00:01:07.000We are currently waiting the final verdict.
00:01:10.000I don't think we're going to get a verdict, but as of the pre record, we're doing this on a Friday.
00:01:15.000We are minutes away from the judge in the Lindsey Clancy case coming out and telling us what's going to happen.
00:01:20.000Now, the judge did say he was going to declare a mistrial, but the defense asked for an emergency one hour appeal citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, I guess insinuating that the juror is discriminating against Lindsey Clancy for being paralyzed, which obviously is a long shot.
00:03:30.000I think Kevin Reddington's trying desperately to find some judge who's willing to stay this case and let him get this jury on the record as to what they're doing for first degree.
00:03:39.000So there's multiple different charges.
00:03:41.000There's first degree, which is the one that actually carries the most penalty, carries life without parole.
00:04:25.000If she hadn't tried to kill herself, if she just killed three kids and was sitting there rocking in the corner, put her and sent her away.
00:04:30.000Yeah, but what if she was trying to jump out the window to make it look like it was a suicide attempt and she didn't actually expect to break her back?
00:04:36.000Like shooting herself in the foot to get out of the window.
00:04:38.000When she jumped out, how did she jump out?
00:06:04.000Past the fact that she killed her three kids.
00:06:06.000And I mean, it's, I mean, other than the conspiracy theories, that's not really in dispute.
00:06:09.000But just legally, I think if the jury follows the law, they're going to have to find her not guilty.
00:06:14.000What about her like Googling all of the different stuff beforehand and that implying some degree of premeditation?
00:06:21.000Doesn't that imply that she's not as insane as she definitely, I mean, I think there's a degree of premeditation because she did plan these out.
00:06:27.000It's whether or not she planned them out while she was in psychosis or she planned them out because she wanted them dead.
00:06:32.000So I'll tell you, for me, for me, And a lot of jurors, they want a reason.
00:09:45.000It's one of the craziest things I've ever seen.
00:09:46.000On today's episode of The Women of the World v. Patrick Clancy, I'm going to prove that Lindsey Clancy's bedroom was staged using brat stalls and a shoebox reconstruction of the crime scene because I noticed something that absolutely nobody else has noticed, not even the blood experts.
00:10:00.000And if they did notice, they strategically omitted it from their testimony because it proves.
00:10:11.000But unfortunately, my male brush top didn't come with a weaker jawline, and he doesn't have accurate clothing to what Patrick was wearing other than the first pair of shoes.
00:13:15.000But the problem was they said they were therapeutic amounts, meaning that they weren't, like, she didn't take them outside of the recommended doses.
00:14:19.000Here, the removal is particularly important because the juror's reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness.
00:14:24.000I mean, he's pulling it out at this point.
00:16:09.000I know, but I fully believe that in a sane mind, she didn't want those kids dead.
00:16:11.000But just like every other law and every other precedent, if you, okay, good faith, yeah, she didn't want to kill her kids, but aren't there evil people who could exploit that and then create a paper trail that makes.
00:16:21.000People think they didn't want to kill their kids, but they actually do.
00:16:24.000And then they kill them and say, Whoops, I'm insane.
00:16:27.000So the difference is, so the difference here, though, is that they had this, the defense actually had some really good experts, like credible experts, experts that work for the state regularly that said she was insane.
00:16:37.000So, I mean, yeah, you could buy an expert, of course.
00:16:41.000I mean, you can find an expert that'll say just about anything, but you can't find a good one.
00:17:12.000Well, if she'd been diagnosed with psychosis before she killed her kids, that would be more credible to me, right?
00:17:18.000It makes it look much less like a fabricated legal defense.
00:17:20.000Because psychosis was never mentioned until after she killed her kids, got a defense attorney who knew he needed psychosis for the legal defense.
00:17:27.000That's not true because she was diagnosed with bipolar.
00:17:29.000Too, which does have psychosis as symptoms, and she had had some hallucinations, but it's not common, she didn't have another one of these really uncommon things, right?
00:17:44.000Yeah, having bipolar and it's extensive psychosis, very unusual, very uncommon.
00:17:50.000And when you take uncommon events that only to be strung together like pearls on a string, and everyone's uncommon, and you multiply them out, the fact that that would lead to this kind of insanity that would release criminal culpability that's what I don't find credible.
