Ep. 2167 - MORE TRUMP WINNING: NPR CEO IMPLODES, MS-13 Head ARRESTED
01:06:19 Share

Tons of news to get to today here on the Ben Shapiro show. We're going to get to the NPR CEO completely melting down on Capitol Hill. We'll get to the Trump administration capturing the head of MS-13 in the United States. We'll get to a Daily Wire breaking story about waste, fraud and abuse uncovered inside the federal government and episode four of the case for Derek Chauvin. So tons of stuff happening here on the show today.

If you want even more from The Ben Shapiro Show and The Daily Wire, you need to become a Daily Wire Plus member. Get member-exclusive shows, ad-free streaming, early access to our new releases. Watch premium films and documentaries you're not going to find anywhere else. Connect with a community that shares your values, not one that cancels you for them. Watch anywhere, anytime on desktop, mobile, and TV apps. With new content added every single week, there's always something worth watching. Join the fight right now at dailywire.com slash subscribe. So yesterday...

there was a big hearing on the Hill involving the heads of NPR and PBS, both of which are in fact publicly funded. Well, I asked my friend Perplexity, which is of course the sponsor of the show, how much money we, the US taxpayers, spend on PBS and NPR every year. Apparently, according to Perplexity, the US taxpayer spends approximately $535 million annually on NPR and PBS through federal funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Over the last decade, taxpayers have spent approximately

about $5.35 billion on these outlets. They have very broad listenership. These are propagandistic outlets that have huge listenership. According to Perplexity, in 2022, NPR had about 23.5 million average weekly listeners for its terrestrial broadcast programming. And NPR, of course, is just trash stacked atop trash. It is a left-wing agitprop organization that puts out

It's kind of modulated voices with well-produced music and segments. And it sounds very easy to listen to. And it turns out that it's just Noam Chomsky propaganda. Meanwhile, PBS NewsHour attracted about 882,000 viewers on average in 2022, which means that about 57 million viewers tuned in to PBS's content during any given month in 2022. So again, these are large numbers.

67% apparently of all US TV households, over 160 million people tuned into PBS member stations over the course of a year. Now, that is a decline over the course of time. However, these are big numbers. They are sponsored by you and they are producing left-wing propaganda. The hearings were led by subcommittee chair, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who is grilling NPR CEO Catherine Maher and PBS president Paula Kerger, suggesting that they were both presiding over publicly funded news organizations like

Thank you.

NPR could not explain why they are so biased to the left. They couldn't explain why they should receive taxpayer dollars if, in fact, they only are a propaganda outlet for the Democratic Party, which is 100 percent true. Catherine Maher was asked yesterday while she was on the Hill as the CEO of NPR about her editorial board, which involves 87. There are 87 people on her editorial board. The number of Republicans on that editorial board, zero, zero. Here she was being grilled by Representative Timmons.

Let's talk about the newsroom. You have 87 registered Democrats, not a single Republican in your editor boards. I mean, how does that work to give us the perception that you're doing your job of actually delivering unbiased information? Well, I would agree with you that that number is a concern if it is accurate. I do believe that we need to have journalists who represent the full breadth of the American society so that we can report well for all Americans.

Well, the problem is that you actually don't believe that. If you believed that, you would have done something about it. 87 to 0 is not exactly an even-handed examination of the news. If you want to be an opinion journalism outlet like we are here at The Daily Wire, admit your biases openly, do it. We also receive zero taxpayer dollars. That is not a thing that we do here at Daily Wire. We are not living off your taxpayer dollars. We have advertisers, we have subscribers, we have members, all of those things. But that's not NPR. NPR does receive taxpayer dollars, which is why Catherine Maher was on the Hill being grilled.

Then she ended up being humiliated by Representative Brandon Gill out of Texas. It was a pretty amazing exchange. Here was Brandon Gill grilling her about her own political beliefs and Maher just openly lying about them on the floor of Congress here. Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy? I believe that I tweeted that, and as I've said earlier, I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade. It has evolved. Why did you tweet that?

I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't be able to say. Okay. Do you believe that America believes in black plunder and white democracy? I don't believe that, sir. You tweeted that in reference to a book you were reading at the time, apparently, The Case for Reparations. I don't think I've ever read that book, sir. You tweeted about it. You said you took a day off to fully read The Case for Reparations. You put that on Twitter in January of 2020. Okay.

Apologies, I don't recall that I did. I have no doubt that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall that. Okay. Do you believe that white people inherently feel superior to other races? I do not. You don't? You tweeted something to that effect. You said, "I grew up feeling superior. Ha, how white of me." Why did you tweet that? I think I was probably reflecting on what it was to be, to grow up in an environment where I had lots of advantages.

Very rough there for Catherine Marr. And it continued to be rough throughout the entire day. Representative Jim Jordan, out of Ohio, friend of the program, he also humiliated Catherine Marr. It was basically just a series of dunks on Catherine Marr in Congress yesterday. Is NPR biased? Congressman, I have never seen any instance of political bias determining editorial decisions, no. Well, Mr. Berliner...

And his story last year wrote, I've, in the D.C. area, editorial positions at NPR have

He said he found 87 registered Democrats, zero Republicans. Is that accurate? We do not track the numbers or the voter registration, but I find that concerning. Was award-winning journalist who worked 25 years at NPR, Mr. Berliner, was he lying when he wrote that? I am not presuming such. I just don't have, we don't track that information about our journalists. 87 to zero, and you're not biased? I think that is concerning if those numbers are accurate.

Yeah, yeah. There's no there's no bias over at NPR. And Jim Jordan there is referencing a piece by Uri Berliner about the bias at NPR that he put out at the Free Press just a few months ago. We went through it back in April of 2024. The title of the piece was I've been at NPR for 25 years. Here's how we lost America's trust. And Uri Berliner, who, again, was, in fact, a veteran at the public radio institution, said,

acknowledged the massive bias. Quote, it's true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. In recent years, however, that has changed. Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different. The distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population. And then he goes through in detail what changed inside NPR. Well, again, the windmill jams on Catherine Maher did not stop. Representative Tim Burchett out of Tennessee also went after Catherine Maher.

Let me ask you, why did you call President Trump a fascist and a deranged racist sociopath in 2020? Congressman, I appreciate the opportunity to address this. I regret those tweets. I would not tweet them again today. They represented a time where I was reflecting on something that I believe that the president had said rather than who he is. I don't presume that anyone is a racist. You don't believe anyone is a racist? I don't start by presuming anyone is a racist.

Hey, that's that's weird, because, again, you have said things along those lines. And this is entirely the game that NPR has been playing for literally decades. They say something that is overtly to the left. And then when called upon it, they say, well, I didn't mean that. Or you're just missing the context. Why is it that every single error NPR has ever made is in one direction? Literally every is amazing, including, for example, NPR's decision not to cover at all the Hunter Biden laptop story in the run up to the 2020 election.

You remember this. NPR overtly said, we will not cover this because we do not think it is of importance, which of course is insane since there was a ton of information on there that was of high importance to American voters. Here is Maher now admitting that they should have covered the story.

