UNBIASED - June 11, 2024: Supreme Court Undercover Recordings, Hunter Biden Found Guilty, Rapper's Attorney Sentenced to Jail, and More.

Episode Date: June 11, 2024

1. Woman Releases Undercover Audio Recordings of Conversations with Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and Alito's Wife (1:44)2. Rapper Young Thug's Attorney Sentenced to Jail for Not Disclosing Sources to Judge (19:10)3. Hunter Biden Found Guilty on All Firearm Charges (25:48)4. Quick Hitters: Port of Baltimore Re-Opens Following Bridge Collapse, Joey Chestnut Won't Compete in 2024 Hot Dog Eating Contest, FBI Releases Q1 Report Showing Decline in Violent Crimes (30:56)Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Tuesday, June 11th, and this is your daily news rundown. Now, let me just set the stage for today's episode. We have a lot of ground to cover. It is a longer episode than usual, even though we're really only focusing on three stories. I typically like to keep episodes between 12 and 18 minutes. Today's is going to be a little longer, but I don't really think anyone's complaining. Now, the second thing I wanted to tell you about, and if you're listening audio

only, you're not going to be able to see what I'm holding up, but I'm holding up a special hat, limited edition hat. You guys have been asking for me to put this hat on sale for months. So I have a special announcement. This hat will be on sale June 26th. It is limited edition. So there's only going to be a few of them available. Not, not actually a few, there will be more than a few, but you get what I mean. It's, you know, limited quantity. So set your calendars for June 26th. It's an amazing hat. Okay. I have put, I have had my dad, sister, brother, step-mom, husband, sister-in-law, mom, everyone around me try this hat on. Everyone looks good in it. So I did it neutral for a reason. Obviously my platform is neutral. So I figured neutral colors were best. Anyway,

this will be live June 26th. I'll be posting more updates as we get closer, but I did want to let you in on that. That is my main announcement for today. Now I can take this hat off and get back into reporting mode. And without further ado, let's get into today's stories. We're going to start with a story that was developing yesterday afternoon that I wanted to wait until I had a grasp on to report, and that is the recordings that were leaked from a recent Supreme Court Historical Society event. Now, I think the best way to report this story is just to play the actual audio. That way, you can take away whatever message you want to take away. You can hear the context that everything is in, but I do want to give you a bit of background. So this audio was recorded and subsequently leaked

by a woman named Lauren Windsor. Windsor describes herself as a quote, relentless truth pirate on X. She's also the producer and host of a show called The Undercurrent. On Sunday, Windsor posted to X writing, quote, I have some major news to drop tomorrow and I don't say that lightly. It's likely the biggest undercover story yet of my career, end quote. So the next day, which was yesterday, she posted the first piece of audio, which was a conversation she had with Justice Alito. Then came a recorded conversation with Chief Justice Roberts, and then a recorded conversation with Justice Alito's wife, Martha Ann Alito. Remember, within the last few weeks, Justice Alito has faced criticism for flying two different flags at two of his properties, one upside down American flag,

the other flag called an appeal to heaven flag. I've reported on both of those instances, giving you the arguments on both sides, which I won't get into here, but you can go ahead and listen to my May 21st, May 23rd, and May 29th episodes for more on that. But that's important for purposes of this conversation because Windsor does ask about those incidents and mention them. A couple of final notes before I play the clips. One, neither Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, nor Alito's wife knew they were being recorded. Two, you'll hear Windsor ask questions and bring up issues as if she has conservative values. She doesn't. She is a liberal activist. She's a Democrat, but she held herself out to be a conservative for purposes of these conversations. And three, the conversations are a little bit difficult to hear, especially Alito's, a lot of background noise. So you'll

have to listen closely. But if you do want a transcript of each clip, go ahead, head over to my YouTube. You'll be able to see the transcript as each video plays. So let's start with her conversation with Alito. She actually posted two different conversations in one video. So one of the conversations is from last year after the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe versus Wade. And then the second conversation was just about a week ago. So we'll play the 2023 conversation with Alito first, just so you have all of the context, and then we'll move on to the more recent conversation. And one last thing, because the audio is a little difficult to understand, I do just want to say, one, you'll hear Windsor ask about the polarization in the country, what the court can do about it, if anything, and why there is such mistrust in the court.

