How the US Justice System Is Being Remade

Welcome to Crossroads, where we give you insight beyond the headlines. Now, first off, the US justice system, it's all being remade. Big change is taking place. Former prosecutions are being investigated. Key figures are being pardoned. And this is being done against the backdrop that weaponization of the justice system allegedly may have played a role in many of the previous cases, especially the last four years. It's possible that as these investigations continue, a lot of convictions could be overturned. And this has been raised in many of Trump's pardons, from the Jan Sixers to Christians who were prosecuted for protesting outside abortion clinics, to his most recent pardon of a former sheriff who was found guilty of bribery. CBS News said this. President Trump said Monday he is pardoning Scott Jenkins, a former Virginia sheriff who was convicted of making several businessmen sworn law enforcement officers in exchange for cash bribes. It says former Culper County Sheriff Jenkins, 53, was found guilty on fraud and bribery charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison in March. And as Jenkins was indicted in 2023 on 16 counts in December, a jury found Jenkins guilty of one count of conspiracy, four counts of honest services fraud, and seven counts of bribery. Jenkins appealed his conviction in April. Now, here's Trump's announcement, pardoning Jenkins on that. Trump said this. Sheriff Scott Jenkins, his wife Patricia, and their family have been dragged through hell by a corrupt and weaponized Biden DOJ, Trump says. And he says this sheriff is a victim of an overzealous Biden Department of Justice and does not deserve to spend a single day in jail. He is a wonderful person who was persecuted by the radical left monsters and left for dead. This is why I, as President of the United States, see fit to end his unfair sentence and grant Sheriff Jenkins a full and unconditional pardon. Again, that's Trump, but this is important because look, it suggests that even if somebody was found by a jury to have committed a crime, bribery, everything else, even if the whole thing's done, prosecuted, guilty as charged. If the investigation was triggered on partisan grounds, or if the prosecution may have been triggered by partisan politics, was this about politics and not just about crime? Well, it looks like it is up for review. We actually saw similar things with Trump's pardon of Ross Ulrich, also known as the Dread Pirate Roberts. He was running the dark net marketplace, the Silk Road. He was accused and found guilty of even trying to get people assassinated. In fact, trying to hire a hitman, notably, but he was pardoned. And there's likely more to come, including a review of the case around individuals currently in prison for a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, another one. Midwesterners said this, it said the US Department of Justice is taking a hard look at potential pardons for two men serving prison sentences for an alleged plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer during the pandemic. It says Berrycroft Jr., 49, and Adam Fox, 42, are serving 20-year and 16-year prison terms, it's a long time, respectively, following convictions in Grand Rapids in 2022 for an alleged plot to kidnap the governor from a vacation home in 2020. Both men have steadfastly insisted they were entrapped by FBI agents and informants who instigated the alleged plan. In other words, what happened was undercover agents suggested this, created the whole plan. These two individuals were accused of going along with it. And of course, the whole thing was fake. They got arrested, spending a lot of their lives in prison now. But it said this, on the pardon front, we can't leave these guys behind. Ed Martin Jr., who was named earlier this month as President Donald Trump's new pardon attorney and head of the Justice Department's Weaponization Working Group, told the Brianna Morella Show last week. Ed Martin, of course, one of the former heads of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagles, actually have an award from him, now in charge of some of the pardons. Now, let me actually show you a clip of the US pardon attorney, Ed Martin, talking about this. I think that the question of Michigan and what went on with this Fednapping, yes, that's in my weaponization working group as a topic, something that we're looking at, and I'll be looking at closely. But on the pardon front, we can't leave these guys behind. In my opinion, these are victims just like January 6th. And so we are processing that. And I have complete confidence that we're going to get a hard look at it. And the president will want to know the facts about it, want to see the relationship. Look, at this point, the FBI was so unworthy of our trust. They were so dishonorable during those years. Now, that would be big because, again, these men were convicted. They were found guilty by a jury. They were sentenced. They're currently serving their sentences. But the argument is the important thing. The argument for the Trump side is that none of this would have happened without a type of weaponization of the justice system, without the political targeting of people on one side of the political aisle. That's the narrative. The argument is that the men were lured into this and then prosecuted, that there was a political motivation from the get-go. What really matters is what this really means behind the narrative of the pardons. The argument is that political ideology or political targeting played a role in how the cases were handled. Maybe a type of bias was behind the reason the investigation was launched in the first place, why they were maybe entrapped, as they claim. In other words, the