Ep. 1833 - Do Juries Still Work In Modern America?

If you're starting to wonder if there's maybe something toxic in the water in Massachusetts, if you're beginning to feel the righteous anger of a colonial official in Salem circa 1692, then you should know, at the very least, that you're not alone. Far from it, your sentiment is completely justified. It was just a year ago. You may remember that a majority female jury in Massachusetts determined that a financial analyst named Karen Reed had somehow been framed for murder by about four or five dozen people, including first responders, forensic investigators, police officers, the medical examiner's office, prosecutors, even friends of her boyfriend, who was the victim. The jury was apparently swayed by deranged TikTok theories that appealed overwhelmingly to women looking for some excitement in their lives. It was a very unseemly and disturbing display that played out all over the internet. But if you're the optimistic type, it was easy to write off as a fluke, a rare case where an American jury was led astray by online brain rot on its way to reaching an extremely dubious, not guilty verdict. But as the Lindsey Clancy jury also in Massachusetts, it just happens. Approaches a week of deliberations without a verdict in the single most straightforward murder case imaginable, in a case where any sane juror would immediately return a verdict of guilty for first-degree murder, then vote to send the woman to prison for the rest of her life. There's no denying that our jury system is actually compromised at a fundamental level. It's not simply the fact that two majority female juries in the same state are inclined to legalize premeditated homicide. It's also a very obvious fact that millions of women all over the country are on board with this. If they were on the jury, they would do the exact same thing. They would happily subvert the criminal justice system in service of their own narcissism. We're seeing many other cases like this, although most of them don't get much attention. For example, you've probably not heard the name Heather Kushman. But late last year, Kushman, a 33-year-old Colorado woman, was found not guilty of stabbing her 60-year-old father to death in his home. She stabbed him 15 times after an argument, puncturing both of his lungs, butchering her father, essentially. Kushman claims self-defense, arguing that she somehow feared for her life as she was carving him up. That defense might have been plausible on its face. Except for the fact that she texted a friend on the night of the killing saying, and I quote, "I f'd up really bad. I'm so sorry." There was also evidence that Kushman chased her father throughout the home. She told detectives that quote, "I just felt like an effing animal at that point. I'm pretty sure I bit him." There was forensic evidence showing that Kushman's injuries quote, "We're not consistent with taking the knife from her father." The more you read, the more it gets worse for her case, or so you would think. This is from the Loveland reporter Harold, quote, "After being arrested, Heather Kushman reportedly told police she and her father got into an argument that escalated into a physical fight before she stabbed him. During witness testimony, Loveland Police Department Sergeant Brad Teppelman said 391 calls were made by or about Heather Kushman on the night of the incident. He said in the first call, Heather Kushman said she was suicidal and seeking mental health treatment at a hospital. The second was made by Heather Kushman's sister, in which she said Heather Kushman had stabbed her father. The third was another call made by Heather Kushman, where she said she had stabbed her father." The risk of understatement, none of this is remotely consistent with a claim of self-defense. She was obviously an unstable, violent woman who needed to be institutionalized, but the jury voted to acquit her anyway. She's free to walk the streets, walk next to you in the grocery store, sit next to you on the bus, as if she's done nothing wrong. This was a case that did not cause Tiktok hysteria at anywhere near the same degree as the Clancy trial. It wasn't everywhere on social media. Nevertheless, the jury decided to let a woman get away with killing someone in a decision so terrible that it basically amounted to jury nullification. Kushman claimed that her father had abused her when she was a child without actually proving it, but the jury didn't need any proof. You see, once a woman claims she has no choice except to kill someone, that's all that's necessary at this point. In states like Massachusetts, it's a "get out of jail" free card. Now, what's so extraordinary about decisions like these, aside from how common they become, is that not too long ago, we actually had real standards for juries. We didn't simply select people at random. I'm going to read the text of a law that was enacted by the state of Alabama in the early 20th century, and it was fully enforced through 1970. The law stated that all jurors must be, quote, "generally reputed to be honest and intelligent and esteemed in the community for their integrity, good character, and sound judgment." Commissioners had wide latitude to reject jurors who