Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 185 | An Unlikely Impeachment

Episode Date: November 13, 2019

Today I address the Trump impeachment inquiry, how I view the death penalty as a Christian, and the newly released footage of an ABC News anchor caught on hot mic who could have exposed Jeffrey Epstein over three years ago.  Circle is the easiest way to manage your family’s online time across ALL their connected devices inside and outside your home. Listeners get $30 off a Circle Home Plus when you use code ALLIE at  https://meetcircle.com/allie

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this

D-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I hope everyone has had a great week so far. It is cold where I am. We've gotten like our first real winter cold front. I'm not dealing well with that. I was in Florida earlier this week and it was beautiful and I wish I could have stayed for a little bit longer, but I was just there for a few hours for speaking engagement back home and it is cold. But as I talked about on Instagram, it's also kind of inspired me to decorate for Christmas earlier this year. I am typically a day after Thanksgiving person. Like everything needs to have its own season. But this year, I don't know if it's the cold weather. I don't know

if it's having a child. I'm just more excited about the holiday season. I've always liked Christmas, but I don't know, I have a little bit more anticipation for it. So I've kind of started to put some stuff up. That'll happen after this week. This week has been and is a crazy week for work, for travel, for all of that. After that's done, I'll have a little bit more time to be able to sit back and relax and start enjoying the holiday season with our little baby girl. Okay, today we are going to talk a little bit about impeachment and what is going on there.

That's something that some of you have been asking me about. It's also something I've kind of avoided a little bit because I just don't find it quite as important as some other cultural, social, political changes that are going on that I think speak more to the grand scheme of things than this impeachment query and this entire saga. But it is obviously very important. It's been at the forefront of the news cycle for a while now, about six weeks. or probably six or so weeks, yeah. So we're going to get into that today because some of you just have no idea what's going on in it. And God bless you.

You know, you haven't been spending time watching the news and scrolling through Twitter all day and you have better things to do. And I fully appreciate and honor that. But I am going to try to give you a very basic and pretty short rundown of the things that are going on. So at least you have kind of like a cursory understanding of the happenings because it's all you're going to be hearing about if you turn on the news, probably for at least the next couple or few weeks.

Who knows? Maybe for the next few months. Maybe they'll keep on trying to impeach him until the 2020 election. We're also going to talk about the death penalty. This is something a lot of you have asked me to cover. I actually have talked about it before. I don't know, maybe it was in an episode about social justice or biblical justice. I'm not sure.

But a lot of you have asked me to do an entire episode on it. I'm going to try to remember that this is an episode that I can send people back to when they message me and ask me to talk about the death penalty. We're going to talk about how I personally feel about it, just my opinion about it from a biblical perspective. There are differences in opinion on that from a biblical perspective, but I'll give you my take on it specifically in relation to the case of Rodney Reed. He is a man that was found guilty of murdering a young woman named Stacey Stites in 1996. We're going to talk about this case and the death penalty in relation to him and in general. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Alley, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country

aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they lead, even when it's unpopular.

This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Okay. We're going to get into impeachment. I did want to mention that I'm probably going to talk about.

I might try to talk about Epstein as well. That's another question that I've been getting in a lot. Can you tell me what's been going on? if you miss what I've realized, and this happens to me all of the time, it's not just people that are outside of the media. I guess I would consider myself somewhat inside the media, although not, you know, obviously not your standard journalist or anything like that. But what I've noticed, whether you're in or outside of the daily news cycle, if you miss the initial story, like the initial breaking news and you don't follow every detail, every step of the way, by the time you

look back at something and you read a summary of it in really any major outlet, you're going to be missing a lot of details and you're going to have a lot of questions about things that have happened. That's true of the impeachment query. That is true of the Epstein case. And so I'm going to try my best. I'm going to try my best to fill in all of those details and answer at least just your basic questions about all of this. We know why the Democrats want to impeach Trump.

