist. Fighting words are words that constitute personally offensive
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: epithets that when spoken to the ordinary person under the
• 15:57
  Speaker 2: particular circumstances of the case, are, as a matter of
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction or
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: incite an immediate breach of the peace by those to
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: whom such words are addressed. The offense may be based
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: upon the utterance of fighting words alone without resulting in
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: actual violence. The focus is upon the nature of the
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: words and the circumstances in which they were spoken rather
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: than upon the actual response. As reported by the independent journalist,
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: Tom Hennessy, the jury sent a question to the judge
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: about four hours into their eight-hour deliberation. Hennessy, by the way,
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: was in the courtroom for the entire trial. He's been
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: on this case since day one. He's been in regular
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: contact with Shiloh Hendricks and her husband, easily been their
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: most effective advocate, as we'll discuss in a moment, set
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: up her fundraiser, for example, which has been wildly successful.
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: And according to Hennessy, the jury wanted to know the
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: definition of boisterous, and they didn't get one. So obviously
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: there was confusion over this instruction, and rightfully so. It's
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: a total mess. The instruction sounds like it's making it
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: illegal to be boisterous.
• 17:02
  Speaker 3: Whatever that means, which is exactly what it's doing.
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: The lawyer, Laura Powell, suggests that maybe the jury thought
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: Shiloh Hendricks had been boisterous by giving the Somali guy
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: the finger in addition to the slurs. But again, as
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: Powell points out, that would not rise to the level
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: of criminal conduct. So you know this case is a
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: farce and a disgrace when it requires the jury to
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: parse terms like boisterous and fighting words. Okay, these are
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: not legitimate legal concepts. They are adjectives that are entirely
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: subjective and have no objective meaning whatsoever. How does one
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: differentiate criminal boisterousness from regular boisterousness?
• 17:48
  Speaker 3: How does one.
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: Separate criminal fighting words from just regular mean but not
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: fighting words? The whole thing is absurd. So let's start
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: here while we're on the subject. What circumstances could you
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: imagine under this instruction might transform speech into fighting words?
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: The attorney Andrew Branca on his show has come up
• 18:15
  Speaker 2: with a few examples based on Minnesota law and previous cases.
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: One example might be if Shiloh Hendricks had clenched her
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: fists and run towards the Somali while dropping the N-bomb,
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: that might make a reasonable person think he's about to
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: get hit. Or maybe if she had assembled a mob
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: to surround the guy, or if she was trespassing, or
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: if she kept berating him for an hour, that could qualify.
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: But there has to be something... beyond the N-bomb itself.
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: There's no getting around it. And of course, in any
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: of those cases, you wouldn't need this ridiculous fighting words
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: doctrine anyway, because the crime would be in the additional conduct.
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: Like charging at somebody with clenched fists is already a
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: sign that you mean to assault them, even if you
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: say nothing.
• 19:02
  Speaker 3: So the words she used.
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: Along with that conduct, if she engaged in it, which
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: she didn't, would be basically irrelevant. But once you abandon
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: the idea that Shiloh Hendricks chased anybody, which the jury did,
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: then it's game over. I mean, there's no constitutional basis
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: for convicting Shiloh for disorderly conduct with respect to anybody.
• 19:23
  Speaker 2: And yet they did anybody anyway. Now, there have been
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: decades of federal court rulings on the topic, which FIRE,
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: which is the free speech organization, has assembled on their website.
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: All of the cases show the same thing, which is
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: that slurs alone don't qualify. And we should mention FIRE,
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: by the way, was missing in action on this case.
• 19:46
  Speaker 3: They were obviously aware of it.
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: Tom Hennessey posted emails in which a case number was
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: opened with FIRE, but they didn't actually support the defense.
• 19:52
  Speaker 3: They posted an article criticizing the verdict after the.
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: Fact, but they did not actually do anything to support
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: Shiloh or defend the First Amendment in this case, which
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: is yet another sign that the right needs its own ACLU.
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: We need an actual, well-funded, serious organization that's focused on
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: protecting freedom of speech and has the balls to jump
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: into the fray on a case like this, where there's
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: a risk that they might be called racist, God forbid.
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: But if they can't defend the First Amendment in a
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: case like this, then they're completely useless.
• 20:27
  Speaker 11: Period.
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: Which means that, yes, most conservative organizations are useless because
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: they didn't say anything about this.
• 20:36
  Speaker 3: They're terrified of it.
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: As you saw from that video, the Somali's response to
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: hearing the N-word was to beg the woman to say
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: it 10 more times so that he could get her
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: fired from her job. That's typically what happens in these scenarios,
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: probably because every rap song uses the same kind of language.
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: It's absurd to try to make the case under these
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: circumstances that Shiloh's words would inherently provoke violence in an
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: ordinary person. There are no words at all that inherently
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: provoke violence.
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: I mean, think about that.
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: The word inherent means existing naturally, a sort of inseparable
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: part of something. Something is inherent to a thing. It
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: is inseparably part of it. So to say that the
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: N-word inherently provokes violence is to say that it possesses
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: actual mystical power to conjure violence causing the person who
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: hears the word to be violent against his own will,
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: like some sort of sorcerer's curse. It is to suggest
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: quite explicitly that a black person who hears this word
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: literally has no choice but to respond with violence. It
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: triggers like an instinct, like a bull charging a red flag.
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: I mean, that's the apparent legal theory that we're hearing here.
