UNBIASED - June 11, 2026: Alleged Voter Fraud in California, Karmelo Anthony's Guilty Verdict, the Latest Strikes in Iran, and More.

Episode Date: June 11, 2026

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Updates Out of the Middle East; U.S. and Iran Escalate Fighting Despite Ceasefire (0:19) Karmelo Anthony Found Guilty of Murdering Austin Metcalf; Answering Your Questions About the Jury Pool (5:02) Quick Hitters (~27:09) Rumor Has It: What We Know About the Alleged Voter Fraud in California (~30:29) Critical Thinking Segment (~39:33) ⁠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

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGEMGEMP operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, June 11th, and we're talking about the latest strikes in Iran, the L.A. mayoral race and allegations of voter fraud, the murder trial of Carmelo Anthony, and more. But let's start today's episode with the latest out of the Middle East, because in Monday's episode, we left off with both Israel and Iran agreeing to suspend their attacks on one another

that was after exchanging fire for the first time since April. Well, the very next day after they agreed not to exchange fire, a U.S. Army Apache helicopter was shot down near the Strait of Hormuz. It's not clear at this point whether it was intentional or a mistake, but fortunately, the two crew members aboard the helicopter were fine. They were actually rescued in the strait by an unmanned boat, which the military says was the first time that it had used an unmanned boat to rescue American personnel. Following that incident, though, U.S. officials and President Trump blamed Iran, and Trump wrote on true social that the U.S., quote, must of necessity respond to the attack, and quote. So the United States launched strikes on Iran, and Iran responded by striking

U.S. bases in Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain. Trump then said Wednesday, so yesterday, that the United States would continue its strikes on Iran, saying, quote, we hit them hard yesterday. We're going to hit them again hard today. And quote, separately, he said, quote, I've been working with Iran for a number of months. They should sign the deal. It was just tap, tap, tap, tap. I don't know what they're doing. They're tapping and tapping. And they say, all right, let's give them a couple more days. they're tapping because it's a meaningful paper, end quote. So that was Wednesday earlier in the day. Later in the day, on Wednesday, U.S. Central Command confirmed that U.S. forces began

launching what it called self-defense strikes on multiple targets in Iran. That was at 5.15 p.m. Eastern time. Those strikes ended roughly four hours later. And those targets reportedly included Iranian military surveillance capabilities, communication systems, and air defense sites. Central Command said, quote, the strikes are in response to Iran's unwarranted and continued aggression. U.S. forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready. And quote, following those strikes on Wednesday, Trump told journalists that he had spoken with top officials in Tehran and they had asked him to, quote, stop bombing. And quote, notably, according to

defense secretary Hexath, these strikes are not. not being carried out with the intention of restarting the war. The administration says that that ended with the ceasefire agreement. And instead, the strikes were being used almost as a negotiation tool. In fact, Hegg Seth said, quote, if we need to negotiate with bombs, we'll negotiate with bombs. And quote, Iranian officials seem to think otherwise, though. On Wednesday, Iran's foreign minister reportedly said Iran sees Washington strikes as a quote unquote clear violation of international law, which have, quote, rendered the ceasefire ineffective. So there's a bit of a disconnect there as to what these strikes mean or what these strikes signal. Wednesday night,

Trump said that attacks could resume again today if a memorandum of understanding isn't reached. According to Trump, a deal is fully negotiated and just needs to be signed, but Iran is taking their time with signing that deal. So it seems that at least this week, the strikes are being used to kind of push Iran to sign off on the deal. And Trump has not ruled out striking critical infrastructure. He hasn't done so or he hasn't given those orders yet this week, but he has not ruled it out. Critical infrastructure includes things like power plants and bridges, obviously, you know, things that are critical for the country's infrastructure. Today, he threatened to take control of Kark Island, which is a big Iranian oil export hub that handles roughly 90%.