Because remember, this first conversation was right after Dobbs. So here's the clip. I want to be totally appropriate with the jurisprudence of it all, but just to be totally in, I think, just the, like this was like the last bastion of, I think, like public trust. And like, how do we get back to that? I wish I knew. I don't know. It's easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us.

And so they have really eroded trust in the court system. I don't know. I really don't know. I mean, ordinary people, ordinary as a lawyer were, American citizens in general, need to work on this to try to heal this polarization, because it's very dangerous heal this polarization because it's very dangerous. I do believe it's very dangerous. I think it's taking us to the brink of, you know, the very serious and perhaps, like, non-preparable risks in the country.

And I, for one, am someone, like like I support your ruling on dogs I support like I am very polite for like you know I don't know how we bridge that gap you know like how do we get people I wish I knew I wish I knew I don't know it not... I don't think it's something we can do. But the court can't do anything. I mean, we have a very defined role. We need to do what we're supposed to do. This is a bigger problem. This is way above us. I wish I knew the answer. I do. But you guys haven't been able to find the leaker? Pardon?

The leaker. Are you guys being able to figure that out? It's hard. You know, you can't name somebody unless you know for sure. And we don't have the power to do the things that would be necessary to try to figure out, to nail down exactly what we did. That's the problem. And even then we might not be able to do it. But we don't have the power to subpoena people to testify, to subpoena records, phone records, or other things like that. We don't know.

It just seems crazy that you can't because it's so detrimental to the trust of public places because you're in court. Yeah, well, we're not a law enforcement agency. People have certain rights to privacy, so law enforcement agencies can issue subpoenas, and get search warrants, and all that sort of thing, but we can't do that. So, you know, our marshal did as much as she could do that was limited. So that was exhausting. She did what she could do. So that was exhausting. She did what she could do.

Seriously, I just wanted to express my gratitude for everything you're doing, because it's a really important fight for the rights of the unborn. And I know a lot of people don't appreciate that, but it was important, so thank you. So that was her first conversation with Justice Alito, and now here is the more recent conversation. In this clip, you'll hear Windsor first apologize to what the Alito family is going through in light of the flag situation, and then again get into the polarization of the country, and specifically how to reconcile the rift between the left and the right. Hi, I wanted to say hello to you. My name is Lauren. of the country and specifically how to reconcile the he has all the grit and I know it's got to be terrible what your family and what you and your family are going through right now. So I'm just so sorry. Thank you. Thank you very much. But, and I'm sure you don't remember this at all, but what know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen

for the polarization to end. I think that it's a matter of winning. I think you're probably right. One side or the other is going to win. I don't know. I mean, there can be a way of living together peacefully, but it's difficult. Because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. You know, really can't be compromised.

So it's not like we're going to split the difference. And that's what I'm saying. I just, I think that the solution really is, like, winning the moral argument. Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that to return our country to a place of godliness. Oh, I agree with you. I agree with you. Because we look at, like, the decline of our society, the decline of the nuclear family, and liberals, I just feel like, want to see that happen and proliferate. And I think we've been too permissive to say, oh, you know, okay, I understand the Constitution. I understand my point.

Okay, and now here is Windsor's conversation with Chief Justice Roberts. This one is a little easier to understand than Alito's. And again, you'll hear Windsor ask about polarization and how the court can help. So here it is. I just want to ask you, like, specifically, like, with everything that's going on right now, it's a very colloquial time in the country, and I'm just curious, like, from your perspective on the court, like, how do we start to repair and re-form the court? I mean, the first thing I think is to tell me when the non-tumultuous time has been here. I mean, you look at the court, what the court was doing in the 60s,

what the court was doing during the New Deal, what the court was doing, you know, after Dred Scott and all this. It's kind of a regular thing. People think it's so different and special. It's been pretty tumultuous for a long time. So you think this is a normal period? You know, I don't know if it's normal. I mean, since I've been here all 20 years, there have been quieter times.

