Timcast IRL - Lindsay Clancy Debate: Guilty or Not Guilty, Lawyers REACT w/ Andrew Branca, Ashleigh Merchant, Richie McGinniss, Matt Miller

Episode Date: September 5, 2026

On this episode Tim & Ian are joined by Andrew Branca, Ashleigh Merchant, Richie McGinniss, & Matt Miller to discuss The Lindsay Clancy trial resulting in a mistrial Defense Lawyers experience working with evil clients Questions about use of force & self defense Guests:  Andrew Branca @TheBrancaShow (X) Ashleigh Merchant @AshleighMerchan (X) Richie McGinniss @RichieMcGinniss (X) Matt Miller @mattmiller757 (X) Richie McGinniss is an independent journalist, filmmaker, and former chief video director at The Daily Caller, known for his on-the-ground coverage of the 2020 unrest in places including Kenosha, Portland, and Seattle's CHAZ/CHOP. Matt Miller is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist and political commentator who serves as editor-in-chief of PolitiBrawl and has previously worked with The Washington Examiner and The Daily Caller. Andrew Branca is an attorney and legal commentator who specializes in U.S. self-defense and use-of-force law. He is the author of The Law of Self Defense and has spent decades teaching and analyzing self-defense law, including as a former guest instructor at the FBI National Academy Ashleigh Merchant is a Georgia criminal defense attorney who gained national attention representing Trump co-defendant Michael Roman and leading the effort to disqualify Fulton County DA Fani Willis from the Georgia election case. She previously worked as a public defender and has handled numerous high-profile criminal cases.

Welcome to Timcasti-RL. We are currently waiting the final verdict. I don't think we're going to get a verdict, but as of the pre-recorded, we're doing this on a Friday. We are minutes away from the judge in the Lindsay Clancy case coming out and telling us what's going to happen. Now, the judge did say he was going to declare a mistrial, but the defense asked for an emergency one-hour appeal, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, I guess insinuating that the juror is discriminating against Lindsay Clancy for being paralyzed. which obviously is a long shot, but this defense is really going for it. So it's looking like it's going to be a mistrial, but we will see. So it's going to happen in real time right now. We've got it pulled up. We've got a bunch to talk about it.

We've got a full packed house. Joining us, the return of a legend, Richie McGuinness. Thanks for having me, Tim. Who are you? What are you doing? Richie McGinnis. I was actually a witness in a different murder trial,

Towel Ritten House. And I work with Matt over at Bliterbrall, and I'm the author of Riot Diet in which I cover a lot of that situation over there in Kenosha. And I'm happy to be here. Right on. It's good to have you both back. Richard's been a minute. And we got a couple of lawyers joining us to talk about what's going on.

Hey, I'm Ashley Merchant. I'm a criminal defense attorney out of Atlanta, Georgia. And I'm also the host of the MK True Crime podcast. Andrew Branca, also a criminal defense attorney over at Lawselfdefense. com. Do a lot of political commentary as well at The Brankka Show on XN YouTube. And the boys. So.

Hey Carter, I'm hanging out here with Carter. Do you have a camera? His camera's off. You know what? It's cocked a little bit. I'm going to go fix that in a second. Speaking of cocked. Yeah, me and Ian are here. We just started the show, Ian.

That's true. Carter said it. Carter said it. Sure. I'm just pointing it out. So we're hanging out. The big news of the day, of course, everybody is waiting with bated breath on the outcome of this Lindsay Clancy jury. The last we heard, there's one guy who is like, he's not budging.

so they can't get unanimous verdict. Now, the defense said, can we pull the jury and see what they're hung up on? Because there's a potentiality. He might agree she's not guilty on most of the charges, maybe some others. But it doesn't seem like that's going to happen. We don't know for sure. But that's why we brought these lawyers in so we can talk about what's going on. And we actually did a show a minute ago about more of the nuances in court and all this stuff.

But as it pertains to the news, what do you think we're going to see as of the latest development? Well, I think he's trying. I think Kevin Redington's trying desperately to find some judge who's willing to stay this case and, you know, let him get this jury on the record as to what they're doing for first degree. So there's multiple different charges. There's first degree, which is the one that actually carries the most penalty, carries life without parole, then there's second degree. And I think what Kevin Redington wants is he wants a verdict of not guilty on those. Because if he gets that and then he gets a hung jury on the other charges, all they can go back to trial on are the other charges. So in a perfect world for him, if he had to try the case again, he'd only have to do it on.

a manslaughter. Let's, uh, we've got some lawyers here with opinions on how the law works, but let's, let's ask the boys. What you guys think? You guys are unrelated to law. Because she, guilty or not guilty? I'd say not guilty because she threw herself out of window and paralyzed herself from the neck down. Like, that's her punishment. It's the waist down, right? It's the waist down, though, right? If she hadn't, wait, wait, wait, it's, it's the, it's the waist down, right? Oh, that was the neck down. If she hadn't tried to kill herself, if she just killed three kids and was sitting there rocking in the corner, put her and send her away. Yeah, but what if she was trying to jump out the window to make it look like it was a suicide attempt,

and she didn't actually expect to break her back? Like shooting herself in the foot to go to Vietnam? When she jumped out, how did she jump out? Did she like land on her butt? It's disputed. That is highly disputed. You're about to get into some Patrick Clancy conspiracy theories with that. That is a big dispute.

People think that he pushed her out. And that's why she landed the way she did. Because apparently how she landed, they're saying couldn't have happened if she actually jumped out the window. Maybe she'd like a gainer. So I was about to say that is some major Patrick Clancy. conspiracy stuff. She like jumped and flipped. I mean, there are people on TikTok that like mapped out where her butt hit.

Oh, I love it. We should pull it up. Oh, my God. Seriously, if you look up how she landed, you're going to find a ton of Patrick Clancy. I just pulled up threads. I'm not going to, I'm not going to first post all of this stuff Patrick did this. They were too lazy to actually investigate like they should have. He did some shady stuff on his trip that night.

A phone hand of? I am a little upset about the investigation. And I do hear that. I mean, the jury wants some answers, and that's what fueled these conspiracies. They didn't do any DNA testing. They didn't do anything. There's three dead kids.

Like, do your job. I have kids, I think, guilty. Just lock her up, throw away the key, electric chair or whatever. Just because you hate what she did. We're big fans of the ubley. I'm not a lot. I mean, look, and I was, like, having testified in the written house trial, I saw how little the facts mattered for many people out there.

And you're seeing something similar with what's going on on TikTok here. But, I mean, I just can't have any of the... their opinion other than that. I think most people can't get past that. That's the problem. Past what? Past the fact that she killed her three kids. I mean, other than the conspiracy theories, that's not really in dispute.

But just legally, I think if the jury follows the law, they're going to have to find her not guilty. What about her like Googling all of the different stuff beforehand and that implying some degree of premeditation? Doesn't that imply that she's not as insane as? She definitely, I mean, I think there's a degree of premeditation because she did plan these out. It's whether or not she planned them out while she was in psychosis. or she planned them out because she wanted them dead. So I'll tell you, for me, for me, and a lot of jurors, they want a reason.

Why did someone do something? Are you a thug? Are you trying to kill someone? Are you a violent person? Are you a bad person? Do you want your spouse dead? Do you want your kids dead because you hate your kids? She loved her kids.

And the testimony was she loved her kids. So for me, that was really lacking. And so it made it much more credible that she had this mental illness because why else is she going to kill her kids? I mean, even her mother-in-law testified that she loved her kids and was a good mom. Okay. So then why isn't that? the thug on the street who stabs a woman to death, why isn't he crazy? Why isn't that psychosis? Right, because he actually has a violent tendency. And so in cases like that, if he's violent

and he's doing this, you know, repeatedly, you're going to have testimony that he's violent. Hold on. What was that? You want me to take this sack of silver and beat Richie to death with it? Yes, I'm crazy. Richie, get over here. I'm ready. It's my time. And they'd be like, Tim Poole has never done anything like this before. It's completely out of character. And I'd be like, you saw it on the show. I said, I heard a voice, told me to beat him with this little case of silver coins. I'd like to see you try.

But you're not doing it because you don't want him dead. I don't want Ritchie dead. No, it's a joke. So the only reason that she would have her kids dead is because she's crazy. They would be that she actually wanted them dead. That's why the argument with Tim is that he didn't do it because he didn't really want to. But she did it because she really wanted to. No, stop.

I don't want to hurt Ritchie. Don't make me. Because he's not crazy. He's not crazy and he doesn't want him dead. But if he was crazy, you might kill him. There is a small elf standing on your shoulder, and I have to destroy it. Were all the kids in the room with her when she was strangling them one by one? She took them one at a time.

That kind of indicates, like, after the first one? That's the worst fact, in my opinion. The fact that it was like 13 minutes or something, that's the worst fact. That's where I would have a hard time with that one fact. The husband is on her side. Yeah. So the husband testified for her. So husband, her ex-mother-in-law testified.

I mean, these are people that should hate her. She killed their grandkids. She killed his kids. They testified that she was a loving mother. She had no reason she would want her kids dead, loved them, and that she was seriously suffering and had history of mental illness. So for me, for me, the fact that she didn't want her kids dead and loved her kids and had mental illness makes it a lot more believable. The state's rationale was that she wanted to kill herself.

And she cared so much about how her children were raised. No one could raise her kids like she could. She didn't want them left behind. Right. And if she was going to be dead, she wanted those kids in heaven with her. That was her motivation. And the ex-in was testified about that. I figured it out. Patrick didn't do it.

Patrick did it. They did it together. Yeah, they both were like- Let's start that conspiracy theory. Oh my God. Well, that conspiracy will never fly because all of these women want to defend Lindsay. Have you seen the memes they've posted? There's like a poster and it's like justice for the kids and Lindsay?

You got to pull something up. Look at the Brats doll reenactment. Where is that on X? You all haven't seen it? Oh, my God. My paralegal found it. How do I find it? I can send it to you.

Wait, I think if is this. I bet you found it. Is it the TikTok lady? Yes. Is it this? Yes! Yes! Oh, my God, y'all. Oh, it's so quiet.

It's one of the craziest things I've ever seen. On today's episode of the Women of the World v. Patrick Clancy, I'm going to prove that Lindsay Clancy's bedroom was staged using Bradstalls and a shoebox reconstruction of the crime scene because I noticed something that absolutely nobody else has noticed, not even the blood experts. And if they did notice, they strategically omitted it from their testimony because it proves that Lindsay Clancy is innocent. I've managed to semi-accurately dress Lindsay in a black tanked and jeans. But unfortunately, my male breast doll didn't come with a weaker jawline and he doesn't have accurate clothing to what Patrick was wearing other than the first pair of shoes. Let's do a quick

tour. This is the doorway. This is the Navy shelves. This represents the mirror. Blood Spot A. This represents a pillow next to the mirror. I've just depicted using just a pencil here just for reference. Blood spot B, blood spot C, and our drawers along with our knife. And I've roughly indicated where the cups were and the spray bottles on the bedside table there. Then we have our Lindsay. I would hire her as my defense attorney. Excuse the old vintage phone.

She was just showing this to the jury and like, just give me a minute. I saw the theory that Lindsay. He had the window shut on her neck, but unfortunately I have a more plausible explanation as to what's happened to Lindsay and why her thyroid was crushed, so let's get into it. I've also made sure I can move the bed because it's vitally important. It's just a lot of long. Oh yeah, she does a lot of work. You don't need to watch the whole thing. You get the flavor already.

From here on the exterior. I assume there was no video of the strangulations. Can they tap her phone to listen to the strangulations? That's interesting. They didn't do that. I mean, they didn't do much of anything, but I don't know if she even had her phone. Could the defense have said to the female jurors, this is the women of the world versus Patrick Clancy? No. I think they might have gotten an interjection for that if they did that a little bit.

Yeah. I didn't watch the case, but was it really just about sympathy for the human of Lindsay Clancy? No. So what it really was about was Battle of the Experts. So in Massachusetts, the state has to essentially disprove that she's insane. I mean, they use a different term. They use criminal responsibility. but they had to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defense not entertain another killer?

Or no, because she admitted it. She said she did. I mean, she admitted it, but if you look at the conspiracy theorist, when she admitted it, she was heavily medicated, intubated. I mean, she didn't admit it when she was. That proves it. So if I was in Massachusetts and got high and then killed someone, I could say I was crazy. No, you can't get high and do it.

That, no. But I'm talking about with psychics. Wait, wait, wait, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, he's on to something. what if I drugged Ian and then Ian killed the guy? Oh, you could totally use that, yes. It's like you just get away with murder.

If he drugged you and you didn't know it, oh yeah. What if a doctor gave me prescription? That's involuntary manslaughter. What if it was accidental? You drugged him accidentally? Yep. I was, I had some. It doesn't matter.

It only matters what happened to him. No, no, no. As long as he wasn't, as long as he didn't drug himself. But then there's no criminal culpability on me either. Right, you're good then. So I had my medication prescribed to me. And when I opened it, a pill fell out and landed his cup. He didn't know and drank it, lost his mind and killed somebody.

You're both good. But if you did it on purpose, you go down for whatever he did. Of course. You go down for the murder though. Timcast, IRL explains how to get away with murder? You go down for murder then. Not if it was an accident. That's why I asked.

She was high on pharmaceuticals, correct? I think so. I think that there's a huge angle there. But the problem was they said they were therapeutic amounts, meaning that they weren't, like she didn't take them outside of the recommended doses. Who said they were therapeutic? The doctors. The doctors. So they did blood tests. The experts, they actually did a blood test and said when I say therapeutic, meaning, you know, what she was prescribed. So she didn't like overdose on the meds, but she was on them. And they were

psychotropic meds, and they were taking them off and on. And here's the other thing that I think was important. So she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and they gave her all these SSRIs. SSRIs are the antidepressants. They drive you into mania if you don't have the other side. So like the doctors were pumping her full of the SSRIs. And if she really was bipolar, polar, that'll drive a person into mania. So will they charge the doctors? A complicated factor was she went to like six different doctors. Yeah.

They didn't know about each other. So they're each prescribing their own set of. Oh, we got something here. The filing. I'm pulling it up. Oh, the lawsuit? Yeah, I saw Fox had it, but they- Yeah, Fox.

Oh, the appeal? The defense attorney, Kevin Redington's appeal. The court's refusal to consider evidence that a jurors are refusing to file applicable law, yada, yada, yada. Here, the removal is particularly important because the jurors reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness. I mean, he's pulling it out at this point. Like, you've got to love that man. Wow. That's who you want if you're charged with crime. He's amazing at his job. I'd hire this guy.

If you torture the crime, you want that. So the argument is that everyone agrees she's mentally, she was, you know, mentally ill. And this guy's choosing not to say not guilty because he's discriminating against the mental ill. I wonder if there was something else in that note, you know? like, I will never find a mentally ill person. Or what if said, just because she's crazy doesn't mean she's not guilty. The holdout juror wasn't right now. Right. The four person wrote it.

So who knows what they wrote? But maybe they said, they said he's claiming that being nuts doesn't excuse you for murder. Maybe. And then they're like, okay, he's holding it against her. This is a wild argument because it's like, it's creative. It basically means that if an expert says you're crazy, everyone has to agree otherwise they're discriminating against you. Isn't half the country crazy at this point? More than half?

What percentage of the countries on SSR-I? You mean the female have? Oh, 51% then? 51% of the population. It's actually just liberals. I'm not joking. What percentage of liberals are on SSRIs? All of them.