of the country's crude exports. And in response to that threat, an Iranian official said Iran will deliver a, quote, firm, crushing, painful, and regret-inducing response, end quote. And that's if the United States goes ahead and attacks that island. Now, as far as the straight goes, Iran said the Strait of Hormuz was closed after the recent strikes, but the U.S. military says otherwise. U.S. Central Command says ships continue to move in and out of the strait, obviously. it's not, you know, at the pace that it was before all of this started. But yeah, Central Command says that ships are still moving. So that's the latest there. I'm sure even more will have developed by the time I have this episode out to you because things seem to be changing by the

minute. But that is what we know at this point. Let's switch gears a bit to the murder trial of Carmelo Anthony. You guys had a ton of questions about this. So we're kind of going to cover all bases. Earlier this week, Carmelo Anthony was convicted of murdering Austin Metcalf, the initial killing, the subsequent charges, the trial, the conviction, everything kind of received pretty significant attention. And like I said, a lot of you just wanted clarity on the trial and more specifically the jury pool. So let's talk about it. Let's go back to what initially led to these charges. So Austin Metcalfe and Carmelo Anthony were both 17-year-old students in Friscoe, Texas, but went to different high schools.

Last year in April, there was a high school track meet at a local stadium where, you know, multiple schools were attending this one meet. And it happened to be raining on this day. So a lot of the athletes were taking cover under their team tents in the bleachers. Anthony, who attended Frisco Centennial High School, was sitting under the Memorial High School, team tent where Metcalf and his teammates were. Apparently there was a rain delay and so that's why they were all kind of taking shelter at this point in time. According to witnesses, Metcalf and other students asked Anthony to leave their team tent multiple times. One witness said Anthony was asked to leave

the tent about 15 times. When he wouldn't leave, Metcalfe, according to witnesses, pushed Anthony. Some of the students described it as a two-handed push, like they called it a quote-unquote lineman move. Others said it was a one-handed, quote-unquote, small shove. During the altercation, which witnesses said lasted about four to six minutes. Witnesses were called Anthony saying, quote, touch me and see what happens. And quote, meanwhile, another witness quoted Metcalf as telling Anthony, quote, I'm not going to fight you. end quote. At some point thereafter, Anthony stabbed Metcalf. There's no video footage of the actual stabbing because it happened, you know, under a tent, not in camera view. So the most crucial testimony

here came from those that were under the tent with Anthony and Metcalf. Witnesses said that after the stabbing, Anthony jogged away from the tent and a coach who spoke to him on the track, you know, shortly afterwards testified that Anthony said, quote, he put his hands on me. I stabbed him. End quote. A school resource officer testified that when he reported having the quote unquote alleged suspect in handcuffs, Anthony replied, quote, I'm not alleged. I did it.

End quote. A pocket knife, you know, was, or the pocket knife that was used in the stabbing was found on the bleachers. And a Colin County medical examiner testified that Metcalfe was stabbed once on the left side of his chest and that the knife perforated. his right ventricle. Now, Anthony was charged with murder and from the beginning this case attracted significant media attention not only because it involved one teenager, you know, killing another teenager at a high school track meet, which is obviously not something we see

every day, but also because of the racial dynamics. Anthony is black. Metcalfe was white. So pretty quickly, this case took on a racial dimension online. Some people saw the case as an example of unequal treatment in the justice system and, you know, questioned whether Anthony was being treated more harshly because he was black. Others saw Metcalf as an innocent victim and felt that race was being used to distract from the fact that Anthony had admitted to stabbing Metcalf. So race became a major part of the public debate from the very beginning. And then we get to trial and race becomes an even bigger part of the public debate because of the public debate because of the jury. And we'll talk about the jury in a few minutes, but first I want to talk about the actual

trial. So prosecutors argued that the stabbing was simply unjustified murder. Prosecutors basically said that Anthony was the one who initially provoked Metcalf. But even if Metcalf provoked Anthony with that shove, as some of the witnesses testified to, Anthony's response was disproportionate. The defense attorneys, on the other hand, told jurors that Metcalf initiated the altercation with his push, and Anthony subsequently acted in, quote, fear and chaos, end quote, and stabbed Metcalf in self-defense. Now, keep in mind that the question at this trial was not whether Anthony stabbed Metcalf. Anthony admitted that. He admitted to doing that. The question was whether the stabbing constituted murder, manslaughter, or self-defense.