But the idea that the court is in the middle of a lot of tumultuous stuff going on, that's nothing new. I guess I wouldn't say that it's not like it's an innovative thing. That's nothing new. I guess I wouldn't say that it's not it's not like it's an innovative thing. It's not new. I guess I just I really feel like we're at a point in our country where the polarization is so extreme that it might be

irreparable. Oh, I don't think that. I think that... Extreme is like the Civil War. We did that during Vietnam. People were getting killed and i was there in vietnam it's a this is all right i mean it's uh it's not all right but it's not like it's dramatically different people it's a common thing people with their own perspective think this is so extraordinary i don't know but you don't think there's like a role for the court and like

guiding us toward a more moral path no i think the role for the court is deciding the cases if i start would you want me to be in charge of guiding us toward a more moral path that's for the people we elect that's not for lawyers well i guess i just i believe that the founders were godly like we're we're christians and i think that we live in a christian nation and that our supreme court should be guiding us in that path. Yeah, I don't know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say, maybe not. And it's not our job to do that.

It's our job to decide the cases as best we can. Except for what's more modest, I believe, other people. I don't want to monopolize your time. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. Not at all. Thank you so much. and finally this is windsor's conversation with justice alito's wife martha ann now i did cut out a portion of the original video just because someone had interrupted their conversation and for time purposes i just didn't feel it was necessary to include their conversation focused mainly on the flag situation and how Martha Ann was going to handle it and how she felt about it so here it is I'm sorry are you Nisalita I am hi my name is Lauren I just met these ladies tonight but um I'm huge fan of your husband and um everything that you're going through, I just want to tell you that, like, I... It's okay.

It's okay. It's okay. It's not okay, though. It's not okay. It's okay. It's okay, because if they come back to me, I'll get them. I'm going to be liberated, and I'm going to get them. What do you mean by today?

Oh, well, there's a five-year defamation statute of limitations. I don't know what you mean by today. Like, by today. Like, like... Oh, okay. Come on. Come on. I'll get you. Come on. You know, I was denigrated early on when we first came to town.

And the woman then won a Pulitzer Prize. She was commenting on my clothes. She said that I wore a baby blanket one day. And the next time I had on a Lazy Boy recliner pattern suit. And so when she won her Pulitzer, I called her up and said, hello, is this Robin Gavanna of the New York Times? Yes, it is. I said, oh, I'm so proud of you. You're getting a Pulitzer Prize. I said, and will you be wearing Balanchega?

And she goes, no. I said, why not? She said, well, it doesn't flatter me. I said, oh, come on. Such a high-end thing, it doesn't flatter you? And then I said to her, you know it's a beautiful day. It's April 2006. I said, maybe you want to go outside today in New York. It's really beautiful. Take a walk and enjoy life. She never came after me again, but she went after Jane Roberts again. That's when she got her poster between Jane and me, criticizing the clothes that Jane put the children in and the clothes that we wore. But why do you think they're coming after you? They are. I mean, like, the whole, like, appeal to have a heaven flag was, like, bullshit, right?

Right, right. But that's, you know, the other thing is the femme Nazis believe that he should control me. Yeah. So we'll go to hell. He never controls me. But, like, I have the same flag. Yeah, I know. I know.

I know. But, like, a lot of people fly that fucking flag. Don't worry about it, baby. I'm sorry. It's all right. It's all right. I should watch my that fucking flag. Don't worry about it, baby. I'm sorry. It's alright. I should watch my language. It's alright. It's alright.

I'm sorry. I did not mean to. It's okay. It's okay. No, but it makes me so angry. Don't get angry. I get it. I get it.

They're persecuting you. And you're like a comedian stand-up for everybody who's religious. Look at me. Look at me. I'm German. I'm German. My heritage is German. You come after me. I'm gonna give it back to you. I'm gonna give it back to you. I'm gonna give it back to German. I'm German. My heritage is German. You come after me,. The Lord is my God and my rock.

