Best of The Program | Guest: Rep. Walberg & Jordan Schachtel | 11/15/21

16 years from today, Greg Gerstner will finally land the perfect cannonball.

Epic Splash, Unsuspecting Friends, a work of art only possible because Greg is already meeting all these same people at AARP volunteer and community events that keep him active and involved and help make sure his happiness lives as long as he does.

That's why the younger you are, the more you need AARP.

Learn more at aarp.org/slash local.

Stu, we talked about COVID today.

We have a big special coming up this week.

We had Jordan Schachtle on,

who is

this great investigative reporter who actually

he found some video

live in the UK from

Bill Gates.

And Bill Gates was saying, yeah, you know, this one really isn't that effective, this vaccine.

So we got to come up with some other things.

Things that you and I couldn't say online.

Also, a guy, a representative, Tim Wahlberg, talking about how maybe Build Back Better and the associated plans to get rid of pipelines, not really going to help us in our inflationary problem.

Yeah, you'll understand why line five is very, very important to you.

Oh, and also, don't worry about inflation.

You have the money.

You've been saving it during COVID.

It's no big deal.

All that and more on today's podcast.

Don't forget to subscribe to Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

The promo code Fauci Live for the big special this week.

It's $25 off your subscription to Blaze TV.

And subscribe to this podcast and Studios America as well.

And rate and review five stars is the appropriate number of stars.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenbeck program.

Here's the White House on surging gas prices.

Look, our view is that the rise in gas prices over the long term makes an even stronger case for doubling down our investment and our focus on clean energy options so that we are not relying on the fluctuations and OPEC and their willingness to put more supply and meet the demand in the market.

That's our view.

We feel that, but we also feel that there are a number of actors here, including price gouging, that we have concerns and we've seen out there.

We feel we've seen, we've asked the FTC to look into the need for OPEC to release more that are the larger issues here.

And that's why we've been focused on those options.

Well, you know, it's really weird because do they think that nobody knew we were energy independent just last December?

That we weren't relying at all on OPEC?

Price gouging?

No, it's probably that you are doing everything you can to shut down the oil business.

That's probably what's happening.

And now they're talking about shutting down Line 5, a pipeline that

provides the lifeblood of energy to the Midwest.

We have Congressman Tim Wahlberg.

He is a Republican from Michigan.

And he can bring us up to speed on what it means if the Line 5 pipeline is shut down.

Good morning, Glenn.

Hey, how are you?

Thank you.

Before I say anything else, thanks for all of the unbelievably good work you did in Afghanistan.

Oh, thank you very much, sir.

Maybe you can do the same here in Michigan in encouraging our governor to not do an insane thing of shutting down a pipeline that has had the benefit given to the people of Michigan as well as the people of the world when you figure that most of the fuel that goes into the jets and the metro airport, on the Delta flights, for instance, I'll be taking taking off on shortly after I get off this interview come from the the the line five

and if you shut that down you shut down a lot of other things that would go right and in fact as as you pointed out

last December here in Michigan I was paying a buck seventy nine a gallon for gas we weren't buying from OPEC except what we desired and we basically told them we don't have to buy from you in fact we're exporting resources all over the world now because we are totally energy independent.

And this type of action that the President did with Keystone Pipeline, the first thing he did was shut that down.

And now he has been considering, but I think relative to our letter that we sent, Bob Latta from Ohio, Jack Bergman and myself, and then 10 others from the surrounding states, sent to the President saying, hey, you can't be thinking about doing this, especially when we come to winter, when in Michigan and these northern states, people are going to to freeze or be unable to purchase fuel if you shut down a pipeline that has worked safely since 1977.

You are going to have the same kind of winter that we had here in Texas for a few days, where we had rolling blackouts.

And if you remember, right after that, one of the other pipelines in the south was hacked into, and it was shut down for five days.

And the havoc that

that

brought to America and our airports and everything else, and that was only about five days.

This is 540,000 barrels a day.

Jennifer Grandholm, who was our new energy secretary, said, quote, this is going to happen and people have to get used to it.

Energy is going to be more expensive this year than last.

And there's only one reason.

It's a change in administration, the policy.

With President Trump, we had an administration that said, let's use all the resources we have, including those found on federal lands.