they don't like him. They don't want to run against him because even though they don't like him, they've probably gained the awareness just a little bit that at least half of the country likes him. And I think they also realize that they don't really have a candidate on the Democratic site that they're excited about becoming the nominee. They don't really have a candidate that they are absolutely confident could beat Donald Trump. I mean, that's why they're even talking about Hillary Clinton reentering the race. That is a third presidential run because out of their vast, vast arrest. of candidates. They don't have one candidate that they feel like they can put all of their energy

and all of support, all of their support behind. There was a recent 538 poll. 538 is the blog by Nate Silver. Everyone follows for probabilities and things like that when it comes to elections. That said the number one, the number one issue for Democratic voters going into 2020 is not health care, immigration, guns, anything like that. It is the ability to beat Donald Trump. So that is what the Democrats care most about. That has a lot to do with why this impeachment thing is going on. Of course, that's not what they're saying. They're saying there's substance to it. And I'll let you decide that. I'll give you my opinion. I'll let you decide that. But I want to give you the detail. So at least you know the case that is that they are attempting to make. So all of this revolves

around a phone call that the president of the United States had with the president of Ukraine in July, where the president asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Now, around the same time, the United States withheld about a billion dollars, I believe it was, in aid with Ukraine. This was all brought to our attention by a whistleblower. You've probably heard the term whistleblower about a million times over the past few weeks. The release transcript of the call doesn't show direct quid pro quo, but possibly the suggestion of it, but we'll even go into all of that and whether or not that even matters. Here are the allegations against Biden that the president of the United States wanted Ukraine to look into. This is why.

this is part of this so-called this alleged quid pro quo. So Joe Biden resided over dealings between the United States and Ukraine during his tenure as vice president and simultaneously. At the same time, his son Hunter just happened to be appointed to the board of Ukrainian natural gas company making $50,000 a month. So this is a company that according to CBS had connection with Ukrainian oligarchs. And it's also important to note that Hunter Biden, as far as we know, has no experience in the natural gas industry to speak of. And he has even said, you know, I probably wouldn't have gotten this job if my last name wasn't Biden. That in itself isn't anything illegal. We might roll our eyes at it, whatever.

But that in and of itself doesn't necessarily point corruption to Joe Biden. So we have to keep going into this story. There was a prosecutor in Ukraine at the time named Victor Shokin. while Biden was vice president that was investigating the company that Hunter Biden was on the board of. Biden was instrumental in getting this, getting Ukrainian authorities to investigate and ultimately take down Shokin, this prosecutor, for allegations of corruption against him. According to the Hill, in 2014, the U.S. threatened to withhold roughly $1 billion in loan guarantees if Shokin was not replaced his prosecutor general.

A message Joe Biden delivered to a, officials in Kiev while serving as vice president and recounted during a 2018 council on foreign relations conference. So Trump is saying that that was a quid pro quo led by Joe Biden to protect his son from a prosecutor who was investigating the company of which he, his son, served on the board. Joe Biden denies this, of course, he says that he has never discussed any kind of business dealings whatsoever with his son, that this was all just coincidental that it was happening at the same time wasn't in connection at all. That's a little bit sketchy, as you can imagine,

you're probably putting the pieces together and saying, that doesn't really sound like a coincidence. The interesting part is that you really have to dig. You really have to dig. If you're reading stories about this to even find these allegations against Joe Bidem, if you read the New York Times, for example, they have a recent story on all of this,

and it's titled Trump, Ukraine, and impeachment, the inside story of how we got here, they don't at all outline the allegations against Biden. They say it like this. They asked the Ukrainians to investigate, that's the Trump administration, asked the Ukrainians to investigate unfounded allegations about former vice president Joseph R. Biden Jr. One of Mr. Trump's leading democratic rivals.

So they don't even say what the allegations are. Same with CNN. If you look at the timeline, the recent timeline that they have for this impeachment saga, you really have to keep on clicking on links over and over again or just start a whole new Google search if you want to know what the accusations are against Joe Biden. And they've even said that. We've heard members of the media say, actually I think it was Cory Booker, so not a member of the media, a presidential candidate. He has, he said, why are we even talking about Joe Biden? It's offensive that the media is even talking about Joe Biden. We shouldn't even be going into this at all. We need to ignore anything that's going on with the Bidens and focus on

President Trump. That's obviously what the media is trying to do. So if you don't know what's going on and you're just the average person trying to figure things down, you would have no idea. You would have no idea the accusations of the dealings between Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and Ukraine. Biden is potentially guilty here of bribery and extortion. If a quid pro quo could be proven, he potentially withheld American aid for his family's personal benefit. Trump is being accused basically of doing the same thing for the sake of his election, withholding aid for an investigation into Biden, which could benefit Trump in the election. It's not the quid pro quo. That's the problem here. That in and of itself is not illegal. A quid pro quo is pretty par for the course in foreign policy.