Dude, if I could get a therapeutic dose of psychotropics from the doctor and kill people and be ill. Don't give him ideas. Isn't this a slippery slope? Is that what she's doing? So many people are mentally ill. Doesn't this set a dangerous precedent where... It does, but if you think about it, I mean, I keep.

going back to the fact that she doesn't want her kids dead. You know, this is not something that she's taking a pill and then using this as an excuse. Like, she's horrified. And if you watch me in the trial, that lady is horrified. I mean, she wants to kill herself. She has tried to kill herself. Like, she is miserable. She did not

want her kids dead. But then why did she worked pretty hard at it? I know, but I fully believe that in a sane mind she didn't want those kids. But just like every other law and every other precedent, if you, okay, good faith, yeah, she didn't want to kill her kids, but aren't there evil people who could exploit that? And then create a paper trail that makes people think they didn't want to kill their kids, but they actually

do. And then they kill them and say, whoops, I'm insane. They could. So the difference here is, so the difference here, though, is that they had this, the defense actually had some really good experts, like credible experts, experts that work for the state regularly that said she was insane. So, I mean, yeah, you could buy an expert, of course. I mean, you can find an expert that'll say just about anything, but you can't find a good one. And they were really credible. So that's what the state was really, how would they know, right? They weren't diagnosing her. at the time. They're talking to her later, and they can't go back in time and get in her mind

and see what he ever can with mental illness. Right. So to me, that's, that's an inherent impeachment of their testimony. But would you never find out? They're giving like a, what they think is their best guess. Yeah. But they can't have any degree of certainty. They weren't there. They had a medical degree is what they said. Medical degree of certainty. But honestly, how would you ever? Mental illness is, is, well, if she'd been, if she'd been diagnosed with psychosis before she killed her kids, that would be more credible to me, right? It makes it look much less like a fabricated legal defense. Because psychosis was never mentioned until after she killed her kids, got a defense attorney who knew he needed psychosis for the legal defense. That's not true because

she was diagnosed with bipolar, too, which does have psychosis as symptoms. And she had had some hallucinations, but it's not common. She didn't have a, she hadn't had a common things. Right. It is. Right. So having psychosis and being able to plan, very unusual, can it happen? Yes, but it's very uncommon. Having bipolar and it extends to psychosis, very unusual, very uncommon. And when you take uncommon events that all need to be strung together like pearls on a string and everyone's uncommon and you multiply them out, the fact that that would lead to this kind of insanity that would release criminal culpability, that's what I don't find credible. Why can't we just throw people who have psychosis in jail along with somebody else? Huh? Ublyette. Ubliette. Explain it, Ian. It's a hole. It's a deep

hole dark. And back in ancient France, it means to forget Ubliette. And they would take people and they'd throw them down in this 40 foot pit with rats and other dead bodies that are rotting. Have one of those here? Close it up and walk away. Yeah. You would basically in today's punishment. If you wanted someone to die but you didn't want to kill them publicly, you would put them in the Ubliette and be like, I guess they died in prison. Oh my God. That seems like a little bit too much.

What about an island? Yes. I mentioned the island. I would have like that idea. Actually, wait, wait, hold on. They're not talking about sending her to, you know, the Cape. They're talking about sending her to a mental institution, a forensic. It's a jail. What difference do you make? It's a big difference. So we have an idea here at Timcast about the island.

And as a criminal defense attorney, I'm curious what you think. The idea is when someone, it's just, you know, they're really bad, we just drop them off on an island and leave. Oh my God. And there's no laws and they can just deal with. Oh, my God, I love it. Yeah. I've always thought that was great. Let's monetize it.

I set up cameras. Oh, yeah, you get to watch. I think it's like if you had, I mean, they kind of do that. It's kind of prison. Isn't that kind of what downtown Seattle is? We don't got to spend. It's basically the Chas. Yeah, that's the Chas.

Yeah, that's kind of what they're doing. But we don't got to spend money on it. A chapter in the book is called Lord of the Chess because they just gave them an island, just like the kids in Lord of Flies. That's like those places where you can use drugs, like out in public and stuff. Yeah, but then you get Greta Toonberg sailing up and freeing them and being like, we need to get them off the island. Yeah.

It's too much. It's too dangerous to punish people. Just send them the poor little cynical. I think Clancy should be in prison. This is gross. She killed her kids. Killing children is it a symptom of psychosis? She's not walking home. She's going to a forensic mental institution, which is not...

I mean, it's just like prison, but it actually treats you and actually gives you... But can you explain to me why it is that that precedent was established, where if you have psychosis, then all of a sudden, you're no longer treated the same. Just a public policy? Mostly? Yeah, it mostly goes back to Old England where they did not

think... So the original goal of punishment is deterrence. It's to make sure that people don't do it. Well, if you're crazy, You can't be deterred because you're crazy. So why are you culpable? Why should you be locked up if you can't deter someone who's mentally ill? They didn't have TikTok back then. They did not.

And they did not have rats, dolls, reenactments. And half your population is completely crazy. They didn't. Then I think we need to change. And honestly, most juries don't go with insanity. I mean, it is a defense that loses almost all the time. Like, I've had one client. I've been doing this 25 years.

I had one client that was found insane. And it's crazy because, I say crazy, but the state's doctors said he was completely sane. I go to try to go to trial with him and he literally crawls under the table and wouldn't come out. And I'm like, he's sane? Let's go. Like, it's not sane. Do you think that she'd be found guilty if the jury was 12 men?

Yes. I don't know if she'd be found guilty. I think it might still be hung. I think there's some men that are just like postpartum. Like, I trust you, but I'm not touching that. You know what I mean? Like, I've never done it. I don't want to go there.

I don't want to say it's real. I don't want to say it's not real. You get crazy sometimes, you know? Like, maybe something's going on. I think there's men out there that think that. I mean, Patrick doesn't think she's guilty. Her own husband. Well, clearly a man of poor judgment, though.

Yeah. Yeah, agreed. I wouldn't trust that guy. But I mean, well, I mean, don't even get me started on him. But, like, if, you know, if he doesn't, I mean, he's intimately involved. He knows everybody and he's not finding her responsible. That could be completely self-protective, right? I mean, if he looks back and says, oh, my God, I should have seen something, I should have done something.

He said he could say, hey, for all I knew she was fine, fine mother, she loved her kids, right? Nothing. No red flags for me to see. I mean, he should have done something, though. Like, everybody kind of should have done a little bit more to protect the kids. Yeah, if you have a crazy spouse, I mean, I had one, and she kept threatening suicide, and I eventually was like, you know what, I got to go. I'm going to the park with my friends, and I left her there. And on our way to the park, an ambulance came driving by me in the other direction.

I was like, I think that's for her. Yeah. And we just kept going to the park. I found out later it was. She had taken a bunch of pills. There were no kids involved. She easily, at some point, you just can't make someone not kill them. The camera job.

Are they coming back? We are way over time. That's usually an indicator. Yeah. Like they're getting the framing ready. I think the cameraman like steps up and hits it. Right, right, right. Or steps on the platform and it moves the camera.

So what is this? Is it anticipated to be a hung jury on the murder charges alone? It sounds like it may be. So if his appeal that he just did doesn't work, it's going to be a hung jury on everything, period. Which means they can charge it again? Everything. Whole thing over. How long, how far away until they can bring up the case again?

Who next week? Do they have to be different attorneys? Nope. Different jurors? Yes, different jurors. Different jurors, right? They have to start from square one. So they start over same judge, all that.

But they get different jurors. The thing for me about retrials that sucks is you have a transcript from the first trial. So it becomes so cumbersome and longer because you've got prior testimony that you're going through. It's like, it takes forever. Do they call the same people to retestify? Yeah, but they can call new people. So like if one of the witnesses sucks or the jury didn't like them, they can fix that. Geez.

I was terrified. With the written house trial, do you remember that NBC reporter followed them back to their hotel? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was after I testified and I was like, am I going to have to do this again? Wow.

You imagine, right? It was, yeah. So traumatic. And then what if you refuse? Like, so he's a witness. Let's say he. I could have refused because the subpoena out of state. I didn't have to honor the subpoena out of state.

Only if they domesticated. They would have, they did domesticate your subpoena in that trial. I have no idea. I was like, I'm going anyway. I don't think they had to because I told, the prosecution called me because they knew the defense. was going to call me.

So I just told them I would do whatever I had to do to tell the truth. But, yeah, apparently I didn't have to honor the out-of-state subpoena. No. What if you get subpoenaed, like, they compel you to testify? And then there's a mistrial. How many mistrials until they give up? Like, is it usually just like, if there's a mistrial and another mistrial, they just depends on the DA.

That's the thing. The DA can totally decide to keep retrying it. But can they, can they compel me to keep coming back? What if I say I'm not doing this anymore? They can compel you to keep coming back. There is a point where they could probably read your priority. testimony. Oh, okay. But that's nobody wants read testimony. What if your testimony changes? Oh, oh. Oh, that's a big one. Testimony changes. Then they impeach you at your prior statements.

Yes, yes. But which one's true? What if you're like, you know what? Honestly, I misremembered and I made a mistake. Which is likely to be the more accurate memory. The one closer to the event or the one today. Yeah, but that one was three years after. So it's, you know, whatever statement you gave right after the event. But you're going to read your testimony. Yeah. You're going to prep. They zoomed out again. You're going to, something's happening. Something's happening. in. But you're going to read your testimony. But that's a lot of work. I mean, retrial are not fun. What if, what if they come out and it's just like somehow they all change their mind and she's guilty? Like that the ADA filing was so offensive to the jury that

all said, oh, screw this. She's guilty. I think if they retry it, though, I think they'll fix the prosecution. I mean, they could retry this in a week and make it clean. What do the prosecution do wrong? They, so in closing, they were sympathizing. They were sympathizing. They were not sympathetic during the trial. She's mentally ill. Like, she's mentally ill. She tried to kill herself. I mean, they just didn't accept that.

And they went overboard with like a lot of the gruesome details. And prosecutors do that a lot. Here we go. Here we go. It's happening. We actually have a lot of. I want to hear the Boston girl. The call is now in session.

Hey, to see them. For the purpose of the record, we return back to the matter. Conwell, forces Lindsay Clancy, all parties of present, excluding the jury. All right. Counsel, it's my understanding that. the SJC issued their order that the emergency request for relief was denied and the temporary stay is lifted. And so it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in. And as I indicated to you before, to declare mistrial.

I understand, Your Honor. And at the risk of incurring the wrath of the court, I'd like to raise an additional issue just for purposes of the federal law. because this, I believe, constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution and the Declaration. The Supreme Court shut him down to Massachusetts, so he wants to go fed.

When a jury reports through a poor person that amid deliberation that a juror refuses to follow the law, the issue is handled under federal rules of criminal procedure 23B, but the law itself that we're dealing with clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for, quote, good cause, end quote, and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict

and or with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting, obviously, as alternates. While the First Circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions constitutes good cause for dismissal that does impose procedural issues as to how the court would navigate which would require a hearing. The core standard is United States v. Sepulveda, S-E-L-V-E-D-A, First Circuit 1993.

And in that case, Your Honor, which is significant precedent, the First Circuit addressed the underlying concept of nullification where a juror refuses to follow the court's instructions. And in the Sepulveda case, the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to acquit for any reason, they have a significant duty and their duty requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court. If a juror abdicates this duty, it triggers the court's authority to intervene. And the court would then have a procedure where you would inquire just like a hearing like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing. So I would suggest, Your Honor, that clearly under the First Circuit law, federal law, as well as the argument to the court, Massachusetts law, that we have a juror who has, according to the foreperson,

is the only person who is basically holding out, so to speak, and unfortunately they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law, but they're holding out as a result, that even though they have agreed and expressed doubt, they are refusing to apply the law as you've given it. So I would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're probably going to deny that. For reasons, as I stated earlier this morning, that request will be denied.

Shocker. So, are you ready to bring the jury in? So it's a mistrial then? Yes, confirmed? Well, he's going to tell the jury now, but no, it's been the jury's not telling the judge anything. The judge is going to tell the jury it's a mistrial. So they don't read anything like they don't handle it. The jury won't read anything.

The jury's not making the decision here. The judge is, they made their decision. Can she go home now? No. She's still insinthuscialized. So she goes in the same position she was in before the trial, and she's not on bond. An advanced group of monkeys we are, man. Why are they showing that?

Why are they showing that? Anyone winking? Yeah, that was weird. We returned to the court. 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All other parties are present. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Welcome.

Members of the jury, at this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial. All right. I just wanted to make a comment. Oh, God. I love it. During World War II, Winston Churchill was the prime minister. Shut up. Say less.

When England pretty much. stood against Nazi Germany alone. And so Churchill oftentimes had to talk to the citizens and say, let us brace for our duties. I always liked that phrase. And I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury. He agreed to brace for that duty. And you turned out to be trash.

You knew how long the case was going to go. You knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts-wise, but still you braced for that duty. And I just kind of wanted to also let you know. I watched every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing that duty that you braced for. And I just kind of wanted to let you know. I understood how hard everybody worked in this case.

I understood that you all gave everything you could and probably more than you thought you could. And so on behalf of myself, I just want to thank you so much that you should be proud for what you did. You brace for that duty. You perform that duty. And I just kind of wanted to thank you

behalf of myself and behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thank you so much. The only thing I am going to ask one more thing is that what I'd like to do is be able to come back and thank you personally. I'm going to have to talk to the

counsel for just a couple of minutes. So if you can stay just for a couple of minutes, not to go over the deliberations or anything like that, but just to thank you personally, again, for just an incredible commitment and dedication that each and every one of you showed here. So I just want to thank you so much. And with that, you're discharged.

Thank you. All right. So is Clancy Hitler then? Is that his point? I don't know what. Right. That's right. I saw a poll on Twitter. Who would you rather have to look after your kids?

I mean, that's actually a tough question. That actually is. Like who? That legitimately is. I love my kids. But Hitler when? Art school, Hitler? Yeah.

Reward like 1942. I think what I had said at the end of the evidence, I just kind of wanted to echo again, I wanted to compliment all three counsel. A trial like this so hard, so difficult. And so I just kind of wanted to to thank the three of you for your efforts in regards to this. And so with that, if you talked, I think we should probably pick a status date, any where we are, trial assignment date. I would talk about where we are.

Sorry, I didn't interrupt. I know I would like to argue a 25B2 and that has to be done within five days. So, I mean, I would like, if possible, to have this on for a hearing on a motion for required finding reconsideration 25B2 on Tuesday. And my request, assuming that you deny that motion would be that we impaneled the following Monday. Oh, my schedule. So, so what I'm going to suggest, comment on your day off. As a defense lawyer, like, that's a lot. My thinking is to try it sooner rather than later, but I'm not sure of that sooner.

And it's a situation. Kevin Reddington just bounced as the trial court schedule. He totally did. He's good. Witnesses schedule. But setting aside the atrocity, like Kevin Reddington. Literally. How did she get you to get a good lawyer?

Why don't we pick a date maybe a couple of weeks down the road so everybody could get their calendars together? Monday. Monday, let's go and I'll take the first 12. We met the next Monday. Oh, okay. He wants to argue on Tuesday and then the next Monday. Okay. Okay.

For requiring reconsideration within five days. But you can file it. Maybe if they have a hearing within the five days. I'd like to, but I mean, I know you'd like to. But I, you know, maybe we could do it later in the week. Maybe not Tuesday. Okay. Um, maybe Thursday or so.

Sure. I'm going to be out of the state until the 22nd. I have a dinner. You don't need her. Well, as long as it's filed. Go forward with that. Um, do you want to pick, we can. do is pick that status date, trial assignment date, and actually then do the argument

of the 25, Rule 25. I'm not sure the prosecutor's availability is going to be relevant. Of course, the government is like, I'm actually on vacation. This single juror is going to write a book and be a legend and no. Oh, he's going to. Every single shell everywhere. What's it called in 30 Rock, the rural juror? Yeah.

He's going to walk out his he, man. I would ask if it's agreeable. I mean, X is blowing up with like, legend, hero. He refused. Kevin Reddington? No, the juror. Once people find out who this juror is. That's fine.