We did that.

We became independent.

We had the surpluses that

we could export to our friends and neighbors around the world.

They paid us, and we didn't have to pay OPEC for the resources that we needed to take.

Now we're forcing the rest of the world to have to rely upon Russian dirty gas, far more dirty than anything that we would be putting in our pipelines and ultimately putting in our cars, using as propane to dry our grains.

And Michigan right now is harvesting with grains, corn and soybeans needed to be dried, and that comes from propane drying and natural gas.

And so it's a thought of expanding the cost still further, which is almost doubled for our farmers, let alone for our homeowners that live in the upper peninsula of Michigan that heat primarily with propane.

This is insane what's going on here.

And I hope the president walks back anything he decided to do with Line 5.

And I hope the governor understands that her election, at the very least, is at peril if she allows people to freeze to death this coming winter.

So gas prices, it's predicted, could go as high as 50, a surge as high as 50% if they shut down this line.

Oh, absolutely.

Absolutely.

And that impact is not only on heating, not only on

energy for our cars, for our airplanes, et cetera, but it's jobs.

We're talking of thousands of jobs that would be lost across the region as a result of this.

And then, if you shut the pipeline down, which has never had a problem, even the ding that it took from an anchor that was dropped in the wrong place didn't impact it at all.

But we'll have to take all of these resources, which are hazardous, and put them in cargo trucks and

railway containers and take them around through communities all around the state of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

That doesn't sound smart to me and I don't think it sounds smart to most people when in fact we have a system in place that works very well and an energy company

now that says we're going to build a tunnel underneath the Great Lakes for that five-mile stretch.

That's all it is.

And we'll put the pipeline in that.

It'll never be touched by water, let alone an anchor.

And you can also put communications technology through that same tunnel system.

And by the way, we'll do it at our own cost.

And they've started it already.

And now the president steps in and puts a little bit of a pause on it.

Again, I hope sanity returns and we do what's right for America, let alone what's right for the world.

So, can the governor is doing this?

She can do this herself, can't she?

No, not really.

Okay.

Our former governor went into agreement with both Canada and the Enbridge

Fuel Company,

and the agreement is still in place.

It's this radical attorney general and governor that we have in Michigan that decided because of the radical influence and environmental lobby that put huge, huge millions of dollars in their campaigns that they're going to shut it down.

I think they're starting to feel the heat right now, not necessarily coming from the gas, but coming from people who understand that this is the wrong solution.

You've got treaty, a treaty that's been in place with Canada and the United States, specifically Michigan, for many years.

And it is very nebulous right now whether the president could violate that, but we want to make sure that he doesn't.

And we think that in the courts, ultimately, the governor will lose.

All right.

So you have written a strongly worded letter to Joe Biden, but that's not going to get it done.

And you know that.

What will get this done?

How can we help?

What can be done?

Well, I think continued pressure from all around this country, understanding that what comes through this pipeline doesn't only go to Michigan, doesn't only go to Ohio.

It's refined in Michigan, refined in Ohio, but sent out all over to make an impact.

When you think of the flights that go through Metro Airport in Detroit on a daily basis, and that fuel that goes into the planes that

take off and land

comes from the Line 5.

That makes an impact that's at least national in perspective.

I think the push that went to the president has caused him to back off a bit.

Now they're saying they never said they were going to shut it down.

They just wanted to make sure it was safe.

Well, we also have the pipeline and

the

hazardous materials safety administration, FIMSA, trying to remember what FIMSA stood for for a second there.

They've done the check already.

They gave the go-ahead.

This was over a year ago to keep the process moving.

So we've checked the boxes.

I think the administration is seeing that.

They know they've wound themselves up into something that this governor got them into and probably they shouldn't have.

And now it's down to the governor.

And I think the continued push from citizens in this great state of Michigan, as well as any others who have the impact that comes from Line 5, will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much, Congressman.

I really appreciate it.

Keep up the good work and keep us informed.

If there's anything that we need to know or anything that this audience can do nationwide, please get in touch with us and let us know.

Grateful for that, Glenn.

Thanks for keeping people up to date.

You got it.

You got it.

That is Congressman Tim Wahlberg.

All right.

So, why is all of this happening?

Why is all of this happening?