didn't seem to be particularly bright. If you wanted to sit on a jury, you generally had to have people vouch for you, maybe your co-workers or your church. You had to be a serious person, somebody with a reputation. Someone doesn't just sit around on the couch all day with a glass of wine scrolling TikTok. You all just, you know, you also had to be a man to serve on the jury on the really crazy theory that women can sometimes tend to be guided more by emotion than by sober analysis of the facts. A crazy theory that incidentally is now being endorsed in a much more extreme form by everybody who supports Lindsey Clancy, as well as the entire feminist movement, who all claim that women are not only hormonal and emotional, but so lacking in self-control that they can't be held responsible for murdering their children. So in other words, the idea that juries should reflect a cross section of the community is actually very new. Up until the late 1960s and early 1970s, getting on a jury was more of a privilege than an obligation or a right. Not incidentally, for a large portion of our country's history, voting was viewed the same way. As a country, we wanted to make sure that before we sent somebody to prison for the rest of their lives, knowledgeable, reliable, intelligent people had reviewed all the facts. This is how juries worked for centuries in our common law tradition, ever since the Magna Carta was signed in the 13th century stating that men should be judged by a jury of their peers. And in that context, peers meant members of comparable status to your own, meaning that if you were a typical landowner, you weren't going to be judged by criminals or people who didn't own property or women, jurors who were familiar with the law were actually preferred, which is the exact opposite of how we do things today. The idea that juries should be representative of the population was never even considered. In the 1800s, England's juries were so selective that they excluded two-thirds of all adult men from the jury pool. Any man who didn't pay taxes or own land wasn't even considered. And juries remained like this throughout England and the United States until the arrival of the one-two punch of civil rights and feminism. Now, once the revolution began, very quickly, juries changed. The Supreme Court determined that laws like the one in Alabama, which required that juries be intelligent and have good reputations, had a disproportionate impact on black people they decided as the laws were being applied anyway. And therefore, simply because of this statistical imbalance, the state was required to change the way that they selected members of the jury. The law regarding jury selection remains on the books, but they're not allowed to enforce it in a way that eliminates diversity. So effectively, the law is neutralized. And around the same time, courts also mandated that women should be allowed to serve on the juries on the theory that there are no relevant differences between the genders when it comes to the way that they reason, deliberate, and assess the facts. So in the span of just a few years, the American jury system was totally overhauled, mostly through judicial rulings and bureaucracy, rather than, you know, something we voted on. We entered into very unsharted territory where, for the first time in human history, jurors didn't have to be men or intelligent or reputable or knowledgeable about the law or knowledgeable about anything. All this to say, the jury system we had throughout all of human history until about 15 minutes ago might as well have been designed on a different planet. One by one, in the name of progress, we dismantled every single aspect of the jury system that our ancestors thought was important. After all, what did they know? All they did was, you know, build civilization. So the only thing we've kept intact is the general concept of a jury that decides cases instead of a judge. We've preserved the notion that juries are a good idea while also gutting all of the qualifications that members of the jury need to have. Now, of course, of our ancestors, including like the king who signed the Magna Carta or the lawmakers in Alabama, could have envisioned what America would look like in 2026. The idea of a jury wouldn't have even occurred to them. It would have been too absurd, even with all the qualifications they had in mind. Juries make sense when you have a relatively homogenous population, one that is not fractured by racial, economic, religious, and ethnic tribalism. And even then, once you've established a coherent society and set all sorts of requirements to serve on a jury, it can still be a difficult balancing act. I mean, towards the end of the republic, the Romans who banned poor people and women from juries constantly changed the jury system to account for the prejudices of senators, governors, and property owners, all of whom at various points were seated on juries. And it seems to be getting into the problem of mass psychosis fueled by constant access to the internet and media coverage. You have to keep in mind that juries only seem like a good idea before all of these developments. Today, though, it's abundantly clear that our experiment with jury trials in a so-called