00:18:27.000In today's French law, if you wanted someone to die but you didn't want to kill them publicly, you would put them in the oublie and be like, I guess they died in prison.
00:19:14.000Yeah, that's kind of what we don't gotta spend any money on.
00:19:17.000I mean, a chapter in the book is called Lord of the Chess because they just gave him an island just like the kids in the Lord of the Chess.
00:19:21.000Well, that's like those places where you can use drugs, like out in public and stuff.
00:19:25.000Yeah, but then you get Greta Thunberg sailing up and freeing them and being like, we need to rid them off the island.
00:19:41.000Killing children isn't a symptom of psychosis.
00:19:43.000Home, she's going to a forensic mental institution, which is not, I mean, it's just like prison, but it actually treats you and actually gives you.
00:19:50.000But can you explain to me, like, why it is that that precedent was established where if you have psychosis, then all of a sudden you're no longer treated the same way?
00:24:18.000What if you're like, you know what, honestly, I misremembered and I made a mistake, which is likely to be the more accurate memory the one closer to the event or the one today?
00:24:26.000Yeah, but that one was three years after, so it's you know, the whatever statement you gave right after the event, but you're gonna read your testimony, yeah, you're gonna prep, you know, they zoomed out again, you're gonna there because something's happening, but you're gonna read your testimony, but that's a lot of work.
00:25:35.000Council, it's my understanding that the SJC issued their order that the emergency request for relief was denied and the temporary stay is lifted.
00:25:48.000And so it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in.
00:25:53.000And as I indicated to you before, to declare mistrust.
00:25:57.000I understand, Your Honor, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the court, I'd like to raise an additional issue just for purposes of the federal law, because this, I believe, constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution and federal issues.
00:26:14.000The Supreme Court shut him down in Massachusetts, so he wants to go federal.
00:26:25.000The issue is handled under federal rules of criminal procedure 23B, but the law itself that we're dealing with clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for, quote, good cause, end quote, and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict andor with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting, obviously, as alternates.
00:26:53.000While the First Circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions constitutes good cause for dismissal, it does impose procedural issues as to how the court would navigate, which would require a hearing.
00:27:09.000The core standard is United States versus Sepulveda, First Circuit 1993.
00:27:17.000And in that case, Your Honor, which is significant precedent, the First Circuit addressed the underlying concept of nullification, where a juror Refuses to follow the court's instructions.
00:27:27.000And in the Sepulveda case, the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to acquit for any reason, they have a significant duty, and their duty requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court.
00:27:42.000If a juror abdicates this duty, it triggers the court's authority to intervene, and the court would then have a procedure where you would inquire, just like a hearing, like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing.
00:27:54.000So I would suggest, Your Honor, that clearly.
00:27:57.000Under the First Circuit law, federal law, as well as the argument to the court, Massachusetts law, that we have a juror who has, according to the foreperson, is the only person who is basically holding out, so to speak.
00:28:12.000And unfortunately, they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law, but they're holding out as a result that even though they have agreed and expressed doubt, they are refusing to apply the law as you've given it.
00:28:25.000So I would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're.
00:29:29.000Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we return present for the court 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsey Clancy.
00:31:29.000The only thing I am going to ask one more thing is that what I'd like to do is be able to come back and thank you personally.
00:31:37.000I'm going to have to talk to the council for just a couple of minutes.
00:31:41.000So if you could stay just for a couple of minutes, not to go over the deliberations or anything like that, but just to thank you personally again for just an incredible commitment and dedication that each and every one of you showed here.
00:34:25.000We have to have a hearing within the five days.
00:34:27.000I'd like to, but I mean, I know you'd like to, but I, you know, maybe we could do it later in the week, maybe not Tuesday, maybe Thursday or so.
00:34:38.000Sure, I'm gonna be out of the state until the 22nd.
00:38:05.000They actually can, and the fail safe for that is the judge.
00:38:08.000So, so I'll tell you the answer is that so there is a standard that if they do convict and there's no evidence, they have to reverse it on appeal.
00:38:17.000It's a U.S. Supreme Court case that's can you get a directed verdict?
00:38:20.000But you, yeah, the other thing is you should be able to get a directed verdict, but judges don't do that.