The question is whether or not Trump is using or withholding U.S. resources to directly benefit him and his campaign, which would qualify as an illegal foreign campaign contribution. Right now, that is impossible to prove. Why? Because Biden is not the nominee. He might be the nominee, but he's not the nominee right now. We have no idea if he's going to be the nominee. It's looking good, but there's no way for Trump to know that. Elizabeth Warren could very well be the nominee. And so this investigation against Biden would have no benefit in that case to Donald Trump. So it is very difficult to prove that this kind of quid pro quo isn't just about Biden's corruption, but is actually in direct relation to Donald Trump and his campaign, which are

going to see the New York Times and a lot of left-leaning outlets they are going to continue to call Joe Biden a political rival. That might be true, but that's actually not provably true right now. He's not Donald Trump's political rival. He's not the nominee. He is a presidential candidate among a lot of presidential candidates, and we've got a long way to go in the primaries. We don't know what's going to happen, so it's very difficult to prove that he is doing this in order to benefit his own campaign. It just can't be proven right now and it can't be quantified. Here's how Robert Ray of Time Magazine online puts it. The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime.

Unlawful quid pro quo is limited to those arrangements that are corrupt. that is to say only those that are clearly and unmistakably improper and therefore illegal. But in the eyes of the law, the specific measurable benefit that an investigation against the Bidens might bring Trump is nebulous. There is a serious question as to whether it could ever constitute a criminally illegal foreign campaign contribution of personal benefit to President Trump. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel and the Criminal Division at the Justice Department apparently have already concluded that it couldn't. Just as important, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have struggled since at least the early 1990s with application of the federal anti-corruption laws to situations like this, wherein in-kind benefit in the form of campaign interference or assistance is alleged to be illegal. Robert Ray goes on to say, instead of President Trump saying to his counterpart in Ukraine in words or substance, do me a favor, he would have had, he would have have to have to. have said, here's the deal, and followed up by explicitly linking an investigation of the

Bidens to the provision of U.S. military assistance. None of that, of course, as we saw in the transcript, is what was set. He ends with this. It will be left instead to the U.S. Senate sitting as a court of impeachment with a requisite neutrality and the nation's best interests in mind to render judgment and put a stop to what is an undeniably and all but exclusively, partisan effort to remove this president from office. Time magazine obviously is not a conservative publication. So is there a reason to impeach the, impeach the president? I don't think so. I don't think there's a good case to be made for it. Not in my opinion. Impeachment hearings are going forth. Obviously, it is not going to go anywhere. I just don't think it's going to. I don't think that

they have a good case to be made. I think that they're hoping to come upon more things. so that they will be able to bolster enough support for this. I just don't think it's going to happen. So that's my take on all of that. I hope that I answered at least your basic questions. We'll see what happens this week. It's going to be a clown show, as it always is. Okay, let's move on to Rodney Reed.

His execution is set for November 20th. So that's about a week away. But the Innocence Project and other criminal justice organizations claim that they have found evidence that proves Reed is not guilty. or at least brings into serious question his guilt. So they, along with the star power of Hollywood, even the Texas legislature, are trying to stay his execution.

I'm going to give you a warning now. What I'm about to talk about should come with a trigger warning. Like it is disturbing. I would not recommend listening to this with kids in the car. Or if you yourself don't want to hear the details of his crimes. It is, you shouldn't, you know, feel bad for that. there is a lot of, you know, graphic detail on this that you might not necessarily want to listen to and that's okay. So Rodney Reed is a black man convicted of murdering a white woman. I hate to even have to give those

details. Unfortunately, they have been made pertinent. The celebrities and the people that are advocating for this have made the racial component, the racial component of this case a very big deal. It's important to know that a lot of the support for Rodney Reed is on the basis of current conversations about racial politics, not on the basis of what actually happened 23 years ago. So that's just important for us to know when it comes to context. So Stacey Stites, the victim was found to have been vaginally raped and strangled to death by her own belt while being anally raped. The DNA from the semen found in Sites matched that of Rodney Reed. According to the Daily Wire, the effort to stay Reed execution is primarily due to Reed advocates and his legal team claiming a proper examination of forensic evidence shows that Stites was killed hours before she and Reed could have crossed paths. The statesman reported in July.