Fox News. Rogan, you name it. So the juror admitted doubt, but then refused to call innocence? So the four person sent the note. So we only know what the four person said that juror was doing. That's essentially what they told. And imagine this. Imagine like we're deliberating.

and you're like everyone's saying not guilty and I'm the one saying not guilty and then you say something like but you have to admit it's at least possible that she was crazy sure but I don't think so that's doubt. Right. So they might be saying he expressed doubt when he was actually saying but not enough

or he could have been saying I don't care that she's mentally ill I know that the law says that that's reasonable doubt but I don't care. And the other thing too is they wanted to poll the jury because I would have pulled the jury. It might be doubt only on like one issue.

Yeah. So like it was what three charges, first, second and manslaughter? So they could all agree on first and second, but the one guy is saying, no, I think it's manslaughter. And so when he expressed doubt, it may have been doubt on the first two charges. He might have said, I don't think she premeditated it. Right, right. And then it would only be second, which is huge because the retrial then could be in front of a judge, not a jury. Although I don't think Kevin Redington would do that.

I think he'd want a jury. But it makes a difference. Yeah, it definitely makes a difference. And besides, if you can whittle off a charge, you want to whittle off a charge. you want to whittle off a charge. Yeah, as a defense lawyer, I mean. Yeah, Massachusetts is one of those states where the defendant can demand a bench trial, and there's meaning there's no jury.

The judge acts as the jury. There's nothing to state can do about it. This is the new left, right divide. Like all of these liberals are posting, like, this is ridiculous. And, you know, I don't completely disagree, but I don't agree with the politics. But the idea is you have a not guilty finding, except for one person who will not uphold the law or adhere to the law. I would not want to be innocent and have some person in a jury for political reasons or personal

reasons refuse to say not guilty. Right. And that's how you have to think about it. You got it. So the Constitution requires us to put out the atrocity, put out the kids. Victims are not in the Constitution. We don't protect their rights in the Constitution. We protect citizens' rights.

We predict all humans' rights. But that's the thing. So everyone's caught up on what happened. And it's atrocious. Nobody's disputing that. But the Constitution doesn't worry about that. The Constitution only worries about her rights. So here's an interesting question.

Like we all know jury nullification. They can just acquit because they're like, I don't care. They can. But can they convict? Can they? What's the opposite of jury nullification? They can. They can.

I'm not sure. Jury certification. Certification. Solidification. And the fail safe for that is the judge. So I'll tell you the answer is that. So there is a standard that if they do convict and there's no evidence, they have to reverse it on appeal.

It's insufficient evidence. It's Jackson versus. Virginia, it's a U.S. Supreme Court case that says... Can you get a directed verdict? But you... The other thing is you should be able to get a directed verdict, but judges don't do that. And what that is is like if the jury convicted and there's no evidence, then I could argue as a defense lawyer to the judge, you need to direct a verdict of not guilty, which basically means you need to force a not guilty verdict. They can do that.

And that can happen. I mean, imagine a crime has like five required elements. Yeah. The state literally introduced zero evidence on one of those elements, just as a technical matter. What are the elements just for those that... Well, I mean, just like look at murder, right? You took a human life. It was premeditated. You did it in this county.

Venue time. Like it's crazy, but a lot of times cases. Oh, yeah. Here's a question. Like, let's say somebody lives in Kentucky. And they follow a woman from Kentucky cross state lines into, I think, what, West Virginia is a good state. And then kill that woman. Ooh.

I know this. Well, yeah. So, like, which venue is proper venue? Both. It can be, you can have the kidnapped. In the state. No, no, not kidnapping. He's filed the person once they were in West Virginia.

They can be prosecuted in three different places. They can be prosecuted where they were kidnapped, prosecuted where they were killed, and also prosecuted in the federal system because they cross state line. Not kidnapped. So a woman's like, yeah. Oh, they were stalked. So they can be prosecuted for stalking in the first state. That state, though, stalking, no one cares.

Let's say there's no stalking. Let's say they're both from Kentucky and they both happenstance end up in, you know, in West Virginia at a local bar. Because they live on state, near the state line, right? All three places. They can be prosecuted. the murder would be prosecuted in the state where the actual murder happened, but the feds could actually prosecute for cross-the-line. So has it ever occurred where like, you know, for instance,

we're in West Virginia, but Virginia, Maryland and PA are all within a stone's throw. It's like the Quad state. It happens a lot. What if, has it ever happened where like, say, somebody in Maryland, two people from Maryland are in PA and one person gets the gets murdered, but then Maryland prosecuted in Maryland for that murder. Has that ever happened like that, even though it didn't happen in Maryland? Yes. Is there a venue challenge? There's so there's a case in Georgia. I worked on the appeal where the person, it's a death penalty case, the guy's on death row, and he kidnapped a lady in Georgia and took her to Tennessee and killed her in Tennessee. He got charged with kidnapping with bodily injury. He's the only person on death row for a non-homicide

case because he's on death row for kidnapping with a death resulting, but the death didn't result in Georgia. So they couldn't bring it up, but it's still there. He's not, sir, he's not on death row for the murder. He's on death row for kidnapping with a murder resulting. Murder resulted in Tennessee. Kidnapping happened in Georgia. Well, so let's say something somebody lives in Kentucky and then he murder someone in West Virginia and goes back to Kentucky. Can Kentucky, a guy from Kentucky goes to West Virginia, kills somebody, goes back to Kentucky. Can Kentucky do anything? Not if he didn't commit a crime there now. So West Virginia issues a warrant for his arrest. They'll just grab him on the warrant. Yeah. Right. And then.

It's Kyle Rittenhouse right there. So what is West Virginia? Do they file to the feds and say, the feds to go in and... No, they can issue their own warrant. The other state will honor the warrant. Yeah, we have this thing. It's called the interstate compact with all the states. And so any state can issue a warrant and another state has to actually get you. The state that wants you has to pay for you to go there.

What if the state doesn't want to? And he can live in Kentucky and not be extradited. That's kind of crazy. He'll have a warrant for the rest of life. Wasn't there a case where a woman got an abortion and then one state issued a warrant over it, but the other state wouldn't honor it? Probably. I think that was, I think that happened recently.

guarantee that's happened. Yeah. There was there was one where two women talked and one woman advised around how to go get an abortion in another state and they called it a conspiracy. I can see that. I mean, it happens a lot in the international levels. Yeah, I was about to, you know, somebody will commit a murder in America, flee to Europe and we'll try to expedite them from Europe, and Europe won't send them back unless we promise not to execute it. What about that strip in Wyoming or whatever? You know what I'm talking about? The like strip that is not part of the U.S. Well, no, it's because it's like a national park. There's no residence, so there's no peers.

There's no... Yeah, that's... Well, you couldn't get a jury your peers, because there are no peers. Yeah, so how do you... So the story as it goes is... Let me pull it up. I know what you're talking about. Yeah, that's never happened, and I think everybody hopes it'll never happen,

but someone will go and commit a crime there for, you know, just to see. But it's the zone of death. That's what it's called. But the thing is, there apparently was some guy who committed a crime there, and the feds charged him. Do they have a map on this floor? Well, that's actually smart. The feds would have to do it.

Because the feds draw from like a larger. And so he tried making the argument that this strip has no, there's no jury of my peers. Therefore, you can't charge me. And they said, we're going to do it anyway. And you're going to fight the federal government to take a plea deal. And he agreed to take a deal. Yeah. Because the feds, their jurisdiction is not just the state.

It's the whole area. The zone of death. The zone of death. That's crazy. And that's in Yellowstone. That's where they murder everybody. if you've ever seen the show. Oh, yeah.

On the show they do. Yeah, he's taking a train ride and then they drive them off to the strip and dump the body because they're like, no one lives here, no one searches. And they mention in the show, there's no jury of appears, so nobody could be charged anyway.

Well, no one's going to find the body. I mean, something's going to eat it. Have you, did you ever do like criminal defense stuff? Or have you guys ever done, like, I imagine you've done murder. Have you ever defended murderers? Oh, yeah. I've never done a murder.

Only from, only from the, the other side, the self-defense angle. So when a person comes to your office, charge? If they're charged with murder, they usually don't come to my office. I usually have to go to the jail. They're not out, mostly. And then how do they're out? Every once in a while they're out.

Do they solicit you? Yes. They call your office and say. So. Loved one usually. When you meet with them in the jail, are you worried about surveillance? Like they're going to violate, like the cops might secretly try and record you? Oh, yeah.

Yeah. We have certain things we do to make sure that. White noise generators? Well, I mean, there's certain things that I can say that they're supposed to minimize, but I don't always trust them. If I think they're listening or if I know they're listening because there's a wiretrap, I will always say some colorful things about them on. Because they won't be able to use it in court or anything. They can still listen. And they can use that for investigation and then find a justification.

Sophie says something like, look, I ditch the weapon. They'll never find it. It's in the regime. Or like my theory, you know, if I'm talking about my theory, that's why I always meet with clients in person. So when you're in like a secure environment, like let's say they get bail, they're in your office. do you ask them, did you do it? Not usually, because I usually don't want to know that. Yeah.

Would you have to admit it? It's not a relevant legal question. It just isn't. Yeah, it's really not. It's really not part of my analysis. I would not be able to put them on the stand and let them testify that they didn't do it if they told me. Yep. Interesting.

But I will tell you most cases, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yeah. You know, it's rare that they just did it. It's exactly how they said it was. I do a lot of legal consults for self-defense cases where I never talk to the defendant. Yeah. Unless the defense is going to testify. If they're going to testify, then I need to know what they're going to say.

Yeah. But if they're not going to testify, I just look at the evidence that the jury's going to be presented. Have you guys ever had a client that you could just tell right when you looked at them? They were evil. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yes. And then you are like, I got to make sure this guy goes free.

Yeah. Oh, no. What are you guys on the spot? I am a super constitution lover. Like, I love the Constitution. All of my answers. Everything is based on the Constitution. I'm like obsessed with the Constitution.

I have it hanging on my wall. So I fully believe that our system only works if someone like me will defend someone that is awful and horrible. And I concur with that. I just have an odd legal practice. So my practice is consulting to other attorneys. They're the lead counsel on their cases. They're providing the sellous advocacy. They call me for an expert opinion on the self-defense law aspects of the case.

But I'm not going to take money from people and then give them a report that says their client's guilty. I just don't feel that's the right thing to do. So if I look at the case and I'm like, listen, this self, this is just not going to work. of self-defense. Well, obviously, then they don't want to hire me anyway. Yeah. Do you guys often get clients that just, I already know the answer to this, but they just think they're so smart and they cleverly covered things up, but they're dumb as a box of rocks? Just remember the average IQ's 100. Most of the clients are dumber than that. Right. And, like, I mean, I'm trained to cross-examine, so I can subtly cross-examine a client

and figure that out. You know the story of the guy robbed a bank and he rubbed lemon juice on his face. Oh my God. Because he was told that lemon juice is used in disappearing ink. And so he thought that by rubbing lemmage's in his face, the camera wouldn't see his face. So instead of wearing a mask, he just wiped lemmages in his face. That's sad.

He's that dumb. That's sad. We'll just believe it. That's sad. Like, maybe you look good. We actually have in. So in Georgia, we still have mental retardation as a defense. Really?

That word. Yes. That naughty word. You know, I just realized, Ian can kill anyone he wants because all he needs to do is make the jury watch any episode of the show. Well, that's what I keep thinking about. If I keep thinking about it, if I get five doctors to stay out of the six-foot different medicines and they don't know, then I can be like, hey, nobody's at fault.

Are the doctor's going to get charged for negligence for over-prescribing Lindsay Clancy? Well, you know, they sued. I don't know if you saw her. So Patrick sued the doctors for medical malpractice. Which is just civil? And they get hit with criminal charges? In the future, Ian's going to be on trial for triple homicide. Call me.

And the defense is going to be like, ladies and gentlemen, that you're, I'd like to play you this compilation from Timcast Eye rounds. 10 minutes long and it explains that. Clearly insane. He is just clearly insane. They're going to watch it and they're going to be like, not guilty. I don't understand what he was saying. The man needs help.

I can't convict. Well, no, you asked that. I pulled it up less than 1% of cases and in an insanity verdict. So, I mean, it is about to go up. And also, I think four. No, three don't have it. Yeah. I think it's three.

Something like that. The most, it's very rare to get more than three mistrials, but there have been documents of four trials. How many states have no contact? A lot of them? Yeah, they just call it different things. Oh, okay. But that's only really for traffic cases.

No contest. Like, if you get a traffic ticket and you just don't want to go to court, so you just want to pay it but you don't want to plead guilty, you plea no contest. Nolo contendre, that's the Latin term. You're not admitting guilt, but you're saying, I'll pay it. But you know what they all have. Batteries, stuff like that. They all have something called Alford versus North Carolina.

Alfred plea is different. Oh, yeah, yeah. What's that? We've talked about that before. Yeah, Alfred plea is where you admit guilt, but you're not admitting to the facts that the state basically believes. So like you're saying that you think the state will convict you and you want to take a plea and be sentenced, but you're not agreeing to what they said you did. So somehow, so like maybe I killed her, but I didn't mean to kill her. I killed her with the knife instead of the gun.

And the state thinks I killed her with a life. A lot of times it's a way of taking care of the criminal stuff without opening yourself up to civil liability. Have you guys ever watched Better Call Saul? Yeah. You know the scene where he's defending the liquor store robber and then he asked the defendant, can you point out the person? He's like, right there's like, would you be surprised? if I told you that's actually not the defendant. Would you please stand?

He's in the back of the courtroom. I feel like that's exculpatory. Yeah. The witness misidentified a guy. I had that happen once. It's allowed? So it's been 20 years. It was one of my first trials.

I had an armed robbery and my client had been in jail for three years. And my client was tiny. And all of the police reports were this like tall guy had robbed three different stores like CVS, Walgreens. And I was like, it's not the right guy. It's not the right guy. So we get into trial. My client's been in jail for three years. and the victim is up on the stand,

and the prosecutor's like, can you identify the guy that robbed you in the courtroom? And it was the longest, like, two minutes of my life. This guy is like, and he goes back and he's like, nope. It's not here. And I literally was like, get up. So I dragged my client up.

I stand him in front of him. I'm like, look, and he's like, that's not him. And I was like, it was crazy. Wow. Yeah, it really happened. It was one of those TV moments. But what if you did a stunt like that? Would that be like a mistrial?

or like, what would that do? No, and the judge going to hold you in contempt. Well, we used to have, so we don't really have lineups anymore, but we used to have lineups. And so we had all this misidentification happen all the time. And that used to be a theory. Like, you would have someone else who kind of looked like the guy sit at your table and then see if the witness could actually pick the right person could actually pick the right. Oh, wow. Stand-ups.

That's even worse. That's just, the cops just, something happens on the street and a cruiser's driving around looking, just grabs the suspect and drags him over by the window and is this him. And of course, the person was just beat up or whatever. They're like, yeah, I guess so. It's another black guy. Geez. Yeah, it's awful. Yeah.

They don't really do those that much anymore. Wow. I know. I know. It's crazy. Well, I think Richie's right. Everyone's crazy now.

Yeah. You know what's going to happen? Every single, every gangbanger in Chicago is going to go get a psych evaluation right now. And they're going to be like, oh, doc, there's elephants everywhere. And they're telling me to burn things. They're like, this guy's crazy. They're not going to believe it because in this case, so filicide, like we were talking about earlier. When you kill your kids, there's studies that the most common reason you kill your kids is some hallucination, some altruistic thing.

I was looking it up at the break. Like it's, and this was interesting in the Lindsay Clancy trial. So the guy that wrote the book on this was Lindsay Clancy's expert. Philip Reznik, he's like, he's the one that wrote the book on what's called altruistic philicide. And he says that there's five motivations for a woman killing their kids. Altruism, acutely psychotic, fatal maltreatment, unwanted child, or spouse revenge. So we know we don't have unwanted child, no spouse revenge, no fatal maltreatment. That's where you like starve them.

so it's acutely psychotic or altruistic. Altruistic is like you think you're saving them. So you combine those. So throw them in jail. If they think they're saving them and they kill them, throw them in jail. So what were they again? Altruistic, acutely psychotic. So real quick.

