The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1811 - The Shiloh Hendrix Verdict Is A Horrifying Sign For America. Here's Why.

Episode Date: July 27, 2026

Shiloh Hendrix was found guilty in a bogus trial. We will get into the details today. Ep. 1811 - - - Today's Sponsor: Cardiff - America’s favorite small business lender, provides the liquidity to move at the speed of business with same-day funding up to $500,000. Apply in under 3 minutes with zero credit impact. Apply now at https://cardiff.co/walsh - - - DailyWire+ 🎆 🇺🇸 Our America 250 SALE is still available! Get 3-Months of DailyWire+ for just $17.76 📜 Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://dwplus.watch/RealHistorySubscribe 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 📜 Real History with Matt Walsh is available ad-free, exclusively on DailyWire+ https://dwplus.watch/RealHistory 👕 Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://dwplus.shop/MattWalshMerch - - - Socials:  YouTube — https://youtube.com/@mattwalsh Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/mattwalshblog Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/mattwalshblog TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@mattwalsh_ X — https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In today's uncertain economy, American financing is helping families find a way out of the high interest trap. We're heading into summer, but the economic clouds aren't clearing for most middle-class families between persistent inflation and the cost of daily life. You're likely feeling the pressure. You've worked hard for your home, probably have more equity than you realize, yet the summer surge is forcing many to rely on credit cards. It's an exhausting cycle, but American financing understands that 2026 requires a real strategy. That's why they have salary-based, mortgage consultants with mortgage rates in the fives. Their customers are saving an average of $800 a month by wiping out high interest debt. That's money that stays in your pocket to fight back

against rising costs. No upfront fees, no pressure. And if you start today, you could delay two mortgage payments. Call American Finance today 866-5694711. That's 866-5694711 or visit Americanfinancing.net slash walsh. When a Somali child took Shiloh Hendrix's property in a park last year, she had a few options. She could have ignored it, which is how white people are expected to respond to rampant theft by the Somalis who have taken over their communities. Alternatively, she could have complained and called the police who would have taken two hours to arrive, at which point they would have dispatched a Somali police officer who, of course, wouldn't have done anything. But Shilohenrics, as we all know, didn't choose any of those options.

She opted for a different forbidden route. She verbalized her frustration with the Somali takeover of Minnesota. She made it abundantly clear that she's tired of third world dysfunction, which is so pervasive that it's impossible to enjoy a nice day in the park. And for doing that, Hendricks has now been forced to endure yet another hallmark of so-called Somali culture, which is the punishment of free speech under the color of law. Now, you see in Somalia, if you say the wrong thing to the local warlord, if you're not happy with how things are going in your, you know, local garbage dump or your row of mud huts or whatever, then the warlord will take your goats away if you're lucky enough

to own any. I mean, this is a country so primitive that they only passed a log and sexual assault a few years ago. So they don't respect the freedom of speech in any way. And now because Minnesota has become a colony of Somalia, Minnesota does not respect the freedom of speech either. We now have Somali courts in the United States, and this is what that looks like. New from overnight in Rochester jury, reaching a late-night verdict in the case of a woman accused of calling a little boy a racial slur at a park. Shiloh Hendricks was facing two counts of disorderly conduct. Hannah Flood is in the live center with how this trial ended and what this means going forward. Hi, Hannah.

Yeah, good morning. You may remember this case because of that now viral video that started all of it. The video shows Shiloh Hendricks allegedly calling an eight-year-old boy with autism a racial slur while she was out at the playground with her child. It was posted last year and it led to community rallies and an outpouring of support both for the child and family it featured, but also for the woman for Hendricks. She was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct and took the case all the way to a jury trial. According to KTTC late last night, the jury returned a split verdict, finding her guilty of one count but not guilty of the other count. The count she was found guilty for was not related to the racial slur thrown at the child, but instead conduct against the man who took that viral video.

During the trial, the Rochester branch of the NAACP submitted a victim impact statement and asked the judge for the stiffest sentence possible, saying, quote, the words and actions of Ms. Hendricks caused tremendous fear and trauma to a defenseless child. For many members of our community, this was not simply an isolated playground incident. It was a painful reminder that the hatred represented by that word still exists today. So there it is. Hatred is now illegal, by which they mean hatred of non-whites. Now, they can hate you as much as they want and they do,

but you're not allowed to express any degree of hatred or just displeasure with the third-worlders who now inhabit this country, even when they rob you. You're not allowed to say anything to them or else you're causing tremendous fear and trauma. I mean, we're meant to imagine the Somali community huddling together, trembling in fear, paralyzed with grief and trauma because a tiny blonde woman said a mean word on a playground. I mean, indeed, the Somalis in Minnesota were so traumatized that they couldn't even go to work at their fake autism treatment centers for days afterwards. Which was okay, it turns out, because they don't actually work at the fake treatment centers. That's why they're fake.