diverse society is rapidly failing. And we've talked before about the various studies showing that black Our jurors are overwhelmingly more likely to vote in favor of black defendants. We don't need to. to rehash all the studies again, although we'll put some of the data up on the screen in case you missed it. But really, we don't need the studies because we can look around. We can observe what's happening in trials all over the country and how various demographic groups rally behind defendants that they can identify with. And we can also see how easily jurors are swayed by the threat of mob violence, which was very obvious in the trial of Derek Chauvin, in particular. We can observe incidents like this one. From yesterday afternoon, when a 56 year old woman was arrested for allegedly filming the Clancy jury, outside the courthouse, shortly after deliberations ended for the day, watch. - Breaking tonight, Sean, the Massachusetts state police confirms the Fox that a 56 year old was arrested after court was dismissed today. Here at the courthouse for witness juror intimidation or intimidating someone in connection with a criminal proceeding, it is possible that either side could ask for a mistrial over this. We'll have more details tomorrow. That person expected to be arraigned here in the morning. - This is yet another reason why the jury should have been sequestered from the beginning of the trial as we talked about yesterday. They've seen the mobs of crazy women in pink outside the courthouse. They've been exposed to endless slop on TikTok. And now they're getting harassed fairly directly by the lunatic, so I've made this case a part of their identity. The alleged culprit here is apparently a Lindsay Clancy fan, big surprise, who says that she was trying to take a picture of her hero, Lindsay Clancy. She ended up filming jury members by mistakes supposedly. But whatever her motive is actually what the fact is that brain-rotted weirdos like this are everywhere corrupting our justice system. Locking the jury in a hotel room doesn't solve all those problems, but it could certainly have helped and they didn't do that. The bigger issue though is that juries are much easier to intimidate as a general matter and influence than judges. And intuitively we all know that's true. Jurors mostly just want to get back to their families without their community burning down, which makes sense. They're not used to people following them around or attempting to intimidate them. Judges see this kind of thing much more often. Typically judges hopefully aren't spending all day on TikTok and although I'm sure some of them do. And they usually have security to protect them, at least at the courthouse. So to give just one historical example on this point, think of the troubles in Northern Ireland from the late '60s through the '90s. At the height of the conflict, hundreds of people, mainly civilians were dying every year in shootings and bombings and assassinations. It was difficult to find a jury to handle these cases because the jurors feared retribution. So they passed a law giving judges the ability to try terrorism-related cases without a jury. And it worked pretty well for decades. It was much more efficient and reliable than trying to find an impartial and unafraid jury, which was often impossible. Now does this mean judges are infallible? Of course not. We've talked about plenty of corrupt judges on this show. In fact, just a few weeks ago, we covered the story of precious bland who drowned her 15-month-old daughter before stabbing her husband. The defense came up with a ludicrous theory that COVID somehow made her do it. And therefore she shouldn't spend a day in prison. And guess what? A judge in Miami-Dade County agreed with the defense. For killing her child and attempting to kill her husband, this woman received no sentence whatsoever. Doesn't even need to go to a mental institution or anything. So judges are far from perfect, which is an understatement. Indeed, a lot of what has corrupted juries has also corrupted judges, namely that judges are increasingly selected based on diversity and not on their abilities and intellect and capacity for making rational decisions. And yet, juries can have these problems in even greater abundance. Now that's how big the problem is now. Several countries have abolished jury trials entirely for this reason, which isn't what I would suggest at this stage, but it's instructive to look at their example and what we can learn from it. So consider what Lee Kwan you did when he was a prime minister of Singapore. As of 1970 or so, Singapore eliminated jury trials and switched to bench trials where a judge decides the case. Lee was motivated in a large part by his own experience as a lawyer doing jury trials. When he realized that in order to be effective, he had to play to the jury's prejudices. So when he took office in multi-racial, multi-religious society with a lot of Chinese and Indian people, he simply got rid of juries entirely. Unlike juries, judges could not simply return a verdict of guilty or not guilty and go about their day. They had to justify their decision in a thorough, usually written opinion that cited precedent, explained all the reasoning. Judges