How about this story? October 2020, the New York Post had the Hunter Biden laptop story. And one of those editors, I guess one of those 87 Democrat editors said this. We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories. We don't want to waste the listeners and readers times on stories that are just pure distractions. Was that a pure distraction story? Our current editorial leadership believes that that was a mistake, as do I. Yeah, the whole country knows that was a mistake.

Well, yes, it wasn't just Catherine Marr who had a rough time of it. PBS boss Paula Kerger, she was out on the Hill as well, and she was trying to explain there is nothing more American than PBS. And of course, the example that people will use here is Mr. Rogers or Sesame Street, both of which, by the way, are perfectly capable of operating on their own in a for-profit environment. I mean, clearly capable of operating in a for-profit environment. These are two of the most profitable brands probably ever.

The idea that you require public broadcasting in order to somehow get Sesame Street on the air is ridiculous on its face. But here is PBS trying to grasp that public money as hard as it can. There's nothing more American than PBS. As a membership organization, our local service is at the heart of our work. Our job at PBS is to support our stations so that local stations can serve their communities.

We've been proudly fulfilling our mission for nearly 60 years using the public airwaves and other technologies to help educate, engage, and inspire the American people.

Well, what you've also done is promote an enormous amount of left-wing propaganda over the years. And again, this is a win for President Trump because of the fact that all of this is now being exposed to daylight. The fact that we are now talking about getting rid of exorbitant spending in these areas is a really, really important thing. And all of this is part and parcel of a broader attempt by the Trump administration to cut out the waste of fraud and abuse.

We have a breaking story on that from our own Luke Rosiak, our investigative reporter here at Daily Wire. He points out today, quote,

The National Diversity Council filed for bankruptcy March 17th after its board said in a lawsuit that its founder, R. Dennis Kennedy, quote, improperly paid himself millions of dollars from NDC's donor funds. The suit said that Kennedy paid himself a grossly excessive salary while using the nonprofit as a front for his for-profit diversity consulting business called Diversity and Leadership, Inc. The group's 2020 IRS disclosure said Kennedy was paid $450,000 for 10 hours of work per week.

In 2022, at night of corporation CEI hype, Kennedy, Chief Executive Officer Angeles Valenciano, and Chief Financial Officer Jason DeGroote also unilaterally decided they were owed almost $3 million in back pay. And then they paid themselves more than $1 million in donor funds.

Board members started to become suspicious, and they figured there was nothing there that justified the payments. Kennedy systematically moved the nonprofit's trademarks and web domains into his own name and essentially created a fake organization with the same name that would trick people into paying him directly according to the lawsuit.

National Diversity Council dot org now leads to a website of an organization that purports to be the National Diversity Council, listing Kennedy as its founder and no board. So on Hooper, an accountant who manages bankruptcy for NDC's board, told The Daily Wire the site is not operated by the National Diversity Council. So deep corruption with taxpayer dollars, obviously. And the imposter NDC website, by the way, is having a conference in L.A. next month, which is supposed to feature Bill Clinton and Oprah Winfrey.

The necessity of wiping out bad taxpayer spending is deep and real, and it is having a positive impact on our markets, obviously. Cuts to regulation, cuts to bizarre subsidization schemes, all of that is quite good for the American economy. Along those lines, yesterday, the Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright,

He said, it's time to invest in energy, right? The Trump administration is making a bunch of really good moves for the economy, which is why, despite all the tariff threats, the economy seems to be still chugging along. Here yesterday was Secretary Christopher Wright,

With our policies now and a belief that we can invest in America, across America, and including Alaska, which was sanctioned far more than Iran or Venezuela by the Biden administration, now that we're free to produce American energy across our country, it gives us great geopolitical leverage. If we don't like the behavior of Venezuela and our foreign policy decides, hey, we should change

Venezuela's ability to export oil, we have the ability to do that without impacting prices to American consumers. So key for me is American energy makes American lives better, also makes us more secure and more strategically powerful abroad.

Right.

Listen to this. Unlimited talk, text 15 gigs of data, plus mobile hotspot for just $35 a month. The best part? Right now, you get a free one-year membership to Daily Wire Plus. Access the entire library of Daily Wire Plus movies and documentaries. Enjoy uncensored ad-free daily shows. Access to Daily Wire Kids programming. And as always, your free leftist tears Tumblr. With Pure Talk's U.S. customer service team, you can switch hassle-free in as little as 10 minutes. You don't need Doge to cut the fat from your wireless bill.

You need Pure Talk. Go to puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Switch to Pure Talk at puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Get a year of daily wire plus for free with a qualifying plan. Pure Talk wireless by Americans for Americans. I've been using Pure Talk myself for years. I value, obviously, clarity in my cell phone conversations. Pure Talk provides me excellent coverage and at a lower price. Go check them out yourself. puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Again, that's puretalk.com slash Shapiro for the special deal.

Meanwhile, the big sort of issue of the day when it comes to inflation is, of course, egg prices. Egg prices are now falling. They're falling nationally. That's particularly on the wholesale level. They've yet to drop tremendously on the retail level. There are a few reasons for this. One of them is, in fact, inflation.

economic sanguinity with regard to gas prices and transportation prices. It costs money to get the eggs from the farm to the grocery store and all the rest of it. It is also because the avian flu is basically giving out, so fewer chickens are dying. So you have an increase in the supply of eggs, and that is combined with a drop in the demand for eggs because of the high prices, so you get lower prices. Here's President Trump praising the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, over the drop in egg prices yesterday.

Eggs were through the roof. If you got to see the Biden chart, it's like a rocket ship and Trump is like this way. But I gave Brooke the secretary of agriculture and I didn't know it. I didn't know it. She studied that in college. I didn't know that I was going to give it to her anyway. It didn't matter that she said it, but it sort of helped. Right. But she came in and she lowered the cost of eggs by almost 50 percent in three weeks.

So again, all of this is quite good. Now, on the problematic side of the ledger, President Trump yesterday announced that he would be driving up tariffs on non-American made cars. Now, one of the problems with this is that how do you define a non-American made car? An enormous number of cars that have foreign brands on them are actually made in the United States. And so it's unclear exactly quite how this applies as of yet. Here's President Trump announcing it yesterday. And this is very modest.

And what we're going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars that are not made in the United States. If they're made in the United States, there's absolutely no tariff. We start off with a 2.5% base, which is what we were at, and we go to 25%. And now, what exactly will it apply to? According to the New York Times, the tariffs are set to go into effect April 3rd. They apply to both finished cars and trucks shipped into the United States, even if the majority of parts, for example, are made in the United States. Sometimes they are completed in Mexico or in Canada.

and to imported parts that are assembled into cars at American auto plants. The tariffs will hit foreign brands, but they'll also hit American ones because Ford Motor and General Motors build some of their vehicles in Canada and Mexico, and virtually all cars use some foreign-made parts. Nearly half of all vehicles sold in the United States are currently imported, so are 60% of the parts and vehicles assembled in the United States. So you could see a significant inflation in terms of the price of your car.