Now, anyway, this is the impact of a naughty word, according to the NACP, an organization that according to your history textbooks, was allegedly founded to promote racial equality, and now they want you to suffer criminal consequences if you say words they don't like. That is, if you're white. Now, black people can, of course, continue to say whatever they want to anyone using whatever language they want in whatever context all the time.

There is no single word a black person could ever say that would lead to a court case, much less a conviction. I mean, in this country, bad language has apparently been criminalized, but only when that bad language is used by one particular race. You should also note that, contrary to what the NWACP implied in their statement, Shilohenrics was not convicted of any crime relating to the child who stole from her. This was a child who incidentally had a history of taking things that didn't belong to him, unsurprisingly. Now, instead, she was convicted of disorderly conduct with respect to the Somali adult

who decided to harass her on camera after the fact, which is what makes it an incoherent, one of the things that makes it an incoherent verdict, which is also why the NWCP wants to confuse the issue as much as possible. So we're going to go in depth. We're going to analyze the trial of Shiloh Hendrix at some length because it's easily one of the most important criminal cases in memory, even if much of conservative media is ignoring it. The First Amendment protects the most fundamental rights we have.

That's why it's the First Amendment. It's what separates the United States from almost every other country on the planet, including countries like the UK in Australia and Canada, which share our common law tradition, or at least supposedly they do, every other country with any degree of influence has abandoned the right of free expression. So when a court in the United States decides to suspend the First Amendment, which is what they've done, when a court decides to make it illegal to offend black people, especially if they're foreigners, then we have a major existential problem on our hands. This is a problem that demands an immediate response from the federal

government, including civil rights investigations into Minnesota officials and the dramatic acceleration of deportations, especially in the state of Minnesota. Anything less is unacceptable. Anything less. And this will fester until we don't have a constitution anymore. Now, to set the stage, we're going to begin to refresh our memories with the now infamous video of Shiloh Hendricks in the park. Other than the testimony of some barely literate Somali witnesses, this was the only relevant evidence in the case that the jury was allowed to be presented.

And so let's go back and watch it again. Here it is. You call him a child? Did you call the child the n-word? It is my own business. You call him a- Okay, why don't you have the boss to say it, right? now again.

You niz. All right, that's what you say. Nobody dig into you. That little kid you call him a... The little child? What if he acts like? What is he going to hear him? You chase him here?

He took my son's stuff. So that gives you the right to call the child, five year old, the N-word. That's what he's going to act like. That's what you're going to call him. You know, that's a hate speech. And you can't be for that. I don't give a... Okay, we'll see about that what the internet has to say about you.

Now notice that she does not make any threatening gestures or movements towards anyone. She can't. She's holding her own child. She's unarmed. She does not threaten to harm anybody. Instead, a Somali adult begins accosting her saying she directed a slur against a child who stole her property. Now, the man follows her around, encourages her to say the slur several more times so that he can record it. And as he puts it, we'll see what the internet has to say about you.

And then the interaction comes to an end. There's no panic in the park. There's no disruption. The other people in the park don't even seem to care or barely notice. The whole incident ends in a matter of seconds. Under the well-established laws of this country, as well as just common sense, this woman, even if she hurt your feelings, did not commit any crime at all. But Democrats in Minnesota ordered a prosecution anyway, for the same reason they ordered the prosecution of Derek Chauvin.

They wanted to send a message that blasphemy against their favored racial groups and against the Democrats' open borders agenda will not be tolerated. And that's why the judge in the case, Krista M. Daly, who was, of course, appointed by a Democrat, didn't throw out the charges on First Amendment grounds. That's what she should have done. That's what any legitimate judge would do, laugh at the charges, and throw. them out because they're a blatant violation, a blatant attack on the First Amendment. That's what she should have done when the prosecutors announced the charges, but she didn't. Instead, this judge here, Krista, who of course is a white liberal woman, as we can see, did everything she could to rig the trial so that Hendricks would be convicted.

And we'll start with her response to the defense's motion to dismiss the case. In her denial of a motion to dismiss, Judge Daly states that, Personally directed inherently abusive language likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction falls outside First Amendment protection. This is known as the Fighting Words doctrine. You know, Supreme Court hasn't upheld a conviction based on this doctrine in 80 years, and that's for good reason. It's nonsense. There are no words in English language that justify the use of violence in response. You know, saying that the N-word is likely to provoke an immediate violence.

violent reaction would seem to be more of a statement about the group that claims to find the word offensive than it is a statement about the word itself. Okay, because there are a lot of bad words in the English language. There are a lot of slurs of various kinds. Why would that one particular word be so likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction? Why is that? Is it because the offended group is statistically more likely to be violent in general? If that's the case, and it is, then the answer is not to throw the book at somebody saying the word, but rather to throw it at anybody responding violently to it. But even if we pretend that the fighting words doctrine makes sense, Shiloh's behavior doesn't qualify.