had to reach their decisions promptly, which wasn't terribly difficult since they didn't have to deliberate with anybody. And no matter what the judge's ultimate decision was, guilty or not guilty was open to appeal to a higher court. So unlike in America, where a not guilty verdict means that the defendant has nothing to worry about, the system in Singapore allows for the possibility of convicting the defendant on appeal. This is how they avoid the OJ Simpson problem or the Lindsey Clancy Karen Reed problem. If there's an insane miscarriage of justice in Singapore, the prosecutors are allowed to appeal it. Now, this system has worked extremely well by every metric. Criminal cases are resolved much more quickly than ever before. There's no need for jury selection. The lawyers don't have to explain any legal concepts to the jury. There are no deliberations. There's no risk of a hung jury. There's no risk of the triads intimidating the juries and so on. And there's also no risk of a jury getting squeamish about sending a defendant to the death chamber, which is where you go in Singapore when you commit a serious drug crime. And the results have been positive, in part because they abolished the jury system while also enforcing zero tolerance laws. Singapore now has one of the lowest crime rates anywhere in the world. They have something like 0.1 homicides per 100,000 people compared to the global average of seven homicides per 100,000 or the US average of six. Back to the 1960s is a very different story. Gangs operated with impunity and now law and order have been restored. And that's why to this day, jury trials remain abolished in Singapore. They recognize that Lee Kuan Yew was onto something. He succeeded because he didn't back down in the face of all the Western NGOs and media outlets who accused him of humanitarian abuses or implied that he was an authoritarian. Here's how he handled aggressive inane questions from Western journalists. Watch. You also have one of the highest rates of capital punishment. Yes. That's for drugs. That's for drugs. Because you think drugs deserve to be treated with the maximum punishment. If we could kill them 100 times, you would. Because you destroy the whole family's. It's terrifying to see. Because you're then drug dependent. You steal, you cheat, you rob, your own parents. I mean, it's so destroying. And they come in knowing that death if they are found with this goods on them. But the rewards are so great. And they try very, very unusual people. Women from Africa, big mamies, come to sell clothes. And in between the clothes, kilos of heroin. And if you say, if you bring heroin in to Singapore-- You hang. You hang. You hang. Anything beyond 10 grams, you hang. Below 10 grams, maybe you can say-- If you are convicted of bringing in more than 10 grams of heroin-- You hang. You hang. That's right. After a jury trial. Yes, of course. No jury trial. Judge. Judge. Judge, listen to the evidence presented. Yes, of course. And if he says you're guilty, you hang. You hang. That's the attitude you need to adopt if you're going to have a functioning society where a relatively small number of criminals cannot destroy the fundamental rights of everybody else. He's unapologetic. He says, yeah, I kill heroin traffickers 100 times over because they cause extraordinary damage to the country. They get a speedy trial in front of a judge. And they can put to death. That's how it works. Other countries like India, for example, have followed suit. Although, again, the example only goes so far where we're concerned because our judge pool, like our jury pool, is also corrupted. But the problems with juries are still undeniable. And we have to face them. As John Doyle put it, quote, it would be terrifying to be on trial and have your fate decided by a dozen people randomly selected from the American population. Imagine delegating justice to the kind of person you'd bump into at an airport. I'd literally rather just flip a coin. Lindsey Clancy is, in a way, lucky. Since she, as an insane and deeply narcissistic woman, seems to truly have a jury of her peers. Is there anyone who could seriously disagree with that? A jury from the 1950s would look absolutely nothing like a jury from today. They'd be far more intelligent, engaged, and well-informed. Anyone who has to face a jury today, particularly when the mob takes an interest in the case, is not going to get a fair trial one way or another. And if that might benefit them, if they're guilty, but it doesn't benefit society, you know, it's simply impossible to randomly select impartial people out of the general population in high profile cases and even in many low profile cases also. I mean, at this point, the whole concept of a fair trial rests on make-believe. People are being told to trust the process when the process is clearly overwhelmingly corrupt and broken. And meanwhile, every adult in the country, under the age of 95, uses a smartphone and social media and is plugged into every news story and controversy happening in the country every day. Jury trials are built on the assumption that juries will be among other things impartial, like they won't come into the trial with an opinion already decided. And 200 years