So in legal terms, the question was, was this an intentional killing without legal justification? Was this a reckless act that caused Metcalf's death? Or was this a legally justified use of deadly force in self-defense? Under Texas law and under most state laws, those are three very different questions, right? So in Texas specifically, murder generally means the state. proves that the defendant either A, intentionally or knowingly caused someone's death, or B, intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused death. So for Anthony, the prosecution didn't necessarily have to prove that he intended to kill

Metcalf, right? They could argue murder if they proved that he intentionally used a knife in a way clearly dangerous to human life and caused Metcalf's death. So that's the, that's, that's murder under Texas law. Then you have manslaughter. Manslaughter is recklessly causing someone's death. It's a lower culpability level than murder. And then there's self-defense, which is basically, yeah, look, I did the thing, but I reasonably believe that it was immediately necessary to protect myself. Now, here's the thing with that. Texas law allows a person to use force against, someone else when they reasonably believe it's immediately necessary to protect against someone else's unlawful force. Deadly force, though, is a little bit different. So deadly force is justified

only if the person would first be justified in using deadly force and they reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to protect against another person's unlawful deadly force. or deadly force could be necessary to prevent certain serious crimes like murder, aggravated kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, things like that. That's obviously not what happened here. The reason that that's important is because for Anthony to have prevailed on his self-defense argument, his attorneys would have had to successfully show that Metcalfe was using unlawful deadly force and Anthony reasonably believed in his own deadly force was immediately necessary

to protect himself. When this went to the jury, the jury did have the option to consider manslaughter instead of murder, even though Anthony was charged with murder. And this is because of a legal doctrine which says that when someone is charged with a more serious crime, the jury can sometimes be instructed on a less serious version of that crime if the lesser offense is legally included within the greater offense and supported by the evidence. So what this means is the jury had to answer, A, was this murder? B, was this manslaughter?

Or C, was this self-defense? And ultimately, the jury said this was murder. What that tells us is the jury felt the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that either A, Anthony acted intentionally or knowingly in killing Metcalf or B, Anthony intended serious bodily injury, but committed an act clearly dangerous to a human life that caused death. It took the jury three hours to reach that decision. Then it was time for sentencing. So had the jury convicted Anthony of the lesser charge manslaughter, he would have faced a maximum sentence of 20 years. But because they convicted him of murder, his sentence range was

anywhere from five to 99 years or life. And after a few more hours of deliberation, the jury sentenced Anthony to 35 years. Okay. Now let's talk about the jury composition. because quite a few of you had questions about the fact that there was not a single black juror on the 12-person jury, despite Anthony being black himself. Now, what we know is that the jury pool started with 589 prospective jurors. They first had to narrow that group to about 250 and then eventually to 12 jurors and six alternates. And how they do this is through a process called jury selection. The perspective, jurors are given questionnaires and asked about things like social media, where they get their news, how much they believe what they read online, et cetera. From there, the lawyers on both sides review those answers and they then choose members of that initial pool to return for what's called

voir dire. About 300 prospective jurors returned for voir dire. So it was almost cut in half. Each side, the defense and the prosecution, was then given an hour and 45 minutes to question them. prosecutors went first. During the prosecution's questioning, the state asked about things that could affect impartiality. So whether jurors had children Anthony's age, whether they had heard about the case in the media, whether they understood the presumption of innocence, whether they could consider a life sentence, whether Anthony's age would affect their decision making. So questions along these lines. Now, prosecutors also address the racial elements surrounding the case because not only was this part of the public debate, but because Metcalf's death had led to protests and threats and doxing calls

targeting both families in this case and even a judge. And some of the prospective jurors said that race would influence how they voted. So like I said in the beginning and the reason you guys all have questions is because race was a big part of this case. The defense then questioned jurors about bias and reasonable doubt, the burden of proof, self-defense, whether, jurors would improperly expect Anthony to prove that his actions were justified. And several prospective jurors reported that they could not take the oath because they would expect the defense to prove in some way that Anthony's actions were justified. And that's just, that's not how the burden of proof works.

So through this process of jury selection and voir dire, you, you are weeding out jurors. And, you know, you had some prospective jurors admitting that media coverage. may have affected their views. There was one Friscoe Independent School District educator that said the case was close enough to home that they weren't confident they could be completely fair. One prospective juror said the fact that Anthony wasn't going to be testifying in his own defense would matter to them. That juror said, quote, silence is deafening, end quote.

