Best of The Program | Guest: Steve Deace | 3/30/21

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

Welcome to the podcast.

Today, Today, it is a pretty amazing show.

We go into the Derek Chauvin trial,

including

the back and forth between the media and the coverage of the jury selection process, where we see that apparently, if you're at all skeptical of COVID restrictions, you're not allowed on the jury.

At the same time, it's offensive if you believe there's deep-seated racism in the police force that you're not allowed on the jury.

It's bizarre to hear it back back in A and B comparison.

We also have Steve Dace on the program.

Dace, he's got a new book out called The Faucian Bargain, and it's about Anthony Fauci and all the stuff that has gone on over the past year.

It's something you want to definitely check out.

He joins us in hour two of the program.

You don't want to miss that as well.

Don't forget blazetv.com slash Glenn.

The promo code is control for 20% off your subscription to Blaze TV.

And take a moment and click on over to Stew DoesAmerica right here on your podcast app and subscribe, rate, and review there if you wouldn't mind, as well as doing the same for this program.

And don't forget, AndrewCuomoisAwful.com.

Mugs, t-shirts, and everything else available at stewdoesmerch.com.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the benefit program.

Biden is

well, he's

very worried because yesterday, can we play the CDC director and what she had to say about the coming pandemic and how it's going to get worse?

I'm going to pause here.

I'm going to lose the script, and I'm going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending doom.

We have so much.

Stop.

I can't take it.

I've only heard this, and now I'm watching it on the blaze.

Stu, did you happen to see this?

I heard it.

I heard the audio of it.

Watch the screen.

Watch the screen.

This is hysterical.

Go ahead, play it.

I'm going to pause here.

I'm going to lose the script, and I'm going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending view.

Stop.

Stu, what have you noticed there?

She seems very upset.

No, are you watching her eyes?

Yeah.

She's reading the script.

It does look like she's reading it, yeah.

She absolutely is.

I'm going to toss the script.

She's reading all of that.

Okay, go ahead.

We have so much to look forward to, so much promise and potential of where we are, and so much reason for hope.

But right now, I'm scared.

I'm speaking today, not necessarily as your CDC director, and not only as your CDC director, but as a wife, as a mother, as a daughter, to ask you to just please hold on a little while longer.

I so badly want to be done.

I know you all so badly want to be done.

We are just almost there, but not quite yet.

Wow.

So sincere and

so scared.

And Joe Biden says that he shares that sense of impending doom.

And here to talk about it is

our one and only Steve Dace.

Hello, Steve.

Morning, Glenn.

How are you?

I hear to say every time I hear from our CDC director, I get a sense of impending doom.

Impending doom, too.

I do too.

I do too.

Tell me, you have written a book about Fauci.

And

the most, you say the most powerful man.

I can barely read the cover from here.

I'm sorry.

The most powerful and dangerous bureaucrat in American history.

That's quite a statement.

14, 15 months ago, Glenn, we didn't know who Anthony Fauci was.

Yeah.

And in that short amount of time, he has, without a single vote cast, even by mail, not a single vote cast, has rearranged the lives of every American, every American family, every American business, every American school, every American church.

Need I go on to the point, can we actually step outside our homes and breathe free air?

That is now a current debate.

Now, if that's not the most powerful and dangerous bureaucrat in American history, then by golly, I don't want to know who is.

Well, according to the CDC and Joe Biden, if we let our guard down now,

we'll see the virus get worse, not better.

And I know that Texas let its guard down about 20 days ago, and

we're still declining

in hospitalizations and infections.

This book is a reference guide, Glenn.

It has more more references and footnotes than pages.

And a lot of it is how often and frequently these people have been wrong.

Anthony Fauci told Christine Ohm she was going to have 10,000 people in the hospital.

She never had more than 600.

The last time we heard this emotional lament from our new CDC director, it was her unveiling a map of where it is safe to go to school and for the kids to do extracurricular activities.

And Glenn, International Falls, Minnesota was the only place in the dead of freaking winter, Glenn, was the only place safe for kids to be fully back in-person learning with extracurricular activities.

I mean, that just obviously defies any form of common sense.

On and on and on it goes.

They have lied repeatedly, gaslighted us repeatedly.