ago, that was a perfectly reasonable expectation. But today, in the case of a high profile trial like Lindsey Clancy or Derek Chauvin, it's preposterous believe that an average person pulled at random won't already have an opinion on the subject. Even back during the OJ trial, it was a fantasy. We all knew it was a fantasy, that the jurors didn't already have opinions about the murder and about OJ Simpson and himself. Even leaving aside the racial tribalism aspect, modern media had already rendered the impartiality of the jury's obsolete that was 30 years ago. And the situation is a thousand times worse now. The fact of the matter is that every member of the jury, uh, in the case, especially of high profile and contentious cases, is definitely sitting down for the trial, aware of the case, aware of their own opinions about it, and crucially aware of public opinion about it. If they use social media, which everybody does, they will already know all of that. And we all know that they know it. And in particular, when you're pulling, not only to have social media, but you're pulling from a local, you know, as big as a Lindsey Clancy case is now nationally, it's even bigger locally. So we're supposed to believe that the people sitting out in the jury didn't already have opinions about it. It's absurd. And we're supposed to pretend the juries are impartial anyway, but it's a fantasy. It's a farce. You're the only way to compensate for the fact that juries definitely aren't going into these cases, at least the high profile ones impartially, is to ensure that juries are made up of intelligent and responsible people who can be trusted to overcome their own partiality, but we don't do anything to ensure that. When this goes on long enough, it erodes all confidence in the rule of law. No one will take the court seriously anymore, and in the long run, that's a fatal problem for any country. A country without courts inevitably becomes barbaric. Disputes are settled with violence and the people who commit the violence aren't punished. As long as they have the support of the mob, they can do whatever they want. The bigger issue, the one that goes beyond the criminal justice system, is that a large portion of the population, whether they serve on juries or not, is divorced from reality. They have no respect for our laws or customs or basic observable facts. Their brains are controlled by algorithms, feeding them schizophrenic nonsense. We've had decades of mass migration. People come into this country of no respect for the traditions or to any tie to it anyway. We have even more than a justice problem. We have a democracy problem. Like jury trials, our democracy or more accurately our republic has its roots in a very different, now unrecognizable period in history. The founders recognize that democracy was prone to these kinds of problems, which is why senators were appointed and why we have the electoral college. But the safeguards they put in place are rapidly getting overwhelmed. Your bed has one job, which is to provide a comfortable place for you to remain unconscious for several hours. Nowadays, there are sleep trackers and apps and supplements and elaborate nighttime routines. People are monitoring 17 different metrics to determine whether they successfully went unconscious for eight hours. Maybe all that has some value. But before you redesign your entire life around sleeping, you might want to consider the thing you're actually lying in every night, which is your bedding. That's why I like partnering with Bolin Branch. Their bedding makes your bed noticeably better without requiring you to develop a new lifestyle around it. Their sheets are made from 100% organic cotton and woven specifically for air flow. There's no synthetic cooling technology or chemically treated fabric involved. Simply the way the cotton is woven, they're incredibly soft and breathable and the quality is obvious as soon as you get into bed. Bolin Branch makes the rest of the bed, too, including pillows, comforters and their waffle blanket. So if your bedding has been around longer than some of your children, perhaps it's time. Bedding wasn't something I thought too much about, but after trying Bolin Branch, trust me, it's worth it. Upgrade your sleep with Bolin Branch, get 15% off your first order, plus free shipping at bolinbranch.com/walls with codewalls that's Bolin Branch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com/walls codewalls to unlock 15% off exclusion supply. I'd like to tell you about something unusual. Something has gotten cheaper. Yes, I realize that sounds implausible. Everything costs more, food costs more, houses costs more, cars costs more, basically everything you need to remain alive now requires some form of financing. But your wireless service doesn't have to follow that trend. Right now pure talk is offering any plan for $15 a month for your first three months. That includes their top tier unlimited plan, normally $65 a month, $15, which means you can save up to $150 over those first three months per line. Imagine the savings for the whole family, and you're not signing your life away to get the deal either. Pure talk has no service contract, and no cancellation fee. They also have 