Again, these car parts will cross the border three, four times before they actually end up in your driveway. This is, to my mind, a mistake by the Trump administration. I think that these tariffs that are designed to protect, quote unquote, domestic industry, inflate prices at the cost of American consumers. They create pressures where there need not be pressures. And those pressures are likely to have a negative impact on the economy.

So certainly you could get boosts in particular areas of the economy, but understand tariffs are a subsidy to some at the expense of the others. That is what this is. Stock investors are spooked. According to the Wall Street Journal, the markets plummet every time Mr. Trump proposes a new or higher tariff and rise when he delays or cancel them. But by the way, this is true. You can see it actually in real time. When President Trump does a press conference,

and it's broadcast on CNBC, and you're watching the stock ticker in the corner or on Fox Business, and you watch President Trump talk about tariffs, you can watch the stocks drop in real time as he talks about the tariffs. Whenever he delays them, the stock market goes up again. So it's still unclear exactly what the tariff regime is going to look like when President Trump brings it on April 2nd. He has talked about a significant tariff regime, the same thing for Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

The possibility of economic stagnation arising from this corporate uncertainty, people not investing as much, that is a real problem. The uncertainty is in and of itself a problem. When President Trump says, for example, that April 2nd is Liberation Day because of the tariffs,

They'll be applied on any trading partner that charges tariffs or imposes other trade barriers on U.S. products. Markets start to freak out. And even if he withdraws them, people start to think, OK, I'm just going to hold out my money. I'm going to have some dry powder until we actually know what the hell is going on here. And this is, in fact, a problem for President Trump. And there's no reason to do it. It is a mistake. There is no reason to do it, given the fact that the economy is, in fact, chugging along and investors are really, really happy with what President Trump is doing on the regulatory side, on the spending side and on the tax side.

Meanwhile, in good news for the Trump administration, huge story today. The top MS-13 leader in the United States was arrested by authorities in Virginia, according to the FBI. According to the New York Post, U.S. authorities have now captured the top MS-13 leader for the U.S. East Coast. The 24-year-old suspect in Woolbridge, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., was captured yesterday. Authorities have yet to release the suspect's name. They say he's one of the top three leaders of MS-13 in the United States.

Both AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel monitored the arrest as it took place on Thursday morning. According to Bondi, quote, they executed a clean, safe operation. The bad guy's in custody. Thanks to the FBI, we got one of the worst of the worst of MS-13 off the streets this morning. Presumably, some court will then demand his release because that seems to be the pattern is the Trump administration starts deporting

criminal illegal immigrants, and various courts decide that that's bad and these people have a right to stay in the United States. Speaking of which, according to the Wall Street Journal today, an appeals court upheld an order blocking the Trump administration from using a wartime law to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members on the same day that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited a prison in El Salvador where the migrants are currently being detained. This court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit's two-to-one decision on Wednesday denied the Justice Department's bid to lift the block while it fights the lawsuit.

Karen Henderson, who is a Georgia H.W. Bush appointee, said that the TRO blocking the deportations was, quote, entered for a quintessentially valid purpose to protect the court's remedial authority long enough to consider the party's argument. So the argument is not that what Trump is doing is illegal. The argument is that he can't do it until it's been totally adjudicated. So before you hear that Trump's action has been struck down or something like that, all that's happening here is that the court is deciding that the temporary restraining order is appropriate so that you don't have further irremediable

because if somebody gets deported, you can't exactly bring them back. And in the meantime, it'll get adjudicated up to the Supreme Court, which is likely where this is going to go. So not all is lost on that front. President Trump is solving illegal immigration faster than any other problem. Again, there's a reason why in the polling data, the worries about illegal immigration have dropped precipitously.

And that is because at the border, particularly our southern border, illegal immigration is almost non-existent now. Now, speaking of scandals that are really, I think, not scandal, I think most Americans are bored with this just to be honest.

perfectly frank about where I think most Americans are on the so-called Signalgate scandal. This, of course, is all the members of the Trump national security team who are having a conversation on Signal about bombing the Houthis. And that conversation included some operational details in real time about what was happening, planes taking off, about to strike, that kind of stuff. It was vague in the sense that it did not include as the Secretary of Defense's

reminds us any names, any targets, any locations, any units, any routes, any sources, any methods, no classified information. It still included information that was non-public, obviously, because it was saying in real time, planes about to take off, for example. And that signal chat included Jeffrey Goldberg. Somebody included the Obama stenographer, Jeffrey Goldberg from the Atlantic. And this is supposed to be one of the great scandals of our time. Here's the thing.

If I have a choice, and unfortunately, apparently I do, between a national security team that does the right things, but also does stupid accidental things like including Jeffrey Goldberg in group chat, and an administration that surrenders everywhere on earth but does it by the book, I'm going to go with A. And that apparently is the choice.

And that's the, I wish there was a choice where everything was by the book and it was not surrendering all over the world. But apparently that choice is no longer available to us. Again, this is not going to happen. Again, a mistake is a mistake. A blunder is a blunder. The idea that this is sort of a widespread systemic, oh my God, Americans are freaking out.

Here's the thing about procedural scandals at this point in American history. No one is getting ousted over a procedural scandal. You're going to get ousted if you had a sex scandal or if you did something so bad for the American people that you have to go. That's pretty much the only circumstance in which you are going. But including a journalist by accident in a signal chat is not going to be that thing.

It's not going to be, I think, but by the way, I should point out here that Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, people are giving him plaudits for not revealing the classified information until he was called upon to basically go ahead and do that by the Trump administration. Here's what I would have done if I had been included in such a signal chat. I would have immediately notified someone in the signal chat that I was a journalist and I probably shouldn't be in it.

And then I would have reported that they accidentally included me in a signal chat before I got access to all of these operational details. Goldberg's bizarre excuse in not doing that was that he thought that maybe it was all a giant prank. But even if it was a giant prank, the first thing you would do is say, I don't belong in the signal chat. Why am I in here?

And then you would check it out and go for a comment. That's the way you would normally handle it. Well, all of this is deeply confusing, but don't lose sleep over it because there is something deeply satisfying about a good spring refresh. While decluttering and storing away winter items makes a difference, refreshing your bed might be the most rewarding change of all. Bull & Branch's signature sheets, crafted from the finest 100% organic cotton, offer a buttery soft, breathable foundation. Pair them with Bull & Branch's airy blankets, duvets, and quilts for the perfect seasonal upgrade.

I didn't think that was possible, but after a few months...

They felt even more luxurious than when I first got them. Believe me, I've tried other premium sheets before. Nothing comes close to the breathable comfort of these. The best part? They're woven with the finest 100% organic cotton on earth with designs and colors for every mattress size and bedroom style so you can find the perfect fit this spring. Upgrade your sleep during Bull & Branch's annual spring event. For a limited time, get 20% off at bullandbranch.com slash ben. That's Bull & Branch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D

Branch.com slash Ben. Take 20% off site-wide for a limited time. Exclusions apply. See site for details. Again, that's BullandBranch.com slash Ben and get 20% off site-wide. Also, I need to tell you about my friends at PragerU. They're doing an amazing job. This is the conservative nonprofit fighting to educate the next generation and win back the culture. Conservatives won huge in November 2019.