00:38:23.000And what that is is like, If the jury convicted and there's no evidence, then I could argue as a defense lawyer to the judge, you need to direct a verdict of not guilty, which basically means you need to force a not guilty verdict.
00:39:17.000He just filed the person once they were in West Virginia.
00:39:19.000They can be prosecuted in three different places they can be prosecuted where they were kidnapped, prosecuted where they were killed, and also prosecuted in the federal system because they cross state lines.
00:40:19.000I worked on the appeal where the person, it's a death penalty case.
00:40:23.000The guy's on death row, and he kidnapped a lady in Georgia and took her to Tennessee and killed her in Tennessee.
00:40:28.000He got charged with kidnapping with bodily injury.
00:40:30.000He's the only person on death row for a non homicide case because he's on death row for kidnapping with the death resulting, but the death didn't result in Georgia.
00:40:39.000So they couldn't bring it up, but it's still there.
00:41:44.000There was one where two women talked, and one woman advised her on how to go get an abortion in another state, and they called it a conspiracy.
00:41:52.000I mean, it happens a lot on the international level.
00:41:55.000Somebody will commit a murder in America, flee to Europe, and we'll try to expedite them from Europe, and Europe won't send them back unless we promise not to execute them.
00:42:03.000What about that strip in Wyoming or whatever?
00:42:43.000Because the feds draw from like a larger.
00:42:46.000And so he tried making the argument that this strip has no jury of my peers, therefore you can't charge me.
00:42:54.000And they said, we're going to do it anyway, and you're going to fight the federal government to take a plea deal, and he agreed to take a deal.
00:42:59.000Yeah, because the feds' jurisdiction is not just the state, it's the whole area.
00:43:14.000Yeah, he's taking a train ride, and then they drive him off to the strip and dump the body because they're like, no one lives here, no one searches.
00:43:20.000And they mention in the show, there's no jury of a peer, so nobody could be charged anyway.
00:43:24.000Well, no one's going to find the body.
00:44:11.000Well, I mean, there's certain things that I can say that they're supposed to minimize, but I don't always trust them.
00:44:16.000But if I think they're listening or if I know they're listening because there's a wiretap, I will always say some colorful things about them on.
00:44:21.000Because they won't be able to use it in court or anything.
00:45:51.000They're the lead counsel on their cases.
00:45:53.000They're providing the seller's advocacy.
00:45:55.000They call me for an expert opinion on the self defense law aspects of the case.
00:45:59.000But I'm not going to take money from people and then give them a report that says their client's guilty.
00:46:04.000I just don't feel that's the right thing to do.
00:46:06.000So if I look at the case and I'm like, listen, this is just not going to work as self defense, well, obviously, then they don't want to hire me anyway.
00:46:13.000Do you guys often get clients that just, I already know the answer to this, but they just think they're so smart and they cleverly covered things up, but they're dumb as a box of rocks?
00:46:59.000You know, I just realized Ian can kill anyone he wants because all he needs to do is make the jury watch any episode of.
00:47:06.000Well, that's what I keep thinking about is if I get five doctors, five different medicines, they don't know, then I can be like, hey, nobody's at fault.
00:47:16.000Are the doctors going to get charged for negligence for overprescribing Lindsey Clancy?
00:48:12.000Like, if you get a traffic ticket and you just don't want to go to court, so you just want to pay it, but you don't want to plead guilty, you plead no contest.
00:48:17.000Nolo contendere, that's the Latin term.
00:48:19.000You're not admitting guilt, but you're saying, I'll pay it.
00:48:36.000So, like, you're saying that you think the state will convict you and you want to take a plea and be sentenced, but you're not agreeing to what they said you did.
00:48:42.000So, somehow, so like maybe I killed her, but I didn't mean to kill her.
00:48:45.000I killed her with the knife instead of the gun, and the state thinks a lot of times it's a way of taking care of the criminal stuff without opening yourself up to civil liability.
00:48:55.000Have you guys ever watched Better Call Saul?
00:50:16.000Like you would have someone else who kind of looked like the guy sit at your table and then see if the witness could actually pick the right person out.
00:50:55.000They're not going to believe it because, in this case, so, filicide, like we were talking about earlier, when you kill your kids, there's studies that the most common reason you kill your kids is some hallucination, some altruistic thing.