Of whom shall I be afraid? Nobody. I love that you have that attitude. Because that's more of what we need. I was telling your husband, I was like... And she gave you a little bit of background. So I met him last year at this dinner. And I said to him, I was like...

This country is so polarized. How do we repair that rift? And he was like, I don't know. I don't know. It's not our role. And I told him this year, I'm like, you know, for the past year, I remembered our conversation and I looked at what happened to you and your wife and I'm like, how is there any negotiating with the radical left? There's not. There's not. You cannot negotiate with the radical left. You have to just win. They feel. They feel. They don't think. No, but you have to win. And if we want to take this country back to, like, a godly place, to a moral place,

that means that we actually have to just fucking... Pardon my language again. I'm so sorry. You know what I want? I want a sacred heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the pride flag for the next month. Exactly.

And he's like, oh, please don't put up a flag. I said, I won't do it because I'm deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense, I'm putting it up and I'm going to send them a message every day. Maybe every week I'll be changing the flags.

There'll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag. It's white, and it's yellow and orange flames around it, and in the middle is the word vergogna. Vergogna in Italian means shame. Vergogna, V-E-R-G-O-G-N-A.

Vergogna. Shame, shame, shame on you. You know, anyway. Well, I just wanted to let you know you have a lot of people rooting for you. Thank you so much. So those were all of the recordings released by Windsor yesterday. Do with them what you will, come to your own conclusions, your own opinions, have your own thoughts. That's all I'm going to say about it because, again, my job isn't to tell you how to feel. My job is to tell you the facts, and those are the facts. So moving on to a pretty highly requested story, actually. A defense attorney representing a rapper named Young Thug has been held in contempt and ordered

to jail for bringing up a seemingly secret meeting between the judge, the prosecutor, and a witness in the case. So let's talk about it. So in background first, in 2022, rapper Young Thug and 27 others were indicted in a racketeering case for gang-related crimes. The prosecutor that obtained the indictment was actually Fonny Willis, who we know well at this point. And the trial has been going on for six months, and it may very well go into next year. There's been a lot of delays, a lot happening. But on Monday, one of Young Thug's attorneys, Brian Steele, alleged in court that a Fulton County prosecutor named Adrian Love and the judge in the case privately and impermissibly met with one of the prosecution's witnesses earlier in the day in the judge's chambers

without telling Young Thug or his lawyers. This witness's name is Kenneth Copeland. He spent the weekend in jail because he refused to testify on Friday, despite previously entering into an immunity deal, which is contingent on his testimony. But on Monday, after meeting with the prosecutor and the judge in the judge's chambers, he was brought to the witness stand to testify. So obviously some conversation had gone on in the judge's chambers. According to Young Thug's attorney, Steele, his sources told him that at this meeting with the witness, the prosecutor and the judge told the witness that if he didn't testify, he could be held in jail for the remainder of the trial. And Steele says if this is true, this is considered coercion, witness intimidation, and ex parte communications, which Young Thug had a constitutional right to be present for. So we're all on the same page. Ex parte communications are one-sided communications involving the case where the

opposing party isn't given notice. So maybe the prosecutor talks to the judge without the defense present, which is kind of similar to what happened in this case. Or maybe a juror runs into a witness outside the courtroom and asks the witness a question about his testimony. These are ex parte communications and they are typically prohibited. The only circumstances where ex parte communications are permitted are in situations like emergency hearings, maybe emergency hearings on a restraining order or in a domestic violence case, really pressing matters. Or if the judge were to communicate with the jurors

about administrative issues, or maybe the judge and the lawyer are simply talking about the weather. So either innocent things or very emergent situations. But when it comes to issues in a case that can have an effect on the outcome of the case, ex parte communications are generally a no-no. So in this case where you have a judge and a prosecutor in the judge's chambers with a witness and the defendant nor the defendant's attorneys are given any sort of notice or given an opportunity to be present, that could be an issue. And the reason it's an issue or the reason that ex parte communications are an issue generally is because they often result in due process violations. Under the Constitution, we are entitled to a fair trial.