The fight is not even close to over. The left still controls our schools. They're undermining faith, family, and freedom. One election isn't going to fix that. That's why PragerU is making real, lasting change. They're reaching young people like never before with pro-American, pro-Judeo-Christian content, nearly 2 billion views a year, with 65% of their audience under 35. And now, PragerU is getting into classrooms.

Nine states have already partnered with them to bring PragerU videos and books into schools with more states on the way, but they can't do it alone. Right now, every dollar you give is triple matched to help push back against radical indoctrination. Don't wait. Go to PragerU.com slash DW. Make your donation today, which will be triple matched. Together, we can keep the momentum going and stand strong for the values we care about. That's PragerU.com slash DW. They're basically a sister company to Daily Wire. They're making a

In any case, President Trump, he understands the bottom line, which is, was the attack on the Houthis successful or was it not? Here's President Trump yesterday. It was nothing in the compromise, and it had no impact on the attack, which was very successful. It was a very, very successful attack,

Then it's an attack that Biden should have done three years ago, but he didn't do it because it would have been a lot easier three years ago. OK, well, he is he's right about that. And in the end, it is it is what comes out of the oven that matters, not the ingredients that go. If the cookie is good, the cookie is good. That's all. Caroline Lovett yesterday, she said that President Trump has confidence in his national security team. Can you say definitively that no one will lose their jobs?

No one will lose their job at all because of this signal situation. What I can say definitively is what I just spoke to the president about, and he continues to have confidence in his national security team. Levitt also pointed out that these were not, in fact, classified plans. Now, the debate over classification status, the reality is the president can declassify anything that he wants. So if the president says this is not classified, then definitionally it is not classified. Should it have been classified is another sort of question. Here was Caroline Levitt on this topic.

Why aren't launch times on a mission strike classified? Again, I would defer you to the Secretary of Defense's statement he put out this morning. There were various reasons he listed things that were not included in that messaging thread that were not classified. Now, again, the easiest thing to say here would be, OK, we botched it. Whoops. I mean, that's the easiest thing. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio essentially said that yesterday. He said, yeah, absolutely. Somebody made a mistake. This thing was set up.

for purposes of coordinating how everyone was going to call. You know, when these things happen, I need to call foreign ministers, especially of our close allies. We need to notify members of Congress. Other members of the team have different people they need to notify as well. And that was the purpose of why it was set up. Obviously, someone made a mistake. Someone made a big mistake and added a journalist. Nothing against journalists, but you ain't supposed to be on that thing.

Okay, he is right about this. And this is the most obvious response. Mistake, oopsie, move on. Democrats, however, have decided this is worse than the Afghanistan pullout, which is quite an amazing statement. Here is Senator Mark Warner saying this is worse than Afghanistan, which I'm going to go no on that. It seems to me that much worse for the world was the United States pulling out of Afghanistan in absolute ignominious defeat, getting Americans killed in the process and leading to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, among other things.

And again, I just I think there is a little richness of what you said in the fact that if you go back way back in the old days as well. And oh, my gosh, Hillary Clinton was using the wrong email or Joe Biden's incompetent. Come on, guys. You know.

If you don't think this is a case of incompetence and a pattern after a variety of other kind of sloppy use of classified information, then you've not been following the last 60 plus days that I've been following. So, worse than Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Representative Jimmy Gomez went the worst possible route, asking whether Pete Hegseth was drunk on the chat, which is just gross and stupid.

The main person who was involved in this thread that a lot of people want to talk to is Secretary of Defense Hegseth. And a lot of questions were brought up regarding his drinking habits and his confirmation hearing. To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information? I don't have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth's personal habits.

Just ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. You know, Chris Matthews was going crazy. It's a cover-up. They wheeled him in from the local hotel. His wife Kathleen's the manager. Talk about all this. Come on in here. Come on in with the show. Haven't ironed my shirt in 27 years. Same shirt every day. Got some bad pit stains by now, but let's talk about the cover-up. Covering up those pit stains with this jacket here. Go, Chris Matthews, go.

I believe this story moved from blunder, which it was for all the last few days, to cover up. And the cover up began almost immediately. Cover up? What is the cover up, precisely? It's all out there. We know everything that happened. What is there to cover up? It's literally all public in the chat.

And then they said to Jeffrey Goldberg, if you release the rest of the chat, it's not classified. And then he did. It's like the least cover up, cover up I've ever seen in my entire life. Here's the thing. So I think most Americans care deeply about this. I really, really don't. I'd be shocked if they do. Frankly, it seems like a bureaucratic snafu. It seems like a mistake and it doesn't seem like it inhibited our ability to kill Houthis. So there's that. And all the sort of over the top media coverage is unjustifiable on virtually every level.

Joining us on the line is our White House reporter, Mary Margaret Olihan, and she spent the day with J.D. Vance yesterday. Mary Margaret, good to see you.

Good to see you, Ben. It's a beautiful morning here at the White House. And yes, I did get to go to Quantico, Virginia yesterday with the Vice President for his visit to the Marine Base where he spoke to hundreds of Marines. I was told that around 750 Marines gathered for this event yesterday. And of course, we know that the Vice President is himself a Marine. I would say former Marine, but everyone's been correcting me on social media and reminding me that once a Marine, always a Marine.

And the vice president spoke to these Marines. He told them that President Trump loves them, that he's proud of them, and he reminded them that they're an incredibly important part of our country, of protecting our country. And he also emphasized that he's focused on building warriors and not woke ideology. So all of this was really interesting. It was well received by the Marines. And I actually talked to a whole bunch of them. They were really sweet young Marines, I would say. And they had some really interesting things to say about the vice president. I believe we have a clip of that right here that we can show you all.

What does it mean to you that the vice president is a Marine? It means a lot because it's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Not everybody gets to meet someone like him. Yeah. What about you? It's definitely going to be a breath of fresh air, you know, to have a Marine that's going to be, you know, second in charge. So super excited for that. And you? Love to see the Marine Corps representing the United States and having a cool role in the White House. So I've been hearing a lot about, um,

how we're seeing a lot more recruitment numbers lately. Have you guys seen a surge in enthusiasm among your colleagues or among your new recruits in regards to this new administration? Yeah, absolutely. Marine Corps is at an all-time high right now. I feel like a lot of people want to join the military. Now that we have people that are willing to back the United States.

So these guys were just so full of enthusiasm. It was really fun to talk to them. And then, you know, the vice president's visit was delayed a little bit because he was speaking with Trump. But when he ultimately arrived, you should have seen how those Marines were cheering as we saw Air Force Two landing. And then it was really cool, too, because we got to follow him around as part of the pool press and see how he interacted with the Marines at the chow hall. For example, they all got lunch together.

And, you know, Ben, J.D. Vance grew up in Ohio and Kentucky. He's written a lot about this in his book, Hillbilly Elegy, which describes a lot of the poverty he had to endure and, you know, the drug problems in Appalachia and all of these really very real legitimate problems for many Americans.