00:52:11.000So, what he's saying, and he's the expert, and Lindsey Clancy got him.
00:52:14.000So, altruistic occurs when a parent believes the world is too cruel for the child or because the child is enduring suffering, real or perceived.
00:52:24.000And it's often entwined with intended suicide.
00:52:26.000A mother who is suicidal may not want to leave her children motherless in a cruel world.
00:53:21.000Also, this is usually with some type of psychosis.
00:53:25.000The meme is that when we started getting this advocacy for at birth abortions, conservatives were like, the next thing they're going to say is they can kill their kids, and then you get Lindsey Clancy.
00:53:43.000It's never from the top to the bottom.
00:53:45.000It's a gradient, meaning you get massive, widespread support, the women versus, and Lindsey Clancy versus the world.
00:53:52.000And they're arguing she did nothing wrong.
00:53:53.000She was suffering and she was drugged.
00:53:55.000And this is pushing the Overton window over.
00:53:58.000So eventually you get, well, yes, she should be locked away because what she did.
00:54:03.000Next, when you get a woman who gives birth and then kills the baby right away, they're going to argue, but this is no different than an at birth abortion.
00:54:08.000And they're going to keep moving that line.
00:56:53.000With the LRAD device, we can project sound, but we also have lasers.
00:56:56.000So, like talking plasma Ian mentions, you can have a laser hit a wall and then create a high frequency sound.
00:57:02.000But just back to the legal question, because I'm curious.
00:57:05.000If they discovered, like let's say in the middle of the trial, they found evidence that there was a speaker in her couch that was actually transmitting a recording saying, kill your kids, would that be a legal defense?
00:57:19.000If she had psychosis, then she doesn't have criminal culpability.
00:57:22.000Well, it's not a question of psychosis.
00:57:23.000What if she said, I kept hearing a voice and I was telling people, he told me I was crazy, and then only now did they find a speaker was actually predicting the voice and I wasn't crazy the whole time, but I thought I was.
00:58:45.000I thought the other party is responsible in their own way for their criminal conduct and inducing that coercion, coercing that.
00:58:52.000But you're not going to get the legal system's not going to apply a lesser value on my life than on that other person's life.
00:58:58.000And in the law, they're both equal value lives.
00:59:01.000I would have a duress defense, it's like heat of passion.
00:59:03.000You've probably heard the defense where you know a husband goes in and his wife's cheating on him, and then you know, in the heat of passion, he kills the guy.
00:59:32.000We're not talking about an issue of insanity, which I understand you're not going to deter a crazy person.
00:59:36.000But if you are told, like someone says, hey, I'm going to harm your family member unless you kill the man in front of you right now, but I'm thinking I will be.
00:59:46.000I will get a, like, the things they will do to me are so substantially worse, I can't do it.
00:59:52.000It shouldn't be, I feel like when you say.
01:00:18.000If Xi Jinping kidnapped your kid and was like, now your kid will die, and the only thing you could do is launch a nuke and wipe out all of China to save your kid, would you do it?
01:01:04.000You're on a spaceship with a bunch of aliens, and the aliens have the Glorblot device up to your kid's head, and they say, Destroy the Earth or we kill your child.
01:02:24.000And the captain, the lieutenant and the soldiers testified that the captain gave the order multiple times and was screaming, Go, we don't have time for this.
01:02:40.000So, a bunch of Turkish soldiers went to the Bosphorus Bridge, and then all of a sudden, this battle ensued.
01:02:45.000There's like a helicopter shooting at people, and the media reported that these soldiers were attempting to stage a coup against Erdogan, who was traveling out of the country.
01:02:54.000He turned around and came back, and then they arrested a whole bunch of scholars and politicians.
01:02:59.000The conspiracy theory is that, and I don't even think it's actually a conspiracy theory.
01:03:03.000I think there's some evidence this may be the case, but I'm not entirely sure.
01:03:21.000The theory is that Erdogan wanted the coup attempt so he could round up his political adversaries and remove them from power, including academics.
01:03:28.000So they send a bunch of soldiers to the bridge, dumb as a box of rocks and clueless, thinking we're here to guard the bridge.