narrative suggests this is being viewed as a type of fruit of the poisonous tree, that even though, in the end, people were prosecuted, found guilty, may have even committed crimes in some place. If it's fruit of the poisonous tree, if the whole tree was planted on corrupt ground, then the fruit it bore, the actual crimes, should all be thrown out. Now, that motive was also colored in a type of inherent bias, they say, a politicized intent, in other words. And what's really big is this, if that is the determination, if this was some kind of inherent corruption in the system, that could be used to potentially overturn a lot of other cases, possibly even going beyond presidential pardons, maybe a full review even, right? Now, among the bigger cases still on the table is that of Derek Chauvin. Before we get into that, though, briefly, if you've been enjoying my analysis so far, be sure to hit the like button, subscribe to Crossroads. We're trying to grow our YouTube channel again, and your liking and subscribing will really help my channel reach new people. Back to the news, folks. Now, among the bigger cases still on the table is that of Derek Chauvin. He's the former Minneapolis police officer who was sentenced to prison for the death of George Floyd, which in turn became a rallying call for the whole BLM riots. Many conservative figures have been requesting Donald Trump to pardon Derek Chauvin. Trump currently doesn't seem like he's too interested in doing it, mainly because a pardon would not technically let Derek Chauvin out of prison. It would basically just be, it would just overturn the federal charges. Most of the charges he's facing are state level. This would have no impact on that. So a pardon would just be symbolic, basically. It would not shorten his sentence. But on another point, if it turns out the case from the get-go was colored by some type of other intent, if it's determined to have been fruit of the poisonous tree, it is possible this could lead to a new review of some parts of the case and maybe even get thrown out entirely. Maybe it could be, again, tossed to the side. There are some signs this may actually be happening. In fact, the judge in Derek Chauvin's case recently broke his silence and did an interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune speaking about the case and the problems with it. This is what it says, Minneapolis Star Tribune. The city was also ramping up for a vote on whether to replace the police department with a new model as the jury was being seated. The Minneapolis City Council announced a $27 million settlement to Floyd's family. Now that's problematic because if that happens while the case is going on, what does that mean? It means the jury's opinion might be tainted, meaning a mistrial. That did not happen. It says here, Cahill's annoyance at the time was palpable. The judge was bothered by it and said, quote, it did not help that people were saying defund the police, all these idiots on the Minneapolis City Council, said Cahill. He wanted a good, nice, clean trial unflinched by elected officials. And it is the case that elected officials threw the trial in one direction. It says here he told the jury to actively avoid the news. Was that possible? I don't know. It says the defense called for a change of venue to a different county, but Cahill denied it, arguing that nowhere in the state would be immune to coverage of the case. So if the judge was saying, don't listen to the news, don't watch the news, and then acknowledged there's nowhere in the state that a jury could be established where they would not be exposed to that, how do you have a fair trial? It says here, what are we going to change the venue to? Mars? He quipped. It says the decision to allow the trial to be broadcast live was born out of extraordinary circumstances. Minnesota rules of court did not allow for cameras in the courtroom in most cases. But the pandemic brought new variables that changed the legal analysis for Minnesota's judicial system. Social distancing precautions allowed only six people to attend in person. And Cahill said he worried this would run afoul of the US Constitution's rules on a public trial. And said, quote, the six seats were designated for family members. So is that a public trial? I don't think so, according to him. It says millions of people watch the trial real time each day. When the jury announced its guilty verdict, more than 23 million viewers turned in. This is a big deal for a few reasons. While the judge is sticking by his conviction, he's sticking by the whole decision, sticking by it all. He's also pointing out that there were in fact problems that in some cases could be used to overturn a conviction based on a determination it was a mistrial. Why was a mistrial not declared? Well, again, a lot of it goes back to the same narrative that politics could have colored the way the case was handled. Maybe the outspoken and political voices, maybe those impacted the jury. Maybe when the local politicians got involved and were making statements. Maybe when major public figures were commenting on it. Could the jury be immune to that? Or was the jury impacted? Now, the problem with the George Floyd case is that it was politically contentious also on a deep, deep level. It was so loud that as the judge even argued, you would have to have been living on Mars to have not heard about it. So what does that mean for the normal way the justice system works where the jury is not supposed to watch the news? They're not supposed to have pre-established opinions. They're not supposed to listen to people trying to sway their view one way or the other. What happens when the case is so massively politicized that it is not possible to not have a jury