That, of course, is up for debate, which is why this is being discussed right now on social media and in the Texas legislature. Reed's DNA has been found in connection to not just cites his rape and murder, but in connection to five different violent rapes, all of them white women, one of whom was a 12-year-old girl. So he is a serial rapist and a child rapist that doesn't prove that he committed this particular crime, but he is a serial rapist. We know that much. According to court documents, this is again in an article on The Daily Wire by Amanda that presses Jacamo, a Reed began dating Caroline Revis. An intellectually disabled woman,

court documents revealed Revis's caseworker, no disbruces on Revis's body. And when asked about them, Revis admitted that Reed would hurt her if she would not have sex with him. Later, Revis's caseworker noticed that Revis was walking oddly and sat down gingerly. The response to the Supreme Court petition said, Revis admitted that Reed had the prior evening, hit her, called her vulgar names and anally raped her. The samples from Revis's rape kit provided the link to Stites's murder. Our read has been connected to the rapes of five other females, including a 12-year-old girl. According to the court documents, the victim only identified publicly as AW, says she was blindfolded, gagged, beaten in orally, and vaginally and anally raped while she was home alone.

The foreign DNA from AW's rape kit was compared to Reed. Reed was not excluded and only one and 5.5 billion people would have the same foreign DNA profile from AW's rape kit. As noted by Bright Bart News is Brandon Darby. Reed has not been exonerated from the rape of the 12-year-old and a number of other women, but such cases were likely not pursued because Reed was served with the death penalty. So you have a lot of defenders of Reed saying, well, those cases were never pursued, so they're not proven. Well, no, that's not true.

the reason why they weren't fully pursued is because he was already convicted with murder and he got the death penalty. There's really no point. The mother of Reed's children claimed that he constantly physically abused her even while pregnant and that he raped her frequently. Even in front of their children, he is also accused of the rape of a 19-year-old Linda Schluter. According to court documents, he took her home one night and tried to force her to give him a blowjob. When she refused, he said, I'm going to have to kill you then. but a car drove by and apparently she was able to get away. He was accused of rape by another 19 year old named Connie York.

He denied knowing her then later claimed, yeah, I had sex with her. She wanted it. So stand up guy. But there is another point to consider. So there is another part of this that people are examining. Stites was engaged to a police officer at the time named Jimmy Fennell. And there's a theory that she was seeing Rodney Reed behind his back. Finnell was later also found guilty of sexual assault in rape of another woman.

And this theory that Stites was actually having an affair with Rodney Reed while she was engaged to Finnell is something that his defense has used and something that the Innocence Project has also used. But it's a theory that Stites' own sister says is untrue. She does not believe that her sister Stacey was killed by her fiancé Finnell. The Innocent Project and other reporters are going off of also a testimony of a gangman. member and a fellow inmate of Jimmy Finnell. So he was, like I said, he was convicted of sexual abuse and he was put into jail for 10 years. So a fellow inmate of Jimmy Finnell who claimed that Finnell bragged about killing his inward loving fiancee. The Innocence Project is using that testimony is part of their defense of Rodney Reed. This theory of an affair between Stites and Reed has been

rejected not only by people that know Stites, but also by the jury in 16 courts without dissent. So this whole story that is honestly just kind of, as far as we can tell, pulled out of thin air that Stites and Reed were together and having consensual sex behind her fiancé's back, it has been rejected. It's been rejected by the jury. It's been rejected by 16 court without dissent. And yet it is being used as the alternative story to her murder by Reed. The Innocence Project has also claimed or has also used Jim Clampett, a former sheriff's deputy who said that Stites his fiance said at her funeral that she got what she deserved.