01:03:33.000Then the media says they're staging a coup.
01:03:35.000Civilians came out and beat them to death and dragged their bodies.
01:06:10.000So, so I actually have had experts that went to see if my client downloaded it and how long they looked at the image because I've had clients that were sent stuff that are like, oh, you know, like when it really happens is if you download porn, you know, you download 20 images and maybe one of them is an underage, but you didn't actually try to download someone underage.
01:06:26.000If you delete it really quick, that's a defense in federal court, but it's not in state court.
01:06:37.000They have hard drives full of this stuff.
01:06:40.000And it'll be a pastor at a church, and he'll have a computer problem, and someone will try to help him with the computer and discover all the child porn.
01:06:46.000And the pastor will go, Oh my God, I had no idea that was there.
01:09:17.000They start to criminalize the intent of creating it, just the data that would turn into code later that might produce the picture of not a real person.
01:09:24.000And that's so dangerous because that data could be used for other things.
01:09:27.000This is why I think people should be criminalized for putting their kids on the internet.
01:10:46.000That someone of age having sex with someone who looked like a seven year old or having sex with someone who is actually 13, but they look like they're 27.
01:11:33.000I think a lot of it is the perception of youth that is criminalized because they don't really, like you said, if the woman's 16 or 15, but she looks like she's 23.
01:11:42.000No one's gonna, I mean, they might, the legal team might use it as an opportunity to crush someone, but no one would even realize that it might be a crime to begin with.
01:13:38.000Some of these videos are crazy because they'll, like, they'll walk into the store where the guy's supposed to meet the kid and they start beating the crap out of him.
01:13:43.000And then people are just standing there watching it.
01:14:03.000I was just talking to somebody about like criminal trials, and I said, Imagine, and everybody knows, especially like you guys in criminal defense, imagine there's two guys in a park, and then one guy picks up a rock and chucks at the other guy's head, and the guy dodges.
01:14:20.000Then the guy grabs another rock and says, I'm going to kill you.
01:14:23.000Then you walk up and see the victim draws gun and shoot and kill the other person.
01:14:31.000Right, so you call the police and they say, What happened?
01:14:33.000Like, that guy just shot that guy, and there's no witness to say, Actually, the guy with the gun is like he was he was he was trying to murder me, had a rock in his hand, and he was throwing them at me.
01:14:41.000But so people will come up and they will see after the fact, yeah, and they don't understand who's the aggressor.
01:14:48.000Actually, happens that's Kenosha in a nutshell.
01:14:50.000If we hadn't have been there, you know, I mean, people were would have made the argument that he did they claimed Rittenhouse killed three black guys, they still say it's a mistake.
01:15:41.000I will tell you, not once did the dash cam match what the police found.
01:15:46.000So, every single time the police would make a charge, they would charge someone with causing the accident.
01:15:50.000And every single time when I would pull the dash cam, it would say complete opposite.
01:15:53.000So, they would believe whoever got in the accident, you know, the other person, and disbelieve the commercial driver, the driver of the truck.
01:16:00.000And every single time the dash cam proved that my driver was innocent.
01:16:04.000I mean, they obviously have you can exonerate people, right?
01:17:38.000Not to change the subject, but the J6 pipe bomber, we have the FBI released one minute of footage of like choppy black and white footage because the feds are in control of who sees the footage.
01:17:49.000So there are definitely thousands and thousands of images of this pipe bomber walking around DC, and yet they get to control what everybody sees.
01:18:16.000Only off cameras, but definitely if you do destroy flock cameras, you're fine.
01:18:19.000I would love to give, you know, if someone said, you know, like if like a being came to me and said, we're going to allow you to give one person, Supreme authority and ultimate power of earth.
01:20:26.000So, he decides he's going to kill every criminal on Earth, all from heart attacks, so that everybody recognizes a pattern has emerged and that someone is killing everybody and it's an intentional act.
01:21:42.000So something like, I don't know, seven years after the end, or maybe like 10 years after the end of Death Note, they did a one shot, which is like an epilogue, where some kid.
01:22:10.000There's no way you can collect the money.
01:22:12.000The moment they find out who has it, you're done.
01:22:14.000So what he does is he says, you know, Donald Trump offers like a trillion dollars for the death note so they can kill anybody they want.