impacted? There's no way around it. Well, could that mean it was a mistrial? Some people believe so. But what about if the judge even suggests himself that the jury could have been impacted? What does that mean? Now, what's especially interesting though is this a pattern. It's not just one case or another. It's not even just that one. It's the same pattern that Donald Trump was arguing for himself when he was facing waves of charges and investigations. When he was facing trial in New York City and Washington, DC, it was also raised whether Donald Trump could get a fair trial. If you're in a deeply blue area and he's probably the most politically contentious person in American politics, could he get a fair trial? That was a big argument. After all, what jury did not already have an opinion about the case? What jury did not hear about the case? How could you possibly have a jury that had an opinion already not tainted in one way or the other? What jury could not have been impacted by inherent bias? And when the judges were asking questions, trying to root that out, what did they say? They were asking them even what type of media do you read? Which news outlets? And the issue is, which news outlet is going to determine which side you believe? If you're only selecting people who read New York Times, you're probably only selecting people who hate Trump. If you're only selecting people who read Fox News or watch Fox News, you're probably only choosing people who like him. And what did they do? They chose the people who watch and read New York Times, meaning they selected people with inherent bias or who would have been exposed to that, who in the country did not have an opinion one way or the other. And so how can you possibly get a fair trial in that case under normal American law? Now again, though, this also fits in with the broader picture of weaponized justice, the whole allegation around it. And even Donald Trump's personal day one order to have all previous cases, all of them, investigated under the Biden administration, reviewed for elements of alleged weaponized justice. Not even just criminal cases and prosecutions and everything else, but even the intelligence community and any type of investigation they were doing. If they can prove that maybe some people were targeted for political reasons, well, maybe some people were investigated or labeled or something else based on partisan grounds. Was it Christians? Was it the MAGA crowd who was labeled as MAGA extremist and a threat to democracy? Was it people being labeled as insurrectionists or hit with other things? And importantly, did all of this act as a type of partisan coloring, the coloring of the law that impacted the functions of the justice system? Well, look, that's a narrative quickly coming to the forefront and all of these things and a whole lot more. It's a narrative we're seeing brought up on almost a rolling basis right now from the reviews and firings taking place within various government agencies, the FBI, for example, recently announced. To even documents being released that allegedly detail how some groups of Americans were being labeled as extremists. In one of the more recent cases, one of many, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard released declassified documents that suggest even Americans who were just opposed to COVID mandates could have been deemed potential domestic violent extremists. Gateway Pundit said this, I said, Director Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents that revealed that Americans who opposed the draconian and cruel COVID mandates were declared, quote, domestic violent extremists. Michael Schellenberger's Public and Catherine Herridge Reports first obtained the newly declassified records. It says former FBI agent Steve Friend explained to Public, the designation created an articulable purpose for the FBI or other government agents to open an assessment of individuals, an investigation in other words, which is often the first step towards a formal investigation. It says, in other words, COVID opponents were going to be potentially investigated as domestic terrorists, terrorists. It says, as Public notes, the report calls legit criticism of mandates as, quote, prominent narratives related to violent extremism. If you made your thoughts public, well, maybe you were investigated for thought crime. In other words, it says here, such narratives described in the report, quote, include the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe. How many of you believe that COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe? It says, especially for children. Maybe they were, quote, part of a government or global conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and livelihoods or are designed to start a new social or political order. How many people believed that? How many people do you know believe that? Maybe you did. Well, if somebody believed that, including yourself, you might have been investigated as a possible terrorist. Concerning stuff, right? In fact, here's Tulsi Gabbard talking about these released documents in Fox News as Will Cain show. Watch this. When you look at the language of these documents that I've declassified, first, the strategic implementation plan of the Biden administration's designation of potential violent domestic extremists, it really talks about people who may likely turn out to be domestic violent extremists or those who may likely turn to violence because of these specific, quote, unquote, ideologies that they hold. And there's a consistent thread through here that these ideologies that they are designating as turning into potentially violent activities or being manifested in violent activities happen to be those of people who were using their