reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 outlines concerns about governance and patient safety, stating that “the governor” is ultimately over the issues, with nurses and the medical board implicated. He recalls that the medical board “came in and Please please do from letting insurance are being abused,” noting that complaints would take up to eight months to be contacted back or would “vanish into a black hole.” He emphasizes that staffing was blamed despite unspent staffing funds and asserts the governor is ultimately responsible. He mentions that his staff queried the possibility of being an Israeli spy and calls for immediate hearings, adding that discussions have been ongoing and something will be done. He references news that Josh Shapiro, a Kamala Harris vice-presidential contender, was queried by her staff about being an Israeli spy, and contrasts this with the lack of questioning about Walsh being a Chinese spy or having a predilection to fraud. He references antisemitic lines of credit and notes receiving massive inquiries, saying they will host a seminar on how to fight back, including defamation lawsuits as a recourse for public figures, though acknowledging the difficulty of such actions. Speaker 2 states she does not know the person but notes a predilection for people close to the others, insisting the person is “not part of the club.” Speaker 0 recalls a podcast with a Christian podcaster and expresses that to do this line of work, one must believe God drives it because they do not make money. He remarks on being disliked for not chasing popularity and invites others to examine their Twitter feeds. He describes the harassment they face, including lawfare, stalking, threats, and the desire to “kill me,” recounting examples like Carrie Donovan. Speaker 2 agrees on the intensity of threats and emphasizes the importance of truth and accountability in their reporting, not wanting to be deterred by intimidation. Speaker 0 adds that belief in a higher purpose is necessary to endure the profession, noting that after October 7 his faith was shaken but returning to the idea that God orders their steps. Speaker 2 adds that the local community deserves to know when someone is not who they claim to be or has a criminal record, and that elected officials deserve scrutiny. Speaker 1 introduces Adam with Accuracy in Media, saying he is dealing with three defamation suits from wealthy individuals’ families and has faced 13 swatts and daily death threats, sometimes requiring off-duty police at college campuses. He highlights the value of anti-SLAPP laws and tort reform, noting North Carolina lacks an anti-SLAPP law, which would help dismiss frivolous defamation suits protecting free speech, and criticizes legislators for lobbying for lawyers. Speaker 0 announces a good development: a story they broke on Thursday prompted Brendan Jones, head of the real bulldog in North Carolina’s oversight committee, to request appearances before his committee in Winston-Salem. They plan to discuss the Winston-Salem event, North Carolina A&T, and the Western North Carolina story, which Margo finds triggering. Speaker 3 from the city notes DEI support and discusses terminology changes since the FBI’s ban, and Speaker 1 comments on leadership differences between states, suggesting better governance in other legislatures and hoping for improved leadership locally. The exchange ends with remarks about leadership and governance comparisons.

Juries often make mistakes in civil trials, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. The speaker struggles to separate their emotions from following the law impartially. They mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and being criticized for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to those who defame others in court.

The speaker reports a federal judge ruled in their favor, allowing them to continue deposing individuals and request comments on their reporting about Project Veritas. The speaker states this is a victory for the Amendment. The speaker says Project Veritas argued that the speaker was intimidating witnesses, but the judge noted the speaker wants them to talk. The speaker says this is an epic moment because people claim their journalism harms people. The speaker acknowledges claims of threats or anonymous comments against people, but asserts the public has a right to know information under the Amendment. The speaker says they will report more on this ruling after obtaining the court transcript.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of jury instructions in criminal trials, noting the need for clarity and fairness. They express concern over prosecutors pushing the boundaries of due process by withholding specific information from the jury. The debate in court revolves around whether the jury should be informed about the details of the alleged crime. The speaker questions the motives of the District Attorney's office, suggesting a focus on securing convictions over ensuring justice.