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: And the judge went out of her way to sell
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: this particular theory to the jury in a few different ways.
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: For example, while she didn't instruct the jury about the
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: First Amendment, Judge Daley had a lot to say about
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: the concept of implicit bias. And in case you're not familiar,
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: implicit bias is a communist pseudoscience, the idea that everybody
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: is racist against Black people, whether they're aware of it
• 22:24
  Speaker 2: or not. It's a way to justify various anti-white programs
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: and policies. It has no place being taught in schools,
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: much less in courtrooms. In this case, though, Judge Daley
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: provided the following instruction to the jury. Quote, at the
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: opening of this case, I instructed you regarding implicit bias.
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: I trust you have kept that instruction in mind as
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: we have conducted this trial. I would like to take
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: this opportunity now to remind you of that instruction. We
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: all have feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears, and stereotypes about others.
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: Some biases we are aware of and others we might
• 22:57
  Speaker 2: not be fully aware of. which is why they are
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: called implicit or unconscious biases. No matter how unbiased we
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: think we are, our brains are hardwired to make unconscious decisions.
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: We look at others and filter what they say through
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: the lens of our own personal experience and background. Because
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: we all do this, we often see life and evaluate
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: evidence in a way that tends to favor people who
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: are like ourselves or who have life experiences like our own.
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: We can also have biases about people like ourselves. She
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: can't mention the First Amendment. She won't mention it, which
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: is foundational to the Constitution. The key issue in this
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: case doesn't mention it a single time, but she does
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: go on for paragraphs about a fake concept that was
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: invented by left-wing race hustlers 10 seconds ago. This judge
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: needs to be prosecuted under the standard Democrats have already set.
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: she is engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Shiloh Hendricks
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: of her constitutional rights. I mean, isn't that the lingo
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: the Biden administration used to justify throwing Republicans in prison
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: for creating memes about Hillary Clinton?
• 24:10
  Speaker 3: If making memes is illegal.
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: Because it deprives people of their rights, then it's also
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: illegal for a judge to issue jury instructions like this
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: as part of a larger effort to suspend the First Amendment.
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: So impeach her and throw her in prison. Now, to
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: be clear, these jury instructions are just scratching the surface.
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: The more you hear about this judge, the worse it gets.
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: After the conviction, the defense attorney in the case, Brian Carolus,
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: had one of the most justifiable crash outs.
• 24:40
  Speaker 3: I've ever seen.
• 24:42
  Speaker 2: He outlined how the judge was aligned with the prosecutor
• 24:45
  Speaker 2: on every issue throughout the trial and how she allowed
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: the Somali witnesses to dodge his questions by pretending they
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: couldn't speak English, even though they could.
• 24:54
  Speaker 10: Watch.
• 24:58
  Speaker 12: GoFundMe, huge, worldwide, giant, it's like Google, right? This is
• 25:05
  Speaker 12: so big.
• 25:06
  Speaker 13: My investigator was gonna testify that this page with Shire
• 25:12
  Speaker 13: Jamali's name on it, five-year-old, the kid's nine, five-year-old, $ 340, 000
• 25:21
  Speaker 13: he raised. The judge would not let me show it
• 25:25
  Speaker 13: to a jury, sorry. The judge would not let me
• 25:28
  Speaker 13: show it to the jury.
• 25:30
  Speaker 7: Okay?
• 25:31
  Speaker 12: And if you go through the, any of you right
• 25:33
  Speaker 12: now can go online right now, right now, and the.
• 25:36
  Speaker 7: Judge, like, you can't authenticate this. You can't lay foundation.
• 25:40
  Speaker 7: This prosecutor is telling.
• 25:42
  Speaker 12: The judge, oh, how do we know this is real?
• 25:45
  Speaker 12: How do we know this is real?
• 25:46
  Speaker 7: Anyone can make this up.
• 25:48
  Speaker 12: You can go online.
• 25:49
  Speaker 13: Right now, today, right now, go on that page, unless
• 25:52
  Speaker 13: they run and take it down, scroll down, he.
• 25:55
  Speaker 12: Has an open GoFundMe.
• 25:58
  Speaker 13: He said on the stand he does not. He lied
• 26:00
  Speaker 13: and lied and lied and lied. This entire thing's a shakedown.
• 26:05
  Speaker 13: They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
• 26:07
  Speaker 12: So we're going to appeal it. We will appeal it.
• 26:10
  Speaker 13: We have so many appellate issues, I don't even know
• 26:13
  Speaker 13: where to begin. Judges screaming at me during the trial.
• 26:17
  Speaker 13: Judges interrupting me every time I want to make a record.
• 26:20
  Speaker 13: Judge says to me, Mr. Corrales, you keep wanting to
• 26:25
  Speaker 13: make a record after I ruled.
• 26:29
  Speaker 12: This is crazy.
• 26:30
  Speaker 13: Most rulings during a trial by a judge are made
• 26:35
  Speaker 13: during the trial.
• 26:37
  Speaker 12: And then when you take a break, you make a record, right?
• 26:40
  Speaker 13: They didn't disclose the name of Shire Jabali until Monday, the.
• 26:45
  Speaker 7: First day of trial. No, I'm not done.
• 26:47
  Speaker 13: Until the first day of trial, they didn't even disclose
• 26:51
  Speaker 13: his name.
• 26:52
  Speaker 7: Think about that.