And why, for the love of Pete,

does the White House

say that this is actually

going to

be solved with the Build Back Better

bill.

How could all of this be solved with that?

Listen, cut five, or sorry, cut six.

Here they are.

Listen.

If we don't act on Build Back Better, what we're doing is we won't be able to cut child care costs in 2020.

We know that is a huge impact on people's daily lives and American families.

We won't be able to make preschool free for many families starting in 2022, saving many families $8,600.

We won't be able to get ahead of skyrocketing housing costs.

I mean, that's a part of this bill, too.

It has a major investment in building new housing,

affordable housing units so that people can move into them and live in them and address the pending housing crisis.

And we won't be able to save

Americans thousands of dollars by negotiating prescription drug prices.

So our view is this makes a strong case.

This is a strong case for moving forward with this agenda because what we're really talking about is cost to American families, how it's impacting them.

This is what they're saying.

They're saying that this this is going to help with costs and

this spending bill will actually help with inflation.

You're listening to the best of the Glenbeck program.

So what is the most dangerous thing?

The most dangerous thing is really, really clear.

It is the truth.

It's the truth.

When you're armed with the truth, you can empower others.

You can change things when you have the truth.

The draconian measures that our government has shoved down our throats can be stopped.

But it'll only be stopped when we are armed with the truth and we demand it.

Only when we have the truth to fight back with

we need the power of numbers there is power in numbers

there is victory in truth

now there's only one way to amass those kinds of numbers and that is enlightening people the millions of people who have blindly marched towards the cliff in lockstep

or

to enlighten those and give give courage to those who are too afraid to step out of line to question what the hell is going on here

but that is changing people are more curious and more willing to say and it is going to get stronger and stronger as your gas price goes up as the price of meat and a loaf of bread goes up

The truth is dangerous because the truth is powerful.

And that's why big tech deplatforms anybody who dares question really anything, but definitely COVID.

Big government and their minions in tech control us by controlling information and they are hiding the truth to keep you under control.

If it wasn't now for talk radio and for those on the internet,

we wouldn't have a country.

And those who are on the internet are being stifled more and more.

They're being silenced.

The algorithms are changing.

Instagram just put in a new filter for your protection.

They're controlling

and hiding the truth.

The phrase that the truth shall set you free.

is absolutely true, and I know it because I've applied the truth in my own life,

and I am freer than I've ever been in my life.

But can they free a country?

Yes, but only if millions are in a chorus of voices speaking out.

You need to find the truth and spread the truth.

In this case on COVID, Americans living in a prison created from fear, concocted in a lab, spread by government and perpetuated by media.

The truth, like a virus, once it's out, it can't be stopped.

It's contagious.

We're shut down for saying something

like this.

This is Bill Gates last week in the United Kingdom.

I want you to hear carefully what he says.

The economic damage, the

deaths, it's been completely horrific.

And I would expect that will lead the RD budgets to be focused on things we didn't have today.

You know, we didn't have vaccines that block transmission.

We got vaccines that help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce the transmissions.

We need

a new way of doing the vaccine.

We need a new way to wait a minute.

What did he just say?

Because if I said anything like that,

I would get strikes.

I would be banned from the internet.

But Bill Gates said it last week.

The reason why I know Bill Gates said it is because there's a really good investigative journalist.

He is the publisher of the dossier on Substack.

His name is Jordan Satchell.

And welcome.

How are you, Jordan?

Hey, Glenn.

Thanks so much for having me.

I appreciate it.

You bet.

I found this

snippet of him

stunning, quite honestly, because of what he announced.

Can you take us through this?

So to preface this, Bill Gates is really, the best way to understand Bill Gates and his role in this whole COVID mania stuff is that Bill Gates is the equivalent of he is the Google of public health.

And this is not a conspiracy theory.

It is just based on the factual evidence that Gates and the Gates Foundation controls and finances.

And this isn't just me, this is Politico.

These are several corporate press outlets that recognize that Gates finances all these institutions that did the coronavirus modeling, whether it's Imperial College out of the UK,

IHME out of Washington State.

So we did the modeling.

His people proposed the lockdowns.

His foundation invested into these mRNA vaccines.

So it seems that Bill Gates is not taking responsibility for basically, he was so responsible for steamrolling through all of these policies that the government ended up imposing on the population.