So again, as I said, through this process, the defense and prosecution are just trying to identify jurors they believe might either be biased. unable to follow the law, might be unfavorable to their theory of the case. That's the whole purpose of jury selection. But then came the disputed strikes. So after the questioning and narrowing process, the state decided to strike three qualified black prospective jurors. And a qualified juror, by the way, is someone who's made it through the basic eligibility and screening process and is legally allowed to serve on that jury. In other words, the judge had not removed them for cause, because during jury's election, there are generally two ways that a potential juror can be removed,

right? One is for cause, which means there's a specific legal reason that person can't serve. Maybe they've admitted that they can't be fair. Maybe they've said they've already made up their mind on the matter. They personally know someone involved. Maybe they admit they can't follow the law, something along those lines. That's for cause. The other is a peremptory strike, which is more discretionary. So each side gets a certain number of these strikes, and they can use them to remove a juror without having to prove the juror is legally unqualified. So under normal circumstances, attorneys can use these peremptory strikes without giving a specific

reason. But peremptory strikes cannot be used to remove jurors because of race. So in this case, these three black prospective jurors had not been removed for cause. They were legally qualified to serve, but prosecutors used their peremptory strikes to remove them. And what the prosecution said is that they wanted to strike these jurors because they were all educators. They felt that educators, you know, would be adverse to their theory of the case. But when the prosecution wanted to strike these prospective jurors, the defense objected. And the defense argued that, you know, would be adverse to their theory of the case. But when the prosecution wanted to strike these prospective jurors, the defense objected. And the defense argued that if these jurors were removed, there would be no black jurors deciding this case. And this is what's called a Batson challenge. And we'll talk about a Batson challenge in more detail in a few minutes. But in response to the defense's objection, the prosecution said, no, no, no, these strikes are not race-based.

These strikes were based on race-neutral reasons, specifically that the jurors were educated. Well, the judge ultimately sided with the prosecution and allowed the strikes. Therefore, you had a jury that it was 12 jurors, six alternates, and not one black juror. The defense has already filed their notice of appeal, and it is likely that they will raise the Batson issue on appeal. That is what a lot of you guys have questions about. So we're going to take a break here. When we come back, we'll talk about what a Batson challenge actually is, what we are constitutionally entitled to when it comes to. a jury, what Anthony's attorneys might argue on appeal, and then we'll finish with quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. Are you one of those media strategy people clicking through slides, scrolling spreadsheets? Yes? Good. This is for you.

Because on Spotify, there's an audience that's different, locked in, loyal, invested. They're called fans. Fans don't just listen to music. They feel seen by it, like it belongs to them. So when your brand shows up on Spotify, that's who you're talking to. and you're right next to artists like me, Lizzo. So, are you ready to talk to fans? Spotify advertising.

You're among fans. Welcome back. Before the break, we talked about the fact that Anthony's attorneys will likely raise the Batson issue on appeal. A Batson challenge is based on the Supreme Court's 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky. The rule that stemmed from that case, I'll tell you what it's not and then I'll tell you what it is. So the rule isn't that a defendant is constitutionally entitled to a jury that includes people of his race. And this is where the phrase jury of your peers gets a little confusing because when we say someone has a right to a jury of their peers, that doesn't mean they have a right to a jury made up of people who are the same race, age, gender, background, etc. As them.

It means they have a right to an impartial jury drawn from the community and a jury selection process that doesn't. doesn't intentionally exclude people based on things like race. So the rule in Batson, like I said, it's not that Anthony had a constitutional right to black jurors. It's that prosecutors, Batson says that prosecutors can't use peremptory strikes to remove jurors because they're black. So how the process works is like this. First, if it's a Batson challenge, the defense has to make an initial showing that