01:22:21.000And he says, Deposit $5 million in the bank account of every Japanese citizen, and then I'll transfer the death note to you.
01:22:29.000So that way they can't figure out who the beneficiary is because he's like, Everyone in Japan will get the same benefit as me, but we'll all be rich.
01:22:35.000And so then Trump buys it, and Trump has the death note.
01:22:55.000It's kind of an argument for monarchy or feudal aristocracy.
01:22:58.000Like, if you think about a family that's groomed to just care about the long term well being of that nation rather than changing of power every four years or whatever term.
01:23:27.000If the cause of death, as written, cannot be carried out as written because it's physically impossible, they just have a heart attack.
01:23:31.000Would you be like, I want an albatross to carry him 600 yards out into the ocean?
01:23:36.000No, because an albatross can't lift a human.
01:23:38.000But what Light does is he says, he says, like, the prison inmate stabs himself and then writes in his own blood on the wall and then dies, and it happens.
01:24:03.000But I mean, like, there are people who are evil who are going to kill, like, Like in self defense, you wouldn't stop somebody, you know, like you wouldn't kill them.
01:24:11.000Well, if it was in self defense, but I would be able to do that on the note.
01:24:47.000Now, you're watching on TV a hostage situation, and there's a guy with a knife to the throat of a child, and he's digging it in, and you have the notebook.
01:24:55.000Oh, and they're like, John Smith right now is about to kill this child at the same time?
01:25:00.000And you're like, oh, yeah, I'd do it then.
01:25:02.000And then you write like after the fact, or like abstract, if it's actually right there and I can prevent it from happening, yeah.
01:25:08.000But like you're watching on TV a thousand miles away, and you have the notebook, and you.
01:26:48.000When you get to that scale, you don't know that you're actually saving the world when you do this, you know?
01:26:51.000And I'm lucky that I'm not in that position, so I don't have to make those choices, you know?
01:26:55.000Although, technically, I think that because the window for the death note is 28 days, you could write every world leader's name, all come together, go on TV, and declare world peace.
01:27:05.000Because you can control their actions before they die, you'd have to sacrifice them to have them all come together and sign a treaty of world peace.
01:28:31.000Using the ring as an example, this section of the Republic considers whether a rational, intelligent person who has no need to fear negative consequences for committing an injustice would nevertheless act justly.
01:30:11.000There's no reality where you can even buy them.
01:30:14.000So, if somebody went to a, so this was a, I think it was a Bellagio, he ran in a motorcycle helmet, ran in, grabbed a bunch of chips and ran out.
01:30:21.000If you're like a mafioso, you can't do anything with them because when you buy 100K in chips with 25,000 chips, they write your name down, take a picture of you, and say, You have four.
01:30:32.000You know, I had this book when I was little, and in the book, it was like a children's book, but they got this cube when they could wish for anything and it would appear.
01:30:39.000And then they found out halfway through the book that it was coming from somewhere else, it was being taken from someone else.
01:30:45.000So no matter how much you want and how much you desire, it's someone else, it's coming from somewhere.
01:30:51.000Yeah, you've got to have a moral code.
01:30:53.000Like most, I mean, most crimes aren't caught.
01:30:55.000Most people commit crimes and it's not caught.
01:30:57.000We just don't commit them because we have a moral compass.
01:32:22.000Well, that's basically, that's, did you see George Santos got banned because it was whether or not he would appear at the State of the Union?
01:33:57.000Resolves yes if Tim Pool attends any White House press briefing, which takes place in the James S. Brady press briefing room after issuance and before 2027.
01:34:07.000So, does that mean I have to be in the room?
01:34:10.000Is it attending a press briefing if I'm just outside the room watching and filming, but I don't open the door?
01:35:36.000So, no one actually sees any photos or evidence.
01:35:38.000Like, what if I tweeted right now from the studio in West Virginia?
01:35:40.000I am at the White House press briefing.
01:35:41.000There needs to be something in that that says what it takes to prove it.
01:35:46.000My understanding is that if I go live from the studio and I point the camera, I pull the screen, I say, I am about to tweet right now that I'm actually at the White House press briefing, and then I do, that will count as me having been here.
01:36:00.000This is like the invasion of Venezuela.