Of course, the government played a big role, the Chinese government played a role.

But Bill Gates, on the private side of things,

was a total monopolist here.

It seems that he doesn't even want to talk about it anymore.

And it's quite shocking now with the latest from Bloomberg is that 7.5 billion COVID shots were injected into people's arms, according to these reports.

And now Bill Gates is saying, after investing and profiting billions of dollars off of these things, he's seemingly saying, oh, no big deal.

We just got to do another one.

This didn't work out so well.

Who cares?

And it's just shocking to hear that from the man that is so invested in this, both from a monetary perspective and from having power over this entire industry.

But if I said on the air that the COVID

mRNA shots

do little to nothing at all to stop transmission,

I would be,

I'd be taken off of YouTube.

That would be marked and flagged and taken off of YouTube, Facebook, etc.

But that's what he's saying.

Again, I find it

not only because I'm very well aware of

how involved he has been in this whole thing, but for having him come out, nobody else is saying that stuff, are they?

Not the people that have had so much invested into this.

And it's funny you mentioned YouTube.

YouTube cites WHO policy,

but the leader of the WHO, Dr.

Tedros, is basically a stooge for Bill Gates.

He was Bill Gates' guy.

So it seems that

everything just comes back to this.

These were Bill Gates' policy recommendations.

They're being enforced by Twitter, by Facebook, by YouTube.

And

it's so shocking to hear this from him.

If I tweeted something out like this, I would be banned instantly.

Alex Perrinson has been banned from social media.

There's been so many other people that have been skeptics of these policies, of the efficacy.

If you don't believe this stuff is 100% safe, 100% effective, like a magic pill for your 99-year-old grandpa or grandma in a nursing home that they're going to live forever.

If you don't believe that,

then

these social media oligarchs seemingly want to ban you from the public square.

But Bill Gates has an exception because I guess that he finances all this stuff, so he's allowed to just spout off.

So,

what do you speculate or do you know what his

goal here is with this?

I think that Bill Gates is basically

Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute had a really interesting analogy.

And he thinks that basically Bill Gates sees this whole pandemic and this mRNA stuff as a software issue, similar to like a virus that he deals with in his previous work at Microsoft.

So we think, oh, you know, these things aren't working so well.

Let's just upgrade them.

And he doesn't really have a sense of humanity and the devastation that he has potentially wrought with his advocacy for lockdowns, with the side effects that some people are getting from the shots,

the injections in the children.

He just doesn't seem to be care.

He seems to be very, very cold about this whole issue, and he doesn't want to take responsibility for his failures.

When I was in this interview that you cited, it's a 32-minute interview.

He spent 29 minutes talking about how he's going to fix the climate for us and how he has all these solutions for it.

So he seems to just want to bury this under the rug, and he doesn't want to talk about this anymore because it didn't go as well well as he thought it would.

It's amazing the hubris of these people that

they are just taking these things on, damn the consequences, don't really even

talk to or think about individuals, but you're just looking at everything as a collective.

I mean, this is the kind of hubris that we had out of Germany in the 1920s with the eugenics, and even in America in the 1920s with the eugenicists.

They looked at society and had no problem doing whatever they wanted to the individual for the good of the collective.

Absolutely.

And Bill Gates, he has this warp perspective.

He's very much an elitist.

He spent his birthday a couple weeks ago in Turkey.

And at the end of the interview that he delivered where he gave this quote about the shots not working as well as he thought, he also said that he thinks the best approach to COVID is the one that New Zealand and Australia took, which

ultimately have locked, yeah, then they locked down their entire populations for

basically three-quarters of the last two years.

And this man was just found spending his birthday in Turkey.

So he obviously views us as peasants, that he's way above us, that the rules don't apply to him, but he wants to enforce the rules upon billions of us.

Have you seen the news?

And if so, I'd love to hear your perspective on the impact or the meaning of this.

CDC admitted this weekend that it has no proof that anybody who had COVID is spreading the virus.

And

it was, let me just give the documents reflecting any documented case of an individual who, one, never received a COVID-19 vaccine, two, was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered, and then later became infected again.

And three, transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.

They say

they're not collecting any of that data.

Seems kind of like important data to collect.