So it was really interesting to see him interacting with these Marines, talking about their problems back at home and how they want to build America and protect our country. And then maybe in the coolest part of the day, we got to go with him to a shooting range where the vice president was testing out some weapons. I've got some clips of that too, and I think we definitely want to take a look at those.

Well, it sounds like J.D. Vance was a good shot from the calls that you're hearing on the range. They're shouting, hit, headshot, and all the rest.

Yes, and I mean, I'm no expert on weapons. I'm no expert on guns, Ben, but I can tell you I shared that on social media and my phone died while I was out there on the range. And when I turned it back on, my phone had blown up because people were so excited about these shots and seeing the vice president out there on the range experimenting with these weapons. He actually closed out the day shooting what I was told is called a howitzer, which is a type of cannon. And that was super loud, very cool to see. And then

You know, he's interacting with these Marines. He's taking pictures with them all. And at the end of the day, he took Air Force Two back to the White House. So I found a really interesting day, especially in light of a lot of the events going on at the White House right now. For example, during the press briefing, all that Caroline Leavitt was asked about was the signal chat and the implications of the vice president and Pete Hegseth and the other members of the national security team interacting in this signal chat. But it was cool to get out of D.C., out to Quantico with these Marines and see

the vice president's real interactions with them and how they received him and how they reacted to it. And I just did want to add, Ben, on a final note, I just bumped into a really interesting person coming into the White House today, Michael Knowles, coming through White House security with me. So I'm excited to see him around the White House today. And I heard that he might be doing something cool around here. So excited for that as well.

Well, that is awesome for you. And it's awesome for me because it means Michael Mills is nowhere near me. So I'm really excited about that. Mary Margaret, doing a wonderful job, as always, from the White House. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Ben. Last year, Americans ate 32 billion chicken wings. Who knows just how many helpless sides of celery were heartlessly thrown away. But this year, celery neglect can stop with you and irresistible Jif peanut butter.

Because you can make a snack to make a difference. You can buy a jar of Jif to save the celery. So please, don't let celery be decoration for wings. Tap the banner to save the celery.

Meanwhile, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to an impartial jury, a fundamental cornerstone of our justice system. But what happens when that impartiality is systematically undermined by external forces? What happens when jurors are effectively told that their city will burn if they don't reach the correct verdict?

What happens when sitting members of Congress and even the presidents of the United States weigh in on a defendant's guilt before the jury has even deliberated? That's exactly what happened in the Derek Chauvin trial. It represents one of the most egregious violations of due process in modern American legal history. This is The Case for Derek Chauvin, Episode 4, The Jury. ♪

The state trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd took place at the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis from March 8th to April 20th, 2021. It was the first criminal trial in Minnesota to be entirely televised and broadcast live, receiving extensive media coverage with over 23 million people watching the verdict announcement on live television.

But the reality is that Derek Chauvin never received a fair trial, not because the judge was biased or the prosecutor's unethical, but because the entire social and political environment made an impartial jury verdict virtually impossible. As Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz has noted, not moving the Derek Chauvin trial out of Minneapolis was a serious constitutional mistake.

Judge Peter Cahill, who presided over the case, was appointed to the bench in 2007 by former Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty and was subsequently elected by voters in both 2014 and 2020. His current term expires January 2027. His background includes experience as a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, public defender, and administrator, notably serving as chief judge and as top deputy to Amy Klobuchar during her tenure as Hennepin County attorney.

Colleagues described Cahill as fair, decisive, bold, with Chief Hennepin District Judge Todrick Barnett stating, quote, he will make thoughtful legal decisions based upon the law, even if the decisions are unpopular. One of the most significant legal errors in the Chauvin case was indeed Judge Cahill's refusal to grant a change of venue. The defense requested the trial be moved from Minneapolis due to extensive publicity, community pressure, and potential for juror intimidation. That request was denied. And as far as change of venue...

I do not think that that would give the defendant any kind of a fair trial beyond what we are doing here today. I don't think there's any place in the state of Minnesota that has not been subjected

to extreme amounts of publicity on this case. In similar high-profile cases where community tensions have run high, courts typically grant venue changes to ensure fair trials. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit even vacated white Detroit police officer Larry Nevers' conviction in the beating death of a black motorist in 1999, citing intense community pressure and publicity that made a fair trial impossible, despite strong evidence against him.

The denial of a venue change in the Chauvin case is particularly troubling, given that Minneapolis was the epicenter of the protests and riots that followed George Floyd's death. The idea that jurors living in this community could remain entirely unaffected by these events defies logic.

One of the most revealing aspects of this case, which wasn't made public until February 2021, was that Derek Chauvin had actually agreed to plead guilty to third-degree murder just three days after Floyd's death. Under that deal, Chauvin would have served more than 10 years in federal prison. That plea deal fell apart when then-Attorney General William Barr rejected it, worried it would be perceived as too lenient by protesters across the country. Think about the implications of this. Barr rejected a deal that would have put Chauvin in prison for a decade because he was concerned about public perception and potential civil unrest, not the facts of the case or the law.

The court drew from an initial pool of 326 registered voters in Hennepin County, the very community that had experienced the riots, the very people who'd witnessed their city burning and knew exactly what would happen if they delivered the wrong verdict. Each potential juror completed a 14-page questionnaire addressing their attitudes toward the justice system and police. But here's the kicker. This was all happening as city officials were deliberately poisoning the jury pool. Perhaps the most blatant attempt to influence the jury came not from protesters or politicians, but from the Minneapolis city government itself.

On March 12th, 2021, right in the middle of jury selection, the Minneapolis City Council unanimously approved a $27 million settlement with George Floyd's family. This wasn't just any settlement. It was the largest pretrial civil rights settlement in American history. As former Hennepin County Chief Public Defender Mary Moriarty observed, quote, the problem with the settlement timing is that I think $27 million sends a huge message about what the city thinks of Chauvin's behavior.

Think about what this communicates to potential jurors. Before a single piece of evidence has been presented in the criminal trial, the city has already determined that Floyd's death was wrongful and that enormous compensation is warranted. The impact was so significant that Judge Cahill had to recall seven jurors who had already been seated to determine if they had heard about the settlement and whether it would affect their ability to serve impartially. Two jurors were ultimately dismissed after admitting they couldn't be impartial after learning of the settlement. One juror stated bluntly, I think it'll be hard to be impartial. Another said, that sticker price obviously shocked me.

Did it move you one direction or the other?

I would say especially that dollar amount was kind of shocking to me that kind of sent a message that the city of Minneapolis felt that something was wrong and they wanted to make it right to the tune of that dollar amount. Judge Cahill described the timing of the settlement announcement as unfortunate, expressing concern it could influence jurors. He stated, quote, I wish city officials would stop talking about this case so much. As defense attorney Eric Nelson argued in court, the timing of the announcement was incredibly prejudicial.