Altruistic is like I was saving my kids from hell. Psychotic is just like the dark lord told me to do it. What's the other one? Spousal revenge. Fatal maltreatment, which is like you starve your kid. Yeah. Unwanted child and spouse revenge. Would it would altruism?

Would it fall under altruism if they were like, my child is possessed by the devil and was too dangerous and had to be stopped? I think it would. So what he's saying, he's the expert, and, you know, Lindsay Clancy got him. So altruistic occurs when a parent believes the world is too cruel for the child, or because the child is enduring suffering, real or perceived. Because I... And it's often entwined with intended suicide.

A mother who is suicidal may not want to leave her children motherless in a cruel world. And that's exactly what they say. Remember that... Joseph Goebbels did with his kids before they took over... Hitler's bunker. He had made sure they all took cyanide pills so that they weren't captured by the allies murdered his family. But remember that Twilight Zone? Crazy. And he also killed himself. Well, that might have been rational because the Soviets would have done horrible things. But who's coming up with all these categories? Isn't it just some kind of like Freudian pseudoscience?

It's a forensic psychiatry. Yeah. I took AP psych in high school and it's all a bunch of BS. I mean, I mean, you can't like we were talking earlier. You can't take a flu test or a COVID test and there's no like positive, you know? That's what I was saying. Can we recreate this psychosis and a scientific setting. Then it's not real. So what you know what we call is? We call them the soft sciences. Pretty soft, if you ask me.

It sounds like the altruistic arguments just sounds like a very late abortion. That's what it sounds like to me. Well, that was one of the ones where it said unwanted child. It's like, well, the world is so bad. Also, this is the meme. The alchism is usually with some type of psychosis. The meme is that when we started getting this advocacy for at birth abortions, conservatives were like, the next thing they're going to say is they can kill their kids,

and then you get Lindsay Clanson. And here we are. Yeah, exactly. She's nothing new. I mean, think about it. But it's- Andrea Yates, what, 20 years ago? Like this is support.

I'm telling you. The support. The argument is this. It never, it's never from the top to the bottom. It's a gradient. Meaning you get massive, widespread support,

the women versus, and Lindsay Clemsy versus the world. And they're arguing, she did nothing wrong. She was suffering and she was drugged. And this is pushing, pushing the Overton window over. So eventually, you get,

well, yes, she should be locked away because what she did. next when you get a woman who gives birth and then kills the baby right away, they're going to argue, but this is no different than an at-birth abortion, so, and they're going to keep moving that line. Well, you know, in Canada, they do that. So they treat the philicide, killing of a child who's eight months of age or younger as less severe than of the child or older. Oh, my God.

That's nuts. That's insane. That's insane. Earlier you said that the criminal justice system is about deterrence, not punishment. It's supposed to be. When did they decide that? Because I want punishment. I know.

Well, theoretically. from England, it's supposed to be deterrence. Because we want a safer society. We're not supposed to be punitive. We really are punitive in reality. But in theory, it's supposed to be about making the world safer. We're supposed to have police that prevent crime, not just prosecute it, you know, in theory. We just don't really do that anymore.

I think that anybody... No. How would they prevent crime? They'd have to be there ahead of time. It'd have to be doing community police. Well, they do. In cities, there's a lot of crime prevention if you're doing community policing. If you're present in the community, people tend to not come out and do the crime in your face.

Tend to. I mean, it does work. but they do it a block over. Right. I think we don't have enough psychological manipulation of criminals. I think we need to take a page out of the UK's book, and anybody who supported Lindsay Clancy on the internet, they should go to their house and arrest them and be like,

you're not mentally stable. Sorry. Well, no, all the women who defended Lindsay Clancy claiming that Patrick did it are doing it because they plan to murder their kids. Yeah, exactly. Arrest them. Jail. Everybody jail.

They're going to be like, I'm clearly crazy. Look what I was posting on the internet. Round them up. But I don't like this. It's the rhetoric that she got drugged. Because I think she chose to drug herself. And then she did crazy things after she chose to do that to herself. So, I mean, it's all her.

Hey, you're like, whoa, like if Richie shoots Ian, it's a crime. But if he takes drugs first, he's not guilty. Well, that's why they didn't get that charge. Yeah. The judge said no, because Kevin Redington tried that one, tried the, you know, involuntary manslaughter. And the judge was like, no. That was ridiculous.

Was it court, like, documented that she was drugged and not that she, She drugged herself. We don't even know how many drugs she was taking. We know how many drugs she was prescribed. It was 13 or 14 different medications. But they have all the bottles and most of them are full. Most of them are missing one or two tablets. Here's a question.

What if the voice was real? I'm not saying like, what if somebody literally was, like intending her to drive her crazy and drove her to it? Or demons. She thought it was real. That's the whole thing. No, no, I'm saying for criminal culpability is a-

Yeah, it was a command solution. If you keep hearing someone say, do it or else, do it now, do you have a defense for there as a voice? And then they find out there was a speaker secretly implanted in a guy was actually doing it. They had technology that actually can do that. You can put a voice into your head without other people hearing it and vibrates your skull. It's like metaglases. The voice of God. Well, it's with the Alred device, we can project sound.

But we also have lasers. So like talking plasma, Ian mentions, you can have a laser hit a wall and then create a high frequency sound. But just back to the legal question, because I'm curious, if they discovered, like let's say in the middle of the trial, they found evidence that there was a speaker in her couch that was actually transmitting a recording saying, kill your kids. Would that be a legal defense? Would you get off? Could you get off? Can it induce psychosis? Right? If she had psychosis, then she doesn't have criminal culpability. Well, it's not a question of psychosis. What if she said, I kept hearing a voice and I was telling people, he told me I was crazy. And then only now did they find a speaker was actually particular in the voice. And I wasn't. crazy the whole time, but I thought I was, is she going to get, is there a defense there? There's a defense. It just depends on the jury. But I'm, I do, you can put that defense up, without a doubt. You could put up, because is there, it's like a legal doctrine for this, like, you were coerced. It would be the criminal responsibility. Because there's nothing

that says, like the flu, you know, there's nothing that says you're, you're insane. So you don't have to have, like, a documented long mental illness. That could be something that was triggered some type of psychosis or something. Here's a question we brought up on the show the other day. And, um, our assessment was that you're responsible for killing someone even if you're threatened to do so. But I'd like to get clarification from actual experts. If Richie put a, like took Ian's loved one and then said, if you don't murder this person, I will murder your family member. Is Ian criminally responsible for that murder? That's self-defense, defense of self or others. No, no, no, no. No, no. Well, it depends on how, it depends on how close in time it is to the

situation. Is he holding the gun to his head and saying, I'll kill him if you don't? Like he gets a call and there's Richie with a gun to Ian's mom's head saying, I want you to shoot, breaker right now where I kill your mom. And then Ian goes, no, I'll do it. And he kills him. Is Ian responsible for killing Andrew? I would argue, yes.

I thought the other party is responsible in their own way for their criminal conduct and inducing that, coercion coercing that. But you're not going to get, the legal system's not going to apply a lesser value on my life than on that other person's life. And the law they're both equal value lives.

I would, I have a duress defense. It's like heat of passion. You've probably heard the defense where, you know, a husband goes in and his wife's cheating on him and then, you know, in the heat of passion, he kills the guy. Like, it's a lesser included.

I think, and I'm not saying it's, he's still culpable. Yeah, he's so culpable. It's just not like first degree. It would be, it would be like a man.

In my, in my opinion, if you are threatened with the harm of a loved one, unless you kill another person, the charge should be greater. Yeah. Well, it should be substantially greater.

Why? deterrence. We're not talking about an issue of insanity, which I understand you're not going to deter a crazy person. But if you are told, like someone says, hey, I'm going to harm your family member unless you kill the man in front of you right now. But I'm thinking, I will be, I will get a, like, the things they will do to me are so substantially worse, I can't do it.

Right. It shouldn't be, I feel like when you say, what are they going to do worse to you than your kid dying? Right. Well, your kid dying. Do you care? I mean, do you care if you get a prison? No, I'm going to save my kid.

See, this is the challenge. I don't care. I'm going to save my kid. Oh, I have, how many people would you murder to save your kid? Yeah. Thousand? I mean. That's why there's degrees of duress.

Right. Like, I would, yeah. I mean, that's an interesting question. I mean, you have a kid too. If Xi Jinping kidnapped your kid and was like, now your kid will die and the only thing you could do is launch a nuke and wipe out all of China to save your kid, would you do it? Yes.

Oh my God. I would. tough, right? You're my kid? I'd do anything. I'd die from, I mean, I'd, if they said. You'd appoint him at Burisma? Huh?

Your kid? Would you appoint him on the board of Burisma? No, that's not cool. No, no, no. How far would you go to save your kid? Only if they give me 10%. See, that's an entirely different. The gunman in this metaphor has a gun literally to your head.

I would say, shoot the guy or I'm going to shoot you in the head. And he does shoot the guy. Does he go to prison for murder or do I? As the duresser. That's the question I was asking. But it's even more. It's not, I'm going to go after your kid. It's I'm going to end your life.

Oh, right. You'd both be charged. You'd both be charged. You'd be charged. Okay. Richie? You're on a space ship with a bunch of aliens. And the aliens have the glorblot device up to your kid's head.

And they say, destroy the earth or we kill your child. Done. So it's all a matter of legal arguments, right? So he would be subject to being charged. His legal defense would be the defense of duress. Yeah. And he could be acquitted on that basis. And he's a subject to being charged means he may not even get charged.

Sure. Prosecutors can always not charge. I think about soldiers when they're given an order to go massacre village, search and destroy, like they don't go to prison for it. I'm not sure they're off an order to massacre village. They'd be more settled than that. What's that? Massacre village.

Well, they say search and destroy, everything that moves. They're all Viet Cong, you know, there's no questioning it. And you go and you do the job. You realize they were just kids. Oh, you're going to jail. Listen, Ian. They're only violating the laws of the country they're in, but it doesn't matter.

U.S. is going to get them out. No, no, Ian, you misunderstand. If I'm like, let's say I'm like a commanding officer, right? and you're the guy flying the helicopter and I say, I want you to fire missiles and blow up that village. And then you're like, oh, man, who goes to jail? You do, because I throw you under the bus. And I deny it.

I never told him to do that. And then the chain of command set... The captain apparently ordered it. The lieutenant carried out the order and told his troops. The troops did it. And then the captain denied it giving... Of course. Of course.

And the soldiers get off. Captains. Oh, my God. The M-L-I-M-I-M-M-L-A-I. My-L-I. My-L-I. My-L-I. And the captain, the lieutenant...

The lieutenant. and the soldiers testified that the captain gave the order multiple times it was screaming. Go, we don't have time for this. Go, finish it off. And then they threw the lieutenant on the plus. You guys know the story of the coup in Turkey? I think this was like 10 years ago. So a bunch of Turkish soldiers went to the Basferst Bridge.

And then all of a sudden this battle ensued. There's like a helicopter shooting at people. And the media reported that these soldiers were attempting to stage a coup against Erdogan, who was traveling out of the country. He turned around and came back. then they arrested all a bunch of scholars and politicians. The conspiracy theory is that, and I don't even think it's actually a conspiracy theory, I think there's some evidence that may be the case, but I'm not entirely sure.

I'm not from Turkey. These were low-level, like, you know, just low-ranking soldiers in the Turkish army who were ordered by the higher-ups that there was a terror attack and we need you to secure the bridge. They had no intention of staging a coup. They were just told. Oh, my gosh. The theory is that Erdogan wanted the coup attempt so we could round up his political

adversaries and remove them from power, including academics. So they send a bunch of soldiers to the bridge, dumb as a boxer ox and clueless, thinking we're here to guard the bridge. Then the media says, they're staging a coup. Civilians came out and beat them to death and dragged their bodies. Yeah. Wow. Yep.

So they're always going to throw the bottom guy. Here's the thing. Anything can be a defense in this country if the judge lets me argue it. Really? Pretty much. Pretty much. What's an example of that being kind of a greedier? Like, what's the craziest thing?

Like the craziest defense? like the crazy thing a judge has let you do or someone you've seen. Well, they usually don't. That's the thing. They try to curb it. But I mean, a lot of times, a lot of cases you've got to defense

like ignorance of the law. Like maybe you didn't know or maybe they didn't know their age. That happens a lot. I mean, there's a fine line. Like in Georgia, just for example, 16 is the age of consent for sex. 18 is the age of consent for pictures.

This is not a popular subject, but it's a very interesting one. That's weird. Yeah. So you can have sex with a 16-year-old and it's not a crime. But if you take a picture of her, then it's a crime.

Yeah. Take a naked picture. A lot of people don't know this. Audio recording of the sex. Nope, can't do that either. That's a crime. These things are always recording. That is sexual exploitation.

This thing is recording. I know it's not a popular. I'm using it as an example. They're not, then go after Google for recording sex with the minor? They should because it's sexual exploitation of a child. They should. This is actually pretty crazy that most people don't realize

the average age of consent, I think is 16 in the United States? Yeah, it's 16. They think it's 18. It's not. No, they don't. Well, a lot of people think it's 16 and then they get in trouble. I have a lot of these cases where they're like,

oh, well, I had sex with a 17-year-old. Oh, but I took a picture of her boobs and then there. It's sexual exploitation, that is. But that's one of the ones where, so for a judge, you would want to argue, but it's legal to have sex with her, but I can't take pictures of her. You'd want to be able to argue that.

I know a guy who got convicted of that. Oh, I have a ton of clients on that. A competitive shooter. Yeah, he was an older guy. He was in his 40s, and somehow he was hooking up with really young girls. So it's gross anyway. All of them are gross.

But he didn't get convicted. for having sex with her. He got convicted because they took some pictures while they were doing it. Yeah. Yeah. What if she took pictures? Like what if the- Same thing.

Still a crime. That I'm like. If she took pictures of him? Yeah. Yeah. But she's the younger one. Yeah. So as long if he sends them to her, like she sends them if they transmit them and enjoy.

Wait, wait. So 20-year-old and 16-year-old hookup, 16-year-old female takes pictures of it and then sends it to him. Yeah. And he responds with, this is how dare you, this is wrong. don't do this. I'm going to report. This is the police. He goes to jail. Possession of child pornography. Even though he reported it and saying this was sent to me.

So in the federal system, if you reported immediately, you can have a defense. You still get charged, but you have a defense. But most state courts, you don't have a defense. Anybody can text you anything at any point. Yep. In the federal system, so I actually have had experts that went to see if my client downloaded it and how long they looked at the image because I've had clients that were sent stuff that are like, you know, like when it really happens is if you download porn. You know, you download 20 images and maybe one of them is an underage,

but you didn't actually try to download someone underage. If you delete it really quick, that's a defense in federal court, but it's not in state court. So this is why this comes up. What will happen is you'll have some people who collect child porn, they don't have one or two images. Yeah, they have thousands of images. They have hard drives full of this stuff. And it'll be a pastor to church, and he'll have a computer problem and someone will try to help him with the computer and discover all the child porn. And the pastor will go, oh, my God, I had no idea that was there.

I'm insane. I was doing it actually. Exactly. Oh, no. Someone just sent it to me, oopsie. Wait, wait, wait, wait, did you guys see the recent ruling that artificial intelligence, AI generated images of children is legal so long as it's not real? What's going on with that?

Have you followed that at all? I have. It's weird. I mean, I get it from the defense standpoint because the theory on child porn, why it's illegal, is because the kids are harmed making it. So if kids aren't harmed, there's technically no harm. But as a society, we think it's gross. So.