First Amendment rights to oppose certain policies of the Biden administration. That's a big deal because the extremist label could have been used as grounds to investigate probably a lot of people. It could have been grounds to target outspoken critics, a lot of people on the Trump side, by the way, or even news outlets, most of them conservative. It's also now known that similar narratives were used to even push for social media websites to censor people being funded in some cases by your tax dollars, those censorship actions. And a lot of that was colored along partisan lines. Republicans had one opinion, Democrats had the other. But if you had the predominant Republican opinion, you might have been labeled a terrorist. Now, with all this in context, the big question is going to be, could it be proven that bias existed? Weaponization of justice, inherent bias, a coloring of the law. Did bias and political intent color the application of justice? If so, then it could be overturned. Did it determine whether investigations were launched in the first place? Well, that could get a lot of things, frankly, overturned. And I would say there's a simple way we could make this determination. Was it colored by partisan politics? You can look at whether justice was applied evenly. Were there people on the other side of the political aisle, the other side of political interest, also facing the same level of scrutiny? Were the scales of justice balanced? If people on the other side were rioting, if people on the other side were calling for violence, if they were attacking peaceful demonstrators, if they were firebombing pro-life clinics while people were going to jail for protesting in front of abortion clinics, were they being held to the same standards? Well, I think we all know the answers to many of these. The answer is no. And so we'll have to see what the determination is as these investigations move forward. But if it is determined that this was in fact weaponized justice, a coloring of the law, which is a violation of it, by the way, that could lead to a sweeping review of many past cases under the designation of fruit of the poisonous tree, meaning it can get overturned, a lot of them. Now on a related story, before President Joe Biden left office, one thing he did, he issued a very long list of pardons. His argument behind many of them was that these pardons were in place to protect key individuals from weaponized justice, political retribution. Trump was coming in as your retribution, right? Biden pardoned many of his family members, even offering sweeping pardons going back years for things that aren't even charged for. He also pardoned a lot of key Democrat officials, including many people involved in the investigations into COVID-19 or COVID-19 policies. January 6th, everything like that, right? But now President Donald Trump is suggesting some of Biden's pardons could be overturned. And he's doing so on grounds they were signed with an auto pen. Was it the president who signed it? Was it an automatic pen? And was Biden aware of it? It has been announced now officially there are investigations into this. Reuters said this, A senior official and Republican US President Donald Trump's Justice Department told staff on Monday that he has been directed to investigate clemency granted by Democrat Joe Biden in the waning days of his presidency to members of his family and death row inmates. It says Ed Martin, the Justice Department's new pardon attorney, wrote in an email seen by Reuters that the investigation involves whether Biden, quote, was competent and whether others were taking advantage of him through use of auto pen or other means. Was he the one steering the ship or was it somebody else, right? It says here, the email stated that Martin's investigation is focused on preemptive pardons issued to several members of his family in clemency that spared 37 federal inmates from the death penalty, converting their sentences to life in prison. We'll see what happens with it. It's all being investigated. But look, in other news, one of the largest conservative organizations in the entire country has now been labeled an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I'll be talking more about this after we come back from a quick break. Experts agree one of the best ways to protect against financial uncertainty is to diversify your portfolio. Learn how physical gold and silver can secure your retirement funds from today's economic challenges with a gold IRA from American Hartford Gold. You can safeguard your wealth with no penalties or taxes when you transfer your current qualifying retirement accounts. Call now and our precious metals specialists will send you a free information kit, no cost or obligation. American Hartford Gold, a trusted industry leader with an A plus from the Better Business Bureau, has a five star rating from thousands of happy clients. Whether you're getting physical precious metals in a gold IRA or delivered to your doorstep, we offer only the highest quality gold and silver. For your peace of mind, we also offer a no fee buyback commitment, a low price guarantee, along with free shipping and free insurance. So don't wait. Call the number on your screen today and secure your financial future. Welcome back. One of the largest conservative organizations in the United States has now been labeled an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Daily Signal said this, the SPLC, they say, is comparing the largest conservative grassroots youth organization to the Ku Klux Klan, adding the Turning Point USA, adding it to its hate map that plots KKK chapters and claims to expose the hate groups upholding white supremacy in the United States. It says the latest version of the SPLC