In her ruling, the judge states that, quote, the defendant directed an extreme racial epithet at both adults and a child and chased a child in a confrontational manner. This is targeted face-to-face verbal abuse coupled with aggressive physical conduct, language that is inherently likely to provoke an immediate breach of the peace, particularly when directed at a vulnerable minor and accompanied by pursuit. Now, the problem here is obvious. I mean, there are many of them. There is no evidence that Shiloh chased a child or pursued a child, and even if she had, it would obviously be reasonable because the child just stole from her.

She wanted to get her stuff back. That's presumably why she was acquitted of committing any crime with respect to the child. Therefore, there is precisely zero additional conduct by Shiloh beyond the racial slur that the judge can point to as evidence that there was aggressive physical conduct or anything along those lines. Now, nevertheless, the judge continues by stating that the direct face-to-face use of highly inflammatory language in a confrontational setting, together with circumstances indicating a foreseeable risk of immediate escalation, create a situation where Shilohenrichs was

using fighting words. So she loses all of her First Amendment predictions because of these alleged aggravating circumstances. Nowhere in the ruling does the judge explain what these aggravating circumstances are with respect to the Somali adult. You know, under the fighting words doctrine, even under that doctrine, this prosecution is unconstitutional. And so is the verdict. I mean, you can't convict somebody of using fighting words against an adult man simply because she directed a racial slur at him upon his request. And the latter fact there should have been enough on its own to shoot down any notion

of charging Shiloh with any crime at all. The Somali guy dared Shiloh to say it. He coaxed it out of her explicitly. He literally asked for it. How can somebody be the victim of fighting words when they are the ones who prompted those words? But Judge Daly and her jury instructions continued to push this theory, and she did so in a way that misled the jury and violated the Constitution. That's the theme here. For one thing, the judge made sure that the jury instructions did not contain any mention of the First Amendment whatsoever over the objections of the objections.

over the objections of the defense. The defense wanted the jury's instruction to read, quote, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution limits what speech may constitutionally be punished. Speech alone cannot constitute disorderly conduct unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the words used were fighting words. Now, that's obviously a correct judgment, a correct statement of the law, but the judge refused to provide that jury instruction. even though the jury instructions were 11 pages long,

the First Amendment was not mentioned a single time. I mean, this entire case revolves around that question. Was she within her free speech rights or not? And the jury was never told in the instructions. Instead, the judge simply asked jurors whether, quote, the defendant engaged in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language, tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

Now, specifically, the judge told the jurors, quote, if you find the defendant's conduct consisted only of offensive obscene or abusive language, then to convict you must also find that the words used were fighting words. Speech is not fighting words merely because it's racist. Fighting words are words that constitute personally offensive epithets that when spoken to the ordinary person under the particular circumstances of the case, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction or incite an immediate breach of the peace by those to whom such words are addressed.

The offense may be based upon the utterance of fighting words alone without resulting in actual violence. The focus is upon the nature of the words and circumstances in which they were spoken rather than upon the actual response. As reported by the independent journalist Tom Hennessey, the jury, sent a question to the judge about four hours into their eight-hour deliberation. Hennessy, by the way, was in the courtroom for the entire trial. He's been on this case since day one. He's been in regular contact with Shiloh Hendricks and her husband, easily been their most effective advocate, as we'll discuss in a moment, set up her fundraiser, for example, which has been

wildly successful. And according to Hennessy, the jury wanted to know the definition of boisterous, and they didn't get one. So obviously, there was confusion over this instruction, and rightfully, so it's a total mess. The instruction sounds like it's making it illegal to be boisterous, which whatever that means, which is exactly what it's doing. The lawyer Laura Powell suggests that maybe the jury thought Shilohenrics had been boisterous by giving the Somali guy the finger in addition to the slurs. But again, as Powell points out, that would not rise to the level of criminal conduct. So you know this case is a farce and a disgrace. When it requires the jury, to parse terms like boisterous and fighting words.

Okay, these are not legitimate legal concepts. They are adjectives that are entirely subjective and have no objective meaning whatsoever. How does one differentiate criminal boisterousness from regular boisternests? How does one separate criminal fighting words from just regular, mean, but not fighting words. The whole thing is absurd. So let's start here while we're on the subject. What circumstances could you imagine under this instruction

might transform speech into fighting words? The attorney Andrew Branca on his show has come up with a few examples based on Minnesota law and previous cases. One example might be if Shilohenra, had clenched her fists and run towards the Somali while dropping the N-bomb that might make a reasonable person think he's about to get hit, or maybe if she had assembled a mob to surround the guy, or if she was trespassing, or if she kept berating him for an hour, that could qualify. But there has to be something beyond the N-bomb itself. There's no getting around it. And, of course, in any of those cases, you wouldn't need this ridiculous fighting words doctrine

anyway, because the crime would be in the additional conduct. Like charging at somebody with clenched fists is already a sign that you mean to assault them, even if you say nothing. So the words she used along with that conduct, if she engaged in it, which she didn't, would be basically irrelevant. But once you abandon the idea that Shiloh Hendricks chased anybody, which the jury did, then it's game over. I mean, there's no constitutional basis for convicting Shiloh for disorderly conduct.