Yeah, it's not that uncommon, actually. This used to come up before AI because people would do drawings. Was that illegal? It varies from jurisdiction. So Ian brought this up and he had concerns that, like, what if someone draws a picture? So what if, like, one of the things that people do is they draw children but call them elves. And it's like very obvious that they're making preview best and little girls, but it's an elf. Well, you put it in front of a jury and ask them how they feel about it.

Yeah. Well, so then it's like, okay, like where, the challenge. is for me I actually think it's pretty simple like lock them up yeah like there's we have moralities we make these right we have moral lines for illegality like on the flock camera debate you know some people are like we have to allow flock cameras to defend the first amendment my answer is no we have moral lines on different subjects right different subjects yeah but the concern that people bring up is like where is the line then if it's a clearly a child but a pig's head right right is it then gonna constitute yeah

for me i'm kind of like yep you know like i don't care like stop playing games we know what you're trying to do and why you're doing it. If it's AI, like it's, I mean, the law as it is right now, no, it's not going to be illegal. The problem with the AI law is that how do you then determine what is real and what isn't? I know. And how, as a person, how do you, how do you comply with the law? I mean, the answer is just don't have child porn, whether it's real or not, but. But do you think that this will get overturned and they'll be like, no, you can't do it? No. Well, I think that they're going to, I think that it's, yes, I think they're not going to be allowed to criminalize AI porn. So, so, to my, to clarify, a judge ruled, you can't criminalize it's not a real person.

Yes. It's going, it's, is that going to be appealed? Like is the prosecution? Probably, but I think it will laugh. I think it'll stand. I bet they could criminalize it. It's just the state police power. They can say, hey, we allow these images to go out.

Even if they're artificial, it just encourages Pitos to be more interested in kids. Plus, like the likeness, I mean, you can have a photo of a kid on some mom's Instagram and then, you know, turn that into whatever. That's a big fear. Woodchipper is the answer. I start to criminalize the intent of creating it, just the data that would turn into code later that might produce the picture of not a real person. And that's so dangerous because that data could use

for other things. This is why I think people should be criminalized for putting their kids on the internet. Yeah? Without their consent. Oh, yeah. And for their own social media cloud. It's just a slippery slip.

That should be a criminal offense. Patrick of Ohio asks, how do we, so now we need to prove the child as a person or not? I know. They already do. They have to actually prove. already. That's a real person.

We've had to prove for years that. They've always had to prove that. They've proved the years and the age. So it's really crazy. It's they actually have like known images and the hashtag data for it and they can prove it. And here's the thing. When you talk about child porn, everybody is like, this is disgusting. Nobody likes it.

I mean, obviously it's disgusting. We want to criminalize it. We want it to be bad. But then you think about like what you were talking about. Do you make the creator? What if, you know, someone created it and they didn't know it was a child? I mean, there are certain defenses to it. I see.

Have you guys... ...criminalizing data in general then is like a slippery slope towards criminalizing, you know, schematics for 3D printed guns. Which they've tried to do. Yeah. And that's super risky. Right. Have you guys seen that woman who's like in her late 20s, but she's got a genetic disorder

that makes her look like she's seven years old? No. And she's like a TV show. And there's like a guy dating her and everyone's like, it's pretty messed up because, I mean, this woman is in her late 20s. She wants to have a family. But no matter who she's with, that person is like basically a Bito. Okay.

So let me ask you this. So what is worse to you? That someone of age having sex with someone who looked like a seven-year-old or having sex with someone who is actually 13, but they look like they're 27. Both. I feel like it's equal. Like the problem is I kind of, I sympathize this poor woman. Right. Because she's dating a guy that everyone is calling a pedophile.

And it's part of the show where it's like when he leans down and they kiss, people start yelling at him. and like they get in trouble. But she's in her late 20s and she has every right to live her life. Yeah. But I'm like, like, with all due respect to this poor woman, any guy that wants to be in that relationship.

No. The luckiest pedophile in the world, I guess. Some of the guy called Hasbula, that Michael, Mike Tyson famously was wrestling. He thought he was a little kid. He's like in his 20s. I think a lot of it is the perception of youth that is criminalized.

Because they don't really, like you said, if the woman's 16 or 15, but she looks like she's 23, no one's going to, I mean, they might, the legal team might use it as an opportunity to crush someone, but no one would even realize that it might be a crime to begin with. Right. Yeah, but nobody gets in trouble for that. No one gets in trouble because they have a picture of a cheerleader who happens to be 15 years old. The pictures, these, I have friends in the FBI who work these cases, and the images, they're all kids, they're all obviously kids. They're awful. There's thousands of them. This is not some

incidental someone has a, you know, on the edge kind of photos. You know, you know, you know, I have to say, The term rape is so vague. There's violent rape, forcing sex against someone against their will. And then there's a guy's 20 and a girl's 17. And it's not rape. It's a different word should be used. Statutory rape is too hard. Date rape is we don't even get me started because we don't have date rape in most states.

Like it's such a different offense. It needs a different word like like stat. Like we need to stop treating it to see. Especially after me too. It's insane how many people are just because of that. I'm wondering why we haven't. seen like, actually, I'm sorry, no, we have seen some of these things where these like pito catchers get a wrong guy or a random guy. There was one. It's a real risk. Yeah. I see those

videos all the time, of course, and they grab some dude. It's like, what have you got the wrong dude? Well, this happened. They were, uh, apparently this, the woman they were using, so this woman was running accounts and stinging guys. Yeah. And she made a mistake. On one of the accounts, she never said she was underage. So the young guy went to meet up with her, thought he was meeting someone of age. She then tells her team, no, look, I told him I was a minor. And he's like, that's not my account.

Oh, because they're doing like 100 at the same time. Yeah. And so the guy was like, here's the messages. She said she was older and her account says 21 or whatever. And then they, I think, ended up suing them and they ended up suing them in trouble. Wow. Well, it's a good way to get shot. Yeah.

Right? If you grab the wrong guy and he sees three or four big dudes start shoving them around. Yeah. Some of these videos are crazy because they'll like, they'll walk into the store where the guy's supposed to meet the kid and they're beating the crap out of them. And then people are just saying there watching it. It's like, I get it. You know what I mean? But the, well, I mean, look, most of the time they're not the wrong dude. I'm not going to advocate for anything. But if you're in public and you're beating a guy, you got to be careful. Someone's going to shoot you. Yeah. This is what I was, who was I was just talking to somebody about like criminal trials and, and I, and, and, and, and, and. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. I said, imagine, and everybody knows, especially like you guys in criminal defense, imagine there's two guys in a park, and then one guy picks up a rock and chucks at the other guy's head, and the guy dodges, then the guy grabs another rock and says, I'm going to kill you. Then you walk up and see the victim draws gun and shoot and kill the other person. You just watched a guy shoot a guy, right?

So you call the police and they say, what happened? Like, that guy just shot that guy. And there's no witness to say, actually, the guy with the gun is like he was threatening to murder. murder me, had a rock in his hand, and he was throwing him at me. But, so people will come up and they will see after the fact, and they don't understand who's the aggressor. Actually,

that's Kenosha in a nutshell, if we hadn't been there, you know? I mean, people would have made the argument that he did just... They claimed written house killed three black guys. They still say it to the state. I get that all the time. Four flock cameras is the transparency of crime, but what do you guys... No, no, no, no. Hold on. The flock cameras are not filming everything 24-7. Many of them are like low-frame,

like nine frame per second. The condors are video cameras. They could pick it up. But what's ethically do you guys think about condor or flock cameras? Oh, I hate them. I hate them,

but I will say they have exonerated many people. I hate the surveillance, but in the criminal world, it's very helpful to have those. I mean, I used to do work for this company that had trucks. This was years ago.

They would, it was like the gas company, you know, and they had the trucks that went around and fixed stuff, and they would get in accidents. And every time they got in an accident, they would end up being sued. So they thought it,

was cheaper to hire me to go defend all of them. Well, they had dash cams. I will tell you not once did the dash cam match what the police found. So every single time the police would make a charge, they would charge someone with causing the accident. And every single time when I would pull the dash cam, it would say complete opposite. So they would believe whoever got in the accident, you know, the other person, and disbelieve the commercial driver, the driver of the truck. And every single time the dash cam proved that my driver was innocent. I mean, they obviously have you killed me. They can exonerate people. They're capturing video. They'll capture video of the occasional crime.

That'll help solve the crime. To me, it's a public policy question. I mean, we could put a cop up everyone's ass too, right? That would stop a lot of crime. Put a drone on a movie. We want to live that way. Yeah, like that's the problem. I don't want to live that way.

Nope. Nobody does. Yeah. But a cop in every house, right? You've got a cop living in your house. It's going to help stop crime. But nobody wants to live like that. You'd be shocked, though, now we're getting a lot of ring camera videos.

Like, it's insane how many ring cameras. And I'll have one case and I'll have like five ring cameras because people will catch little bits and pieces of things the arguments. It's very interesting. That's also along the argument of like some crime is good. Like some law is evil. In like the Nazis, for instance, they made things legal that were evil. And then they would go and round up Jews and it was legal. So the crime would be to lie to the authorities and say, I don't have Jews in my house. And then you save these people's lives. So there are instances where you need to let people get a law to fix the system.

I mean, imagine how flog cameras would have come down. If there was a million flock cameras during COVID. Yeah, of course. in Britain I heard So these things all have utility but the question is you always have to think to yourself if I'm going to create this tremendous power right

and it's not just that it's a camera it's that everything is recorded and networked and searchable it's the scale changes everything right a bucket of water is one problem a tsunami is a different problem right they're both water but the scale is very different

if you're going to give this power to somebody you have to ask yourself all right I'm not worried about giving it to that dude he's going to do the right thing with it But he's not in the job forever. Someone else gets the job. Someone else gets controlled. Not to change the subject, but the J6 pipe bomber,

we have the FBI released one minute of footage of like choppy, black and white footage because the feds are in control of who sees the footage. So there are definitely thousands and thousands of images of this pipe bomber walking around D.C. And yet they get to control what everybody sees. Same thing with January 6th. So if the feds are in control with that of the cops, it's like, oh, but, you know, I trust them. I don't. Sorry.

Right. If this power was in the hands of my worst enemy, what could they do to me? Exactly. No, but the truth is, if I had the power, I would be altruistic. Yeah. Yes, beneficent.

So don't, don't destroy flock cameras, but definitely if you do destroy flock cameras here. I would love to give, you know, if someone said, you know, like if like a being came to me and said, we're going to allow you to give one person supreme authority and ultimate power of Earth. I'd be like, Ian, hands down.

Hands down. And then you take a bunch of meds and kill everybody. No, no, I don't know. You got to build a better system. This is where I want the Chinese to do is set up a republic so they can go down. And the Iranians, too, like, they need a republic. They call it the people's republic of China. And the Iranian Republic, they need to actually make a republic and let go of the power.

We're heading in the opposite. I hit that back. I wouldn't give you in the power because he'd, like, give it to a dog or something. I don't want. Well, what we need to do is decentralize the authority somehow. But if you give everyone access to the flock, I feel like there's this thing called like a Constitution or something that we could... Richie, if you had...

You ever said that movie with... What's his face? Ricky Jervase, I think? No, no, no, no, it's not Ricky Jervase. It's, um... Who's the guy from Sean of the Dead? Oh, I know, yeah. Simon Pegg.

Yeah. You ever said the movie... Hot Fuzz? You ever said the movie where he gets... It's called Absolutely Anything I think it's called. Absolutely Anything I think it's called. Where he gets, aliens give him reality warping powers. At the end, he...

gives it to his dog. Oh. Yeah, he's like, oh, nobody should have this, and he gives it the dog. The dog is Robin Williams, I guess. Oh, am I the dog in this situation? No, I'm saying, how many people would you kill if you had that power?

Anybody who messed up. You guys know what Death Note is? Yeah. I don't think I've heard it, but I don't remember. The anime? You guys know? I do, yeah. Oh, it's anime.

Manga into anime, but that's how they all go. So, high school kid finds a notebook. There's grim reapers. In Japanese, it's called Shinigami, Death God. and one of them comes up so death gods can write your name down

and whatever life you had left they get so they live in this death god realm where they just write down people's names and write their cause of death so this one he's got two

because you know happenstance he drops it to see what happens in the human world high school kid finds it and he's like an honor student and he decides he writes a guy's name down

the guy dies like holy crap this is real so he decides he's going to kill every criminal in the plan on earth, all from heart attacks so that everybody recognizes a pattern has emerged and that someone is killing everybody and that's an intentional act.

What would you guys do with it? How does he know they're a criminal though? See, that's, now you're getting to the philosophy of death note. Because like if he watches too much CNN. That's what he did. He would watch TV and pull up, and he would watch TV and then see. Which network? So in the, in the anime, you have to know what they look like and know their name.

And you have to, you have to be thinking about that specific person that, that we don't accidentally kill people with different names. He then got access because his dad was a cop to police records and he would use that. But aside from that, if you had a notebook that you could write on anybody's name and kill them, how many people would you kill? Oh, my God, nobody. We used to kill a lot. He's seen his eyes like, quite a bit.

He's like a lot. I got a long list. The 13, 14, 1,500s in Europe, they would, every year they'd kill 1% of their population. Trump, the worst psychopaths, you know, the- Trump is in it, actually. They would execute them. Trump is actually in it. That's what contributed to the Western civilization being a high-

trust society. We killed off all the low trust people. So after, Death Note's one of the most popular anime and manga of all time. Whoa. And then this was, I think, Donald Trump. It is. Monkey Trump. So something like, I don't know, seven years after the end, or maybe like 10 years after the end of Death Note, they did a one shot, which is like an epilogue, where some kid finds the notebook. And then, I'm sorry, I think Riyuk gives the kid the death note, like, we're going to do this again. But the kids, stupid and he's like, I'm not going to use this. I'm going to sell it. So then he publicly announces the world somehow like the internet that it's for sale. It's actually really great writing.

And then everyone's like stupid. There's no way you can collect the money. The moment they find out who has it, you're done. So what he does is he says, you know, Donald Trump offers like a trillion dollars for the death note so they can kill anybody they want. And he says, deposit five million dollars in the bank account of every Japanese citizen. And then I'll transfer the death note to you. So that way they can't figure out who the beneficiary is because he's like, everyone in Japan will get the same benefit as me, but we'll all be rich. And so then Trump buys it and Trump has the death. And then he kills everybody in Japan. I don't remember exactly what happened. But they don't call him Trump, but it's very obviously Trump. Yeah. Oh, it's clear. Wow. Yeah. To be fair to light

Yagami, he did kill a lot of convicted criminals too. Mostly they were convicted, but then he started just killing people accused that were on the TV. Yeah, yeah, he went overboard. It's kind of an argument for monarchy or feudal aristocracy. Like if you think about a family that's groomed to just care about the long-term well-being of that nation, rather than changing of power every four years or whatever term. Now, here's the other thing, too, so long in the in the in the show, so long as their death is within the realm of physical possibility, you can direct how they die, however you want. So, for example, if you say a guy in New York tomorrow will die in Los Angeles, that's impossible. So he'll have a heart attack.

If the cause of death that as written cannot be carried out as written because it's physically impossible, they just have a heart attack. Would you be like, I want an albatross to carry him 600 yards out into the ocean? No, because an albatross can't lift a human. But what light does is he says, he says like the prison inmate stabs himself and then writes in his own blood on the wall and then dies and it happens. This is it. I don't like it because crime does not equal evil. There's so many criminals that and then that's just not even the argument about. about something shouldn't be illegal that are illegal. Not a single person.

What's that? That's why we have a legal system. Yeah. But I mean like there are people who are evil. Yeah, I wouldn't. Who are going to kill, like in self-defense, you wouldn't stop somebody. You know, like you wouldn't kill anybody. Well, if it was in self-defense, but I wouldn't be able to do that on the note. No, no, let's put this way.

Let me ask you, you're in a convenience store. Yeah. And you just have to be carrying your beautiful SCAR 20S and it's fully decked out, 30-round mag. And a guy comes in and he puts a gun. to the old lady clerk's head and says, I'd kill him. And you'd shoot him dead.