hate map, released Thursday, lists Turning Point USA for the first time, categorizing the group as an anti-government extremist group. I don't know, anti-government, they're very pro-Trump and he's the government right now, right? He's the president. It says the hate map also includes PragerU, a nonprofit that uses digital media to spread conservative ideas, putting it in the same category as Turning Point USA. It says critics have long accused the SPLC of liberal bias in applying its hate accusations, though the SPLC can test these claims. It notes that PragerU told the Daily Signal that the SPLC did not reach out to them before putting the group on the hate map and said, quote, no, they did not notify us. And if they'd like to know how we feel about SPLC, we actually have an entire five minute video about them titled the anti-hate group that is a hate group. A PragerU representative said, in my opinion, this is all just partisan stuff. I've spoken it to Turning Point USA. I did not find them to be racist at all. There are black people there. There are white people there. There are Asians there. There are many racial groups there. I didn't see any instances of racism or discrimination or anything else. They're conservative, without a doubt. They're Republican, without a doubt. But they're by no means racist. It's a ridiculous label, in my opinion. But look, also on that point, I think that labeling groups that don't fit into the actual definition of extremists, it actually minimizes the entire issue of real extremism. I'd say it's the same phenomenon with them trying to label everybody as Nazis and fascists. Do you think that, for example, people calling Trump supporters Nazis and fascists made people not support Trump? Or do you think it actually minimized the entire label of Nazi and fascist? Maybe it made the whole thing become less of a problematic label. People stopped caring about this much. It risks making the labels meaningless when you misuse them. If you misrepresent something that should be condemned, and you use it to target people who have nothing to do with it, then are you actually harming them? Or are you harming yourself? I would say that actually, by doing this, they're minimizing these issues. They're actually destroying their own credibility and the what would be really serious things of actual racist extremist groups by putting people in that same category have nothing to do with that. I do think actually this will probably harm them in the long run, in my personal opinion. That said, folks, leave a question or comment in the chat. Let's jump into some questions. First off, James Dyson, you're saying, has there ever been a more vivid time in American history where there has been a double standard of justice? It depends. I don't think there ever has been. There have been cases in past American history where certain groups of people allege the federal government was going after them because of their views. You can go back very early on. For example, let's talk about Thomas Jefferson, for example. Thomas Jefferson was unfortunately very close to the French Revolution. He had a happy. The United States did not get further behind the French Revolution. There was, for example, the creation of the Alien Enemies Act. Actually, it was part of a broader group of five acts called the Alien and Sedition Acts that even outlawed certain types of political speech. Thomas Jefferson actually won his election on grounds of saying he was going to overturn that. Interestingly, actually, Thomas Jefferson overturning the Alien Enemies Act in the first case and the ideas that speech against the government should be a crime is actually one of the first major cases that established the legal view that even seditious speech is protected under the First Amendment. That was Thomas Jefferson, folks. When George Washington personally led the Continental Army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, claiming their agents who were opposed to the U.S. Constitution and blamed it on what were at the time the Democrat societies who wanted America to be a democracy, not a republic, and who believed we should not have a solid constitution. They wanted everything to be, again, pure democracy. They wanted everything to be up for vote. They did not want a constitution that could not be overturned by vote. The Democratic societies were regarded by George Washington as a threat to the constitutional republic that is the United States. Was that partisan? Well, the Democrats at the time would have said so, right? Again, you can go up through history. There have been a few times with it. You know, again, on that point, though, I don't think we've ever seen it to the extent we've seen it now. I do think the last, not even last four years, I'd say going back to mid-Obama administration, a lot of this changed, but some would even trace it back to the George Bush administration and the creation of the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act, which did overturn some constitutional protections for Americans and allowed for certain types of surveillance, monitoring, things that would be normally a violation of the Constitution's protections on illegal searches and seizures. Some people say it started there. Some people even point back to, like, McCarthyism and stuff, so I don't know. I do think, though, that we've kind of reached the breaking point. I think we reached a point where when you take half the country, it's one thing if you take, like, okay, this guy kind of supports terrorism. Maybe he should be investigated. You know, that might draw an issue there. Hey, this guy's calling for, like, racial violence. Maybe that's extreme. When you take that and you expand it to the point where you label