The previous CDC director told us that a useless face diaper from China would protect him from COVID-19 even more than the vaccines.

We might as well go outside and rain dance, moondance.

This is is flat earth voodoo.

It has to stop.

And that's why for this book, we bypassed the normal publishing process of hardcovers and distribution that takes six months.

We've got to get this in as many people's hands as we can right now.

We went right to paperback, but that means we can only sell it in Amazon.

That's the only place on earth we could get an audience of this size, this many books.

And so that's where you have to get it, unfortunately.

But it's got all the information we need to take this to our legislatures, our governors, our city councils, our boards of health, and end this farce once and for all.

You call it the Faucian bargain.

That's the name of the book.

I love the title, actually, for

all of its meaning.

Tell me what you're going to find in this book.

I'm an average citizen.

I'm up on it, but not really.

What's in here that is going to help me go to my school board and to my community and to my senators and congressmen.

All the facts and all the data, you've largely not been told or shared.

There was a recent survey that found our media was the most negative in the world for COVID-19.

I woke up this morning and I had a UK physician who has written a book and has 60,000 Twitter followers come at me.

First thing I see this morning is he comes at me for fake news.

And he makes this claim that 0.25% of all people in the UK have died of COVID-19.

I just did the math of population and death in three seconds.

That's not true.

That's his own, that's his, I mean, this is a doctor with a book and 60,000 Twitter followers.

You know, this isn't, you know, Pez dispenser me 14 with five people following him.

And so this goes on constantly.

I've never seen a stream of disinformation like this.

People like you and I that have been in this conservative media game for a long time, we've been told for 20 years we need to be more like Sweden.

Suddenly we forgot Sweden.

Rhett them barely knew them.

We don't know what a Sweden is.

It's like they they fell off a map, never existed.

The amount of gaslighting that's gone on here, it will all be debunked in this book.

And it calls into question: you know, we have numerous elected officials that have endorsed this book.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Ship Roy, and I'm already bugging those people that are in Washington.

We need a 9-11 tribunal, Glenn, to get answers to the two most important questions of this past year that are raised by this book.

Number one, how come only experts with one particular narrative were considered experts and were mainstreamed and were used by the White House coronavirus task force, our own media, et cetera, when we had experts from the very beginning, from Oxford, the number one university in the world, Harvard, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, Glenn, these are all places that believe in global warming and 57 genders too.

And they all thought this was flat earth junk science, these lockdowns, and yet they were totally ignored.

We give you all their names, all their citations in this book.

We need to know the answer to that.

And then number two that we have to get an answer to is what changed from February 28th of last year to March 11th.

On February 28th, 2020, Anthony Fauci wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that when we got done with this, when we looked at the IFR, the infection fatality rate for COVID-19, it would be that of about a bad pandemic flu.

That's where Trump got his, it's a bad flu talking point.

Trump just parroted Fauci his entire final year of his administration, and now look what happened.

He's not in the White House.

And so he wrote that on February 28th, Glenn.

On March 11th, just 11 days later, and just three days after he went on 60 Minutes and told Americans not to wear masks, three days later after that, and 11 days after he wrote that in the New England Journal of Medicine, he went to Congress, said that this was going to be basically captain trips.

College basketball and the NBA shut down that night.

The country was shut down less than a week later and for the better part of the next year.

What changed?

What new piece of data did Anthony Fauci acquire?

What information stream did he get access to from February 28th to March 8th when he was singing a totally different song to March 11th when he sounded the show far on this thing?

We need to know the answer to that.

And there's two reasons why, Glenn.

Number one, so that we never fall for this form of authoritarianism ever again.

But then number two,

when we finally do get a contagion that may actually be a history book or biblical level event, and now we've conditioned a bunch of our people to just ignore it because Anthony Fauci is such a fraud.

We need to get to the bottom of the truth here, Glenn.

Well, they're going to.

I mean, they already know the truth, and now the White House is targeting an ad campaign for conservatives.

And they're trying to get the conservatives because they know they're going to be extra hard.

They've already gotten all the liberals, they say, to get the vaccines.

Now they just need the conservatives.

And so they've got a very slick ad campaign that will convince us all that we all have to get

the vaccine

and a passport to be able to go back to our lives.