We, of course, don't know that that's true. It clearly seems like Jimmy Finnell wasn't a great guy considering that he was charged, that he was convicted with sexual abuse and served 10 years for that. Apparently, there have been other women who have come out and said that he has been abusive towards them. So also not a great guy. Now, of course, neither reads nor Finnell's backgrounds, make them guilty of this crime. But I don't see, I don't see how the evidence of Reed's semen in her abused and murdered body aren't evidence enough. And yes, it does matter that he was found a connection to multiple cases of abuse and rape.

Of course that matters. He wasn't charged on those things because, as we already said, he was given the death penalty for his murder, but the DNA matched. So the question remains, no matter which side you. land on his innocence or his guilt. The question remains, should we be okay with the death penalty regardless of whether or not someone is innocent or guilty? And I can speak from a Christian perspective. There's a libertarian perspective that says that it's too expensive for us to execute criminals. I guess the argument is that we should just let them live and die in prison for 50 plus years.

but the Christian perspective on the death penalty is that yes, there were instances in which the death penalty was not just recommended, but actually commanded in the Old Testament, and one of those instances was murder. If you murdered a man in cold blood, if you murdered an innocent man, there's a difference even in the Bible between manslaughter and murder, then you deserve the death penalty. And a lot of people say, well, that's not compassionate. We're supposed to be pro-life, from the womb to the tomb. You can be pro-life from the womb to the tomb and still say, hey, death penalty is the just punishment for certain crimes. And I think it's wrong to look at the death penalty, especially one that is condoned by God in the Old Testament as a degradation

of human life that we don't believe that image bearers of God have value. That's not the case. That's not the case at all. Actually, how we should look at it is that God cares about so much. He cares about innocent life so much that the only just cost for killing an innocent life is your own life. That's how much God cares about the innocent. That's how much God cares about human beings. That's how much God cares about murder. Is that he says, this is the only way to make up for this with your own life. That is not just a God of justice. It's a God of mercy and compassion and a defender and an advocate of the innocent, we should look at the intensity of the punishment for a crime like murder that God prescribes and say, wow, God really

cares. God really cares about innocent life. He really hates murder. If he is willing, if he is able to say that this is the only just punishment, the taking of someone else's life who took another person's life, an innocent person's life, then we know that he really hates, hates the sin of murder and the crime of murder, and he takes it very seriously. Now, of course, there are some caveats to that. Christians should always care about truth. We should always care about innocence. We should always want to do further digging. And if it came up that it really is, it really is believable that Reed did not commit this crime, then we should care about that. And we should try to stay his execution. I personally am not so sure that the evidence points to him

being innocent at this point, especially with the connection of the DNA. But if further evidence does come up and it looks like, okay, this guy didn't actually commit this crime, it doesn't matter if he committed the other crimes. He didn't commit this crime that he got the death penalty for. Then yes, Christians, of course. We should care about that. We care about truth. We care about the defense of the innocent just like God does. And so we should always be hesitant and to be, we should always be careful. We should always be cautious when it comes to prescribing the death penalty. because that's a really big deal to kill someone who didn't commit the crime that they were actually convicted for. And so we should be hesitant, I think.

We should be hesitant to give that as the just punishment, to give the death penalty as the payment for the crime that they committed. Because we don't want to make that mistake. Human life is valuable and we should be slow to kill an image bearer of God. I think it all depends on whether or not we can, beyond a shadow of the doubt, prove this person committed the crime that is actually worthy of the death penalty. Now, I do understand the argument. I understand the argument of being against the death penalty. That's okay.

I think that there's an argument to be made for that. I don't think this is like a salvation issue that if Christians disagree on this, that one of them is more Christian than the other, I don't think that at all. One argument that does really bother me is when I hear that you can't pro-life if you are a pro-death penalty. Well, no, there's no hypocrisy in that at all. Of course, you can believe that the just execution of someone who murdered someone else is righteous without believing that the death penalty for an innocent baby is righteous. Of course, you can be for justice, for murderers, and still be for the preservation and the protection

of innocent babies inside the womb. Of course. That doesn't make any sense. Now, it is hypocritical to be against the death penalty for murders, but to be for the death penalty for unborn children. That is hypocritical. But the other way around is not hypocritical. Again, I think within the Christian community, we can have conversations about the death penalty and what it should look like from a Christian perspective.