race might have been a factor in excluding jurors. Then the burden shifts to the prosecution to give a race neutral explanation. They have to give a reason for their strikes that does not have to do with race. Then the judge has to decide whether that explanation is credible or whether it's really just a pretext for racial discrimination. So at trial, the judge has to decide whether the prosecution's explanation is believable. If the prosecution says we struck these jurors because they were educators, it's then up to the trial judge to decide whether that seems like the real reason or whether it seems like a cover for excluding those jurors because of race. If the trial judge accepts the prosecution's reasoning, as was the case here, then the jury stays as selected and the trial moves

forward. But on appeal, Anthony's attorneys could argue, and they probably will, that the trial judge got that call wrong. They could argue that the judge should not have accepted the prosecution's explanation at face value and should have found a Batson violation. If an appellate court agrees with Anthony's attorneys and finds a Batson violation, it could potentially reverse Anthony's conviction and send the case back for a new trial. But if the appellate court court finds that the trial judge made the right call, the Batson claim would fail. Now, I will say appellate courts usually give trial judges a lot of deference on Batson rulings because the trial judge is the one who was there and witnessed the questioning, the demeanor, the context at the time

that the jurors were struck, the appellate court was not there. So there tends to be more deference given to trial judges. So what this will look like once it does get appealed because Anthony's attorneys have already said or they've already filed their notice of appeal. And typically on appeal, you raise as many issues as possible with hopes of succeeding on at least one, right? So on appeal, the question would likely be assuming the Batson issue is raised. Whether the judge, the trial judge, did enough to determine if the prosecution's explanation was the real reason for the strikes or if it was just a cover for example? including the jurors because of race.

And when courts are looking at whether a strike may have been discriminatory, they don't just look at one juror in isolation. They can look at the bigger picture, like whether the prosecution struck multiple jurors of the same race. What kinds of questions the prosecutor asked during jury selection? Whether similar non-black jurors were treated similar in the same way or differently. Anything the prosecution might have said that might be. suggest race played a role. So the court can look at all of these things when analyzing this

particular issue. So hopefully that answered a lot of your questions. Now let's do some quick hitters. Parts of the Pentagon were locked down today and several floors were evacuated after a possible air quality issue was detected inside the building. Hazmat teams responded, but sources said the incident was later determined to be based on a false alarm. Officials have not publicly said what triggered the alerts and the response was described as precautionary. Inflation picked up again in May with consumer prices rising 4.2% from a year earlier and 0.5% from April. That is the first time annual inflation has topped 4% in about three years with higher energy

prices playing a major role. Bill Gates testified behind closed doors before the House Oversight Committee as part of its broader investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, including the DOJ's handling of the case and Epstein's connections to high-profile associates. The DOJ's release of the Epstein files revealed that Gates allegedly had sex with another woman and asked Epstein about getting antibiotics for his then wife, since it appeared he contracted an STD and didn't want his wife finding out about his extramarital affairs. During his testimony, Gates said that he met Epstein in 2011 because Epstein claimed he could help raise money for global health work, but Gates called the meetings

a, quote, grave error in judgment, end quote, and said he ended contact in 2014. Gates also denied victimizing anyone or knowing about Epstein's ongoing criminal activity while acknowledging that Epstein later tried to use information about Gates's personal life to pressure him to re-engage with him. Vance Bolter, the man charged in the 2025 attacks on Minnesota lawmakers, changed his plea to guilty in his federal case after the DOJ agreed not to seek the death penalty. A DOJ spokesperson said federal prosecutors decided not to pursue the death penalty because of legal uncertainty over whether the stalking-related charges in the case would support a capital sentence. Bolter was charged federally with murder, attempted murder, stalking, and firearms-related offenses. He's accused of killing former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark,

and also shooting Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, who survived. He still does face separate state charges where he could receive life in prison if convicted. The House failed to pass a short-term extension of Section 702 of Visa, surveillance law, that allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect communications of foreign targets overseas. The program is set to expire at midnight Friday, though some collection may continue temporarily under existing court certifications. And the Trump administration says it has located more than 145,000 unaccompanied migrant children who crossed the border during the Biden administration and were later released to sponsors. Unaccompanied minors generally refers to children who

arrive at the border without a parent or legal guard. and are later placed with sponsors while their immigration case moves forward. DHS says the effort is meant to check on children's safety and identify cases involving trafficking, abuse, or unsafe sponsors. Almost 300,000 unaccompanied minors remain unaccounted for. And now it's time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I either confirm, dispel, or add context to recent rumors submitted by all of you. rumor has it that there's voter fraud happening in California, especially after the recent L.A. mayoral race.