• 26:54
  Speaker 13: A trial, a jury trial in the United States of America,
• 26:58
  Speaker 13: I didn't get the name until Monday. When we started
• 27:02
  Speaker 13: the trial, until Monday, and then my investigators do a
• 27:06
  Speaker 13: record check, then we uncover.
• 27:08
  Speaker 12: Oh my God, he's got this GoFundMe.
• 27:11
  Speaker 13: $ 340, 000.
• 27:12
  Speaker 7: Mr. Jamali takes the stand.
• 27:14
  Speaker 12: Wouldn't answer any question I asked him.
• 27:17
  Speaker 7: He sat there like this. Oh, I don't understand. He
• 27:20
  Speaker 7: looked at his interpreter. I don't understand. I don't understand.
• 27:23
  Speaker 7: Over and over and over again.
• 27:26
  Speaker 13: When the prosecutor asked him a question, he had no
• 27:28
  Speaker 13: problem through the interpreter understanding.
• 27:31
  Speaker 7: Never had a problem understanding. Not one time. I put
• 27:35
  Speaker 7: the detective on the stand. Detective, did he ever have
• 27:38
  Speaker 7: a tough time understanding you? Never had a tough time
• 27:41
  Speaker 7: understanding him. Never had a tough time.
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: Now, before we continue with the rest of the attorney's statements,
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: because there's a lot more, let's just stop here for
• 27:53
  Speaker 2: a second to recap. According to Shiloh Hendricks' lawyer, the
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: judge ruled that he couldn't present evidence that the father
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: of the Somali child, Shair Jamali, had lied on the stand. Now, first,
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: the prosecution hid the name of the father for as
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: long as they could, presumably in order to prevent the
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: defense's investigators from looking into his background. And then when
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: the investigator found evidence that the father was lying on
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: the witness stand, which would be relevant in a trial,
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: the judge didn't let the defense present the evidence that
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: he was lying. Now, this is not some trivial detail.
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: If a witness to the case has a financial incentive
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: to present a certain narrative, then the jury should know
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: about that. And certainly if the witness denies having any
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: financial incentive and there's evidence to the contrary, irrefutable evidence,
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: by the way, there's no reason to hide that information
• 28:43
  Speaker 2: from the jury. Yes, Shiloh Hendricks raised hundreds of thousands
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: of dollars with a give, send, go, but she didn't
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: testify in the case as a witness, and her fundraiser
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: was not a secret in any event. What this Somali did,
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: according to the defense attorney, is very different, and the
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: jury should have known about it. According to the various
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: news reports I've seen, the judge threatened to hold this
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: attorney in contempt of court during the trial, but if
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: he actually tried to argue his case and defend his client,
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: that would be contempt of court. But she never even
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: suggested that she might hold Shia Jamali in contempt for
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: saying he couldn't understand the questions from the defense lawyers.
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: And note that the Somali who shot the video of
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: Shiloh Hendricks has been in Somalia for some time. So
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: we're not, the guy we're talking about here is the
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: father of the kid. The guy in the video or
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: that we hear in the video is not even in
• 29:37
  Speaker 2: the country. The prosecution's main witnesses were Shair Jamali and
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: a police officer. So yes, the person who was supposedly
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: victimized by Shiloh Hendricks didn't testify. He fled the country
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: months ago. So Shiloh's basic right to face her accuser,
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: like her basic right to free speech, was unceremoniously revoked.
• 29:59
  Speaker 2: And all along throughout the trial, nobody in the local
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: media reported any of this. But Tom Hennessey, the independent
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: journalist I mentioned earlier, was paying attention. And he shot
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: this photograph after the second day of the trial when
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: both of the prosecutors appeared outside the courthouse with Shair Jamali,
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: who was their star witness. And as you can see,
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: he apparently has no problem talking to the prosecutors without
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: a translator. much less two translators, which he supposedly needed
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: during the trial.
• 30:30
  Speaker 3: It's miraculous.
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: So this Somali was somehow magically infused with the ability
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: to speak English conversationally as he emerged from the courthouse
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: doors and walked outside.
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: It's miraculous. It's like watching those people.
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: Who claim they need a wheelchair before a flight so
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: they get priority boarding, and then when the plane lands,
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: suddenly they can walk perfectly fine. It's just a total
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: scam right out in public, which is what we've come
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: to expect from Somalis because that's basically all they do
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: in this country. Incidentally, just because this story isn't enough
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: of a farce, Tom Hennessy also found that Shahir Jamali
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: obtained a commercial driver's license, first to drive a truck
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: and now a bus. Well, CDLs require English proficiency. So
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: as Hennessy puts it, everything about this situation is a scam.
• 31:24
  Speaker 3: From every direction.
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: Last night, Hennessy told one of my producers that, quote,
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: Shire was a disaster on the stand.
• 31:30
  Speaker 3: It was like a bizarre world.
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: He lied under oath multiple times, lied about what he
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: said during the first interview with police 10 days after
• 31:37
  Speaker 2: the incident, lied about what Shiloh did. I thought she
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: was going to hit strike rumble with my son, lied
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: about not being involved in any fundraiser. And the jury
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: apparently appeared as baffled as everybody else, according to Hennessy.
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: So you can see why the defense attorney is furious.
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: The whole trial was a sham from the start. The
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: attorney stood outside the courthouse for 15 minutes after this verdict,
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: and as the press conference continued, it became more and
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: more heated. He also talked about additional Somali GoFundMes that
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: his investigator had found.