The final jury consisted of 12 jurors plus two alternates, five men, seven women, including six white, four black, and two multiracial jurors. But the demographic breakdown masks something far more important, the exclusion of jurors who might question the prosecution's narrative. Juror number two, a chemist who describes himself as a pretty logical person who relied on facts and logic

was precisely the kind of analytical thinker the prosecution might fear. Jury number 44, a healthcare executive who expressed empathy for both officers and Floyd, stating, quote, I'm sure his death is not something anyone intended to happen, represented a balanced perspective that could threaten the prosecution's murder theory. Meanwhile, jury number 52, Brandon Mitchell, later revealed to have attended a Washington, D.C. rally wearing a get your knee off our next T-shirt, somehow made it onto the jury despite falsely claiming during selection he had never attended demonstrations about police use of force.

One prospective juror's voice literally quivered as she told attorneys during jury selection she feared for her family's safety if chosen for the panel. When the judge excused her, she exhaled in relief.

The media coverage of the Chauvin case was relentlessly one-sided from the beginning. Before any evidence was presented in court, before the autopsy results were even complete, legacy news outlets had already crafted their narrative. Derek Chauvin was a racist cop who deliberately murdered George Floyd. For jurors, avoiding this coverage was virtually impossible. Judge Cahill repeatedly told them not to watch the news, but as legal experts note, television news is not the only source of information in the modern age. The vast majority of people get their information from social media, online sources, and in conversations with others.

The prejudicial effect of this media coverage was compounded by the fact that Judge Cahill refused to sequester the jury until deliberations began. This meant that for the entire trial, jurors were potentially exposed to media narratives, public commentary, and the intense social pressure surrounding the case.

As if all of this wasn't enough to poison the jury pool, prominent politicians decided to weigh in on the case before the jury had reached a verdict. The most egregious example came from Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who traveled to Brooklyn Center, Minnesota on April 17th, 2021, and told protesters, quote, we've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure they know that we mean business.

When asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was not found guilty, Waters said, Judge Cahill was so troubled by Waters' comments, he addressed them directly in court, calling them abhorrent, saying, quote,

This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a co-equal branch of government.

The judge even acknowledged that Waters, quote, may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly condemned Waters' comments, saying on the Senate floor, it's hard to imagine anything more inappropriate than her statement. Joe Biden also weighed in before the verdict was announced, saying that he was, quote, praying the verdict is the right verdict and that the evidence was, quote, overwhelming in my view. I can only imagine the pressure and anxiety they're feeling. I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think it's overwhelming in my view.

The message to the jurors throughout the trial was clear. The president of the United States believes Derek Chauvin is guilty. Throughout the trial, jurors were confronted with constant reminders of the potential for violence if they reached an unpopular verdict. A high fence was installed around the courthouse, a daily visual reminder of security concerns. On some days, protesters gathered just beyond the fence, holding signs that read, Convict Derek Chauvin and The World is Watching. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz activated the National Guard. Law enforcement agencies across the country prepared for potential unrest depending on the verdict.

These security measures were not subtle. They sent a clear message to jurors about what was expected to happen if Chauvin was acquitted. Federal authorities even warned in classified briefings that extremists could exploit protests to engage in violence. This atmosphere of tension and potential violence created an environment where jurors likely couldn't help but consider the broader implications of their verdict beyond the evidence presented in court.

Judge Cahill took the added step of keeping the jurors' names secret, acknowledging the potential danger they faced if their identities became public. As one juror later revealed, quote, When he first finished the trial, there were definitely a few weeks where I needed to take time to myself and really recover. I know some of the jurors were having nightmares, were having flashbacks from when you were in the courtroom. Even President Biden acknowledged after the verdict that the jury was, quote, under extraordinary pressure and obvious admission about the atmosphere surrounding the trial. What we witnessed in the Derek Chauvin trial was nothing short of mob rule.

When jurors know their city may burn if they acquit. When they fear for their own safety and that of their families. When politicians signal what the correct verdict must be. When a $27 million settlement makes the defendant's guilt seem like a foregone conclusion, we can't seriously claim justice was served.

Opening statements began after jury selection, followed by testimony that lasted approximately three weeks. The prosecution called 38 witnesses in their case against Chauvin with a bystander video of Floyd's death serving as the focal points of their argument. The prosecution repeatedly played this video, combining it with footage from police cameras and having witnesses walk jurors through it moment by moment.

Throughout the course of the trial, Judge Cahill made several significant evidentiary rulings that limited the defense's case. Initially, Cahill deemed Floyd's 2007 aggravated robbery conviction and his 2019 Minneapolis arrest as inadmissible evidence, though he later partially reversed that decision to allow limited portions of the 2019 incident as medical evidence. The court also ruled statements from Maurice Hall, Floyd's friend and alleged drug dealer who was with him during the incident, inadmissible as hearsay when Hall invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.

Additionally, at the heart of the trial lay a contentious and crucial piece of evidence, an MPD training slide that Chauvin's defense team sought to introduce. This slide included a photo seemingly depicting the very restraint technique that Chauvin used, a technique his defenders argue was standard department protocol. However, the court redacted this critical evidence from the slide.

The court's justification for redacting the photo on the slide was procedural rather than substantive. Quote, because Chauvin could not show that he received the training shown on this slide, the district court appropriately granted the state's motion to exclude the evidence for lack of foundation. This ruling prevented jurors from seeing potentially exculpatory evidence demonstrating that Chauvin may have been following his training.

However, as Coleman Hughes argues in the Free Press, this rationale misses the broader point. The defense should have been allowed to introduce evidence to the contrary, including an MRT training slide showing an officer with his knee on someone's neck, not as an example of improper technique, but as an example of proper technique.

The redaction effectively barred jurors from seeing direct evidence that the maximal restraint technique MRT was part of the MPD protocol, even though multiple officers later affirmed its use in training. By focusing narrowly on Chauvin's individual exposure to the slide, the prosecution avoided addressing whether the restraint itself aligned with departmental standards, a critical distinction.

As Hughes noted, once the prosecution cited Lieutenant Johnny Mercer's testimony that officers were trained to, quote, stay away from the neck, the defense should have countered with evidence that MRT, including neck restraint, was explicitly taught, rendering the slide's inclusion irrelevant to Chauvin's personal training history. This exclusion arguably deprived jurors of context needed to assess whether Chauvin's actions violated MPD guidelines or reflected sanctioned procedures.

According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, quote, dozens of former Minneapolis police officers filed sworn declarations this week, saying former officer Derek Chauvin followed training protocol when he pinned his knee on George Floyd's neck. These declarations directly contradict testimony presented during Chauvin's trial and suggest a more complex reality than what was presented to the jurors.

Additionally, the MPD's use of force policies contain critical context regarding officer discretion and safety protocols. While officers are trained to play subjects in recovery positions as soon as possible, this directive must be understood within the broader context of scene management and officer safety considerations. According to testimony from Lieutenant Johnny Mercer, who is in charge of use of force training, using a knee on a person's neck isn't unauthorized.

when applying force. This crucial distinction was largely overlooked in media coverage. While Mercer later stated that once the subject is under control and handcuffed, the technique would no longer be authorized. This raises the question of when a subject is truly under control in a dynamic street situation with potential crowd interference. The MPD call handling protocols specifically instructs officers to quote, "Ensure that on-scene notification is reported to the dispatcher." And to handle scenes, quote, "In accordance with MPD policy and procedures." Suggesting that scene management is a continuous assessment.