100% US-based customer service. So if you need help, you're talking to someone here in America who can help you. That's one of the few bills in your life that you can actually make smaller. You probably should take advantage of that. For just a few more weeks, you can get any pure talk plan, including unlimited data for just $15 a month for your first three months, simply go to puretalk.com/walsh to claim this offer. Again, it's puretalk.com/walsh to start saving today. Now there's any solution to the jury problem. It's the same as a solution to our voting problem. That's a solution that will almost certainly never be enacted, but it would be this, don't abolish juries or abolish voting instead put more standards in place, or restore some of the standards that had been in place before they were all foolishly torn down. Treat both of these things serving on a jury voting as privileges reserved for competent responsible intelligent Americans. Stop pretending that somehow competence, responsibility and intelligence are irrelevant to these functions. That is the fiction that we've been laboring under in this country for decades now. That being responsible and intelligent should have no bearing on whether you get to vote, whether you get to serve on a jury, that's insane. It's completely insane. Of course, these factors are very relevant. Of course, it is absolutely disastrous for our country, catastrophic in every respect, to have stupid, irresponsible, incompetent people deciding murder cases and deciding who gets to run the country. Nobody can claim that opening these things up to everybody with no standards at all is somehow the more American, the more traditional, the more constitutional approach. It isn't. As we've already established, the founders of this country believe that there should be standards, modern Americans abolish the standards. We could talk about, should there be different standards, should we adjust it? There should still be standards. The idea there should be none is a modern invention, not a traditional one. Right now, the only qualifications for serving on a jury are merely that you're 18 years old, you're a citizen, supposedly, you're a resident of the state where you're serving and you can at least have vaguely understand English in both written and spoken form. Generally. And beyond that, some states have varying rules related to felons, I think, in some places, being a felon disqualifies you permanently in other places, it only keeps you off juries for a set number of years. But there's no state that requires a prospective jury member to be a taxpayer or to be employed or that they have an IQ above 70 or that they're contributing respected members of their communities in good standing or anything like that. All of those are very basic and reasonable qualifications. Let me think about this way. If you were on trial and were actually innocent, you would want your jury to be comprised of intelligent, respectable, rational, responsible adults. If you were on trial and you were guilty, you would want your jury to be comprised of irrational, irrational, gullible morons. The dumb are the better, right? In other words, you'd want precisely the kind of jury that our system intentionally provides everyone. But it's not an oversimplification to say that a functional jury system would seek to assemble the kinds of juries that the not guilty would want and the guilty would not want. We have the opposite because we don't have a functional system. We have a declining dysfunctional system to match a declining dysfunctional society. The Clancy trial, which has been described as the OJ trial for white women or more dismissively as the HoJ Simpson trial, is simply the most visible sign of this decline at the moment. It's a symptom of a larger cancer, which is being amplified by social media. The dumbest, the most narcissistic, vindictive people are more empowered than they've ever been. They can easily connect with other narcissistic, vindictive people and the results are impossible to ignore. Yesterday, we talked about the deranged woman who was shot in Times Square after she charged at police with a knife. And this is a woman who, using the logic of the Lindsey Clancy supporter, simply can't be held responsible for her actions after all her hormones were probably out of whack. Certainly something was out of whack, so we can't possibly hold her responsible for killing a random woman on the street. Women, as we discussed, are now immune from responsibility for the behavior. In other words, feminists have now adopted the talking points of the anti-suffrage movement. But there was a part of the story we didn't spend much time on, which is how leftists are gloting about the death of the white woman, a bank of America employee who was killed by this lunatic before before the lunatic was put down by police. Now by all accounts, the white woman who was murdered did everything right in life. She went to law school. She got a highly competitive job in finance. She was not a high ranking executive yet. Although she had the title of VP, apparently a common thing in banks where thousands of employees have that title. She was basically a middle manager. She had just gotten back to work from attorney