• 32:11
  Speaker 14: Watch.
• 32:12
  Speaker 7: This is a fraud. This whole thing's a fraud. The cameraman?
• 32:16
  Speaker 7: The cameraman.
• 32:17
  Speaker 13: By the way, let's make something clear. They didn't convict
• 32:20
  Speaker 13: him with the child. Your headlines can be about the child. No,
• 32:24
  Speaker 13: they convicted her on the video with the cameraman. The
• 32:27
  Speaker 13: disorderly conduct is about the cameraman.
• 32:31
  Speaker 7: And from what I understand about the cameraman, he has
• 32:34
  Speaker 7: a GoFundMe.
• 32:35
  Speaker 13: And his GoFundMe, hold on, his GoFundMe.
• 32:38
  Speaker 12: Is, he died. He has a GoFundMe that he died.
• 32:41
  Speaker 13: Give money to the cameraman who died. And from what
• 32:45
  Speaker 13: I understand, he is well alive. This whole thing is bullshit.
• 32:50
  Speaker 7: This is a fraud.
• 32:51
  Speaker 12: This is a fraud upon the community.
• 32:54
  Speaker 7: The courts are now part of this. Keep going.
• 32:57
  Speaker 3: Another question.
• 32:58
  Speaker 11: I believe Mr.
• 32:59
  Speaker 5: Jamali's first name was Sheree.
• 33:01
  Speaker 7: Whatever it is.
• 33:02
  Speaker 12: Don't care.
• 33:03
  Speaker 7: You can correct it. I don't know.
• 33:05
  Speaker 5: I was just wondering if you had caught it earlier.
• 33:07
  Speaker 7: Oh, did I say it wrong? Print that.
• 33:09
  Speaker 10: I said his name wrong. Go with that one.
• 33:12
  Speaker 14: What?
• 33:12
  Speaker 7: I was just wondering... Did I say shire? I didn't
• 33:14
  Speaker 7: say charrette. Print that. Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
• 33:17
  Speaker 5: No, no, no, it wasn't an accusation or anything. I
• 33:20
  Speaker 5: was just wondering if you'd noted that. That was one
• 33:22
  Speaker 5: of the issues in the court, was an argument over
• 33:26
  Speaker 5: just courtroom procedures and courtroom rules.
• 33:28
  Speaker 3: What was your perspective?
• 33:30
  Speaker 5: On kind of getting shut down a few times when
• 33:33
  Speaker 5: you were trying to introduce that evidence that the judge
• 33:36
  Speaker 5: and the prosecutor said.
• 33:37
  Speaker 13: The judge said Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence
• 33:40
  Speaker 13: only applies to prosecutors.
• 33:41
  Speaker 7: You were there.
• 33:42
  Speaker 12: I mean, come on.
• 33:44
  Speaker 11: Come on.
• 33:45
  Speaker 12: Look it up. Do a little Google search.
• 33:48
  Speaker 7: Do some work.
• 33:49
  Speaker 12: Learn the law.
• 33:50
  Speaker 7: Do an actual job.
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: You're in the media.
• 33:53
  Speaker 12: Look it up. Rule 901.
• 33:54
  Speaker 7: Judge, that's a prosecutor's rule.
• 33:56
  Speaker 12: No, it isn't.
• 33:58
  Speaker 7: No, it is not.
• 33:59
  Speaker 13: That rule applies to both sides.
• 34:02
  Speaker 7: What does this have to do with... Because all you
• 34:04
  Speaker 7: look for are hits and clicks.
• 34:05
  Speaker 13: You're going to cut this in a way that benefits
• 34:08
  Speaker 13: your hits and clicks, and you're dying.
• 34:10
  Speaker 7: You're just dying.
• 34:11
  Speaker 13: You guys are dinosaurs.
• 34:13
  Speaker 7: Oh, keep going. It does. You're not going to give
• 34:16
  Speaker 7: anyone an honest shake. You're not going to do the research.
• 34:19
  Speaker 7: You're not going to look up Rule 901. You're not
• 34:21
  Speaker 7: going to press the prosecutor.
• 34:23
  Speaker 12: You're not going to.
• 34:24
  Speaker 7: Press the judge. You know what you're going to press?
• 34:26
  Speaker 7: Whatever woke You can come up with. That's what you
• 34:29
  Speaker 7: guys push. Woke over and over and over again. Do
• 34:34
  Speaker 7: your jobs. Investigate.
• 34:36
  Speaker 12: Maybe learn something.
• 34:39
  Speaker 7: Be fair. Have you ever thought about that? Fairness. Try it.
• 34:42
  Speaker 7: Try it sometime.
• 34:43
  Speaker 2: Well, this is great. This guy is great. And these
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: reporters are such dorks. You know, the guy.
• 34:50
  Speaker 3: Well, I believe his name is pronounced Shiree or whatever
• 34:55
  Speaker 3: he said. I just, excuse me. I believe his name.
• 35:01
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: Cause that's the most important thing, right? That's what we
• 35:04
  Speaker 2: should be focused on. I mean, we're dealing with issues
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: of constitutionality, free speech rights, like somebody's basic rights to
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: free speech taken away. Um, and, but what you're focused on,
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: I make, I believe you miss that's in Somalia. That's
• 35:20
  Speaker 2: not how they pronounce it. Yeah.
• 35:21
  Speaker 3: Well, you know what? He's not in Somalia. Okay. He's
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: not in Somalia.