This is almost like, I mean, I hate to say this, but if they weren't trying to condition us for something in the future, Glenn, what would they be doing differently?

Oh, nothing.

Nothing.

So it's just a matter of whether this is an accidental proto-version of something to condition us for in the future or it's intentional malevolence, but the end result is just the same.

I mean, listen, I hope the vaccines work.

They're experimental vaccines.

There is some conflicting data that's out right now.

Every day I look, I get one source, it's conflicting.

I get another, it's positive.

There's very positive vaccination data right now coming out of Governor DeSantis' Florida, where they have emphasized seniors with one of the largest senior populations, for example.

So what I would tell my audience, and I told my audience from the very beginning, vitamin D, vitamin C, work out, get outside, get in the sun.

If you've got elderly, if anybody has a sniffle or a cold, you know, social distance unless you test negative.

I mean, we haven't just put our heads in the sand on our show about this whatsoever, but we've actually followed established science like Rand Paul was grilling Anthony Fauci with about a week ago in the Senate.

When it comes to this vaccine, what I've urged my audience is, unless you're in a high-risk group or you're elderly, first of all, why are you getting in the way of somebody in the high-risk group anyway?

That's kind of selfish.

Let them go first.

And then, secondly, just observe the real-time data.

We didn't go through a normal FDA approval process, so just observe the real-time data about efficacy and safety.

Pretty much, unless

you're over the age of 75 with a immune deficiency,

this virus, if you were to get it, you're going to survive it about 99.6% of the time.

So I don't know why you'd be in a hurry to rush out and get an experimental vaccine under those conditions anyway, if you weren't in those groups.

I mean, Glenn, the median age of death for COVID in America is 78.

That's the average lifespan in America.

Let me read something that a blue check mark wrote yesterday.

Vaccine passports are a good idea.

Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do.

It will help break the resistance down.

Your thoughts on that?

My thoughts are the Fifth and 14th

Amendments to the Constitution have a few things to say about singling people out, creating different classifications of people.

No person shall be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

That's the Fifth Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, the equal protection under the law clause.

What's happening here is these people are using this to show you what their true malevolent intentions are.

If you're pro-vaccination, this is, and you're reasonable, this is the worst messaging you could possibly ask for.

You're basically begging people who have already seen their livelihoods taken away.

I said a friend, a pastor from my church just texted me.

Their kid in the public school was just told to start bringing a second mask.

because they sweat too much during recess, so they need a backup.

And I'm like, why don't they just have them do rain dances?

You know, just might as well do, you know, moon dance for the second recess.

It'll be just as effective.

And so they just, these people are tyrants, authoritarians.

They cannot wait to impose on you.

And that's another reason why we had to get this book out in as many people's hands as possible.

I think a lot of people, I would urge, I've never done this before.

I mean, by going straight to paperback, I'm going to make a lot less money on this because it's the information that's important.

Buy extra copies.

Send them to people that

are panic stricken,

Your elderly that have been isolated.

Stop doing that.

If they've been vaccinated, there's no reason for you to continue isolating with them.

The amount of junk science here, literally headlines this morning that say, yes, the vaccines work, but here's why you still must wear a mask.

This is absolute authoritarian garbage with one exception, Glenn.

There is one exception here that doesn't make this all flat earth voodoo.

Would you like to know what it is?

Yes.

The one exception would be is if the virus is not a a natural phenomenon.

Because if it's a natural phenomenon, what these people are asserting, this is what Rand was pointing out to Anthony Fauci,

what you're asserting, and this is Scott Atlas's great frustration, we are violating the established laws and precedents of virology, immunology, and biology.

So the only reason we would violate those is if this is not entirely a natural phenomenon, if indeed it was either originated or altered or engineered or modified in a lab.

And therefore, if it's been synthesized at all, then we're out, then we may be outside the natural laws of science.

And then maybe we do have to look at things differently.

But then that would make Anthony Fauci guilty of treason for lying to the American people for a year and funding the Wuhan Virus Institute at the same time.

Steve Dace, thank you so much.

The name of the book is The Faucian Bargain.

You can find it on Amazon right now, The Faucian Bargain by Steve Dace.

Go there now.

By the way, his name is spelled like Peace, except with a D, and it's pronounced Dace, so you figure it out.