with respect to anybody. And yet they did anybody anyway. Now, there have been decades of federal court rulings on the topic, which Fire, which is the free speech organization has assembled on their website, all of the cases show the same thing, which is that slurs alone don't qualify. And we should mention Fire, by the way, was missing an action on this case. They were obviously aware of it. Tom Hennessey posted emails in which a case number was open to

with fire, but they didn't actually support the defense. They posted an article criticizing the verdict after the fact, but they did not actually do anything to support Shiloh or defend the First Amendment in this case, which is yet another sign that the right needs its own ACLU. We need an actual, well-funded, serious organization that's focused on protecting freedom of speech and has the balls to jump into the fray on a case like this where there's a risk that they might be called racist, God forbid. But if they can't defend the First Amendment in a case like this, then they're completely useless, period.

Which means that, yes, most conservative organizations are useless because they didn't say anything about this. They're terrified of it. As you saw from that video, the Somali's response to hearing the N-word was to beg the woman to say it 10 more time so that he could get her fired from her job. that's typically what happens in these scenarios, probably because every rap song uses the same kind of language. It's absurd to try to make the case under these circumstances

that Shiloh's words would inherently provoke violence in an ordinary person. There are no words at all that inherently provoke violence. I mean, think about that. The word inheritance means existing naturally, inseparable, like a sort of inseparable part of something. Something is inherent to a thing. It is inseparably part of it. So to say that the N-word inherently provokes violence

is to say that it possesses actual mystical power to conjure violence, causing the person who hears the word to be violent against his own will, like some sort of sorcerer's curse. It is to suggest quite explicitly, that a black person who hears this word literally has no choice but to respond with violence.

It triggers like an instinct, like a bull charging a red flag. I mean, that's the apparent legal theory that we're hearing here. And the judge went out of her way to sell this particular theory to the jury in a few different ways. For example,

while she didn't instruct the jury about the First Amendment, Judge Daly had a lot to say about the concept of implicit bias. And in case you're not familiar, implicit bias is a communist pseudoscience, the idea that everybody is racist against black people, whether they're aware of it or not. It's a way to justify various anti-white programs and policies. It has no place being taught in schools, much less in courtrooms. In this case, though, Judge Daly provided the following instruction to the jury, quote,

At the opening of this case, I instructed you regarding implicit bias. I trust you have kept that instruction in mind as we have conducted this trial. I would like to take this opportunity now to remind you of that instruction. We all have feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears, and stereotypes about others. Some biases we are aware of, and others we might not be fully aware of, which is why they are called implicit or unconscious biases. No matter how unbiased we think we are, our brains are hardwired to make unconscious decisions. We look at others and filter what they say through the lens of our own personal experience. and background. Because we all do this, we often see life and evaluate evidence in a way that

tends to favor people who are like ourselves or who have life experiences like our own. We can also have biases about people like ourselves. So she can't mention the First Amendment. She won't mention it, which is foundational to the Constitution. The key issue in this case doesn't mention it a single time. But she does go on for paragraphs about a fake concept that was invented by left-wing race hustlers 10 seconds ago. This judge needs to be prosecuted under the standard Democrats have already said. She is engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Shiloh Hendrix of her constitutional rights. I mean, isn't that the lingo the Biden administration used to justify throwing Republicans in prison for creating memes about Hillary Clinton?

If making memes is illegal because it deprives people of their rights, then it's also illegal for a judge to issue jury instructions like this as part of a larger effort to suspend the First Amendment. So impeach her and throw her in prison. Now, to be clear, these jury instructions are just scratching the surface. The more you hear about this judge, the worse it gets. After the conviction, the defense attorney in the case, Brian Caralus had one of the most justifiable crashouts I've ever seen.

scene. He outlined how the judge was aligned with the prosecutor on every issue throughout the trial and how she allowed the Somali witnesses to dodge his questions by pretending they could speak English, even though they could. Watch. GoFund me, huge worldwide giant. It's like Google, right? This is so big. My investigator was going to testify that this page with Shire Jamal Molly's name on it. Five-year-old. The kid's nine. Five-year-old. $340,000 he raised. The judge would not let me show it to a jury. Sorry. The judge would not let me show it to the jury. Okay? And if you go through the, any of you right now can go online right now, right now. And the judge, like, you can't authenticate this. You can't lay foundation. This prosecutor is telling the judge, you, judge, oh, how do we know this is real? How do we know this is real? Anyone can make this up. You can go online right now, today, right now, go on that page, unless they run and take it

down, scroll down. He has an open go fund me. He set on the stand, he does not. He lied and lied and lied and lied. This entire thing's a shakedown. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. So we're going to appeal it. We will appeal it. We have so many appellate issues. I don't even know where to begin. Judges screaming at me during the trial. Judge is interrupting me every time I want to make a record. Judge says to me, Mr. Corrales, you keep wanting to make a record

after I ruled. This is crazy. Most rulings during a trial by a judge are made during the trial. And then when you take a break, you make a record, right? They didn't disclose the name. of Shire Jabili until Monday. The first day of trial, no, I'm not done.