• 35:23
  Speaker 5: He's here.
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: So we'll pronounce his name however we damn well please.
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: You want it to be pronounced perfectly according to how
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: they pronounce it in Somalia? Go back to Somalia. Now
• 35:36
  Speaker 2: here he's Shire Jamali.
• 35:38
  Speaker 3: That's what he is.
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: He's lucky he even gets addressed by his name at all. Now,
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: we didn't play most of the reporter's comments to the
• 35:49
  Speaker 2: defense attorney during this press conference, but suffice it to
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: say they were extremely hostile and condescending the entire time.
• 35:56
  Speaker 2: One of the local news outlets actually did a segment
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: where they tried to prove the attorney wrong by going
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: and researching the rules of evidence concerning Rule 901, which
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: the lawyer just mentioned. They thought it'd be a segment
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: where they called his bluff, but they ended up reporting
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: that he was right.
• 36:13
  Speaker 7: Oops.
• 36:14
  Speaker 10: Watch.
• 36:17
  Speaker 4: One issue Corrales repeatedly pointed to involved Rule 901 of
• 36:20
  Speaker 4: the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, which deals with introducing evidence
• 36:23
  Speaker 4: at trial.
• 36:24
  Speaker 13: Judge said Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence only
• 36:27
  Speaker 13: applies to prosecutors.
• 36:29
  Speaker 7: You were there.
• 36:29
  Speaker 3: I mean, come on.
• 36:32
  Speaker 12: Come on.
• 36:33
  Speaker 7: Look it up. You're not going to do the research.
• 36:35
  Speaker 13: You're not going to look up Rule 901.
• 36:37
  Speaker 4: So we decided to look up Rule 901 and clarify
• 36:40
  Speaker 4: whether it does apply to both sides with defense attorney
• 36:42
  Speaker 4: Peter Martin, who has known Corrales for years and says
• 36:45
  Speaker 4: he was in contact with him throughout portions of the trial.
• 36:48
  Speaker 13: So Rule 9 requires the prosecution to turn over stuff.
• 36:52
  Speaker 12: And if they didn't turn it over, that's a clear
• 36:55
  Speaker 12: violation of Ms.
• 36:56
  Speaker 3: Hendricks' rights in this case.
• 37:01
  Speaker 2: Now, if you're confused by this, here's the explanation we
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: received from Tom Hennessey. In Minnesota, Rule 901 governs the
• 37:07
  Speaker 2: standards for the admissibility of certain evidence. The rule states
• 37:10
  Speaker 2: that evidence, at a minimum, must be sufficient to support
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: a finding that the matter in question is what it
• 37:16
  Speaker 2: is purported to be.
• 37:17
  Speaker 3: It's a very.
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: Lax standard, and it applies to both the prosecution and defense.
• 37:20
  Speaker 2: For example, at one point during the trial, the prosecution
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: introduced a Google Maps depiction of the park where this
• 37:25
  Speaker 2: incident occurred, and the judge had no problem with that.
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: There's no question as to whether the Google Maps page
• 37:30
  Speaker 2: was faked somehow. The assumption was that it's real and
• 37:33
  Speaker 2: the burden shifts to the other side to dispute it
• 37:36
  Speaker 2: with some evidence of their own if they choose to
• 37:38
  Speaker 2: do so. But when the defense team questioned Shire Jamali
• 37:43
  Speaker 2: and he kept denying that he was running a fundraiser,
• 37:47
  Speaker 2: the judge would not allow the defense to introduce the
• 37:50
  Speaker 2: GoFundMe page as evidence.
• 37:52
  Speaker 3: It was right there.
• 37:53
  Speaker 2: So the defense lawyers weren't allowed to contradict Shire and
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: prove that he was lying on the stand. He was
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: committing perjury, which the defense could easily prove, but they.
• 38:04
  Speaker 3: Weren't allowed to.
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: The judge kept questioning how the defense team could prove
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: the GoFundMe page was real. There were discussions about whether
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: GoFundMe engineers needed to be called in and so on.
• 38:14
  Speaker 2: Under the very lax standard of Rule 901, the defense
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: should have been able to introduce evidence of this GoFundMe,
• 38:20
  Speaker 2: but the judge stated incorrectly that Rule 901 only works for.
• 38:23
  Speaker 3: The benefit of the prosecution.
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: She applied a higher standard to the defense. Again, it's
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: as corrupt as a trial could possibly be. I mean,
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: if anything, it's the exact opposite of how trials are
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: supposed to work. Since when is that how it works
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: in a trial? There's a higher standard for the defense?
• 38:41
  Speaker 2: Isn't the onus on the prosecution to prove their case?
• 38:46
  Speaker 2: Don't we generally put the higher standard on them, if anything? And,
• 38:52
  Speaker 2: you know, of course, the moment the news stations looked
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: into it, they found that the lawyer was correct. Now,
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: you'd think that these local news stations would report on
• 39:00
  Speaker 2: the judge's rulings on their own without the defense lawyer
• 39:03
  Speaker 2: shaming them into it. If they were actual journalists, they'd
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: tell their audience what the judge was doing inside that courtroom.
• 39:10
  Speaker 2: They let their audience know that the whole trial was
• 39:13
  Speaker 2: a farce. But as we all know, most of these
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: outlets are aligned with the Democrat establishment in Minnesota.
• 39:18
  Speaker 3: They're also completely incompetent.