01:36:02.000A bunch of people were mad because it didn't count as an invasion.
01:36:05.000I guess they're like, but we put boots on the ground and.
01:36:27.000What if I take a picture from it last year, post it right now, and say, just attended, or having attended this recent press briefing was absolutely incredible.
01:36:37.000I'm glad I get to go to the White House and see these things.
01:36:59.000And then, so that's the craziest scenario.
01:37:02.000If I take the picture from last year that no one's ever seen before and post it now and say, really excited to have attended the press briefing, learned so much.
01:37:15.000There needs to be a Kalshi certifier, like a team of elite people from Kalshi.
01:37:20.000That are just all around the world at all times.
01:38:08.000If they can't determine based on me literally posting, I went to the press briefing because it may be the year before and they don't pay out, and then on January 1st, I just tweet, Here's the other photos from when I was there at JD Vance's press briefing.
01:38:25.000The point I'm bringing up is this We had a guy in New York wager on the temperature of New York, bring a blow dryer and blast the sensor so that it would guarantee to hit and he'd make money.
01:38:37.000People are betting that I will or will not be there, and I did not agree they could do that.
01:38:42.000So if I make it, so if I do this, everyone's going to be fighting over whether I was there or not.
01:38:47.000Cal, she will have to make a determination as to whether or not it's proof that I was there.
01:39:05.000It's not insider trading because I'm in public.
01:39:07.000What if I go to a restaurant across the street, a cafe, and I say, Everybody in the building right now, there is a prediction market wager on me to attend a press briefing.
01:41:10.000These things are predicated upon nothing almost.
01:41:14.000And what's going to happen is everyone's going to go to war over what really happened because they want money.
01:41:18.000I think there's some precedent over you being able to sue Kalshi for putting your name on their server and promoting you and using you for their tools.
01:41:25.000Like people have a right to not be descriptive, not to be, maybe they don't have a right to not be like objectified and used for like malfeasant purposes.
01:41:34.000And if they're playing games with you to make money and they're using you, that doesn't sound right.
01:42:37.000So I take a lot of issue with this because they've told me I cannot participate, nor anyone in my family or who works for me, in the sale of a contract as to my own actions.
01:45:30.000If I posted Robert Downey Jr., and then under it, it said, buy this contract that says Robert Downey Jr., and it's underneath a picture of Robert Downey Jr., I can do that.
01:45:39.000So for a contract to exist, There's got to be something on the other side.
01:45:42.000You've got to actually get some consideration.
01:45:44.000So, what am I getting if a person buys the contract, the Robert Downey Jr. contract?
01:46:22.000If on my website, I wrote an article, timcast.com, with a picture of Robert Downey Jr., framed those images of him, and put a quote from my article, I can do that?
01:48:12.000Will I attend a White House press briefing this year?
01:48:14.000So they're telling people, based on the work Tim Pool does, if certain conditions are met, we get to profit off of it and you can buy a product from us.
01:49:40.000Yeah, how about I call Polymarket and I'm like, hey, run a contract.
01:49:44.000Will Kalshi pay out yes on Tim Pool attending the White House press briefing?
01:49:48.000And then I can sell those and be like, it's not insider trading.
01:49:52.000I don't know what they'll end up doing, but I am going to go.
01:49:55.000If I were to quit my job, liquidate all my Bitcoin, and then just hang out for the next, whatever, three months, four months outside of exactly where you have to enter to get into the White House with a bunch of big dudes just to ensure you don't go in there and bet no.
01:52:48.000What gives, how could there be a system created that creates criminal culpability for me without my permission based on actions I would take?
01:53:37.000I was going to say it's insider trading.
01:53:39.000If you tell me you're coming to DC, this is the issue that I do not like with this.
01:53:43.000If I tell you, hey, I'm heading to the press briefing, and then you have inside information as to my actions, and if you buy on it, that's insider trading and it's a crime.
01:54:11.000And now, here's the crazy thing what if, uh, like I tell Ian, I'm going to the press briefing, he's he happened, Richie happens to overhear it and then buys it.
01:54:23.000Exactly, it says Tim Pool never gave me any information.
01:54:28.000Then they say, Well, but we know your friend, so we're gonna argue that he informed you, and then I have to defend myself against someone that I know buying this.