Until the first day of trial, they didn't even disclose his name. Think about that. A trial, a jury trial in the United States of America, I didn't get the name until Monday. When we started the trial, until Monday, and then my investigators do a record check, then we uncover, oh my God, he's got this go fund me. $340,000.

Mr. Jamali takes the stand. One answer any question I asked him. He sat there like this. Oh, I don't understand. He looked at his interpret. I don't understand. I don't understand. Over and over and over again. When the prosecutor asked him a question, he had no problem through the interpreter understanding. Never had a problem understanding. Not one time. I put the detective on the stand. Detective, did he ever have a tough time understanding you? Never had a tough time understanding them. Never had a tough time. Now, before we continue with the rest of the attorney's statements, because there's a lot more, let's just stop here for a second to recap. According to Shiloh Hendricks's lawyer, the judge ruled that he couldn't present evidence that the

father of the Somali child, Shaiyar Jamali, had lied on the stand. Now, first, the prosecution hid the name of the father for as long as they could, presumably in order to prevent the defense's investigators from looking into his background. And then, When the investigator found evidence that the father was lying on the witness stand, which would be relevant in a trial, the judge didn't let the defense present the evidence that he was lying. Now, this is not some trivial detail. If a witness to the case has a financial incentive to present a certain narrative,

then the jury should know about that. And certainly, if the witness denies having any financial incentive, and there's evidence to the contrary, irrefutable evidence, by the way, there's no reason to hide that information from the jury. Yes, Shiloh Hendricks raised hundreds of thousands of dollars where they give send go, but she didn't testify in the case as a witness, and her fundraiser was not a secret in any event. What this Somali did, according to the defense attorney, is very different, and the jury

should have known about it. According to the various news reports I've seen, the judge threatened to hold this attorney in contempt of court during the trial. but, you know, if he actually tried to argue his case and defend his client, that would be contempt of court. But she never even suggested that she might hold Shaiyar Jamali in contempt for saying he couldn't understand the questions from the defense lawyers. And note that the Somali who shot the video of Shilohenrics has been in Somalia for some time. So we're not, the guy we're talking about here is the father of the kid. The guy in the video or that we hear in the video is not even in the country.

Okay, the prosecution's main witnesses were Shaiyar Jamali and a police officer. So yes, the person who was supposedly victimized by Shiloh Hendricks didn't testify. He fled the country months ago. So Shiloh's basic right to face her accuser, like her basic right to free speech, was unceremoniously revoked. And all along throughout the trial, nobody in the local media reported any of this. But Tom Hennessey, the independent journalist I mentioned earlier, was paying attention. And he shot this photograph after the second day of the trial when both of the prosecutors appeared outside the courthouse with Shaiyar Jamali, who was their star witness. And as you can see, he apparently has no problem talking to the prosecutors without a translator, much less two translators, which he supposedly needed during the trial.

It's miraculous. So this Somali was somehow magically infused with the ability to speak English conversationally as he emerged from the courthouse doors and walked outside. It's miraculous. It's like watching those people who claim they need a wheelchair before a flight so they get priority boarding. And then when the plane lands, suddenly they can walk perfectly fine. It's just a total scam right out in public. which is what we've come to expect from Somalis, because that's basically all they do in this country.

Incidentally, just because this story isn't enough of a farce, Tom Hennessy also found that Shaiyir Jamali obtained a commercial driver's license, first to drive a truck and now a bus. Well, CDLs require English proficiency. So as Hennessy puts it, everything about this situation is a scam from every direction. Last night, Hennessy told one of my producers that, quote, Shire was a disaster on the stand. It was like a bizarre, like bizarre world. He lied under oath multiple

times. Lied about what he said during the first interview with police, 10 days after the incident. Lied about what Shiloh did. I thought she was going to hit strike rumble with my son. Lied about not being involved in any fundraiser. And the jury apparently appeared as baffled as everybody else, according to Hennessy. So you can see why the defense attorney is furious. The whole trial was a sham from the start. The attorney stood outside the courthouse for 15 minutes after this verdict, and as the press conference continued, it became more and more heated. He also talked about additional Somali go-fund-mees that his investigator had found. Watch.

This is a fraud. This whole thing's a fraud. The cameraman? The cameraman. By the way, let's make something clear. They didn't convict them with the child. Your headlines can be about the child. No, they convicted her on the video with the cameraman.

The disorderly conduct. is about the cameraman. And from what I understand about the cameraman, he has a go fund me. And his go fund me, hold on, his go fund me is, he died. He has a go fund me that he died. Give money to the cameraman who died. And from what I understand, he is well alive.

This whole thing is bullshit. This is a fraud. This is a fraud upon the community. The courts are now part of this. Keep going. Another question, I believe Mr. Jamali's first name was Shire. Whatever it is. Don't care.