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: So we're left with extremely inadequate coverage, with the exception
• 39:24
  Speaker 2: of Hennessy's reporting. Small businesses are supposed to be the
• 39:27
  Speaker 2: backbone of this country. There are over 30 million of
• 39:30
  Speaker 2: them in America, and they employ tens of millions of
• 39:33
  Speaker 2: people who aren't working for some faceless corporation. They're working
• 39:36
  Speaker 2: for their neighbors. But here's the problem. Over 70% of
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: small business owners say they need additional capital at some
• 39:43
  Speaker 2: point just to keep things running. At the exact same time,
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: the big banks are tightening up, approving fewer loans than ever,
• 39:48
  Speaker 2: even while small business revenue is at an all-time high.
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: Makes no sense. The businesses are doing the work. The
• 39:54
  Speaker 2: banks just aren't holding up their end.
• 39:56
  Speaker 3: Of the bargain.
• 39:56
  Speaker 2: Even if you do get approved, you're looking at weeks,
• 39:58
  Speaker 2: sometimes months, buried in paperwork, waiting on people who don't
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: seem to be in any hurry to say yes. So
• 40:04
  Speaker 2: if you want bank-level rates without the bank and without
• 40:08
  Speaker 2: the bank-level delays, you need to check out cardiff.co.walsh. Cardiff
• 40:13
  Speaker 2: is the largest privately held small business lender in the
• 40:16
  Speaker 2: country since 2004. They funded over $ 12 billion to businesses
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: just like yours. The application takes less than five minutes
• 40:23
  Speaker 2: and it won't touch your personal credit. Businesses get approved
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: in minutes and funded the very same day.
• 40:28
  Speaker 3: And it's flexible.
• 40:29
  Speaker 2: Use it to hire, expand, stock up on inventory, whatever
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: your business actually needs. Terms up to 36 months for
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: working capital, up to seven years if you're financing equipment.
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: Banks try to lock out small businesses.
• 40:40
  Speaker 3: Cardiff has the key.
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: Big banks may not want to approve your business loans
• 40:44
  Speaker 2: but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: least a year and are pulling in $ 20, 000 a month
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: in revenue, apply now for up to $ 500, 000 in same-day
• 40:52
  Speaker 2: business funding at cardiff.co slash walsh. Again, that's cardiff.co slash walsh.
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: Real growth, fast funding, Cardiff.
• 41:00
  Speaker 3: Borrow better.
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: Now, for BLM activists and other leftists, these mainstream outlets
• 41:05
  Speaker 2: are doing exactly what they're supposed to do. If you
• 41:07
  Speaker 2: watch most of this media coverage, you'll come up with
• 41:10
  Speaker 2: the idea that Shiloh Hendricks was indeed guilty of committing
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: a crime and Black activists are taking advantage of that coverage.
• 41:18
  Speaker 14: Watch.
• 41:20
  Speaker 11: It's always fascinating to hear these people talk. It's fascinating, right?
• 41:24
  Speaker 14: Because whenever it has something to do with Black people,
• 41:28
  Speaker 14: it's a freedom of speech issue, okay?
• 41:30
  Speaker 11: Just notice that.
• 41:32
  Speaker 14: That if it's you trying to attack a Black person,
• 41:35
  Speaker 14: calling them an N-word, calling them a monkey, trying to
• 41:37
  Speaker 14: say any type of derogatory word, it then automatically triggers
• 41:41
  Speaker 14: the Sambo soldiers and the white ignants to be like, well,
• 41:44
  Speaker 14: this is freedom of speech issue.
• 41:46
  Speaker 11: Okay, that's what this is about. But this freedom of
• 41:48
  Speaker 11: speech issue is never brought up with any other group
• 41:52
  Speaker 11: of people. Do you notice that?
• 41:54
  Speaker 14: You try and say something derogatory, call a Jewish person
• 41:57
  Speaker 14: the K word, and see if they say, hey, hey,
• 41:59
  Speaker 14: Jewish person, hey, just get over it, okay?
• 42:01
  Speaker 11: You should just turn the other cheek, all right? It's
• 42:03
  Speaker 11: just a word, okay?
• 42:04
  Speaker 12: It's just a word.
• 42:05
  Speaker 11: Why are you getting so, you know, your panties in
• 42:08
  Speaker 11: a bunch? They will never say that.
• 42:10
  Speaker 14: They won't say that so far that this administration went
• 42:13
  Speaker 14: to deport people off of anti-Semitism.
• 42:20
  Speaker 2: That is the YouTuber Amazing Lucas, by the way, who
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: presumably earned that nickname because of his amazing ability to,
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: you know, breathe and tie his shoes despite having the
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: IQ of a dandelion. Well, I actually don't know if
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: he can tie his shoes in fairness. He might very
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: well wear Velcro. He looks like the kind of guy,
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: but he can breathe at least apparently. In any case,
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: this is the level of argumentation we get from black
• 42:43
  Speaker 2: activists who are desperate to explain why it's okay to
• 42:45
  Speaker 2: send white people to court and convict them of crimes
• 42:48
  Speaker 2: for saying words that make black people sad and give
• 42:51
  Speaker 2: them tummy aches. And because this blabbering toad is too
• 42:54
  Speaker 2: dumb to even construct a semi-convincing straw man, he's actually
• 42:58
  Speaker 2: arguing that nobody would support the free speech rights of
• 43:02
  Speaker 2: somebody who used an anti-Jewish slur. Now, the problem with
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: this argument is that, of course, people use anti-Jewish slurs
• 43:09
  Speaker 2: all the time. Amazing Lucas, a YouTuber, has somehow apparently
• 43:13
  Speaker 2: never become acquainted with the internet. And yet, literally none
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: of Shiloh's defenders, myself included, have ever called for the
• 43:22
  Speaker 2: people who use such slurs to be charged with crimes.