You can find him now at Amazon.com, and he is on the Blaze Radio network right after this program.

The best of the Glen Bank program.

You know, Steve Dace was just talking about what is happening

with the passports and everything else.

And Stu, you and I were talking off the air that just the messaging of

the

vaccine from the government

is the biggest detriment to getting a vaccine.

They're not saying about how great it is and just get the vaccine, then everything will go back to normal.

What they're they're saying is, get the vaccine, you still probably have to isolate, you still have to wear masks.

Oh, and we're going to get passports for everybody.

It's like

the worst messaging campaign of all time.

You know, it goes back to what Steve was talking about, I think,

in the interview, that we had the most negative coverage of COVID in the world.

And this continues.

You listen.

Now, look, health officials and scientists are going to say things that aren't necessarily about messaging.

They shouldn't be focused on messaging per se.

Right.

But like you, I think a lot of this is the media who is taking this information.

Is there a small chance after you get vaccinated that you could still be infected?

Yes, it's possible.

Obviously, these things are 95% effective, not 100%.

So yes, there's a chance.

Is there a chance that you could spread it to someone else?

It seems possible, but incredibly rare.

So why would you focus on that?

When you talk about vaccine passports and you talk about all of these sorts of

things,

you know, when it comes to,

well, you still have to wear a mask and you still can't gather.

You know what?

Maybe by July 4th, you'll be able to gather with a group of other vaccinated people in your backyard.

It's terrible messaging.

Now, so far, we have not crossed the line where the supply and demand are out of whack.

I mean, you know,

the people who do not want to get the vaccine has decreased over over the past few months.

We're down, you know, now south of 20% of people.

And it keeps, as they're shown to be effective, it keeps going down.

But we're going to hit that point eventually.

And there's no reason to make that point happen any earlier than it needs to.

The messaging from our government should be, if you get the vaccine, or honestly, if you've had COVID already, as you and I, Glenn, are COVID-19 survivors,

if you've had it already, like it's time to go back to normal life.

And at some point, especially now that there's enough supply, and I know in Texas this week they started it out, anyone over 16 can get it.

We're at the point now where if you don't want to get it, if you're a person who says, I don't want to get the vaccine, you're just going to take on your own risk.

It's now available for you.

If you don't want to take it,

it's a different calculus than back in March and April when we didn't know where it was.

We didn't have testing.

We didn't have treatments.

We didn't have a vaccine.

And people were getting it no matter, even when they were trying to avoid it.

Now, if you're at the point where you don't want to participate in this stuff, you shouldn't have to.

And you should be able to just take on your own risk.

But see, that is not the plan.

You have to lose your individual choice.

For us to be able to build back better or to go back to a new normal, you have to lose your choice.

And they are already doing it.

Already today, we have talked about the forced vaccine and the campaign to belittle people and the campaign with passports to make sure that you don't get your freedoms back unless you do what the government says.

We told you about a school district in Virginia that is taking away and

actively saying and stating on Facebook that they are going to silence all opposition to their critical race theory teaching, et etc., etc.

Now let me tell you what we're going to talk about tomorrow.

On tomorrow night's show at 9 p.m.,

we have been talking about ESG.

That's environment, social justice, and governance scores.

If you've been watching my show, you remember how the environment and going green is being used to bend people to the government's will.

Tomorrow I'm going to expose the S in ESG.

Gone are the days of social justice being used as a political tool.

It is now being weaponized by the largest financial institutes in the world.

I'm going to cover this more on tomorrow's program, but I will tell you that pointing this out in one show, one mention, has already made me a target of the financial industry.

The information that I will share with you scares the crap out of the banks and investment firms that are involved.

And I do not believe that most of the people that are involved in these financial institutions have a nefarious bone in their body.

They are not trying to control your life.

They just haven't thought it through.

Now, that means on the lower levels.

I believe the upper levels know exactly what they are doing, and they think they're doing the right thing.

They're telling us that this is not going to affect the little guy at all.

It's just for your educational use so you can know who to invest in.

Really?

So aren't the banks then controlling the investments by telling you that you should probably be investing in this institution or this particular business because the others aren't really socially acceptable?

It's not surprising to me in the slightest that these institutions can't grasp how this is going to affect the individual because they couldn't care less.