So first, let's separate a few things. Does voter fraud happen? Yes, that is true in California. It is true in other states. What's happened in recent years is that the term voter fraud has become so politicized that people often fall into one of two camps, right? Either they think it's rampant or they think it doesn't happen at all. But neither is really accurate. Fraud can happen. It does happen. It has happened. It has happened. that doesn't automatically mean it happens at a rate high enough to change election outcomes, right? The question you should be asking yourself when thinking about voter fraud isn't, is voter fraud happening? The answer to that question is yes. The question should be, is there evidence that enough fraud happened in, let's say, this election in California, to change the outcome? And right now, based on what's publicly available as it pertains to the recent California races, that hasn't been proven. Now, with that said, California's voting system is controversial. And when I say

controversial, I mean critics argue that the system creates too many vulnerabilities and opportunities for fraud, whereas supporters argue that this is a system that expands access to voting while still having safeguards in place. So for one, California relies heavily on vote by mail. After receiving a ballot in the mail, voters can return those ballots by mail, dropbox, voting center, or through someone else. And ballots can still be counted after election day as long as they were postmarked by election day and received within the legal window. So when you see vote totals changing after election day, that by itself is not automatically suspicious, right? That's just how California does it. 14 states plus DC do it this way, though the deadlines do vary by state. California accepts ballots

received up to seven days after election day, if postmarked by election day, Illinois accepts them up to 14 days later, Texas accepts them by 5 p.m. the day after, Virginia accepts them by the third day after. So it varies. But this is where mainly Republicans raise concerns. They argue that California's system creates too many opportunities for abuse, especially because of the state's third party ballot collection system. Critics call this ballot harvesting. Basically, it means someone other than the voter can collect and return that voter's mail ballot. Republicans have argued for years that this creates chain of custody concerns because once a ballot leaves the voters hands, there's a question of who had it, whether it was returned, whether voters were pressured, you know, who filled out

the ballot, whether campaigns or political operatives had too much influence. And by the way, we know that influence happens, right? It happens on both sides. The legal concern, though, is when does that influence become coercion, payment, mishandling a ballots, etc. And this is something that's received a lot of attention on Skid Row in L.A. specifically, because keep in mind, we are talking specifically about California voter fraud in this segment. There's this viral video going around right now where three people on Skid Row are asked whether they were paid to vote and all three of them say yes. One woman says she has paid $5 to vote for Mayor Bass.

Another woman said she was paid $2 to, quote, sign off. on a thing, end quote, to vote for Mayor Bass. A man said that they gave him the option of who to vote for, but quote unquote, promoted Mayor Bass and told him they wanted him to vote for Mayor Bass. He said he was paid $4. He called himself a barterer. Actually, here, let me, I'll play the video for you. There is a bit of background noise.

So I'm hoping the audio comes through okay. But here's the actual video. That's a good row. And then, uh, and then, uh, did they come down here in time, pay you? you to vote? Yes. On a ballot? Yes. How much they pay you? Five dollars. They said here, come and vote for these candidates. Yes, sir. They told you who to vote for? Yes. So they told you vote for Karen Bass or Nitha Rahman? Karen Bass. Do you vote for Karen Bass? Yeah. For $5? Did you vote? Yeah. Oh, you did for Karen Bass? Yeah. They told you vote for Karen? Yeah. They had to sign

a little thing. And how much they pay you? It's like two bucks. Two bucks? I had to sign off on a thing to vote for her. Yeah. They'd say, oh, do you want to vote for Karen or Nithia? Or they just really just tell you to vote for Karen, huh?

They get you an absolute choice, but they tell me who they want to vote for. Or they tell you who you want to vote for? So I go, we'll give you $2 and you got to vote for one of these people. Well, you know, I'm a, I'm a barter, man. So I got $4. And you're like, go, give me $4 and I'll do it. Yeah, why not? So they do this for everybody out here?