• 43:26
  Speaker 2: I would absolutely defend the free speech rights of anybody
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: to use any slur, anti-Jewish, anti-Black, or anti-anything else. Now,
• 43:34
  Speaker 2: if Amazing Lucas can amaze us by providing even one
• 43:38
  Speaker 2: single example of a right-winger who defended Shiloh Hendricks while
• 43:43
  Speaker 2: advocating for the criminalization of anti-Jewish slurs, I would love
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: to see it. But he can't and he won't and
• 43:50
  Speaker 2: he doesn't need to because low-effort race hustlers like this
• 43:53
  Speaker 2: guy are playing to a semi-literate audience of barely sentient
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: bottom feeders who couldn't care less about facts or evidence
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: and don't have the mental capacity to process them anyway.
• 44:02
  Speaker 2: His only argument is that the Trump administration has tried
• 44:05
  Speaker 2: to deport foreign nationals based in part on their speech.
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: For example, if somebody from Pakistan is on a student visa,
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: starts chanting death to America or death to Israel or whatever,
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: the administration might deport them. There have been a few
• 44:16
  Speaker 2: cases along those lines. But that is a very different
• 44:19
  Speaker 2: situation because, first of all, those people are not citizens, Lucas.
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: They're not Americans. They are guests in this country. This
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: is not their home. And secondly, the president has absolute
• 44:30
  Speaker 2: authority over immigration matters. If you are a guest in
• 44:33
  Speaker 2: this country and you make it clear that you lied
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: on your visa application, then you can get deported. If
• 44:40
  Speaker 2: your actions make it obvious that you're here to cause
• 44:43
  Speaker 2: trouble and not to just study at a university, then
• 44:46
  Speaker 2: you could be deported. And we're not talking about criminal
• 44:49
  Speaker 2: prosecutions here anywhere. We're talking about deportations. And the United
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: States has the right to deport foreigners who are not citizens, period.
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: So in every relevant respect, these deportations are nothing like
• 45:02
  Speaker 2: the Shiloh Hendricks case. There is no analogy to draw.
• 45:06
  Speaker 2: But let's put all of that to the side. Let's
• 45:09
  Speaker 2: put to the side the fact that the argument is
• 45:12
  Speaker 2: completely retarded and wrong and misses the point at every
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: imaginable level. If you do think it's a perfectly analogous situation,
• 45:21
  Speaker 2: then you should be the first in line to come
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: out in support of Shiloh Hendricks. If you think that
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: foreign nationals have the free speech right to do and
• 45:29
  Speaker 2: say whatever they want here, and we are not even
• 45:32
  Speaker 2: allowed to deport them, much less charge them with crimes,
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: then you should certainly support the free speech rights of
• 45:37
  Speaker 2: actual citizens of this country. And yet people like mediocre
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: Lucas won't speak up in Shiloh's defense. In fact, they
• 45:45
  Speaker 2: want to see her behind bars. Because as it turns out,
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: They believe that foreign nationals have more free speech rights
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: in our country than actual citizens of our country. That
• 45:58
  Speaker 2: is how catastrophically stupid, insane, and evil these halfwits actually are.
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: And that's why we're getting videos like this one.
• 46:08
  Speaker 3: Also, watch.
• 46:10
  Speaker 6: I mean, I don't think any of us expected her
• 46:13
  Speaker 6: to be sentenced to jail. But, If you're like me,
• 46:19
  Speaker 6: you didn't think she was going to receive any type
• 46:23
  Speaker 6: of punishment for saying the racial slur. So I guess
• 46:27
  Speaker 6: I'm glad that there is some accountability. But yeah, that fine,
• 46:32
  Speaker 6: a thousand dollars, it could have been more than that.
• 46:36
  Speaker 6: Especially when the judge knew she raised almost a million
• 46:40
  Speaker 6: dollars off of being a racist.
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: Now you can look at the comments on this video
• 46:47
  Speaker 2: and you'll see that every single one of them says
• 46:49
  Speaker 2: the same thing. They all want Shiloh Hendricks to go
• 46:52
  Speaker 2: to prison. They all believe the punishment was not enough.
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: Suspending the First Amendment to charge her with a crime
• 46:58
  Speaker 2: and convict her was not enough. So put simply, none
• 47:02
  Speaker 2: of these people care about the First Amendment or the
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: rule of law or how the trial was conducted or
• 47:08
  Speaker 2: any of that. This is pure racial tribalism and that's it.
• 47:12
  Speaker 2: These are the same kinds of people who donated hundreds
• 47:15
  Speaker 2: of thousands of dollars to Carmelo Anthony solely because he
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: murdered a white kid in cold blood. Again, if you
• 47:20
  Speaker 2: import the third world, then you are also importing third
• 47:23
  Speaker 2: world attitudes. You get third world justice and third world
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: race hate. And now it's all over social media. Nobody
• 47:32
  Speaker 2: can ignore it anymore. I mean, we are dealing with
• 47:35
  Speaker 2: people who believe Carmelo Anthony had the right to stab
• 47:40
  Speaker 2: a kid in the chest But Shiloh Hendricks did not
• 47:45
  Speaker 2: have the right to say a word. Carmelo Anthony, because
• 47:51
  Speaker 2: he was mad, had the right, according to these people,
• 47:54
  Speaker 2: to stab and kill somebody. And Shiloh Hendricks, who was
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: also mad, did not have the right to say a word.