It seems like this is just, in my perspective, I guess the Occam's razor approach is that there's no money to be made in natural immunity and there's no power to be granted to the federal government in natural immunity.

So why would the CDC, under the control of the Biden administration, recognize something like that?

And

the latest research that is coming out now that says that

it looks like

natural immunity

is actually much more effective than the vaccine.

We have tons of studies that are now coming out and saying this.

Is that going to make an impact, do you think?

It seems that the general public has been so propagandized.

I mean, if you go into Washington, D.C.

or New York City, they would be shocked if you told them that you have no intention of injecting your five-year-olds with this stuff.

So

it seems that America has really split into two.

You have this society, unfortunately, of cattle who are just willing to do whatever the government tells them to do,

up to and including injecting their children with experimental shots.

So it just seems that

their perspective is just one of blindly trusting the government and that

the history of science and biology doesn't matter.

Natural immunity cannot be recognized.

You just have to keep giving yourself the injections over time, again and again and again, to stay safe because the government told you that that's the case.

Jordan, thank you so much.

Thanks for releasing that and having the guts to do it.

Did you get any blowback from releasing his words?

It always seems that the corporate press is very unhappy when you talk about Bill Gates.

And a lot of this is actually because Bill Gates funds a lot of these public health.

If you go to the Gates Foundation's website, he actually funds a lot of these public health verticals.

The Guardian, a lot of these U.K.

papers.

There's some papers in the U.S.

So a lot of it is actually his foot soldiers working on his behalf.

Jordan, thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Jordan Shatchel, he is an investigative journalist.

You can follow him on dossier.substack.com.

The best of the Glen Bank program.

All right, can we go to the

judge here?

And he did so by criminally reckless conduct.

Now, he's still giving

the circumstances of the defendant's conduct.

This is what the judge is telling the

jurors.

They have to, he's dismissed the illegal gun charge.

And then he said, you have a couple of things you have to consider.

You have to consider a reckless, utter disregard for human life.

And that is your

what, homicide first degree, reckless homicide first degree.

So a reckless, utter disregard for human life.

He said that means three things.

That A,

the defendant caused the death of another human being.

And in doing so, he had a reckless, utter disregard for human life.

That he

was criminal, reckless, and unreasonable,

and aware that his actions were unreasonable.

And I believe there's an and between all of these, right?

So you can't, if you, any part of this does not qualify.

Like, for example, he had a reckless disregard for human life, which seems impossible to provide considering you see him on video multiple times not shoot people that aren't attacking him.

Correct.

And

not shooting the people who he later shot.

Yeah.

One of the guys,

if you don't know what we're talking about, one of the guys comes up with a gun, Gage Grosskreitz.

He points it at Kyle Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse points the gun back at him.

Grosskreitz puts his hands up in the air.

Then Kyle Rittenhouse lowers his gun.

Then Grosskreis decides some insane maneuver where he runs to the right and tries to grab Rittenhouse's gun and points the gun at him again.

And that is when he gets shot.

So

criminal, reckless, unreasonable behavior of being aware that his actions were unreasonable.

Third is an utter disregard for human life.

What was he doing?

Why was he doing it?

How did it happen?

And all of those have to be without any regard to to human life.

So he's on two counts of this.

And by the way, if you believe that the defense has made

a case

where you reason, you know, unreasonable doubt or yeah, what is it, reasonable doubt?

Reasonable doubt

that it's true.

If he made the case

that it was self-defense, self-defense, all of that stuff that you had to go through there is out.

So if you believe that it was self-defense

and he also had other disregard for human life, self-defense trumps it.

So I don't think you can prove utter disregard for human life and recklessness.

You can't.

It's completely ridiculous.

It's ridiculous.

You can't even have been

charged for it.

It's so stupid.

And then I think they made a very good case because of what Stu just said.

Several times he didn't shoot people who weren't physically threatening him.

And we should be clear,

two of them

did threaten him, but then stopped when they saw his gun.

Right.

And then he did not shoot.

He didn't shoot.

I mean, that is overwhelmingly obvious.

That is not.

His intent was not to go out there and just shoot a bunch of people.

It makes no sense.

It doesn't connect with any of his actions from earlier in the evening.

I mean, the whole thing is completely absurd.