I don't think that there's a good argument against it. I don't think that you can say outright that the Bible says that we shouldn't have a death penalty for murders. We can maybe have a nuanced conversation about it. but I think it's difficult to find the biblical support for that to say that everyone, no matter what, needs to be against the death penalty in order to be a good Christian. There is also this infatuation there seems to be, and it happens mostly, I would say, on the left side of the aisle, this infatuation with criminals.

Now, like I said, Christians should care about justice. We should care about truth. but I don't know. I don't know that we always need to, that we always need to jump into these media firestorms as soon as they happen about someone's alleged innocence just because it happens to be trendy right now. I think that we do need to take a step back and say, okay, what actually happened? What did the court documents actually say? Brandon Darby, who writes for Breitbart, he tweeted the court documents. You can go to his Twitter page and you can read all of those for yourself and you can come to your own conclusions but i do think that we should

be very hesitant we should take a step back and say okay what's really true here and we should always try to be on the side of truth we too shouldn't be on uh shouldn't be making this about current political or racial conversations we should base it on what is true and therefore what is just okay i do just want to touch on the epstein thing really quickly so everyone knows epstein gross guy he physically trafficked young girls and he had all all of these important people over to his house to have these sex capades, these orgies, basically, with these teenage girls. He was a serial abuser, rapist, pedophile, disgusting guy. And really, people have known about this for a long time. He's important. He's a billionaire. And so it's kind

of just been pushed under the rug. And actually, there was a reporter at ABC who had this story three years ago, and she had an interview. And she was caught on a hot mic saying, that ABC wouldn't let her release the story. So I'm going to let you listen to that now. I've had the story for three years. I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, who's Jeffrey Epstein.

No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story. Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn't be able to interview Kate and Will that we that also quashed the story and then um and then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in because of the planes she told me everything she had pictures she had everything she was in hiding for 12 years we convinced her to come out we convinced her to talk to us um it was unbelievable what we had

clinton we had everything i tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it's all coming out and it's like these new real revelations and i freaking had all of it i i'm so pissed right now. Like every day I get more and more pissed because I'm just like, oh my God, we, it was what we had was unreal. So that was released by Project Veritas and it has caused quite the reaction, as you can imagine, why ABC would push something like this down. And they actually tracked down who they think released this hot mic film or this hot mic footage. And, And they found out that the person who they thought released the footage now works at CBS. They told CBS and CBS fired this poor girl and the poor girl says, look, I wasn't even the one who released the footage.

But even if she were, wouldn't she be considered a whistleblower that they should protect and that they should CBS especially should be proud of? No, that's not how it works because they have to protect their own. And so that's kind of what's going on with that is why did ABC push down this story? why did CBS agree to fire this girl? I mean, it's pretty crazy. And we're going to talk more about Project Veritas and everything they found pretty soon. But also there's the whole thing about Jeffrey Epstein, not actually killing himself. It was reported a few weeks ago that he had killed himself in his cell. And everyone was like, how is that how is that possible? This is a high security prison? How is it even feasible that he could get away with hanging himself? He was on suicide watch. So how did this happen? So the whole theory has been that he was actually murdered, that he was killed by someone connected to one of the high-powered men that he had allowed to sleep with all of these girls that he had in his mansion in Florida because they didn't want him to testify and out them. And so that's the theory. People are still trying to get to the bottom of that.

I don't know. Apparently the autopsy does not point to him killing himself. There is like a legitimate, there's a legitimate reason to believe that he has. actually didn't commit suicide, which is crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. I mean, obviously, it's better off that he is dead unless he repented and came to Christ. We know exactly where he is. He is getting what he deserves. And that, in that sense, we can be glad that justice is served, but I do think we should get to the bottom of it because there are a lot of people in connection to this that need to be held accountable. Okay, that's all I have for today. I hope you guys enjoyed this episode. I hope I gave you a good understanding.

about some of the hottest topics that are going on. I will be back here on Friday with a really exciting interview, and I will see you guys in. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles,

faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow. the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.