As a juror in the CNN trial, it was clear to me that Alex Marquardt had targeted Zachary Young, evidenced by his email stating, "I'm going to nail this Zachary Young." The jury agreed that the emails among CNN employees were problematic. Marquardt's demeanor on the stand was arrogant, often claiming, "I don't recall" and "I don't feel the need to apologize." We determined there was defamation with malice. Had we proceeded to the punitive damages phase, we were prepared to award between $50 million and $100 million. This was to both penalize CNN and deter similar behavior from other media outlets. CNN likely recognized the potential severity of our award, which led to a settlement, allowing Mr. Young to move forward.

The speaker asserts that Texas lied to prosecute the T-Mobile whistleblower and that the case exposes information Americans aren’t supposed to know. A key claim is that a conservative constitutional judge from Collin County was replaced days before the trial with a retired liberal judge from Dallas, which the speaker suspects allowed a juror to be planted in the jury. During jury selection, defense and state weeded 50 people down to eight, but the judge ultimately selects the jurors. The state prosecution allegedly lied about the gated community entry, claiming a security guard was present and that the speaker snuck in, a claim the speaker says is false and used to portray him as a dangerous stalker. The T-Mobile executive allegedly stated he feared for his life and his family’s safety, yet the speaker notes the executive flew to Bellevue, Washington, to T-Mobile’s headquarters the next day, arguing it contradicted the notion of a genuine threat from the speaker. The state prosecuted by obtaining all of the speaker’s social media from Ex Twitter, Instagram, Substack, and the speaker learned of this only when Instagram notified him. The state and T-Mobile labeled the speaker a violent threat for discussing his guns in self-defense, with a cited tweet and related materials used in the case. The speaker claims that his communications—tweets, videos, a long-form website—were censored, and that he then went guerrilla with flyers and a self-defense stance described as “staccato for self defense.” During sentencing, the state subpoenaed a police officer who arrested the speaker sixteen years earlier for a felony marijuana charge, with deferred adjudication and probation completed in 2008, to portray the speaker as a still-active drug dealer. The state reportedly shared some of the whistleblower story but downplayed that T-Mobile violated Texas Health and Safety Code chapter 81 d by discriminating against the speaker for being unvaccinated. The speaker concludes by urging viewers to share the story, claiming it exposes corruption among elected officials and corporations.

Speaker 0: Listen to this clip, Hannah, of what I said that was so dangerous and controversial. K. Keen Jeffries, a progressive congressman, literally tweeted, while the trial was going on, lock up Kyle Rittenhouse and throw away the key. And he's the same guy that rails against mass incarceration, and I agree with him on some of it. But now, before the trial's even over, they're calling for this guy to be locked up and throw away the key. Like, they've already reached their conclusion. Speaker 1: No. Didn't give him a fair shake. Speaker 0: It's a very ... And they lied about it being a white supremacy thing when it's a white dude that shot three other white people. It's the entire thing is bizarre and it's Out of self defense. Speaker 1: Right. Yes. Speaker 0: In my opinion. Speaker 1: That's most important. Speaker 0: The truth is he defended himself; he wasn't some mass shooter white supremacist, and he should be acquitted. Do you feel bullied? Speaker 1: I I don't. And honestly, I think that was the most milquetoast explanation of everything that went down.

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker who specializes in civil trials. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. However, it's challenging for the speaker to separate their emotions from the law. They also mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and being criticized for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that they should have absolute immunity when it comes to defamation cases in court.

The speaker discusses the verdict in the E Jean Carroll defamation case against Donald Trump. They criticize the outcome, calling it unjust and politically motivated. They highlight Carroll's lack of evidence and questionable motives. The speaker also criticizes the media's biased coverage of the trial and expresses concern about the corrupt judicial system. They argue that this case sets a dangerous precedent for using the court system as a political tool. The speaker concludes by urging people to be aware of the potential consequences and to protect themselves.

We often rely on stereotypes, like judges should have no opinions. That's false. If it were true, computers could run our justice system. Input the facts, spin the wheel, and get the correct decision. But that's not how justice works, nor should it. People who know me know I have opinions about many things.