And

in a normal society that was functioning correctly, he would not have been charged.

Certainly,

immediately in this situation, they should go to jury and five minutes later be backed with an innocent, you know, a full acquittal.

Whether that will happen or not in this society, I have no idea.

So

the other thing that they can find him guilty of is reckless endangerment and disregard to public safety.

And it's the same kind of standards that he harmed someone, utter recklessness and disregard to any kind of public safety.

But you can't say that in this case because he didn't shoot everyone.

He could have just sprayed the crowd and he didn't.

That's an utter disregard.

He was making individual decisions based on who was attacking him.

There is no other

possible way to look at the videotape.

Correct.

And the associated testimony by prosecution witnesses who have pointed out that the first guy was lunging for his gun.

The second guy put his hand on the gun.

He was being hit by a skateboard.

He was being kicked in the face at the time.

There were other gunshots in the area going off at the time.

Behind him.

Behind him.

Where the guy behind him was the guy eventually that he shot.

None of this makes any sense.

If what your goal is to accomplish is to make sure that we have a just society that is based on the law.

So now, here's where conservatives are.

And I shouldn't say conservatives.

Anybody that believes

that justice should be done

and not social justice.

We've already gone through this once with the O.J.

Simpson trial.

We have gone through it recently,

but the biggest one is probably the O.J.

Simpson trial.

The O.J.

Simpson trial,

African Americans wanted and celebrated him being let out.

However, they all recognize a vast majority of African Americans that watched that trial and celebrated at the time now say, oh yeah, he was guilty of sin.

But it was a black man giving it to the man.

It was a black man getting off.

So

they were looking for social justice.

And in this case, they let a murderer go free.

And remember, too, like, obviously there was just like every other community of disagreement on that.

Some African Americans did think he was guilty.

However, we do know on record that African Americans in the jury did convict him.

Yes.

Based not on whether he was guilty or innocent of of the incident, but because essentially the man was too, too hard on black people and we needed to get revenge for all the other things that have gone wrong in society.

So that was not how the legal system works, by the way.

That was social justice before any of us knew what social justice really meant.

Okay.

That was just a feeling.

Now

we know what it means.

And you know, it's interesting to me that

Americans of

any kind

can

look at this Rittenhouse trial.

I mean, the O.J.

Simpson thing,

you had DNA, but you didn't know what DNA was at the time.

Yeah, they had to explain it from like ground one,

the ground floor.

Right.

And nobody knew what it was, and it made no difference in the trial because nobody knew what it was.

They didn't know how accurate DNA results were.

And

you could have had a reasonable doubt

on O.J.

Simpson.

I didn't, but I think a reasonable person could have watched that and went, I just don't know.

This one,

this one is so absolutely clear that if this jury finds him guilty,

It is truly only about social justice.

There's no way an honest person that is just taking into consideration what was heard on the stand, nothing else, just what was presented in the court of law.

And it's not like they left a lot of stuff out.

They actually

found new stuff.

I mean, there was testimony in there we never expected.

But if you just are fair and you're doing what the court instructs you to do and what our justice system instructs you to do, there's no way he is found guilty.

I think if I were on the jury,

it would take, I would go out in the hallway, we would be walking to the jury room and I'd be like, we're done, right?

We're done, right?

Can I go home?

We could go, right?

So one other thing I want to add to this, because it's also tied to your social justice analysis.

O.J.

Simpson, black woman on the jury, says plainly today that she thought, you know, all the things that had happened over society that had happened by police to black people, we had to send a message.

And that is her executing, not the law, not our justice system, but social justice just to make a point.

And I do think that that's a possibility here.

If that happens, that is probably the cause.

But another associated

problem we have now that I don't know that we had as much back then, even though though there were some incidents like this, is that I think a person who does not want to send a message to

like the message that the OJ juror wanted to send, and also realizes quite obviously that Kyle Rittenhouse should not go to prison, is going to have moments of thought where they consider, if I do not convict him, my city is going to burn to the ground.

They are under

correct.

They did have that in the O.J.

Simpson trial.

I don't know that they had that from the perspective of...

Oh, yeah.

They didn't have the personal.

I don't think the O.J.

Simpson.

The jurors didn't think, how can I go back into my own community?