basically half the country as extremists, when you label an entire political party as extremists, when you determine that anybody who voted for the president of the United States is an extremist, then I think you've taken it too far because you only have two options at that point. You either walk things back or you split the entire country, and I'd say splitting the entire country, I'd say that's a bit extreme personally, right? Not to mention when they, like, stand by groups like Antifa carrying out actual political violence and don't seem to have a problem with that, or they stand by groups like BLM. They were burning down buildings, beating people up, killing people based on nothing more than their race. I think that was kind of extreme. To what extent, you know, where do you draw the line of what constitutes extremism? If it's not, for example, actual violence, calls for violence, beating people up, attacking people based on their political views. If you say that that is not violence because you believe in the issue, but you say that just being part of a rival political party, that that is somehow criminal extremism, or your opinion, you oppose a certain policy, I think that's a very dangerous determination, and I think we've far passed that line. So I do hope this can be fixed, actually. For the sake of our country, I hope it can be fixed. I hope people can kind of come back to the middle personally. Emotion007 is saying, the biggest problem we have in America and the world is the fake news media. It's so hard to hold them accountable. When a nation is misinformed, bad things happen, and I would agree. One of the reasons why I choose to be a journalist, actually, I believe that media has become one of the least responsible institutions in this country, and I also believe that media is one of the most important institutions in this country. Why is that? I think that if you're going to have a country where people, a country where people elect their leaders, which is what a constitutional republic is, what does it mean? A republic is a representative democracy. What does that mean? It means you elect people to represent yourself in the democratic process. That's why we have a president. That's why we elect representatives, state representatives in Congress. It's why we elect local officials to represent our interests in government. Now, what does that mean? Government of the people, by the people, for the people, right? That's the United States. What happens if people become misinformed? It means that they make their determination on who they vote for based on bad information. The entire idea of a constitutional republic was also based on the marketplace of ideas. You needed to have a free press. You needed to have the ability of people to debate. You needed to have the ability of people to bring forward ideas, both good and bad, because the idea was in the marketplace of ideas, the good ideas will stand up and the bad ideas will fall down, and people will make their determinations of who they vote for based on which ideas can withstand criticism or debate. When you eliminate debate from a society, you eliminate the ability of people to make these type of determinations. The censorship establishment has done incredible harm to this country, incredible harm. I do think that the consolidation, the corporatization, the buying up of media, the manipulation of media by partisan political organizations or groups, the consolidation of it into just five or six media controlling more than 90% of news outlets in this country, the monopoly that has been established on the advertising front, on the algorithmic front, on the social media front, where any opposing voice is just censored or not pushed or pressed down or demonetized or denied any type of ability to succeed, I think that has caused extreme damage to the marketplace of ideas. I think that if we're going to have a free country, you need to have a free media. You cannot have a free country without a free media, because people will base their decisions based on information, and if you control information, you control the system. I think the censorship system and what the partisan news outlets have done, they've caused a lot of damage, I think. I shouldn't say partisan. I think partisanship is fine, personally. But I do think that you have a lot of irresponsible news outlets, and I believe many of them lie intentionally. I think a lot of them intentionally and knowingly lie, and so I do make an effort to show you all both sides of things. Yeah, Wilma Eden, you're saying trial by media. Actually, that's an important point, too. It's not even just who you vote for. Even the judicial system is determined by a jury. What is the basis of a jury? You're supposed to have people standing, again, the jurors determining the innocence or guilt of a person based on the evidence presented to them in the court process, not what they're hearing on social media or hearing among news outlets or hearing among the representatives of their political party. If you have a court case and the jurors are selected in a deeply partisan area where all their representatives are making comments against the case, where all the news outlets they follow are making comments against the case, where all their friends and family members and contacts on social media, all the influencers they follow are making comments against the case, then do you think that person is going to make a determination against the case if they're being exposed to all these different things? Again, information will also affect your opinion on a court case, and can you have a fair trial if the entire jury has that type of bias? I think actually, unless you can have it where I don't know, maybe we should source jurists