You can correct it, I don't know. Well, no, I was just wondering if you had caught it earlier. Oh, did I say it wrong? Print that. I said his name wrong. I was just... Go with that one. What?

Did I say Shire? I didn't say Shire. Print that. Oh, okay, I'm sorry. No, no, no, it wasn't an accusation or anything. I was just wondering if you would note at that. That was one of the issues in the court was an argument over just, courtroom procedures and courtroom rules.

What was your perspective on kind of getting shut down a few times when you were trying to introduce that evidence that the judge and the prosecution said that you were. The judge said Rule 901 of the rules of evidence only applies to prosecutors. You were there. I mean, come on. Come on.

Look it up. Do a little Google search. Do some work. Learn the law. Do an actual job. You're in the media. Look it up. Rule 901.

Judge, that's a prosecutor's rule. No, it isn't. No, it is not. That rule applies to both sides. What does this have to do with me? Because all you look for are hits and clicks. You're going to cut this in a way that benefits your hits and clicks. And you're dying. You're just dying. You guys are dinosaurs. I'll keep going. It does. You're not going to give anyone an honest shake.

You're not going to do the research. You're not going to look up Rule 901. You're not going to press the prosecutor. You're not going to press the judge. you're going to press whatever woke you can come up with that's what you guys push woke over and over and over again do your jobs investigate maybe uh learn something be fair have ever thought about that fairness try it try it sometimes um well this is great this guy is great i and these reporters are such dorks you know the guy well i believe his name is pronounced shy rea or

whatever he said. I just excuse me. I believe his name. Yeah, because that's the most important thing, right? That's what we should be focused on. I mean, we're dealing with issues of constitutionality, free speech rights, like somebody's basic rights to free speech taken away. But what you're focused on, I believe you miss. That's in Somalia. That's not how they pronounce it. Yeah, well, you know what? He's not in Somalia. He's not in Somalia. He's here. So we'll We'll pronounce his name however we damn well, please. You want it to be pronounced perfectly according to how they pronounce it in Somalia? Go back to Somalia.

Now here he's Shire Jamali. That's what he is. He's lucky even gets addressed by his name at all. Now, we didn't play most of the reporter's comments to the defense attorney during this press conference, but suffice it to say they were extremely hostile and condescending the entire time. One of the local news outlets actually did a segment where they tried. to prove the attorney wrong by going and researching the rules of evidence concerning rule 901, which the lawyer just mentioned.

They thought it would be a segment where they called his bluff, but they ended up reporting that he was right. Oops. Watch. One issue Corales repeatedly pointed to involved the rule 901 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, which deals with introducing evidence at trial. Judge said Rule 901 of the rules of evidence only applies to prosecutors. You were there. I mean, come on. Come on. Look it up. You're not going to do the research. You're not going to look up Rule 901.

So we decided to look up Rule 901 and clarify whether it does apply to both sides with defense attorney Peter Martin, who has known Corrales for years and says he was in contact with him throughout portions of the trial. So Rule 9 requires the prosecution to turn over stuff. And if they didn't turn it over, that's a clear violation of Ms. Hendricks's rights in this case. Now, if you're confused by this, here's the explanation we received from Tom Hennessey. In Minnesota, Rule 901 governs the standards for the admissibility of certain evidence. The rule states that evidence, at a minimum, must be sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what it is purported to be. It's very lax standard, and it applies to both the prosecution and defense. For example, at one point during the trial, the prosecution introduced a Google Maps depiction of the park where this incident occurred, and the judge had no problem with that. There's no question as to whether the Google Maps page was faked somehow.

The assumption was that it's real and the burden shifts to the other side to dispute it with some evidence of their own if they choose to do so. But when the defense team questioned Shire Jamali and he kept denying that he was running a fundraiser, the judge would not allow the defense to introduce the GoFundMe page as evidence. It was right there. So the defense lawyers weren't allowed to contradict Shire and prove that he would. lying on the stand. He was committing perjury, which the defense could easily prove, but they weren't allowed to. The judge kept questioning how the defense team could prove the GoFundMe page was real. There were discussions about whether GoFundMe engineers needed to be called in and so on.

Under the very lax standard of Rule 901, the defense should have been able to introduce evidence of this gofund me, but the judge stated incorrectly that Rule 901 only works for the benefit of the prosecution. She applied a higher standard to the defense. Again, it's as corrupt as a trial could possibly be. I mean, if anything, it's the exact opposite of how trials were supposed to work. You don't, you don't, since when is that how it works in a trial? There's a higher standard for the defense. Now, isn't the onus on the prosecution to prove their case? Don't we generally put the higher standard on them, if anything? And, you know, of course, the moment the news stations looked into it, they found that the lawyer was correct. Now, you'd think that these local news stations would