I could be killed for this verdict.

That they didn't have.

But the O.J.

Simpson trial, the jurors knew that Los Angeles was going to burn to the ground.

If he was guilty.

If he was found guilty.

They did know that.

Yeah.

Well, I don't know.

Maybe it's more prominent today.

And I think there's the direct threat on the people.

I think that's a big thing to be concerned about.

Yeah.

Because if you think about it, they've already, I mean, George Floyd's, was it, nephew?

Yeah.

Said, like, we're taking pictures of the people in the jury box.

We know who they are.

So if something happens, we know what to do.

We have,

you know, I think there's a rational part of people.

Now, again, you'd hope that this instinct would not win out.

But in a quiet moment, when you're thinking about what's going to happen next, you're going to be nervous that if you decide this guy is not guilty,

you may be partially responsible for in your own head, certainly blamed for it by people around you for all of the damages that go on to your city.

You could be killed.

Yeah.

You could be fired.

Your children could be targeted.

Your family could be targeted.

If you have a business, you could go out of business.

I mean,

the weight around the jury's neck, if they do come in and it's a quick

acquittal, that's a brave, brave jury.

Brave jury.

It's brave to even sit on a jury like that anymore.

You know, I think back in the day, you'd think to yourself, well, I mean, this is an important part of our system and we have to make sure that we have competent, smart, fair people to execute it.

And I think most people in the audience would sit there and say, yeah, that's me.

I can be that person.

However, when you add into the fact that if you come up with the wrong verdict, not only will your city burn and you might be killed, the media will then do six months of coverage saying that it was just,

like it was the right outcome.

Hey, we got to understand that, you know,

we can't blame people who were responsible for this.

And you are going to be the one.

who is painted as the person who caused it and was wrong, even if you know you're right.

And so if they do come back the right way today,

it's a good observation to say, you know what, maybe, maybe we look at these people and give them a heck of a lot of credit because it's hard to do.

It's open and shut to me.

It's open and shut to you.

It's open and shut to everybody in the audience who looks at the facts of this.

And that's all we care about, right?

Right.

I think it could be open and shut to them, but that's not all they're considering.

They've got to consider things that they shouldn't be considering.

Right.

And there is, you know, they will be instructed not to consider anything else.

But as people, they will.

They may not discuss it, you know, in between themselves,

but

who knows?

I mean, that is, if he is indeed acquitted, that should give us hope in America.

And I think we've found that actually relatively.

often recently in that the only thing that seems to be standing in the way of this constant mob are the courts.

I mean, the vaccine mandate, it's another good example of this.

Like, I think everybody in a fair moment, even people on the left, would recognize: okay, OSHA was not created so you could have a vaccine mandate of every private employee.

It's supposed to be so people wear hard hats, right?

Like, that's what OSHA is.

We all know.

So we don't find teeth in our sausage.

Right.

Right.

It's the basics, right?

Is that a shoe?

No.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's supposed to be so you go into a workplace and you're not maimed

right exactly.

That's obviously what it's for.

And they're stretching it beyond all recognition to try to put this through.

And so I think everybody recognizes

it's a bending to

that level at the very least, if it's not blatantly illegal, which I think it is.

But the courts keep stepping up, even in these moments where the mob wants them to say, ah, you know what?

Let them do it.

We want it.

So let them do it.

I mean, I'll give you this an example, and it's not a popular one, but the Bill Cosby thing is another example of this.

They had absolutely no, they made a deal with Bill Cosby that this would never come out.

And then they based new charges on this thing that they promised would never be released.

Is Bill Cosby a rapist?

Certainly looks that way to me.

However, there are rules around our justice system.

And yes, it went through this entire thing, but eventually it did get turned around.

And as ugly as all of those accusations are, and probably as bad as he is, it was still the right outcome.

And that that is important.

It's important even when it's a terrible person.

It's important even if it is somebody who is guilty,

but you know it in your gut, but they haven't proved it or they've asked that you can't consider this.

You have to play by the rules.

Otherwise, we don't have anything.

Join Vanguard for a moment of meditation.

Take a deep breath.

Picture yourself reaching your financial goals.

Feel that freedom.

Visit vanguard.com/slash investinginyou to learn more.

All investing is subject to risk.