to leave. She had a very promising future. And in an instant, she was stabbed to death without any provocation by a schizophrenic from the third world. And yet if you go on X or blue sky, you'll find posts like this one, which has thousands of likes, quote, "I'd feel bad, but then I'll be charged overdraft fees." You see, it's clever because the bank doesn't let you have free money. Therefore, it's good when random bank employees are gutted in the streets. You know, if you spend more money than you actually have in your account, you get charged to fee. Oh, what an outrage. Now, if you don't have money, the bank should just give you more money, is apparently what these morons think. You know, I only have $50,000 in my checking account. I want to spend $75, right? So the bank should just give me. They should spot me the $25, with no fee. This is something that's become extremely hard to ignore, especially after Charlie Kirk's assassination. Every few weeks, we see leftists openly cheering for the murder of anyone who makes them feel insecure about their own failed lives. Here's another post from blue sky to give you an idea. Somebody writes, "I actually don't think this person was evil and deserve to be stabbed death." And they reply, "Then you're a person who hates the poor and does not value life." And then for good measure, the original poster is accused of being violent because he doesn't want bank of American employees to get slaughtered in the street. In other words, according to socialists, anyone who doesn't want to murder white bank employees is the violent one. And by the way, even the people who are criticizing these posts are, you know, in their own way, are validating the point of view. So here's one example of what I'm talking about. This is a very, very common reaction I saw. Somebody writes, quote, "Y'all are discussing the comments. A bank of America VP is like a mid-level manager, not a next in line to be CEO. This one was just 32, going about our business, going home from work, probably only making 100 to 150K a year, really effing despicable, celebrating this." So the implication is that if she had made more money, say a million dollars a year, then it would have been justified to mow her down in the street. You know, past a certain income, which remains unspecified, it's totally okay for a leftist freak to execute you in broad daylight. This is very dark, you know, of course, almost unimaginably so. Not too long ago, nobody would say anything like this in public. You could listen to any shock, shock in the country and they wouldn't stoop to celebrating the brutal execution of a young mother for no reason whatsoever. Nor would they justify killing people once they make a certain income. But now it's commonplace. The most degenerate and evil people in society with the help of social media have banded together and formed a political movement. They have real power. They aren't simply compromising juries, they're winning elections. It's yet more proof for the theory that over time, democracies tend to collapse precisely because they award so much power to so many people who are clearly unfit to wield it. These are people who see a dead mother and brag about it. They look at photographs of three dead children and they see their killer as the victim. And increasingly, they're running our courts. They're running our major cities. And unless we find some way to get a handle on this, these demons will systematically destroy everything that their enemies, mainly competent white people have built. The real story is not that the Lindsey Clancy jury is deadlocked because a certain portion of them apparently believe that it's sometimes okay for a mother to kill her children. The real story is that we're foolish enough as a country to allow people like that to sit on a jury in the first place. They'll do it for sure. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. In all of my years of public life, I have never profited from public service. I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their presidents are corrupt. But I'm not a crook. For more than five decades, from Iran, Contra, Zamanik, Lewinsky, to Russia, every political scandal has been measured against one, the Watergate affair. But what if Richard Nixon was telling the truth? What if Watergate isn't what it seems? What if hundreds of thousands of pages of sworn testimony, memoirs, and newly released government documents tell a different story than the one you learned in school? In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide in modern American history with grand plans to remake the federal government. Two years later, he was out of office. You were taught that Nixon's men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters to spy on his political companies. You were taught that when he found out Nixon covered it up, and that the cover up was worse than the crime. You were taught that two heroic Washington Post reporters, guided by a righteous FBI whistleblower, brought the most powerful man in the world to justice. But you were never taught what we really had. I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Real history of the Watergate scandal is available now at the L.I. Barclays.