100%. Now, what happens if you are across the street and you got your scar 20 ass fully decked out? You can hit him from there. You're going to do it, right? If I could do it from across the street. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Perfect.

Now you're on a rooftop, you know, 500 feet out. And you see the guy point the gun and pull the hammer back. And you've got the scar 20s. They're fantastic. It's 3.08. You take them out. Yes.

Now you're watching on TV, a hostage situation, and there's a guy with a knife to the throat of a child, and he's digging it in, and you have the notebook. And they're like, John Smith right now is about to kill this child. At the same time. And you're watching on TV.

Oh, yeah, I do it then. And then you write like, you guys. Or like abstract. If it's actually right there and I can prevent it from happening, yeah. But like you're watching on TV a thousand miles away and you have the notebook. So let's say that there's like. Saving a life, right? Yeah, you're saving a life.

That's the self. It's right. It's at the same time. Exactly. Where's the limit? You know? Driving recklessly. What if someone's driving recklessly and you have a drone watching them and you can open fire on the car and you see.

Hold on. I don't want to deviate. So I'm trying to go somewhere with this. I don't want deviate. So my next question was obviously international conflict, foreign affairs war, right? So we find out

that a strike is about to be carried out on, you know, somewhere. Would you be like, I'm going to stop this and write the name of a foreign world leader or whatever? Yeah. Like Vladimir Putin's about to invade Ukraine. Yeah, because I would be saving lives.

I think that's completely fine. Or what if they're about to bomb a school in Iran? Who's about to? The United States? Russia or the United States? Well, that, I mean, that actually. So here's the, here's the, right. So who am I, who's on my death list?

You don't know who's controlling the drone. You're going to stop. You know what I mean? But I'm saying you've got Putin declares, like we're sending troops into eastern Ukraine. Would you write Putin down? Yeah. But what if that's going to kill them right then?

Yeah. What if it triggers World War III? You got to run out a lot of names at that point. You know, just writing them down like crazy. It just never ends. Well, that's why I don't want that power. You know, that's the whole point. I need to know everything.

I need to know exactly who I was killing and what the effects were from that. It's tough and kind of tried to go down that road of killing all the bad guys. Yeah, it doesn't work. It doesn't work very well. That's why I'm like there's a fine line. So in your other examples, it was all immediate.

It's like self-defense. Am I having to do it for self-defense right there? Yeah. But if I'm making a calculated decision, I'm going to kill these people to save the world, that's different. It's got to be immediate to me. It's just, when you get to that scale,

you don't know that you're actually saving the world when you do this, you know. And I'm lucky that I'm not in that position so I don't have to make those choices, you know? Although technically I think that because the window for the death note is 28 days, you could write every world leader's name, all come together, go on TV, and declare world peace. Because you can control their actions before they die, you'd have to sacrifice them to have them all come together and sign a treaty of world peace. But they have to die if they sign that treaty?

Could they live? Well, in order to control their actions, they have to die. You can control their actions before death. But what you do is you make the point of death martyrdom from like, choose your evil global, you know, terror group. And then all the world leaders came together to end. And then this one terror group kills them. And then you have the whole world united against one terror group and then you get world peace.

How long is that world peace going to last? I know. Yeah. And what's the other fallouts from my actions? At this point. So what's the... I don't want to be like Colin where I'm picking and choosing. We don't need a notebook that changes human behavior.

What's the story of the... It's like Plato and Saccharacteris or whatever that if you were in... invisible that all people, do you know what I'm talking about? Like this. How people would treat you if you were in. No, no, no, no, no. That all people, when given the ability to commit crimes without accountability, will do so. Let me look that up.

What is that called? Yeah. I know the theory you're talking about. There's a name for it. I think people don't realize how often. Ring of Gygus. And they don't even know it. The story of the ring of Gygus, it's from a Plato.

And he argues that someone finds a ring that grants them invisibility. and when they, let's see, the legend is, Gygus of Lydia, blah, blah, blah. It grants, using the ring as an example, this section of the Republic considers whether a rational, intelligent person who has no need to fear negative consequences for committing an injustice

would nevertheless act justly. And, you know, what do you guys think? If you were given a ring of invisibility, would you wrong anybody for any reason, no matter how minor? No. You wouldn't walk into a consideration? and just take $1,000 chip,

if it's gone. No, I don't even want to win the lottery. Like, I want to build it from scratch. So I don't think I would do that. And I know a lot of people... Richie would snatch all the 25,000 chips. We all have the opportunity. We can all commit crimes all day long.

Yes, yes. But the point about the ring is that most people don't... The argument is that you an upstanding citizen when given a ring of invisibility would commit crimes you otherwise would not because you can't get caught. I would go to like the best waves in the world and just drop in on every... and surf whatever way I wanted. That's the only crime with me, but it's you.

That's the only crime I would commit, because no one would know that I was dropping in on them. That's the crime I would commit, because then I can surf whatever wave I want, and they don't have to say, hey, you dropped in on it. So like environmental crimes. Yeah, I go to pipeline. Crimes of inconvenience.

Yeah, yeah. You wouldn't just wanna go to a casino. So in all reality, if you took high value chips from a poke from a casino, you're never cashing those in. It's impossible. The moment you walk in with them, they're like, where'd you get these? Like it's not like they track all of the high.

Most people are not playing with $1,000 chips. So casinos. That's why that dude in Vegas who snatched all of the chips and then fled got caught because you can't use them. Yeah. How? They're going to track everything. Yep. They track everything you do.

There's no reality where you can even buy them. So if somebody went to a, so this was a Blasio, he ran in a motorcycle helmet, ran in, grabbed the bunch of chips and ran out. Yeah. If you're in, if you're like a mafioso. You can't do anything with them. Because when you buy 100K in chips with 25,000 chips, they write your name down, take a picture of you and say, you have four. You know, I had this book when I was little.

And in the book, it was like a children's book, but they got this cube when they could wish for anything and it would appear. And then they found out halfway through the book that it was coming from somewhere else. It was being taken from someone else. So no matter how much you want and how much you desire, it's someone else, it's coming from somewhere. Yeah, you've got to have a moral. code. Like most, I mean, most crimes aren't caught. Most people commit crimes and it's not caught.

We just don't commit them because we have a moral compass. We have a moral code. I guess that's the question. How much you have? I would jaywalk more if I had an invisible ring. Well, so how about this? If you had, if you had telekinesis, would you cheat at a casino? No. I'd want you. You play roulette. You put, you put the max bet $200 on $26 and then you're like, who, because I do try and do that. $500. $500.000 or $7,000. I think you, I think that. She tries to use the phone. I do it anyway. What do you mean? I'm actively trying to do that.

I ask the roulette dealers, is it, is using magic cheating? Yeah. Like if I have, if I have, if I've, if I've, I've, I've, I've, I've flagged and they follow you around. No, I said that. I said, if I use magic to make the ball land where I want, is that cheating? They just laugh. And I'm like, how about the telekinesis device? Yeah, you have a profile.

Oh, that one is right. They laugh because I know your head's going to end up on woodvice. They will, they will kick you off any game if you're winning. Oh, yeah. Like, you can't win at a casino. Let me explain everyone. You can't win at a casino because. they won't let you.

Yeah. If you ever actually were on a heater and winning a lot of money, they will tell you to stop no matter what the game is. Yeah, you're shut down. Yeah. That's crazy. Yeah, but polymarket is awesome.

Have you seen the polymarket on Lindsay Clancy? No, no. That's why I was being sarcastic. Oh, man. How much money do they make? The thing is, though, prediction markets is you don't wait for the end. You can cash out before.

So the only thing you really need to know about a prediction market is will press occur in your favor. I wonder if there was a prediction market for the hung jury. I bet you there is. Like, well, that's basically, Basically, that's, that's, did you see George Santos got banned? Yep. Because he, because it was whether or not he would appear at the State of the Union.

Like, why are, why are we doing this? Do we really need to make betting markets on everything? I think it's, I think it's the train AI. It's the train AI so that our computer overlords are actually the ones engineering. There was a prediction market on it. Figure out how to. There was. Yep.

Oh, right. Yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah. So there's one for me. That's, that's why I'm looking. at you because you're probably the only person who buys it on it. It's true.

Oh my gosh. That's crazy. We can get more. Yes, on the outcome of the Lindsay Clancy Trow. And then see how people react to predictions. I mean, I think we bet because it's fun to bet. Hey, Richie, but I got one for you. This is sick.

Also, like, desperate time. Who will attend a White House press briefing this year? Currently, I'm number one. You are. Really? Yeah. 80,000 wage, not very big. But the reason, when I found out that they made a prediction market based on me,

I'm kind of offended by that. Let me know, and I'll pop a bed in there. See that's crazy. I already publicly announced on this show, and you can see exactly when. I said on this show, I am talking, I was talking to Lisa, and I said, let them know I want to come to a press briefing. I don't care which one. And they said, well, Karen Lovitz out, so we'll let you know. Like as soon as we do, they were like, Tim, you can come whenever you want.

Just send this message, we'll walk in. So I said, I do intend to go. But I have questions. I have questions. So what does it mean to attend? a press briefing, what constitutes proof. Let's see. Resolves yes if Timpull attends any White House press briefing, which takes place in the James S. Brady

press briefing room after issuance and before 2027. So does that mean I have to be in the room? Is it attending a press briefing if I'm just outside the room watching and filming, but I don't open the door? You got to be in there. What if it's in the oval? Because of, you know, the office is an oval. The press briefing has to be in the press briefing. It says, it says in the press briefing room. What if?

I take a picture of myself outside the room saying, heading to the press briefing today, I'm here, but I never actually go in. What if I put on a, I have a White House press pass. What if I put on a beanie and a pool mask? And a mask. You literally just wear my whole clothes.

And I'm just like, yeah, I identify. So here's the point. It resolves to yes, as long as any news agency or I claim I was there, whether or not I actually was. So I've thought of a couple scenarios. What if I take a picture outside, and I'm like at the White House press briefing today,

people are going to say, that proves he was there. He took a picture outside, right? What if I never actually go in? How about this? What if I say I'm going, but I don't post a picture? I say, I will be at the White House press briefing today.

And then no one sees me. On January 1st, I post the photo saying, yeah, I was there. I said it was there. So the issue is, Kalshi says, even if I was there, unless it's confirmed before the end of the date,

it doesn't matter if I was. So let's say I go and say nothing. And then next March, I post that I was there. It doesn't matter. It had to have been proven before the closure. But what if I tweet, just text. I am currently here. And you're wearing a burka and nobody can tell you.

No, no, no, no, no. I just, I'm here. So no one actually sees any photos or evidence. Like, what if I tweeted right now from the studio in West Virginia? I am at the White House Press briefing. There needs to be something in that that says what it takes to prove it. My understanding is that if I go live from the studio, and I point the camera, I pull the screen, I say,

I am about to tweet right now that I'm actually at the White House press briefing. And then I do, that will count as me having been out. This is like the invasion of Venezuela. A bunch of people were mad because it like didn't count as an invasion. Yeah, it messed up there. We put boots on the ground. Yep. And that was an invasion.

There's got to be some fine print on all these. Some lawyers drafting some fine print. I read this contract and I'm like, this is going to get wonky. It's just stupid. It'll end up in litigation. Why do we need to bet on that stuff? Do they care? Because we're training the AI.

get their big either way. Exactly. They're making money. Here's the problem. I was at a press briefing last year. What if I take a picture from it last year? Post it right now and say attending, just attended

or having attended this recent press briefing was absolutely incredible. I'm glad I get to go to the White House and see these things. It's ambiguous that I actually go. I said I did, but I never really said I went now. So they're going to be fighting like crazy. Like does this, did he go? I don't understand.

Like he said he did. Others are going to say the people who bet no, we're going to be like, no, he did. That's an old photo. That's not old. That's him there now. I want my money. No, you can't have your money. It's insane.

And then, so that's the craziest scenario. If I take the picture from last year that no one's ever seen before. Yeah. And post it now and say, really excited to have attended the press briefing, learned so much. There needs to be a Kalshi certifier, like a team of elite people from Kalshi. Right. That are just all around the world at all times. What are the odds of that?

Here's what I'm going to do. Let's bet on it. Let's bet on it. I am going to put on the exact same clothes that I wore last year when I went. I'm going to go. Take a picture in the back of myself. Then I'm going to tweet. attending the press briefing was really incredible.

It was so amazing to see. And then I'll write. I'll never forget how amazing Carolyn Levitt was when she was, you know, doing the press briefings. So it's very ambiguous. 2026 has been such a good year. The point, the reason why it's ambitious. ambiguous is that I want it to be maybe it was 2025. Maybe he's saying he's there now. Everyone will start fighting over whether I did or did not go. And then how will they be able to determine it?

Now here's the best part. If they can't determine based on me literally posting, I went to the press briefing because it may be the year before and they don't pay out. And then on January 1st, I just tweet, here's the other photos when I was there at J.D. Vance's press briefing. I said I was there. Why wasn't that good enough? It's insane. The point I'm bringing up is this. We had a guy in New York wager on the temperature of New York

bring a blow dryer and blast a sensor so that it would guarantee to hit and he'd make money. People are betting that I will or will not be there and I did not agree they could do that. So if I make it, so if I do this everyone's going to be fighting over whether I was there or not.

Calci will have to make a determination as to whether or not it's proof that I was there. What if I wasn't? What if Cali says, Tim Poolewell, was there. And I say, whoa, whoa, whoa, that was just me saying from last year. I never, I did not go. And what if the Secret Service guy sees you at the checkpoint and then makes the bet? Is that like insider trading? That's not allowed. It's allowed. So it's not insider. It's not insider trading because I'm in public. What if I go to a, to a restaurant across the street of cafe and I say,

everybody in the building right now, there is a prediction market wager on me to attend a press briefing. Oh my God. I'm about to walk across the street and enter that building right now. Do with that information what you will. What if there's a predictions market on Lindsay Nancy and I'm her lawyer. Can I bet on it? No. Yeah, that's insider trading. That's insider trading. I can. The secret service guy is not. That's insider trading.

And any of my employees cannot make a, buy a contracts on my attendance. But I'm not technically an employee. I'm a contractor. I don't know if that matters. It does matter. You're playing a stupid semantic game. That's clearly defined. I don't know. I thought. So what just, I have my own company. I work with Timcast from time to time.

I have a contract with Timcast. Okay. Is that still illegal? Yes. about my brother. It's a violation of the CFTC and it's explicitly against the rules and you are giving semantics.

What about my brother though? Your brother doesn't work. He doesn't have any contracts. Your brother's clean. I'm going to go hang out. What if he tells his brother? And then I see that beanie walking up. Well, it's already at 71.

So you're like, I got to be honest like. Well, then I'll just put everything I got on there. If you look on here, it's implicating you and the odds are no good. You bet a thousand bucks. All right. How about this? Don't, I see you coming with your beanie and I tackle you and then I bet no.

And ensure that you're not, You break your life, so you can't go back in there. What if, what if you put on my clothes and I put on your clothes, you then go in and shake the hand to some journals, but I got Tim Pool night to meet you. And then they report Tim Pool is here. What if you legally change your name to Tim Pool before you go? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. Let me finish.

All part of it. Short it. So they say Tim Pool is here because I don't know who you are. And they're like, oh, wow, it's Tim Pool. Or someone looks back and then they tweet it. I'm outside. And then everyone's, everyone's our. tweeting Tim Poole's the press briefing. It resolves to yes, Tim Poole attended. I then immediately

go live outside and say, that's not me. I'm not in there right now. Who is this? But it already paid out. I think the question that we're really driving out here is, what is Tim Poole? My point ultimately is this. It doesn't matter what's true. These things are predicated upon nothing almost. And what's going to happen is everyone's going to go to war over what really happened because they want money. I think there's some precedent over you being able to sue Kalshi for putting your name on their server and promoting you and using you for their tools. Like, people have a right to not be, not to be, maybe they don't have a right to not be like objectified and used for like malfeasant purposes.