They couldn't care less.

They really couldn't.

Why would they care about you?

We're the ants.

We are the last, because of the

Biden or the Frank, the Dodd-Frank bill that went through after 2008's crash, the banks can now look at you as the lender of last resort.

So

they take your money, and you're last in the line to get any money.

And when I say take your money, I mean the money that you have in their bank.

So this is what they think of you.

I want to show you.

This is John Kerry after being asked what would happen to the oil workers that just lost their job because of the pipeline.

Listen.

What President Biden wants to do is make sure those folks have better choices, that they have alternatives, that they can be the people who go to work to make the solar panels.

So if you're somebody that, you know, has been educated to work on a pipeline and that's your skill, just go get a new education.

And, you know, forget about your family right now.

You just go back to school, get an education, and then find a job in the solar panel industry.

It's just that easy.

They see control, they see power, and they see a whole lot of dollar signs to boot.

I want to show you a chart.

If you're watching Blaze TV right now, take a look at this graphic.

If you're just listening to us, let me describe what's currently on the screen.

This is a representation of what the people pushing all of this plan to do.

Now, the image is taken from their own reports.

It depicts the flow of money.

Those that control the money are at the very top.

They funnel the money cash down through the investment firms and the banks.

That money then goes to industry as a whole.

But in the middle of the image, they propose a disruption.

They plan to turn off the funds going to where they deem are high carbon and towards entities that are low carbon.

As I will show you tomorrow night, this includes those people who are or are not woke enough.

Now, to the banks claiming that this won't hurt the individual.

Tell me this.

What happens to everyone associated in any capacity to the companies, the cities, the towns that operate on the left side of this graphic, those considered high carbon and not woke enough?

What happens to those people?

Well, they will tell you, well, you just have to move to the other side.

Well, that's taking away my freedom of choice.

And it's not,

This is why libertarians have got to lose the mantra of, well, it's private business.

This is now a cabal of business.

They are working in tandem to control.

What happens to the West Virginia coal town?

It's already struggling as it is, but now it has to deal with all their investments being pulled one by one.

When the coal mine is forced to shut down, what happens to the corner drugstore, the popular cafe everybody likes to have breakfast in, the hardware store that's been in business since the town was founded?

Tell us, tell us, what happens to those individuals, to those businesses?

Because I don't think they're going to buy this is for educational purposes only.

What happens to the college town that you may live in?

If the university takes a stand to go against critical race theory,

they're turning the coin on go roke, go woke, go broke,

to go woke, or we'll force you to go broke.

How many scholarships will be lost when their low ESG score dries up all the cash?

How many less bodies walking into local businesses will that mean?

How long before the little college town can't last if it stands against the woke theory?

How many parents are going to be forced to pay the last bit of their savings to go to an out-of-state, more expensive school

see these are the factors that they are not putting in their equation

they don't consider you because they don't consider the individual the individual in this theory and our coming society does not matter the largest banks and financial institutions all around the world are currently redirecting money by the trillions of dollars.

They don't care about the trickle-down effects, the new ghost towns that it will create, the closed businesses, the joblessness, and the 401k and retirement funds that will begin drying up

bit by painful bit.

This is all about control, and it all fits in.

The COVID virus, the control of your schools, control of your children, control where you can go, when you can go, the destruction of your business, and now the ESG.

Can anyone see how this all fits together?

This is not a conspiracy theory.

This is, as I showed you, that chart, that's from their own website.

This is their theory, not mine.

We're going to show you tomorrow night directly from their own reports.

how they plan to weaponize social justice and re-engineer our society in probably the largest power grab in history.

I'll show you how they're going to do it.

Examples of it taking place right now and where it all began.

I'll not only show you how it's moved on from college campuses and now been injected directly into big businesses, but how it is now being pushed in grade school.

You will be forced to comply unless you stand together now.

That's tomorrow night, 9 p.m.

Eastern on Blaze TV and YouTube.

It is the Wednesday night special titled Comply or Die: How America Will Enforce Total Wokeness.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

All right, so Derek Chauvin, the trial has now started, and both the prosecution and the defense have given their opening statements.

The prosecution is honing in on the amount of time that George Floyd was being restrained.