• 48:04
  Speaker 2: That's what they actually believed. And the one single deciding
• 48:08
  Speaker 2: factor for these people is race. It is very simple
• 48:11
  Speaker 2: for them. A black person has the right to do
• 48:14
  Speaker 2: literally anything they want up to and including murder. A
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: white person does not have the right to do literally
• 48:21
  Speaker 2: anything that a black person finds displeasing.
• 48:25
  Speaker 3: That is what they believe. It is what they.
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: Truly earnestly believe. It is their ideology. It's the entirety
• 48:31
  Speaker 2: of their worldview. And now their insane racist viewpoint is
• 48:37
  Speaker 2: being enforced by law in what used to be the
• 48:41
  Speaker 2: American court system. On that basis alone, the prosecution of
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: Shiloh Hendricks is unconstitutional. It is an equal protection violation
• 48:49
  Speaker 2: in addition to everything else. In this country, you can
• 48:53
  Speaker 2: enforce the laws equally or you can't enforce them at all.
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: The reason they want to suppress Shiloh Hendricks' speech, above all,
• 48:59
  Speaker 2: is that she was expressing righteous outrage about the disastrous
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: effects of the third world invasion in this country. She
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: observed that when you flood a mostly white state with Somalis,
• 49:09
  Speaker 2: you get dysfunction, you get theft, you get ethnic feuds,
• 49:12
  Speaker 2: you get fraud. Everything gets nastier and less pleasant, including
• 49:15
  Speaker 2: your parks and even your press conferences. They've concluded that
• 49:19
  Speaker 2: the only way they can stop Americans from saying that
• 49:22
  Speaker 2: we have had enough is to prosecute us for saying it.
• 49:26
  Speaker 2: But the reason this case is going to get overturned
• 49:29
  Speaker 2: and the reason it's been a PR disaster for the
• 49:31
  Speaker 2: left is that they badly underestimated the level of fight
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: that Americans have in them. These are the Americans who
• 49:39
  Speaker 2: raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for her defense, which
• 49:43
  Speaker 2: was a noble cause.
• 49:45
  Speaker 3: It was.
• 49:47
  Speaker 2: I'm old enough to remember when a lot of conservatives
• 49:49
  Speaker 2: were getting very offended. I don't think we should raise...
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: She said a bad word. That's a little... I don't know, guys.
• 49:56
  Speaker 2: I don't think we should be... I don't think we
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: should be raising... She said a bad word. They might
• 50:00
  Speaker 2: think we're racist. No, it was a noble cause to
• 50:04
  Speaker 2: support this woman. And it still is. And at least
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: we have people like Brian Carolus, the lawyer, who's clearly
• 50:15
  Speaker 2: going to fight this corruption to the end. We also
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: have Americans like Tom Hennessey. Despite the Somali takeover of
• 50:23
  Speaker 2: large portions of Minnesota, it's clear from this case there
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: are enough fighters left to resist these tyrants and these
• 50:28
  Speaker 2: foreign invaders. And now is the time for everybody else,
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: especially all the commentators and free speech organizations that have
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: been sitting on the sidelines during this case, trembling with
• 50:38
  Speaker 2: fear that somebody might call them racist, as if that
• 50:41
  Speaker 2: word means anything anymore, to join the fight with everything
• 50:45
  Speaker 2: they have. This is the single most important free speech
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: case of a generation. We need to win it or
• 50:53
  Speaker 2: there won't be any free speech cases ever again.
• 50:56
  Speaker 3: That'll do it for the show today.
• 50:58
  Speaker 2: Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.
• 51:00
  Speaker 2: Have a great day.
• 51:02
  Speaker 3: Godspeed.
• 51:10
  Speaker 2: Once upon a time, there was a country.
• 51:13
  Speaker 3: Not just a country, but a big one, an empire.
• 51:16
  Speaker 2: And in that empire, there was an upper middle class
• 51:18
  Speaker 2: family where two boys were raised by their mother, loved books,
• 51:23
  Speaker 2: Uncle Tom's cabin, and the Bible. Their father admired the
• 51:26
  Speaker 2: country's leaders, were patriotic and happy.
• 51:29
  Speaker 3: Both sons went to universities where they were radicalized.
• 51:33
  Speaker 2: One of the brothers read a book and convinced him
• 51:35
  Speaker 2: to try to shoot the country's leader.
• 51:37
  Speaker 7: He was hanged.
• 51:38
  Speaker 2: The other brother In the same books, they decided to
• 51:41
  Speaker 2: lead a movement. First they came for the universities, and
• 51:45
  Speaker 2: no one seemed to care. Then they took over the unions,
• 51:47
  Speaker 2: and again, no one seemed to care. Then they created
• 51:49
  Speaker 2: their own media organizations and took over the cities.
• 51:52
  Speaker 3: And again, most people just ignored it. Change, after all,
• 51:55
  Speaker 3: was something they could believe in. Until it was too late.
• 51:59
  Speaker 3: Sound familiar? This is the real history of communism, the
• 52:03
  Speaker 3: Russian Revolution.