It is not unusual for a crime to generate publicity. Ultimately, a judge will decide at the time of trial. The speaker wants this to happen in Collin County and for Collin County citizens to decide this. The speaker no longer understands it. Their personal address has been exposed, and they have received graphic and racist threats. That would not be something that could be done even if desired.

They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.

Speaker 0 describes a judge threatening a witness with prosecution for testifying to their best knowledge and skills, saying that would make the witness criminally liable; asserts that such a threat by a judge constitutes a felony. Speaker 1 adds that many countries (27) have strict limits on defenses, often labeling real defenses as holocaust denial, preventing witnesses that counter official narratives and effectively blocking a proper defense; calls the situation insane. Speaker 0 reflects on lessons as an expert witness: he was never allowed to take a stand and was always moved off the stand. He states that German judges are obligated by case law to systematically deny any motion to introduce that kind of evidence, and that threats accompany this denial. Speaker 1 responds, though the exact wording is unclear. Speaker 0 recounts events from the early 1990s, noting that repeated appearances as a witness prompted panic and the introduction of new case law. He describes an incident where, in 1996, a defense lawyer wanted him to testify again, and the defense lawyer was prosecuted for merely filing a motion to introduce the evidence. He explains that in Germany, the defense cannot introduce evidence; only the prosecution and the judges can introduce evidence. The defense is defenseless because a defendant must file a motion for the judge to introduce evidence, and the judge not only systematically denies it but the prosecution prosecutes the defense lawyer for filing the motion. This pattern is described as serious and as something upheld by the German Supreme Court. Since then, filing motions to defend oneself in historical matters is described as a crime, with the act of defending oneself seemingly criminalized.

The speaker believes there was a miscarriage of justice in the courtroom, with judges siding with the prosecution and hindering the defense. They stress the importance of equal protection under the law as a fundamental constitutional principle in American Jurisprudence.

Many jury members may have acquitted OJ due to Rodney King. About 90% felt that way, including the speaker. They believed it was payback and justified.

Juries often make mistakes, in my opinion. As a civil trial judge, I have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. It allows me to question if a reasonable jury would have reached the same conclusion. However, it's challenging to separate my emotions from the process. Sometimes, someone may argue that a case is similar to another, but I have to consider even minor differences, like the color of clothing. In the past, I worked briefly as a journalist and faced criticism for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. People questioned my credibility since I wasn't present, but that was the general belief at the time.

The speaker questions Judge Netburn's prioritization of individual rights over political ideology. They discuss a case involving a male repeat rapist in a women's prison. The speaker criticizes Judge Netburn's decision, accusing her of prioritizing political ideology over the safety of female inmates. The speaker challenges Judge Netburn's reasoning and accuses her of being a radical judge. Judge Netburn defends her decision based on the petitioner's behavior in prison and medical needs. The speaker accuses Judge Netburn of contradicting her own report and questions her decision-making. Senator Padilla interrupts, preventing Judge Netburn from responding.

Speaker 0 raises a pointed challenge to the government’s policy approach to the judiciary. He frames the issue as a confrontation over two key proposals: first, that the government wants to do away with jury trials, and second, that it intends to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence people for up to two years without any right to appeal, conviction, or sentence. He explicitly asks for confirmation of these two elements of the government's plan and how they would function in practice. He then presents a data point to question the reliability of the magistrates’ system under the current framework. He asks whether the government can confirm that last year there were 5,000 cases appealed from magistrates’ courts, and that more than 40% of those appeals were upheld. This is used to challenge the effectiveness and fairness of the existing system, implying that a high rate of appeals being upheld may reflect underlying issues with magistrates’ decisions or processes. Building on that, Speaker 0 poses a second, direct policy question: is it the government's policy to simply live with this number of miscarriages of justice? By framing the statistics as potential miscarriages of justice, he challenges the plausibility or desirability of a policy direction that would normalize or accept such outcomes. Throughout, the speaker communicates a sense of urgency and skepticism about removing jury involvement and expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers, tying the proposed changes to concerns about appeals outcomes and the broader integrity of the justice system. The questions are aimed at forcing clarification or reversal by the government, by tying policy changes to concrete, measurable results from the current system and labeling those results as miscarriages of justice if the policy were adopted.