We have a right to a fair trial. And an unfair trial would be a violation of our right to due process. So the logic is that ex parte communications are often unfair and therefore go against due process. So Steele makes that argument to the judge that the meeting constituted impermissible ex parte communication and this made the judge mad. The judge said he didn't do anything wrong and ordered Steele to disclose his source, but Steele wasn't about to do that. So when Steele said he wasn't going to answer the question, this triggered a back and forth between Steele and the judge.

The judge was ultimately concerned about, you know, where information is being leaked. And ultimately, the judge accused Steele of eavesdropping, gave him until 5 p.m. that day to give up his source, and said until then Steele would be held in custody. Steele gets taken into custody. Young Thug's other attorney then said that he didn't want to continue on with the trial without his co-counsel present. The judge denied that request, saying that essentially that the defense was trying to extort the court and that he wouldn't allow that. But then it was actually the prosecutor that requested that Steele be allowed to return to the courtroom,

and he was eventually let back in. And the reason that the prosecutor probably made this request to have Steele come back into the courtroom is because she didn't want to risk a mistrial, meaning she didn't want to risk any potential constitutional violations that could result in a mistrial or convictions being overturned on appeal. So she was like, no, no, no, let his attorney come back in. You know, we don't want to risk anything. As of now, Steele has been ordered to spend the next 10 weekends in jail. Steele requested he at least be able to spend the weekends in the Cobb County Jail, where his client, Young Thug, is being held so that they can, you know, work on the case together while they're both in custody. And the judge agreed to that. So as of now, that's what's

happening. Now, Steele has since filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals, as well as a motion asking the judge that sentenced him to reconsider and rescind his order, or at the very least, grant him bond while the appeal is pending. So we'll see what either the judge in this case or the Georgia Court of Appeals decides to do with it. But this has sparked a lot of outrage with other criminal defense attorneys. They're saying that holding this attorney in contempt for something like this is, you know, and sentencing them to jail is outrageous. Another attorney that's actually involved in this case, he's representing a separate defendant in the same case, requested transcripts of the meeting, arguing that all parties deserve some sort of sunlight

on what happened in the judge's chambers. But the judge rejected that request as well. The judge said, quote, if and when the case gets reviewed, an appellate court will make those decisions, end quote. So again, from the judge's perspective, he's concerned about the disclosure. He says that the leaked information was, quote, such a violation of the sacrosanctness of the judge's chambers, end quote. But on the other side, just because a judge's chambers have a certain degree of sacrosanctness doesn't necessarily mean the code of judicial conduct can be violated. So this is really going to come down to what was said in that meeting, whether the defendant was owed notice or not. Obviously, if it comes up, the conversation held in the judge's chambers was about the case, could affect the outcome of the

case, and the defense wasn't given notice, then the attorney's sentence will likely be vacated, and the judge may even face some sort of disciplinary action. So hopefully that answered your questions about what's going on in that case, And now we can move on to Hunter Biden's verdict. The federal jury and Hunter Biden's firearm case found him guilty today on all three charges that he faced. Earlier today, I posted a question box to Instagram. I asked you guys to submit some questions about the verdict. Rather than doing question, answer, question, answer, question, answer, I'm going to answer the questions within the discussion of what happened today and within the explanation of the verdict. And then if there's anything I didn't get to, maybe I'll do a mini more formal

Q&A in tomorrow's episode. But this episode is already long enough, so that's why I'm going to do it this way. Let's recap. Hunter was facing three charges in total. The first charge was knowingly making a false and fictitious statement with the intent and likelihood to deceive the firearm dealer with respect to a material fact to the lawfulness of the sale. In other words, Hunter Biden provided a written statement on a form called Form 4473 that certified he was not an unlawful user of and addicted to any controlled substances when in fact, as he knew, that statement was false and fictitious. The second charge was knowingly making a false statement and representation to the firearm seller with respect to information required by federal law to be kept in the seller's records.