Yeah, they come out here outside. How often do they come down here? Probably like three times a week. Three times a week? They get the ballots? Yep. Wow. You know other people too that voted too?

Anybody's registered? Doggy dog. So that video has captured people's attention. But in addition to that, just a few weeks ago, federal prosecutors announced a case in California involving a woman who allegedly paid people on Skid Row, two and three dollars to register to vote and sign ballot initiative petitions. She actually just agreed to plead guilty to paying someone to register to vote, which is illegal. Now, what she did is, of course, different than paying someone to vote one way or the other, which is also illegal,

but that case is part of what's fueling these improper payment allegations in California. Now, just to circle back to the, that's what critics call ballot harvesting. To circle back to the mail-in voting, the fact that Democratic candidates tend to see more votes, more mail-in votes after election day is not something new. It's not something just isolated to California. It's not something that's only happening in this election. This is actually something that got a lot of attention after the 2018 midterms when several California Republicans were ahead on election night, but ended up losing after mail-in ballots came in. Similar thing just happened with Spencer Pratt in the L.A. mayoral race. Pratt was ahead. Then mail and ballots came in. Nithia Rahman pulled ahead.

So Republicans generally point to that pattern is evidence that the system is vulnerable and being politically used and abused. Democrats, though, argue that more Democratic voters, especially in bigger cities, vote by mail, which means more Democratic votes are counted after election day. And in their view, that's not fraud. It's just counting valid ballots. Another reason California's system is controversial is voter ID. California is one of 14 states plus DC that doesn't require voters to show an ID document when they vote in person. 36 states require some form of voter ID at the polls, whether photo ID, non-voto ID, but there are 14 states plus DC that don't require any form of ID. California is one of them. Those 14 states plus DC use other ways to verify identity. So as an

example, California voters still have to register to vote. And when they, do, their registration information is checked against government records. Voters in California also sign the mail-in ballot envelope and that signature is supposed to be verified before the ballots counted. So there are some legal safeguards in place, but for Republicans, that's a big issue. Their argument is that California has all of these rules that we've talked about over the course of the last five minutes that create vulnerabilities. So that's the context. Okay. What do we know right now? Well, we know that California system takes longer to count than many other states. We know mail and ballots are a huge part of the vote.

We know third party ballot collection is legal in California. We know a recent federal case involving Skid Row payments for voter registration is helping fuel these concerns. And we know federal officials have opened election fraud investigations. At the same time, we don't at this point have conquests. create evidence showing widespread or outcome-changing fraud in the recent California races. And we know California has certain safeguards like signature verification on mail-in ballots. So at the end of the day, here's what we can say for sure. California's voting system is controversial.

Voter fraud can happen. It does happen. And in this case, there's some evidence that's raising legitimate concerns, right? Namely, that Skid Row video in the recent federal case involving payments for voter registration. But based on what's publicly available. right now, we don't know whether any fraud was widespread. We don't know whether improper ballots were actually counted. We don't know whether anything happened at a scale that could have changed the outcome of the L.A. mayoral race or any other recent California race for that matter.

Okay. For today's critical thinking segment, we're going to go back to the Carmelo Anthony trial. Some of you might not have, you know, strong feelings one way or the other about this case. But I have, my first question is for those of you that do. So my first question is, are you applying the same standard to this case that you would apply if the races were reversed? In other words, if the teenager who used the knife was white and the teenager who died was black, would you view the facts, the self-defense claim, the conviction, and the sentence in the same way? If not, why? Now on the jury issue, this one, this question's for everyone. What matters? more to you when it comes to jury selection. Is it that the final jury looks representative or is it that the process used to select the jury is fair? And then finally, for this last question, we're going to assume two things can be true at once. We're going to assume the verdict is factually supported. And we're going to assume that there might still be legitimate questions about the jury selection process. If that is the case, what is the fix? If there's a fix at all, what would the fix

be. That's what I have for you today. If you loved what you heard today, I would love it if you left me a five-star review on your preferred podcast platform. Those ratings really help. I used to ask for them in every single episode and I got away from that so I need to get back to it. I would really appreciate if you did that. So thank you in advance. I hope you have a great, enjoyable, relaxing weekend. And I will talk to you on Monday.