01:55:32.000What are some of the court cases up against Kalshi?
01:55:38.000It's a lot of states that are having a problem because the federal government's allowing it and the states want to regulate it because the states super regulate gambling activities.
01:57:26.000So children can get Pokemon decks, wager money, they can put money in a pot, play a game, and the winner gets the money.
01:57:32.000That's legal, despite the fact the law says it's illegal.
01:57:36.000Well, it's because this is how things are done.
01:57:38.000And to make these changes, you have to tell someone it has to be changed.
01:57:43.000So, I can tell you why DC doesn't like it.
01:57:45.000It's because it's too easy to manipulate these things.
01:57:48.000And you can set up one of these contracts, two politicians are running against each other for office, small numbers like 80 grand, like you have in your thing here.
01:57:55.000And one of the parties dumps $3 million into it.
01:58:31.000And what's fascinating is that despite being one of the originals, it's basically non existent as far as Polymarket and Kalshi own everything.
02:00:01.000When he's doing the hearing, I think this might have been an arbitration with his brother, and he hides the battery, the cell phone battery.
02:01:34.000Even in Law Order, when they show the court case, I don't think people notice that when they actually, in the show, will mention it's six months later.
02:02:40.000So, what they like to do, the reason, the secret to law and order, why it's been on the air so long, is that they just look through court records for interesting cases.
02:02:46.000That makes sense for the regular, for the OG one.
02:04:43.000I tried to get my husband to do a stun gun on me once because I was convinced that it wouldn't leave the marks that the lady had said it was left.
02:04:49.000And he was like, I feel really uncomfortable with this.
02:05:20.000The last thing I'll say is we wrap up.
02:05:22.000The emotional manipulation always, like, have you guys seen good lawyers who have done an Oscar winning performance with crying?
02:05:34.000Because what I would do to those female jurors, I would have them bawling their eyes out and begging for Kleenex as I told this story to defend or prosecute.
02:05:44.000You want the jury to feel what it's like to sit in your client's chair.
02:05:49.000So that is, but we call it storytelling, you know?
02:05:52.000But what we try to do is we try to do storytelling because we want the jury to understand what it feels like in the jury.
02:08:02.000But you basically say, like, do you feel it is possible for a loving mother, the way you've felt with your kids, do you think it's possible that in your sound, being sound of mind, you would do that?
02:08:22.000In this case, for example, you don't want them thinking about what happened because what happened is awful.
02:08:28.000You want them thinking about her mental illness.
02:08:31.000So that would probably backfire, but you could do that.
02:08:33.000And I would say, with the crying, I mean, you asked about the crying, like if it's natural, but that's kind of, I don't know.
02:08:39.000I haven't seen a lot of lawyers cry in court.
02:08:41.000That's why I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't presume to know, but like some of the most impactful fundraising I've ever done is when I started crying and got them crying.
02:09:24.000There's a few things that's true, though.
02:09:25.000There's a few things you can get away with with men in emotional manipulation, like your kids dying or your dog dying.
02:09:33.000But there are some things where you never know, it's risky, where if you try to pull on the heartstrings of a guy, see, so I'll put it this way.
02:11:20.000So, we're going to get people in the middle of the road.
02:11:21.000But there's always going to be a couple that you're like, I didn't really want them on the jury, but they were, you know, the best out of what was left.
02:11:27.000And those are the ones that you're kind of like not really talking to, but there's a couple that you're talking to and you're kind of hoping that they become the four person because the four person can be sort of.
02:11:35.000And keep in mind, when you're going into trial, you already know what the legal arguments and evidence is going to be, right?
02:11:40.000In theory, the trial should be completely scripted for you.
02:11:45.000And because you know what the legal arguments and evidence are going to be, you're already thinking not just about your opening statement, you're thinking about your Closing statement, and you're thinking about what you want available as building blocks for that closing statement.
02:11:57.000So, when you're doing voidir, you're looking for the jury for signs that you can leverage in that closing statement.
02:13:42.000Attorney Andrew Branca, do criminal defense, specialize in self defense law.
02:13:45.000Get my free book, Be Hard to Convict, if you ever have to defend yourself, at law self defense.com and follow my political commentary at the Branca Show on X and YouTube.