And if they're playing games with you to make money and they're using you, that doesn't sound right. Like who decides these? I will say this. We have a, Cali sponsors the show from time to time. So we do have a sponsor from Calci that has never stopped me from saying these things and they've never had an issue with it. I respect that. But I have a question for the lawyers. I mean, what is the legality of them selling contracts in my name about whether I will or will not do something? Yeah, who comes up with that? Yes, but like they're they're using my name and likeness

to sell a contract. Do they have a right to use my name and likeness on contract sales? I think they have a right to do that. My concern would be how you can't profit off of it, obviously, you know, like you said, like you obviously can't profit off it because you could manipulate the outcome. But I also, I argue, so they, they've said that it's a violation of the CFTC inside of, well, hold on. I am not party to this sale. Right. I have nothing to do with it. You're not a party of this at all. You want to sell a contract on my name. I can do whatever I want. You can't tell me what I can't do. Yeah. You're not a party to it. So I take, I take a lot of issue with this because they've told me, I cannot participate nor I know, I know my family or who works for me, in the sale of a contract as to my own actions. I have nothing to this company. I did not approve this.

I never signed anything saying he could do it. Yeah. Because if you tell me you're going and then I tell my brother you're going and he bets a shitload of money and makes a ton of money. Yeah. Let me ask. How is it even regulated? Like where is this incorporated? Is it an estate?

Kalsh is all of the country. It's banned in some states. But here's a question for you guys. So if they're allowed to post a picture of me with my name saying you can buy a Tim Poole contract, why can't I do that for LeBron? Why can't I sell pictures of LeBron and call him LeBron contracts and charge people $100 per contract? But what would you be saying about LeBron? He's going to go somewhere? Well, you get a physical contract with his picture on it.

And it's a rare photo that he sells, but it doesn't matter because they're using my photo without my consent. Right. And it's a contract that he'll eat a banana, at least one banana pudding this year. I think they can use your photo. It's the outcome. You can sell my photo. They're not selling your photo. They're not selling contracts in my name.

They're not selling your photo. They license those photos? Yeah, that's copyrighted. I think that's a various. I'm ready to see that photo is fair use. Yeah. I mean, I do foresee this becoming a lawsuit. But I think more about how the payout is.

Like someone's going to bet and then there's going to be a fake photo and they're going to be disputing what's real and what's not real. I'm going to go and say this. It's an $88,000 pool. I am a small fry in the world of Kalshi. But AOC is currently sitting on a $200 million pool. Now, hold on. she's a public figure. Yeah.

That's different. So you're allowed to use like the images of, images of Trump or Trump's name because of a public figure. But there are many people in this who are not. And I do not see how it is legal to create an industry that sells contracts using celebrity names when the business of the celebrity is their name and likeness. Well, the contract's a bet. I mean, that's what they're selling. They're selling a bet. Indeed.

And you're not a party to it. And they're making money off of it. Yeah. Right. As soon as he reads it, he becomes a party to it. As soon as he sees that it's real, he's now party to the... But he's not benefiting from it. Like, he's not part...

He's not one of the sides of the contract. He didn't make the contract. He's not benefiting his... His benefit is now knowing that his actions are going to determine who gets money and who does it. That's not what I'm talking about... That's a type of benefit. Can I sell a product using Robert Downey Jr.'s a name? Yes or no.

Doesn't matter what the product is. I'm going to sell you a piece of paper that has Robert Downey Jr., the actor, with a picture of him on it. and you can buy it off here for 20 bucks. They're selling the opportunity cost. They're selling a bet. You buy an actual contract with my name on it. Does they actually give like a picture?

You can actually pull up the contract and what it says. What's the contract? There's no picture on it though. So I'm quite, hold on. I'm curious. If I posted Robert Donnie's picture and then under it, it said, buy this contract that says Robert Donnie Jr. And it's underneath a picture of Robert Downey Jr.

I can do that. So for a contract to exist, there's got to be something on the other side. You've got to actually get some consideration. So what am I getting if I buy, If a person buys the contract, the Robert Downey Jr. What do they get? If Robert Downey Jr. eats a banana split by the end of the year, I will send you a second picture of his name.

Yeah, because you're not selling Robert Downey Jr. You're selling a bet on whether or not he does something. But you're getting a piece of paper with his name on it to hang up. So the contract itself. Are you buying that piece of paper? Are you buying the chance to win more money if you win the bet? I suppose the question is, why would it matter? What if you write a magazine article about Robert Downey,

Jr. uses a picture of him and then you sell the magazine. Yeah. If I, if I want to, okay, question. If on my website, I wrote an article, Timcast.com, with a picture of Robert Downey Jr., framed those images of him and put a quote from my article. I can do that. You can't sell his image like that. But it's a newspaper article. It's mine. It's called fair use, though. Yeah, I was going to say, where did you get? Where do you get the picture from? You can take a piece of, I'll, I'll go and find a, that's not fair use because the product itself is the, is the, if you're making commentary, that's fair use.

So if that's, that's the product that you're selling is my commentary on this. If what you're selling is the piece, their likeness, and that's the basis upon what you're selling it, then that's not the same. So I'm going to take this picture, right? Good. I like that one. Because it's on Wikipedia, so it's in the Creative Commons or it's in the public domain. It might be Creative Commons, but let's just say, hypothetically, it's in the public domain.

You click in and find out. And then I say, more details it'll tell you. this is probably creative commons non-commercial it's got an author and if it is creative commons non-commercial then you can't use it sometimes they say you can use it you are free to share a mix attribute

share a like personality rights warning some rights yeah freely licensed public domain so oh it says public domain yeah they've retained they retained some rights it says although this work is

freely licensed or in the public domain right it says some rights but my point is this there are photos in the public domain I can sell the photo. If it's in the public domain. Yeah. You can put it in your book.

Yeah. You can put it in a book and sell the book. I just think that there's an issue. Are you adding value or are you doing commentary or are you doing all those fair use things? My issue with this is they are monetizing my work without my permission. Are they, though? Are they monetizing your work? They're monetizing your image.

No, no. Will I attend a White House press briefing this year? So they're telling people based on the work Tim Poole does, if certain conditions are met, we get to profit off of it. And you can buy a product from us. But it's not really your work. It's a chance of the work happening. Yeah. Well, no, no, my-

I think the bet is something different. This is my work. Whether I cover a story or not is a question of the work that I do. Coverage is the work. So what they are doing is they're saying- Tim Poole does stuff. And we are selling, they're selling yes and no. So you can buy no, Tim Poole won't go to the White House.

Sure. but you're still buying odds. They're not buying your work product. Yeah. They are profiting off of the work that I do. That you did it. Yeah, but people are profiting off the work you do when they talk about you. They can take your video and do commentary.

Or someone can go money off that on YouTube. Outside and be like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, about Tim Pool and then it goes viral. But when people do that, I can take that video and I can use it. Right. But you can take this and use that. You can use this to. I cannot. I cannot engage in this the way I can with it.

Right. Right. But you are using this. You're actually using their content right now. No, no, no. I am not selling contracts on whether or not, okay, here's what we can do. So I can make a contract that says, will Kalshi pay out yes on Tim Poole attending the White House breast briefing? I guess you could.

That would prevent that. Then I, okay, then I'm going to do that. That's actually really good. Let's do it right now. Yeah, you should totally do that. What are the rules on can an individual sell event contracts? Oh, the problem with the contracts like that are the betting and gambling rules. We're heavily regularly.

You need to be licensed. Yeah, you need to be licensed. How about I call Polymarket and I'm like, hey. You got to be licensed. And that is crazy. Will Kalshi pay out yes on Tim Poole attending the White House press briefing? And then I can sell those and be like, it's not a best. It's not insider trading.

How did you? I don't know what they'll end up doing. But I am going to go. If I were to quit my job, liquidate all my Bitcoin and then just hang out for the next, whatever, three months, four months outside of exactly where you have to enter to get into the White House with a bunch of big dudes just to ensure you don't go in there and bet no. The pool isn't big enough. The pool is not big enough.

What do you mean? You can't make any. money. If you bet $10 million, you'll get paid out $2,000. A no. I'm betting no. I'm not allowing you to enter. I'm going to physically keep you from entering. Is that insider trading? If you bet five, listen, if you bet $5 million, you'll get paid out $53,000. They had a lawsuit over something similar. Yes. It's this point in betting on that. There's no money in the pool. That's the point. So you're, you're, you blow out the odds. If you add. But if I put a lot more money in the pool,

then doesn't it go up? So let's, I'm going to try to, let's say, $350. It's only $80,000. Yeah, look, $350 pays $855. No, becomes a favorite. How she has good lawyers. It's a question if you can bet no and then ensure that it doesn't. What I don't like, exactly.

What I don't like is that they're selling contracts in my name, barring me from participation through threat of criminal enforcement. I never agreed they could make wagers in my name. I'm not party to those wagers. I'm not benefiting from them. why can't I buy something? So imagine, let's let's try this. Someone's selling pictures of LeBron James from the public domain,

and LeBron says, I would like to buy one and say, you're not allowed. Legally, don't look at me. You'll go to prison if you buy that. That seems insane to me. I don't like this. Yeah, that seems insane. Yeah, George Santos agrees. Yeah.

Well, I mean, yes, George Santos, the bet was whether he'd attend the State of the Union. What do he bet, he bet no? It's less about pictures more about selling will LeBron win the next game. And he can't bet on that. but that's because he's part of an organization that has agreed to these rules and he's a prize to them. So if you're a boxer and you agree to throw the match so that someone can win money, that I understand is criminal. But if you made this wager outside of me with no permission from me or questions or anything, I can do whatever I want. You have no right.

Oh, there's a ton of lawsuits on this right now. Really? Yeah. Using people's names and likenesses? About Kalshi and, yeah, essentially who goes? governs them if it's what you said, the FTC or... Right. They're arguing that they've argued that if I were to buy on myself for this, now they've, it's banned. But let's say, you know, I told Richie like, hey, I'm going to go buy

that, we'll split the money. That's a criminal element. That's under the CFC. Let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm split the profits. Right. No, no, no, but, but they're arguing they would refer it as a criminal action. Yeah, like you like the reporting is that Santos is being criminally investigated for it. I understand. But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, Sure, but if it's criminal, it's not their rule being enforced, right? Some legislatures created a rule. This is the point. What gives, how could there be a system created that creates criminal culpability for me

without my permission based on actions I would take? I don't think they could ever. I would defend you to the death on that. It's like a law being passed saying specifically Andrew Branca can't buy a hot dog from the store, otherwise you go to jail. Right. Like that's a rule or what? No, that's ridiculous.

That's ridiculous. Or you text me, you say, I'm coming to D.C. I say, let me know. no next time you're in D.C. Hey, I'm coming to D.C. for the press briefing. Boom. I bet on it. I make a bunch of money. And then I go, hey, Tim, come on. I got a vacation. I got a vacation. There's no, you know, that is that, that's illegal? That's that legal. Is that legal? They decided to sell a contract in my name. And if I decide to buy on it, yes or no, I've committed

a crime. But if Richie buys on it, it's not. And then I take you on a vacation. No, that's still, it's I build a skate park for you. That's still a crime. Why? Insider Trading. I was going to say, it's insider trading. If you tell me you're coming to D.C. This is this, this is the issue that I do not like with this. If I tell you, hey, I'm heading the press briefing, and then you have inside information as to my actions, and if you buy on it, that's insider trading and it's a crime. But I'm not a trader. Doesn't mean anything we're talking about. Why am I beholden to Bill Gates came to you and said, yeah, the stock's going to tank and then you sold all your stock. It says, I'm trading. I would never invest in Bill Gates. This is my point. They've created

a weird insider trading criminal culpability. This is crazy. Like the law. On the fly, Randall, Now here's the crazy thing. What if, like, I tell Ian, I'm going to the press briefing, he's, he happened, Richie happens to overhear it and then buys it. Exactly. It says Tim Pool never gave me any information. I heard it from Ian. Then they say, well, but we know your friends, so we're going to argue that he informed

you. And then I have to defend myself against someone that I know buying this. It's insane. This is absolute insanity. It is crazy. I understand. The lawsuits are crazy. I understand if you are a corporate officer.

and your wife sells all their stock and you're like, I never said anything to her and they're investigating you. But I don't work for Kalshi. I never agreed to let him do this. How could it be possible that Richie has criminal culpability now if he happens to guess right? Or Santos, for that matter.

Let's do it and then take it to the Supreme Court. Yeah, if you get charged with that, I'm your girl. I'm your defense lawyer right here. I'm not, uh, I've actually asked, I asked a long time ago, why don't we get certain gun restrictions like the machine gun stuff overturned? Yeah. I think I asked to you, actually.

actually. And it's because nobody wants to get arrested buying a machine gun. Yeah. You have to have to be the precedent. It's insane. Right. It's a 10-year federal felony. Yeah, you got to have standing to do it. So you go to prison for 10 years. Maybe you win, but nobody wants to go to prison on a gun charge. Right. Yeah. And the courts won't deal with something that's hypothetical. Right. You know, you can't challenge something that's hypothetical. Yeah. What are some of the court cases up against Kalshi and? So what, so most, it's states. It's a lot of states that are having a problem because the federal

government's allowing it and the states want to regulate it because the state's super regulate gambling activities like super it's lucrative you know so there's a couple different states that are suing over that it's interesting which ones yeah that's the interesting part i'm i will say this i like kelchie generally um i think it's fun i think it's fun to track how people are are putting money on contracts it's the wisdom of the crowd i think it's informative i think it's better than polls my my gripe is this one particular issue with what responsibilities do i have when they chose to put my name in there without my permission. Maryland does not like Kouchi.

I tell you that. Maryland definitely does not like Kalshi. Nevada and New Jersey, that's interesting. They're two of the ones that sued. New Jersey, because they had like the most losses. Everybody's losing money. That's what I'm thinking. So it makes sense if you think Nevada and New Jersey, you got Atlantic City and you've got, that's why.

Yeah, there you go. What do they have Maryland? Do they have gambling? Ocean City, Maryland? I don't know. Is that gambling? No gambling. Why is Maryland care?

Maryland does have Because Maryland has Or five casinos That's why then Those are the three states That are really into it It's all money Let's let's grab some of the questions

Interesting From the members Settle down and says Question for Tim Calshe had to sue the government Just to let Americans Bet on elections and you won Why is D.C so scared

To let us bet on politics When Wall Street Can bet on literally everything else I find that most of these things You find a lot of this stuff There's no reason It's just It's the way it's always been

And it's hard to make things move. So what I'm dealing with in West Virginia is why is poker, social poker, not casino poker, illegal. So if me and a boys want to play a game in Texas hold them, amongst ourselves, there's no house, why is that illegal? Pokemon is legal. So children can get Pokemon decks, wage your money. They can put money in a pot, play a game in the winner gets the money. That's legal, despite the fact the loss is it's illegal. Well, it's because this is how things are done. And to make these changes, you have to tell someone it has to be changed. I can tell you why D.C. doesn't like it.

It's because it's too easy to manipulate these things. You can set up one of these contracts. Two politicians are running against each other for office. Small numbers, like 80 grand, like you have in your thing here. And one of the parties dumps $3 million into it. Now it makes it look like their candidates overwhelmingly favored and perception becomes reality. People say, well, I'm not going to send that guy money.

He's going to lose. Cal she says so. Yep. Indeed. If you guys want to get some questions in for the last few minutes of this year, amazing show. I won a bunch of money up in 2016. Oh, yeah.

That would have been illegal. That was predicted back in the day. Remember that? I just bet with my buddies who were all like, there's no chance. And I was like, really? Give me your odds. Wow. Predicted was the original, I think.