So again, this charge relates to lying on that form about not being a user of controlled substances, but this charge specifically pertains to the information provided on records that must be kept with the seller in accordance with law. This charge is slightly different than the first in that the first was just actually making the false statement, but the second is making the false statement on a record that has to be kept in the seller's possession in accordance with federal law. And the third charge was knowingly possessing a firearm while knowing he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance. So this charge relates specifically to the possession,

whereas the first two charges stem from the actual purchase. When we put these charges into the jury's terms, on the first count, the jury basically found that beyond a reasonable doubt, Hunter knowingly made a false statement that was likely to deceive the firearm dealer and with the intent to deceive the firearm dealer with respect to a material fact of the lawfulness of the sale. So those were the elements of that charge. On the second count, the jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hunter knowingly made a false statement to the firearm seller about information required by law to be kept in the seller's records. And on the third count, the jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hunter knew he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance,

and while knowing that, possessed a firearm. So those are the elements. You guys know I like to go over the elements. Those are the elements of each charge. One of the jurors spoke to CNN after the verdict and said that when they started deliberations yesterday afternoon, the first thing they did was take a vote. And at that time, the jury was equally split. Six jurors were in favor of returning a guilty verdict. The other six wanted to return a not guilty verdict. By Tuesday morning, when deliberations resumed, the vote was 11 to 1, 11 wanting to return a guilty verdict, 1 wanting to return a not guilty verdict. So according to this juror, it took a few hours of discussing the elements of each crime before the final person ultimately agreed to return a guilty

verdict. Three other jurors who also spoke to CNN said they believed that there was no choice but to find Hunter guilty, but that they questioned whether the case should have been brought in the first place. So one of the jurors said, just as an example, that this case seemed like a waste of taxpayer dollars, but that the evidence pointed in favor of guilt. And by the way, I'm sure you know this if you've ever served on a jury, but for those that haven't, as a juror, you can talk about the case and the verdict after the verdict is returned. It's only while the trial is ongoing

and during deliberations that you cannot speak a word about it. Certain cases, because of how high profile they are, Trump's hush money case as an example, will see jurors keep totally quiet and not even say a word, but they don't have to keep quiet. They can talk about it after the fact. From here, Hunter's sentencing date will be scheduled. It'll probably be around mid-October. And as I said with Trump, it's unlikely he'll go to jail because, you know, this is, he's a first-type offender. It's a non-violent crime. There's security concerns. Jail is unlikely, but we'll see what the judge does with it. And yes, it is the judge that determines the sentence, not the jury. As for an appeal, neither Hunter nor his attorney have confirmed whether they'll appeal the conviction. They certainly can if they want to,

but it's not, you know, 100% clear as of now. And then finally, as for the pardon, President Biden implied in an interview with ABC News last week that he wouldn't pardon Hunter if Hunter was convicted, that he would respect whatever the jury ultimately decided. But he can if he wants to. He definitely does have the authority to do so. So with that discussion finalized, let's finish with some quick hitters. First, the port of Baltimore is officially fully reopened after the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed just two months ago. The bridge itself has obviously not been repaired yet, but the reopening allows ships to resume operations in and out of the channel.

Joey Chestnut, the 16-time winner of the Nathan's 4th of July hot dog eating contest, will not be competing this year. Major League Eating, which Nathan's sanctions to run the event, said Chestnut has, quote, chosen to represent a rival brand that sells plant-based hot dogs rather than competing in the 2024 contest, end quote. This partnership apparently went against the hot dog exclusivity provisions of the Nathans contract. And in some good news, the FBI released its Q1 uniform crime report yesterday, which covers January through March of each year, and reported a decrease in violent crime, murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and property crime when compared to the same three-month time span last year. Violent crime decreased by 15.2%, murder by 26.4%, rape by 25.7%, robbery by 17.8%, aggravated assault by 12.5%, and property crime

by 15%. Notably, there are a couple of limitations on that data, one being that the FBI relies entirely on voluntarily submitted data, and two, crime analysts say that these quarterly reports, they're kind of imprecise given that law enforcement agencies have the rest of the year to audit and correct any reporting errors before final annual figures are published. So we'll have to wait until the end of the year to review the annual report, but that's what the Q1 report is showing. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here.

I love episodes like this where I have a lot of good things to talk about. Have a great night, and I will talk to you tomorrow.