In the United States, it's unusual that we don't have a jury, which I find unfair. However, I need to address a misconception in the press. We didn't have the option to choose a jury, contrary to what's being repeated. Personally, I believe juries often make mistakes, but I have a tool called "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" to handle those situations. I can declare that a reasonable jury would never have reached that conclusion.

The entire justice enterprise in The United States depends upon an honor system. It depends upon them telling the truth. It depends upon them abiding a promise they made to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. And we are long past the days when that oath was backed in most people by a fear of going to hell. And so it turns out it's an honor system. To get information, to be able to find the truth, and the truth is a real thing. There are facts. That honor system has to be enforced with an iron fist so the system will work, so the truth can be found in a reliable way.

Nobody is above the law, and elected office does not grant immunity from prosecution. Defending a judge or prosecutor politically is inappropriate because the legal system should be nonpolitical. The speaker expresses dismay that someone had a judge arrested.

Judge Wilson asks about the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor in New York—one year. The business records case is a misdemeanor, correct? The underlying crime, the falsified business records, yes. That’s a misdemeanor charge. The only way to reach a felony is by concealing another crime, right? Correct. Each crime has specific elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict at trial. Right? That is the right way to do it. In the indictment, did they specify the underlying crime? No. They only described it as other crimes. In the jury instructions, did they specify the specific underlying crime? No. The falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions, with some brief description of a New York state election law violation, but there was no description of the three underlying crimes. There was a description given of falsifying business records, which was ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records. So, and that’s also a misdemeanor, right? That should be. So you have two plus two equals six: if you commit two misdemeanors, you get to the felony statute of limitations, which they had to get—or they could have never brought the case. That’s correct. But there are more questions about the statute of limitations. It’s not cut and dry because the time Donald Trump spent out of New York could be used to toll the statute of limitations. That was the Harvey Weinstein ruling in the court of appeals. He argued that the time he spent out of New York, while in California, should have tolled the time limitations, but the court of appeals ruled against him on that issue. So that’s how they may get around the statute of limitations problem in this case. Was the election law case a federal or state underlying crime? It seemed charged as both; when we got to the jury instructions, there’s a violation of New York election law charged, but then one of the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law. And then the third one was a tax violation, right? Also unspecified. So all three underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime. Were any of the elements listed? No. Not at all. And this matters for defense: if you don’t know the elements of the crime you’re defending, how do you mount a defense? You can’t. That’s the very issue of fundamental fairness referenced here: a defendant is entitled to know what the charges are against them so you can defend against those charges. Trump was never made aware of the extent of the charges until the end of the trial. Elements of the crime go in jury instructions. Traditionally you get the elements of the underlying crime. Instead, in this case, they got a grab bag: a choice of three underlying crimes, and we don’t even know which ones they chose or whether they could have been unanimous on those three. So not only were the elements of the crime missing, but there were three different crimes with three vastly different elements, all unspecified. Neither the indictment nor the bill of particulars lists the elements. The statement of facts merely describes a series of allegations and actions believed to have been taken by Trump, none of which describe any criminal activity or elements of any crime. Therefore, on appeal there may be significant legal issues arguing the jury never actually had the elements put in front of them. There’s little doubt this matter could be reversed on appeal based on these issues. Jury trials are still the best way to determine guilt or innocence, but juries are only as good as the information put in front of them. With that, the speakers yield.

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to challenge a jury's decision if they believe it is unreasonable. The speaker acknowledges the difficulty of separating their emotions from the law. They mention a personal experience at the Columbia Daily Spectator where they were criticized for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to journalists when it comes to defamation cases in court.