report on the judge's rulings on their own without the defense lawyer shaming them into it. If they were actual journalists, they'd tell their audience what the judge was doing inside that courtroom. They'd let their audience know that the whole trial was a farce. But as we all know, most of these outlets are aligned with the Democrat establishment in Minnesota. They're also completely incompetent. So we're left with extremely inadequate coverage, with the exception of Hennesse's reporting. Small businesses are supposed to be the backbone of this country. There are over 36 million of them in America, and they employ tens of millions of people who aren't working for some faceless corporation. They're working for their neighbors. But here's the problem. Over 70 percent of small

business owners say they need additional capital at some point, just to keep things running. At the exact same time, the big banks are tightening up, approving fewer loans than ever, even while small business revenue is at an all-time high makes no sense. The businesses are doing the work. The banks just aren't holding up their end of the bargain. Even if you do get approved, you're looking at weeks, sometimes months, buried in paperwork, waiting on people who don't seem to be in any hurry to say yes. So if you want bank level rates without the bank and without the bank level delays, you need to check out cardiff.c.co slash walsh. Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in the country since 2004. They funded over $12 billion

to businesses just like yours. The application takes less than five minutes and it won't touch your personal credit. Businesses get approved in minutes and funded the very same day. And it's flexible. Use it to hire, expand, stock up on inventory, whatever your business actually needs. Terms up to 36 months for working capital, up to seven years if you're financing equipment. Banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may not want to approve your business loans, but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year and are pulling in $20,000 a month and revenue. Apply now for up to $500,000 in same-day business funding at Cardiff.co slash Walsh. Again, that's cardiff.c.com slash Walsh. Real growth, fast funding, Cardiff. Borrow better.

Now, for BLM activists and other leftists, these mainstream outlets are doing exactly what they're supposed to do. If you watch most of this media coverage, you'll come up with the idea that Shilohenrics was indeed guilty of committing a crime, and black activists are taking advantage of that coverage. Watch. It's always fascinating to hear these people talk. It's fascinating, right? Because whenever it has something to do with black people, it's a freedom of speech issue, okay?

Just notice that. That if it's you trying to attack a black person, calling them an N-word, calling them a monkey, trying to say any type of derogatory word, it then automatically triggers the Sanbo's soldiers and the white ignorance be like, well, this is freedom of speech issue, okay, that's what this is about. But this freedom of speech,

speech issue is never brought up with any other group of people. Do you notice that? You try and say something derogatory, call a Jewish person the K word and see if they say, hey, hey, Jewish person, hey, just get over it, okay? You should just turn the other cheek, all right? It's just a word, why are you getting so, you know, you know, your panties in a bunch? They will never say that. They won't say that so far that this administration went to deport people off of anti-Semitism. him. That is the YouTuber Amazing Lucas, by the way, who presumably earned that nickname because of his amazing ability to, you know, breathe and tie his shoes despite having the IQ of a dandelion. Well, I actually don't know if he can tie his shoes in fairness. He might very well wear Velcro.

He looks like the kind of guy. But he can breathe, at least apparently. Any case, this is the level of argumentation we get from black activists who are desperate to explain why it's okay to send white people to court and convict them of crimes for saying words that make black people sad and give them tummy aches. And because this blabbering toad is too dumb to even construct a semi-convincing straw man, he's actually arguing that nobody would support the free speech rights of somebody who used an anti-Jewish slur.

Now, the problem with this argument is that, of course, people use anti-Jewish slurs all the time. Amazing Lucas, a YouTuber, has somehow apparently never become acquainted with the internet. And yet literally none of Shiloh's, defenders, myself included, have ever called for the people who use such slurs to be charged with crimes? I would absolutely defend the free speech rights of anybody to use any slur, anti-Jewish, anti-Black, or anti-anything else. Now, if Amazing Lucas can amaze us by providing even one

single example of a right winger who defended Shiloh Hendricks while advocating for the criminalization of anti-Jewish slurs, I would love to see it. But, but he's not. But, you know, He can't and he won't and he doesn't need to because low effort race hustlers like this guy are playing to a semi-literate audience of barely sentient bottom feeders who couldn't care less about facts or evidence and don't have the mental capacity to process them anyway. His only argument is that the Trump administration has tried to deport foreign nationals based in part on their speech. For example, if somebody from Pakistan is on a student visa starts chanting death to America or death to Israel or whatever, the administration might deport them. There have been a few cases along those lines. But that is a very different situation because, first of all, those people are not citizens, Lucas. They're not Americans.

They are guests in this country. This is not their home. And secondly, the president has absolute authority over immigration matters. If you are a guest in this country and you make it clear that you lied on your visa application, then you can get deported. If your actions make it obvious that you're here to cause trouble and not to just study at a university, then you could be deported. And we're not talking about criminal prosecutions here anyway. We're talking about deportations.