MPD policy specifically recognizes that officers must, quote, continuously reassess the perceived threat in order to select the reasonable use of force response, indicating control techniques may need to be maintained until officers can definitively establish that all threats, including environmental threats, have been neutralized. Katie Blackwell's testimony that Chauvin's technique was, quote, not what we train has been central to the case narrative. However, this testimony is now directly challenged by former officers who assert Chauvin did follow his training. As noted in court filings, these officers allege that the

that the restraint technique Chauvin used against Floyd was part of departmental training. The legal filing goes still further, arguing that Blackwell committed perjury when she testified Chauvin was not following department training. This serious allegation suggests the trial may not have presented a complete picture of Minneapolis Police Department training protocols.

Closing arguments were made April 19th, 2021. Prosecutor Steve Schleicher stated that Chauvin's behavior, quote, wasn't policing, this was murder. While defense attorney Eric Nelson argued a reasonable police officer would understand the situation. The jury began deliberations April 19th and reached a verdict after approximately 10 hours. On April 20th, 2021, at 4.07 p.m. Central Time, Chauvin was found guilty. On August

all three charges, second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, second degree manslaughter. On June 25th, 2021, Judge Cahill's sentence chove into 22.5 years in prison, exceeding Minnesota's minimum guidelines, but falling short of the prosecutor's request for a 30-year sentence. Let me be absolutely clear. On this day, our justice system failed to provide the due process protection our Constitution demands for all defendants, regardless of the charges they face or how despised they may be.

In a system of justice worthy of the name, the verdict must be based solely on the evidence, not on fears of what might happen if the wrong verdict is reached. As Judge Cahill himself acknowledged, external pressure and threats of violence have no place in our system of trial by jury. In the fall of 2022, Judge Cahill delivered the Justice Jackson Lecture before a large audience of judges at the National Judicial College.

Curiously, only one news organization covered his remarks, despite their relevance to one of the most high-profile cases in modern history. That organization was The Daily Wire, courtesy of my colleague Matt Walsh. The lecture, which is available online, begins with Cahill making several jokes about various aspects of the Chauvin trial before covering topics like the importance of upgrading technology in courtrooms.

As the lecture progresses, Cahill makes a series of statements that raise serious questions about judicial impartiality. He transitions from discussing procedural matters to advocating for what he terms racial justice in a manner that appears to depart from traditional notions of judicial neutrality. Most concerning is when Cahill explicitly states to the roomful of judges that, quote, every case should be about racial justice. But every case doesn't mean that we ignore racial justice. Every case that you deal with

should be about racial justice. Even if everybody in your courtroom, if you're white, old white guy like me, and everybody else in the courtroom is an old white guy, even the defendant on this beating case. Cahill said every case should be about racial justice, work for equity. He advised judges to take implicit bias training and suggested hiring practices based on demographic considerations. Cahill advocated for judges to consider race consistently in their cases, claiming this approach would restore, quote, trust and confidence in the judiciary. How many have been through implied bias training?

If you haven't, make sure you do it. It's very valuable. If you have any opportunity to help in the hiring process for court staff, if you can serve on the Equal Justice Committee, if you can go out into the community, we've done listening sessions.

in some of the communities of color just to listen. The judiciary's fundamental purpose is to apply the law equally to all individuals, regardless of race or background. A sitting judge openly advocating for racial consideration in all cases represents a significant departure from traditional judicial ethics. Judge Cahill's comments revealed a concerning ideological framework that may have influenced the Chauvin trial proceedings.

Chauvin's legal team filed a motion for a new trial, citing numerous grounds, including jury misconduct, intimidation, and the court's failure to sequester the jury during the trial. While this appeal was not successful, the legal issues it raised were substantial and would normally merit serious consideration by higher courts. In particular, the defense cited, one, the court's failure to change the venue despite unprecedented pre-trial publicity. Two, the city's $27 million settlement announcement during jury selection. Three,

the failure to sequester the jury during trial. Four, external intimidation from politicians and protesters. Five, evidence of juror misconduct and bias. Any one of those might be sufficient grounds for reversal in a normal case. Collectively, they represent a devastating indictment of the trial process.

Just two weeks after the state verdict, Chauvin was hit with federal civil rights charges on May 7th, 2021. Initially, Chauvin pled not guilty, but faced with the prospect of spending the rest of his life in federal prison if convicted at trial, he eventually accepted a plea deal on December 15th, 2021. The terms were 20 to 25 years in federal prison to run concurrent with his state sentence.

To pile on, they threw in a completely unrelated 2017 incident involving a 14-year-old to make Chauvin look like a serial abuser of power. Judge Paul Magnuson ultimately sentenced him to 21 years in federal prison. Given all of these factors, a presidential pardon would send a powerful message that justice in America is not determined by mob rule or political pressure, but by evidence, due process, the rule of law. It would affirm that even the most hated defendant deserves the full protection of our legal system. Critics have argued that a pardon would undermine confidence in our justice system.

I argue confidence in our system is already undermined when trials are conducted under the shadow of intimidation and political interference. Restoring faith in our system requires acknowledging when that system has failed and taking corrective action. Visit pardonederek.com, sign our petition asking President Trump to pardon Derek Chauvin for his federal convictions. We'll also put the website up to donate to Derek Chauvin's legal defense fund in the description. This is about ensuring that justice is applied fairly and consistently without being swayed by mob mentality or political pressure.

Joining us on the line to discuss the case of Derek Chauvin is one of the journalists who helped really uncover many of the explosive details surrounding it. That's Coleman Hughes. Coleman, thanks so much for joining the show. Really appreciate it. Yeah, my pleasure.

So obviously, you know, I've been taking a leading role in calling for the pardon of Derek Chauvin. Part of the, I think, transformation in the public view of the George Floyd, Derek Chauvin case is the series of articles that you wrote for the Free Press where you analyzed the case in detail. I wanted to go through some of that with folks because the case that you make is that, you know, it's not as though we know for certain exactly how or

or why George Floyd died. But that's almost the point. If you are in a criminal justice system in which reasonable doubt is the demand, there is no way this case meets the standards of beyond a reasonable doubt. Yeah, absolutely. That's the first thing to keep in mind. As you know, and many people in your audience know, the standard for convicting someone is a reasonable doubt, which basically means there has to be no other reasonable explanation for what happened other than

Chauvin murdering Floyd. And so for me, the biggest red flag in this case on the reasonable doubt issue was just the fact that the official autopsy conducted by Dr. Andrew Baker had a theory of Floyd's death that did not implicate Chauvin. This is what people didn't really appreciate, I think, at the time, and people still don't really appreciate. There were two different theories of why George Floyd died. One was positional asphyxia, meaning

he wasn't able to breathe, essentially because of all the weight on top of him. And that would be Chauvin's fault if that were true. But the other theory was that he was so stressed

physiologically by the entire situation. His heart rate was, the demand on his heart was such that he basically, his heart gave out because of his serious underlying heart conditions plus all the drugs in his system. So on that theory, it was really the stress of the arrest in general and not the weight on top of him that killed him. And that was the theory of the official autopsy. That's right there. That should be reasonable doubt in my view.