entirely from the Amish community because that's the only place you can probably find people who aren't on social media or listening to the news. Maybe that's an idea. Would you stand trial before an Amish jury because they're probably the only people who are not seeing opinions or whatever else that could impact or color their determinations? I do think it is problematic, right? And as Wilma Eden said, trial by media. Yeah, it is the case. The media, and I think a lot of media try to do that. When they try to politicize court cases, they, of course, want to have a certain determination come about. And you do have people even threatening jurors sometimes, whether it's directly the media doing it or whether it's people impacted by the media going into courthouses and yelling at the jurors and stuff. You had that happen in a lot of those cases also. There were a lot of cases where that happened. Yeah, and so did that swing the trial? Did somebody not get a fair trial because of that? I do think that's a real issue. Tharpat, you're saying the changes DEI made to government legalese such as person instead of man and or woman, father, mother, parent, need to be changed back. I've been thinking about that too. You know, it's interesting because, I mean, I don't like any of that stuff, but I do find myself like it impacts your thinking. When you've been exposed to it for too long, it impacts your thinking. And so I used to not really pay attention to race. Like I really didn't actually. With all the race politics, a lot of which, at least for my generation, you know, of course, old generations are probably exposed to a lot of it. My generation, I was only really exposed to it under the Obama administration with, you know, of course, the starting of the whole BLM movement and so on. Before that, I didn't really think about race. It wasn't that big of an issue for me. In fact, I didn't even notice so much like, you know, what race somebody was. It wasn't an issue I cared about. Same thing with like gender politics. Like, you know, it was just normal, right? You had a mom and a dad and brothers and sisters and friends. And you might, you may not have thought too much about it. Nowadays, you're like, you see a man and you're like, is that really a man? What do I call them? If they, if they ask me a question, do I say, sir, are they going to freak out at me if I, if I say the wrong thing? Like I, you have that, right? It is, it is an issue these days. I do think that, I do think the cultural battle right now is flipping the other way. And I do think that a lot of these narratives, they never really became fully embedded in the culture. So they're, it's a tree without roots. You have two trees being grown in the country, neither of which fully has its roots yet. And I do believe that one of them is going to grow its roots eventually. The big question with the Trump administration is can they throw out the other tree and will their tree put its roots down? I think right now across the board, especially as it relates to even civil rights determinations in the military, in the FBI, throughout the entire government system, they are going against a lot of those, you know, gender and race politics using the Civil Rights Act. So I actually do think that the extreme on that side, I do think they've kind of lost a lot of the, I think they've lost the battle. Maybe, I think they've lost the war, not even lost, but I think they've lost the war at this point. And I think you can even see it when it comes to a lot of Democrats voting conservative. Look at the last election. You had a lot of people flip parties. Maybe they won't flip parties forever, but they flipped it in the last election. And a lot of that was because of these really just too far left politics. I think this could even lead actually to a lot of, maybe the Democrat parties, they look for their new issues. I think there's two directions for it. One is go to the socialists. That's why you have like AOC and Bernie Sanders. The other side is go towards the middle. And a lot of them actually blame the extreme left is the reason they're losing voters. That's why you have a lot of people say, I never left the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me. And so I do think in terms of the rebranding, they're more likely to go towards the middle. I think they're more likely to go back towards the middle. And if they do that, you probably will watch a lot of these really extreme political narratives become, probably not go away, but they will become a lot more fringe. And at the very least, they're not going to be enforced through a lot of the system. So I think the culture battle is shifting right now. All right, folks, I need to end the episode a little earlier than usual today, because I have to catch a flight. I mentioned I'm going to be in California tomorrow. Anybody who wants to hang out, I'm going to be speaking at an event in Orange County. So come and join us. I have the link in the chat. You can see it here, ept.ms forward slash decode trade war event. I'm going to be speaking there. It's a fundraiser. It's at our Epoch Times office in Orange County. Come and join us. I can hang out and meet you all. Again, looking forward to it. I'll be there. I'll be there tomorrow. Or no, what day is today? Today's Wednesday. I'll be there tomorrow. Yeah. All right, folks, that said, I have to go because I have to catch a flight, but thank you so much for being here. Please don't forget to like this video, leave a comment, share it. It does help us a lot. I will see you again tomorrow. I'll be broadcasting from a hotel room probably. And if you're in San Diego, I will see you there. So as I said, please take care of yourselves. Stay informed. Stay free. Thank you.