And what's fascinating is that despite being one of the originals, it's basically non-existent as far as polymarket and calcium, you own everything. Yep. We got this from Kevin. He says, how long do you think Clancy would stay in the mental hospital if found not guilty? Messrs. only requires six months and she hasn't had an episode since the murder. I think she'd be out within a year. And I think it's a good, legitimate question. Because look, she was only ever a threat to herself and her kids.

Well, our kids are safe now, right? I mean, they're gone. And all she has to do is convince somebody that she's not going to kill herself anymore. She's not feeling. I didn't realize that. If you can feel suicidal and not feel suicidal ever. It's crazy. She's got to convince two state doctors and she's got to convince the time.

There's no mandatory duration that she has to. stay in there? No. Six months for observation. This insanity thing's got to go. But hold on, hold on. So Andrea Yates has been in under an insanity, same facts, almost essentially for 20 years. But she's saying she's a danger to herself.

Right, she has not challenged it. Right. So you know, the question is if she doesn't want to be there anymore, how hard is it for to get out? All she has to do is say, I'm just I don't feel suicidal anymore. Yeah. I don't feel like she would get out though. I mean, honestly the likelihood, but it's possible. That's the problem. I think it's awesome. Sounds stupid.

Sounds like somebody's going to game this thing. But I don't think a judge is ever going to let her out. I have the best question ever. Oh, okay. You both have seen Better Call Saul? Yeah. Of course. Oh, God, it's worthwhile.

Overall, can you give us a ruling on how realistic the courtroom parts are in the show? It's not that realistic. I mean, some of the lifestyle stuff. When he's doing the hearing, I think this might have been an arbitration with his brother and he hides the battery, the cell phone battery. Oh, my God. Do you remember that one? No.

But his older brother had a phobia of electricity. Oh. So he's like, anything electronic. And he's like, there's a phone in your pocket. Yes. And then he opens it and there's no battery. And he's like, I knew it. And then he's like, actually, and they hit the battery in his pocket.

It's like, oh! I mean, that stuff is, yeah, that doesn't really happen. But I will tell you, court is kind of wild, especially like the lower level courts. I don't know if you guys ever watched night court years ago. Like you remember night court, like years ago. You can watch old episodes of it. That stuff happens. In the lower level courts, yeah, it's crazy.

It was like the get. the people that would come in in the middle of the night. Yeah, pro se. It's like the drunk tinks, you know, pro se people overnight, people who are arrested on petty crimes and stuff, people who are drunk. Is it like lawyers laughing about it, like to each other during the trial? And you're like, I think, uh, it's like comedy because you're like drunk people. My cousin Vinnie is the most accurate legal movie ever made.

It's taught in law school, isn't it? Oh, yeah, it is. The cross-examination, but I will tell you the most accurate ever is the practice. It's old, the practice. Not law and order? No. Oh, God. I can't even watch it and unnerved me so much.

I'm like, oh, the practice. Have you ever seen, didn't they do, I think there was a single season of Law and Order trial by. Yes. And it was like, it was mostly the court proceedings and less of the, but it got canceled because it was boring. It was stupid because, like, you don't get breaks like that. It was so wonderful. I was like, they go to court for an hour and then they get six hours to prepare. No, like I'm in court for nine hours street.

I mean, lucky if I get a granola bar. Even in Law & Order, these, these, when they, these, when they, they're not, they're they show the court case. Yeah. I don't think people notice that when they actually, they actually, in the show,

we'll mention it's six months later in the next scene change. They're like, this was not, they came back and it was like six months later they came back. And those cases don't happen. I mean,

that's not, those crimes don't happen. Well, actually, the writing for law and order is based on real crimes. Wow. So, no,

I guarantee not the SVU. There is no, no, no, no, no, I was got, no, I'm thinking the SVU. Oh, the regular law and order, I wrote. OG Law and Order was, Awesome.

There was an SVU that was based on a real case. Maybe like one. But it blew my mind because I knew the case. It was out of Illinois. It was a woman who worked at O'Hare Airport. And I can't remember exactly what it was. It was like a body was found in a trunk or something. But I'm watching this episode of, I think it's SVU.

And I'm like, what is this? It's like, how do I already know what's going to happen? And I'm like, I'm so confused. And I'm like, now the lady's going to run away. I'm like, they're going to find the car. There's the box. That's crazy. What's going on?

And then I was like, oh my God. This is that famous case. They made a TV show out of it. Oh, my God. So what they like to do, the reason the secret to law and order why it's been in the air so long is that they just look through court records

for interesting cases. That makes sense for the regular, for the OG one. The OG one was great. But SVU is like everyone's being raped all the time. All the time. And there's like 17 people are being raped

and it's just crazy. And then they're being tortured while they're being raped and I'm like, it doesn't happen. And Stabler's beating them up in the interrogation room or whatever. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. But, you know, they're fun shows. I haven't seen I wasn't, what's it my cousin Vinnie? Yeah, the movie. I haven't seen it so long. It's a good movie, yeah. It was a good movie. They do play that. Is that the one where like the jersey hooker lady, like realizes something or whatever?

El Pesci. No, no, no, like there's a woman on the stand. Yeah, Marisa Tomey. Yeah, and she's like, she had a perm, right? She would never get a perm. Oh, no, that's, that's legally blonde. Oh, legally blonde. I mix up my, you know.

Also very realistic. Very realistic. Definitely. Oh, yeah, that's right. Elle is like she wouldn't have done that because she'd just gotten a perm and she can't That would have made the whatever go out of her hair. Have you ever seen anything like that where like the hobby of some legal expert realized a story couldn't be true because they were involved? No.

Nothing like that. But we do go down some rabbit holes. Well, so what I can say is I'm sure it's very often that someone's story might involve an esoteric. Like, let's say this. Let's say like a skateboarder was charged with a crime or whatever. And in his story, he mentioned doing, uh, he said he did. did a McTwist down a stair set and you're just going like, okay, so after I was skating, like I did this McTwist on the stair set and then, you know, that's when I saw the body,

anybody who skates knows he's long, you can't do a McTwist on a stair set. But if you didn't skate, you just be like, I would have looked that up. I would find that out. But I don't think you can even look up McTwist and understand why it can't be down downstairs. I would find a skater. I would 100% find a skater. Yeah, because then they'd be like, I guess technically you could do it. It's basically, I make twist is kind of like an inverted 540.

It's a stylized 540. I don't know how you're doing that on a stair set. Right. That story doesn't really make sense. Oh, no. I tried to get my husband to do a stun gun on me once because I was convinced that it wouldn't leave the marks that the lady had said it was left. And he was like, I feel really uncomfortable with this. I was like, I need a demo.

I need to see if it will actually leave these marks. See, that's like the TV show though. No, I do. I'm like that. That'd be a funny TV show, you know? He's like, I feel uncomfortable. He was like, we got to prove it. Stun me.

Like, I need to see what the mark looks like. Wow. You ever feel like it's weird? Like being in a courtroom? Do you ever feel, does that ever feel like weird? Because you're playing a role. Yeah. It is like acting.

But I love it. It was very weird testifying on the stand. That's weird. This is what I wanted to say. Surreal. The last thing I'll say is we wrap up. The emotional manipulation always, like, have you guys seen good lawyers who have like done an Oscar winning performance with

trying? Because what I would do to those females, jurors, I would have them bawling their eyes out and begging for Kleenex as I told this story to defend or prosecute. You want the jury to feel what it's like to sit in your client's chair. So that is, but we call it storytelling, you know, but what we try to do is we try to do storytelling because we want the jury to understand what it feels like in that year. How far can you go with it?

Can you say it's a layer. You go as far as the judge will let you. I mean, you should test the judge, right? If you really want to push the boundaries, you just keep going and going and going. So if you said something like, every good lawyer's been held in the time. What if you said, you can directly address the jury, right?

We can talk to the jury. So we can, but only during certain arguments. But like in closing. Yeah. Oh yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. So closing, I'm talking right at him.

What if you said, I want you all to close your eyes right now? Mm-hmm. I want you to imagine the look on your child's face. Yeah. I want you to feel. State can't do that. But defense can. And you can.

We can do certain, yeah. But would you get away with this? Certain parts of it, yeah. I want you. You start getting in trouble when you start saying, just imagine yourself as the victim here. You know, how would you feel of this had happened to you? Not the victim. They don't like that. Just, I want you to imagine that moment when you, when you, when you woke up, you saw your child, they look up to you, they're everything. They love you. You're there everything. They love you. You love them. You would do anything for them.

I want you now to imagine everything's blurry. And when you wake up, you are holding your child's dead body. Could do that. You're allowed to do that. Yep. And then you start crying. And then you say you realize what you've done. I mean, what the best lawyers do is they make, you need to make your technical legal argument. You mentioned earlier, maybe it was the prior show of in your closing argument.

You're speaking to the jury instructions, right? Because it's an algorithm the jury has to follow. They have little verdict boxes. And you want to make their job easy. So you want to kind of explain to them. This is how I want you to do this to equip my client. So what if you said you're holding your child's dead body, your hands around their neck, you couldn't have done that.

There's no way you would have ever have done that. Something was within you that you lost control. I think it starts to get problematic. That's when the judge is going to be like, stop. Yeah, the defense could do that, though. The defense can get away with that. Yeah? Yeah, the state would have a hard time doing that.

Because what I would want to do is, I'd want to say. It's prejudicial. It's inflammatory. I'm sure they would object just to cause a scene and then it would be okay. They want to interrupt the storytelling, too, to break the emotion. That'd be, that's what I would do. Yeah. But you basically say, like, do.

Do you feel it is possible for a loving mother the way you've felt with your kids? Do you think it's possible that in your mind, being sound of mind you would do that? You could do that. I don't think it would work very well, though. You know? Not for the defense. No, I don't think that would work that well for the defense. Getting them more crying?

Well, in this case, for example, you don't want them thinking about what happened because what happens awful, you know? You want them thinking about her mental illness. So that would probably back for her, but you could do that. And I would say with the crying, I mean, you asked about the crying, like, if it's natural, but that's kind of, I don't know. I haven't seen a lot of lawyers crying court. That's why I'm not a lawyer, and I wouldn't presume to know, but like some of the most impactful fundraising I've ever done is when I started crying and got them crying. And then they hand over their wallet.

Oh, if you get the jury crying, like for your case, yeah. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. The reason, so if you want to invoke crying in someone else, particularly with a woman. I've definitely had jurors cry. You need to be crying a little bit yourself. Yeah. Because women are more empathic or empathetic.

Guys will be aggressive. So actually, some guys, it's tough. Depending on the subject matter, if you try pulling my heart is breaking for this loss, a guy might get mad at you. Wow. Yeah. Guys might get aggressive and they'd be like, stop being a bitch. Yeah. Like, there's a few things.

It's true, though. There's a few things you can get away with with men in emotional manipulation. Like your kids dying or your dog dying. but there's some things where you never know it's risky where if you try to pull in the heartstrings of a guy see so i'll put it this way when when uh see i don't know like when i was a little kid if i stubbed my toe i'd cry it's like uncontrollable you know it's just like then i after puberty i get angry when my skateboard hits my shins i'm beat red with rage punching something angry in the pain. And so I think for a lot of guys, testosterone may do this. Guys don't get sad about things.

They get angry about them happening. So you run that risk. Women will empathize with you and have a sympathetic response. So if you start welling up, they're always crying. Oh, my God. And then you want to, you want to inject that emotion. I'll tell you, you really learn your jury. Because, I mean, when you do voir dire, like, you're asking them personal questions, very personal questions. And then you watch them, especially like this case, like a six-week. trial. I mean, you're, you know what they said in voir dire. So I've already identified, you know, who you are and who you are. So when I'm making a certain argument, I'm making it to you. Yeah. I'm making it to you. Like I know because you told me that you had been in a car

accident. And so I'm making an argument and I know you're going to take that back in the jury room and you're going to talk about that. Do you told me that your mom did something and so I'm talking to you about that? Do you guys like write down the jurors and then you have like many profiles on them? Yeah. Oh yeah. And then like at some point I imagine you've like, I think we've convinced one, four, three, nine. Right. We always, well, we always kind of try to figure it out. And there's usually some jurors that we weren't thrilled about being on the jury because you can't get rid of everybody. You only can get rid of nine. So there's always the jurors you love. The jurors you love, I always say, state cuts. They're gone. The jurors I love, you know, like, we're not going to get

our favorites. I always tell my clients that. So we're going to get people in the middle of the road. But there's always going to be a couple that you're like, I didn't really want them on the jury, but they were, you know, the best out of what was left. And those are the ones that you're kind of like, not really talking to you, but there's a couple that you're talking to, and you're kind of hoping that they become the four person, because the four person can be sort of a leader. And keep in mind, when you're going into trial, you already know what the legal arguments and evidence is going to be, right? In theory, the trial should be completely scripted for you. It's only a blank slate for the jury. And because you know what the legal arguments and evidence are going to be, you're already thinking not just

about your opening statement, you're thinking about your closing statement, and you're thinking about what you want available as building blocks for that closing statement. So when you're doing voir dire, you're looking for the jury for signs that you can leverage in that closing. What's voir dire? Oh, it's when you select the jury. So Vaudier, it's French for to find the truth, which is crazy. So you're actually trying to get jurors to talk to you. So we're allowed to ask them certain questions.

Some judges give us a little more leeway. The judges that do give us leeway, I can tell you, my case is they're usually one or lost in jury selection. And I can tell you, once my jury seated, they probably already know my theory of the case before they've heard anything of them. I think, I think the defense just. have final say on all jurors. I do too.

And I think we should be able to talk to them. Like in the federal system where they just put them on you, it's ridiculous. My peers. What does that mean? My peers. That's really just... That's why it's the choice of the accused to choose who his peers are. Yeah.

It's a fair cross-section is what they say. You disagree? No, I agree. In fact, that's literally what it means. It was an option under English law where the peers could have a jury of other lords to sit on them. Because how would the common people know? Right. Come and decide. The reason why is because if you're someone whose children were killed and someone who killed children and you have a jury, none of them have kids.

Right. That's hard. Yeah. Come on. We do got to wrap it up. We are over. But I want to give a shout to Hades. He said they want us to check this out real quick. A mother in 1954 drowned her three children. When the system took it easy on her, she did it again. She had kids. We were just talking about that case. Lock them up. We're going to wrap it up. It's Labor Day weekend. You guys got to get on the road. We got to get on the road. It's burger time. It's the last time. to get a good swim in, don't miss out. Thanks, frang and out. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. And actually, we had a great conversation.

These fine lawyers here will be joining me on the Tim Poole show on Sunday. Check out the Tim Poole show on Rumble and YouTube. Subscribe. Y'all want to shout anything out. Sure. Attorney Andrew Branca, do criminal defense, specialize in self-defense law. Get my free book. Be hard to convict if you ever have to defend yourself at law, self-defense.

com and follow my political commentary at The Branca show on X and YouTube. And I'm Ashley Merchant. I'm a criminal defense attorney out of Atlanta, and I'm the host of the MK True Crime Podcast. Thanks. Take it away, Richie. Richie McGinnis on all social media platforms. Just launched the YouTube.

Check that out. And check out Politburoal, where I work with Matt. And I also wrote a book called Riot Diet. Check it out. Matt Miller, editor of Politburol. Check us out on Substack and Politburoblah Streetcast on YouTube for our Man on the Street videos and investigations. Follow me at Ian Crossland.

It's my name. You get me on X, you know, YouTube and Instagram, I think, are the best. best places to follow me at Ian Crossland. Carter Banks. Man, I got to put two mics here. Y'all can't see me on screen, so I'll do one of these. But yeah, you can follow me at Carter Banks. It's been a pleasure having all of you.

Great conversation. And, yeah, have a great Labor Day weekend, everyone. We're back on Tuesday. Actually, we're back on Sunday. You can watch the Sunday Tim Poole Show. But then we'll be back on Tuesday because it's Labor Day. Thanks for hanging out. I'll see you all then.