And one of the things that's pretty amazing when you view the original autopsy and all of the medical reporting around it is that this really is not even a coin flip. The positional asphyxia case is just not really backed by any of the medical evidence in the autopsy, or at least not very much of it. There was no bruising on his neck. There's no bruising on his trachea. The the.

the sort of speculation that would have to occur in order to achieve the idea that this was purely due to the weight on his back or on his neck, you'd have to ignore things like the massively enlarged heart, like the 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in his system. You'd have to ignore the tape, which, which,

which shows him saying, I can't breathe, six separate times before he is even removed from the car and put on the ground. He's obviously in a state of panic even before he's put into the police car. I'm struggling, honestly, when I look at the autopsies to see where is the physical evidence that the weight alone would have made a person of George Floyd's prior health conditions and excited state and drug use die. That's the part that I have trouble with.

So there was no physical evidence. That's why the prosecution brought in a pulmonologist, meaning a doctor who studies lungs, to kind of create a theoretical model of how George Floyd might have died from positional asphyxia. And that's fine. The prosecution's allowed to do that. You can bring in a lung expert. You can say, here's this other theory of how he might have died. But that doctor didn't

provide any evidence that refuted the official autopsy and the official autopsy it's not just that positional asphyxia like sort of like what was a little bit there it just wasn't there at all the

Dr. Baker, who did the official autopsy, he had a chance to explain himself multiple times in trial. And he was very clear that he attributed Floyd's death to the stress of the overall interaction and the demands it made on his heart. He didn't...

a single time mentioned Floyd's difficulty breathing and his specialty as a forensic pathologist is determining cause of death. Right? So the guy who's paid by the state to figure out what killed Floyd, his theory was not that it was Chauvin's weight on his back. And the reason this was important is in the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution was

essentially had to reject that theory. They rejected the theory of their own pathologist because they knew it didn't implicate Floyd, right? It didn't implicate Chauvin, rather. But if you actually look into it, they had no reason to reject it. There was nothing, there was no other evidence at trial that found a problem with the autopsy. The autopsy was very reasonable, and it just didn't implicate Chauvin.

So, Coleman, obviously one of the big issues surrounding the George Floyd case is the fact that it became a national issue, which effectively deprives Chauvin of his right to a fair trial. It's the highest profile criminal case that we've had in this country since the O.J. Simpson trial. You had the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party essentially calling for his

conviction before this trial even happened. You had the city of Minneapolis paying out a $27 million settlement to George Floyd's family. You had members of the jury who are openly at rallies wearing I Can't Breathe t-shirts before the trial took place. You have jurors who afterward acknowledged that there was public pressure on them and that that affected their judgment. What do you make of the jury deliberations and the fairness of the trial itself?

Yeah, so obviously my position on this has been controversial and I've been going back and forth with people on the various trial details. The one argument I've made that no one has even tried to argue against is that Chauvin did not have a fair trial because

It's just impossible to argue that he got a fair shake when you consider the fact that, first of all, several jurors, alternate jurors and seated jurors, said that they were afraid what would happen for their personal safety and to the general, the safety of the city if Chauvin were acquitted.

right right there it's very difficult to be unbiased when you're afraid for your own safety these these jurors knew that their names would come out some months after the trial and in fact their names did come out some months after the trial so imagine being in their position in minneapolis thinking okay if i think this guy was innocent what's going to happen to me and my family it only takes one crazy person to really destroy your life and and

And all of those feelings of fear, if you remember at the time how much violence there was in the country in 2020, it's incredibly difficult to put that out of mind when you're in the middle of a trial. You add to that the fact that, yeah, as you said, one juror was found at a protest with a T-shirt that said, get your knee off our necks before the trial. Obviously, that information didn't come out until after the trial.

And another juror was found with a BLM sign in his window. The New York Times published a few months after the trial. These are not people I would say should be, would be unbiased jurors on a case that's literally about whether someone's knee was on a neck.

um and about uh very much about a blm related issue so you put all that together and there's there's no way that chauvin got a fair trial i think ben you went to law school if you've if you if you had that as a case study in a law school classroom with with the names changed and and the topic change is there any chance that every anyone in class would defend that as a fair trial

And no way in the world. So Coleman, obviously, this has massive impact on how Americans have thought about the criminal justice system. I was on with Stephen A. Smith recently, and he basically acknowledged that he was not willing to look at any evidence outside of the nine minute tape. And his assumption was that as long as there was an E on an X, that meant that that was the cause of death. I literally asked him, is there anything that could change your mind? And he just said no, which I think has unfortunately been the way that too many people have a

approach criminal justice issues in the country for a really long time. That obviously speaks to the sort of decline in racial comedy in the country. It wasn't all that long ago when both black Americans and white Americans actually thought that race relations were on a good track in the United States. That was as late as 2012, 2013. For the past 12, 13 years, they've been...

on the wrong track, the numbers have been bad. Do you see that recovering anytime soon? And what do you think the fallout from the Chauvin-Floyd trial and conviction of Chauvin is going to be for the long term? So I hope we're on a better track now

What's really important is that people don't judge these police incidents based on a 30 second or even a nine minute video. That's the most important thing people have to learn in our social media age is that it's incredibly easy to lie with videos and that a video actually does not tell you the whole story. For example, the other important point on Chauvin we haven't talked about is that

The whole media allowed us to believe that Chauvin invented this knee on the neck technique because he's some kind of psychopath or something. In fact, it was a trained technique. And there is literally a picture from Minneapolis police training material showing how you're supposed to put a knee on the back of the neck in certain scenarios.

Not only that, they didn't allow the jury to see that picture in the trial. So they essentially allowed the jury and definitely allowed the American public to believe that Chauvin was inventing this kind of technique that admittedly looks really rough from the point of view of like a non-policeman.

But this was a trained technique. They were trained to do this in many scenarios. They were trained that if a suspect is talking, then they're breathing. They are literally trained that people lie about medical emergencies to get out of arrest all the time, which is true, and that as long as they're talking, they're breathing.

Floyd was talking for five minutes, right? He was talking almost up until he lost consciousness, right? So I think what people have to learn from the Floyd incident is don't do what Stephen A. Smith did and just bury your head in the sand and say, I saw a video that upset me, therefore it's wrong. Actually take the time to learn more about what happened.

And then just, yeah, just don't be misled by 30-second clips on social media. That's what led to the BLM era. That's what led to the decline in race relations. It's just people jumping to assumptions based on very limited sets of information. That's Coleman Hughes. Go check out his book, The End of Race Politics, and his podcast, Conversations with Coleman. Coleman, really appreciate your insight and knowledge on this issue. Great to see you. Thanks, Ben.

All right, guys, coming up, we're going to jump into the Ben Shapiro Show mailbag. Now, I know you've heard about it a lot, but the thing is, you can't hear any of the questions or the answers or even ask the questions unless you're a member. That's just one of the amazing things that you get behind the paywall. But it's an exclusive club and you can only get in by joining Daily Wire Plus. If you're not a member, become a member, use code Shapiro. I check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.