And the United States has the right to deport foreigners who are not citizens, period. So in every relevant respect, these deportations are nothing like the Shiloh Hendrix case. There is no analogy to draw. But let's put all of that to the side. Okay. Let's put to the side the fact that the argument is completely retarded and wrong and misses the point at every imaginative. level. If you do think it's a perfectly analogous situation, then you should be the first in line to come out in support of Shiloh Hendricks. If you think that foreign nationals have the free speech

right to do and say whatever they want here, and we are not even allowed to deport them, much less charge them with crimes, then you should certainly support the free speech rights of actual citizens of this country. And yet people like mediocre Lucas won't speak up in Shiloh's defense. In fact, they want to here behind bars. Because as it turns out, they believe that foreign nationals have more free speech rights in our country than actual citizens of our country. That is how catastrophically stupid, insane, and evil these half-wits actually are. And that's why we're getting videos like this one. Also, watch. I mean, I don't think any of us expected her to be sentenced to jail But if you're like me, you didn't think she was going to receive any type of punishment for saying the racial slur.

So I guess I'm glad that there is some accountability. But yeah, that fine, $1,000, they could have been more than that, especially when the judge knew she raised almost a million dollars off of being a racist. Now you can look at the comments on this video and you'll see that every single one of them says the same thing. They all want Shiloh Hendricks to go to prison. They all believe the punishment was not enough. Suspending the First Amendment to charge her with a crime and convictor was not enough. So put simply, none of these people care about the First Amendment or the rule of law or how the trial was conducted or any of that. This is pure racial tribalism and that's it.

These are the same kinds of people who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Carmelo Anthony solely because he murdered a white kid in cold blood. Again, if you import the third world, then you are also importing third world attitudes. You get third world justice and third world race hate. And now it's all over social media. Nobody can ignore it anymore. I mean, we are dealing with people who believe Carmelo Anthony had the right to stab a kid in the check. but Shiloh Hendricks did not have the right to say a word. Carmelo Anthony, because he was mad, had the right, according to these people,

to stab and kill somebody. And Shiloh Hendricks, who was also mad, did not have the right to say a word. That's what they actually believe. And the one single deciding factor for these people is race. It is very simple for them. a black person has the right to do literally anything they want up to and including murder, a white person does not have the right to do literally anything that a black person finds displeasing. That is what they believe.

It is what they truly earnestly believe. It is their ideology. It's the entirety of their worldview. And now their insane racist viewpoint is being enforced by law in what used to be the American court system. on that basis alone the prosecution of schilderick's is unconstitutional it is an equal protection violation in addition to everything else in this country you can enforce the laws equally or you can't enforce them at all the reason they want to suppress chylo hendricks's speech above all is that she was expressing righteous outrage about the disastrous effects of the third world invasion in this country she observed that when you flood a mostly white state with somalis you get dysfunction you get theft you get ethnic feuds you get get fraud. Everything gets nastier and less pleasant, including your parks and even your press conferences. They've concluded that the only way they can stop Americans from saying that we, you know, have had enough is to prosecute us for saying it. But the reason this case is going to get overturned and the reason

it's been a PR disaster for the left is that they badly underestimated the level of fight that Americans have in them. You know, these are the Americans who raised hundreds of thousands of for her defense, which was a noble cause. It was. I'm old enough to remember when a lot of conservatives were getting very offended. I don't think we should raise me. She said a bad word. That's a little. I don't know, guys. I don't think we should be, I don't think we should be raised it. She said a bad word. They might think we're racist. No, it was a noble cause to support this woman. And it still is. And, you know, at least we have people like Brian Carellus, the lawyer, was clearly going to fight this corruption to the end.

We also have Americans like Tom Hennessey, despite the Somali takeover of large portions of Minnesota, it's clear from this case, there are enough fighters left to resist these tyrants and these foreign invaders. And now is the time for everybody else, especially all the commentators and free speech organizations that have been sitting on the sidelines during this case, trembling with fear that somebody might call them racist, as if that word means anything anymore to join the fight with everything they have. This is the single most important free speech case of a generation. We need to win it or there won't be any free speech cases ever again. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you

tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. Once upon a time, there was a country, not just a country, but a big one, an empire. And in that empire, there was an upper-womened. middle-class family where two boys were raised by their mother, loved books, Uncle Tom's cabin, in the Bible. Their father admired the country's leaders, were patriotic and happy. Both sons went to universities where they were radicalized. One of the brothers read a book and convinced him to try to shoot the country's leader. He was hanged. The other brother read the same books, they decided to lead a movement. First they came from the universities and no one seemed to care. Then they took over the unions and again no one seemed to care.

Then they created their own media organizations and took over the cities. And again, most people just ignored it. Change after all was something they could believe in until it was too late. Sound familiar? This is the real history of communism, the Russian Revolution. My day kicks off with a refreshing Celsius energy drink. Pre-K drop off, then straight to the gin. Back home to meal prep before heading to the fire station for my shift.

shift. When the three alarm comes in, I'm ready. CELCUS, live, fit, go. Grab a cold, refreshing Celsius energy drink at your local retailer or locate now at celsius.ca. Enjoy Celsius responsibly. Design for occasional energy boost, not as part of your daily diet. Please adhere to recommended serving limits.