The defense is focusing on George Floyd's continuous struggle with drug addiction and health problems, including a heart condition.

But let's state the

ridiculous obvious right up at the beginning.

This case is way more than whether a cop committed murder.

This is the latest attempt to further the lie that racism is rampant in our country and they're using the death of a civilian and taking advantage of the emotions of a family and of the country to ignore some facts and some evidence.

I don't want to set this guy free nor convict him in the media.

I haven't seen all of the evidence.

Neither have you.

But the defense started

with the fact that there are 50,000 pieces of evidence in total for this case.

But this case is being painted as something that it isn't.

This case is about two people, Derek Chauvin and George Floyd.

That's what this is about.

And the prosecution has stated in the opening statements, quote, this case is about Derek Chauvin and not the police or the Minneapolis Police Department.

That's great.

I wish it was about that.

But with the establishment media, they have already taken this case, as they do with every case, and giving it the meaning they always do.

Another sign of racism in America.

And George Floyd family has already bought into that narrative, claiming, quote, Derek Chauvin trial is a referendum on how far America has come.

Do you understand the danger of that statement?

Because if you do not convict Derek Schauman for Chauvin for some reason or another,

it will show that America is racist.

Our judicial system is not set up that way.

Our judicial system

demands that this is all about the individual and not about some other other bigger picture.

This is all about the individual.

If it becomes about the bigger picture, we're in trouble.

You won't get real justice.

You'll get somebody with an axe to grind and they'll blame that and say, you know what, by punishing this guy, it helps this problem over here.

That is

not justice.

The New York Times released an article.

Sharpton and Crump warn that the world is watching as witnesses begin to testify.

Here's a line from the article: quote, America is on trial to see if we have gotten to the place where we can hold police accountable if they break the law.

Well, I hope that we have gotten to that place.

I think we have been at that place for a while, but that's not what they're asking.

They have already decided that he is guilty.

Now, how are you expected to get a fair trial if everyone just assumes you're guilty?

How can anyone, with articles like this, turning the temperature up for everybody in America who already believes the lies that this country is irreparably damaged by racism?

How do you get a fair trial?

All this is doing is getting people worked up to a point to where if the trial doesn't go their way, things will get violent.

It will be much,

much worse than Rodney King.

It will be much, much worse than O.J.

Simpson.

This is extraordinarily dangerous.

We cannot have a country where our criminal justice system is so polarized and politicized that you can't get a fair trial without fears of more crime and more harm being done.

Now, the first witness that was called yesterday was the 911 operator who handled the 911 call on George Floyd?

She stated in her initial testimony that the footage she saw of George Floyd's arrest was unusual and disturbing.

But my question is: which footage is she talking about?

If you're watching the Blaze,

you will see this footage.

Was it this footage that she was talking about?

Watch.

I didn't know, man.

I didn't know.

Here he is in the car.

Resisting arrest.

Hey, come back.

Stay in the car.

Stop resisting that.

I'm not.

Yes, you are.

I won't get up to the stop.

Okay, we're out of seat.

Now they're putting him in the back of the police car.

Take a seat.

Touring him.

I'm going to go in.

He won't bend to get into the car.

Not the kind of guy, man.

Take a seat.

Y'all, I'm going to die here.

I'm going to die, man.

You need to take a seat right now.

And I just had COVID, man.

I don't want to go back to that.

Dang, man.

He says,

I don't want COVID.

And I'm going to die.

Now, was it that?

Because I never saw that footage.

Do you know why?

Because the Attorney General Keith Ellison deemed that footage too shocking for the public to view.

That's more shocking than the police officer kneeling on his back?

Really?

Because I don't find that part shocking.

Why would this footage be hidden?

by Keith Ellison.

You see, this is far more than a simple racist murder from a racist cop.

They have charged Derek Chauvin with second-degree murder.

Now, a person can be charged with second-degree murder if a person causes the death of a human being without intent of killing them,

but

you're committing or attempting to commit a felony offense.

All right?

So you can be charged with a second-degree murder if the death was caused without the intent, quote,

of murder, but while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim.

So if you are restrained

and

you are trying to quote protect the victim and you are intentionally harming him,

then you can be charged in Minnesota with second-degree murder.

Now, I just showed the footage that Ellison didn't want anybody to to see, where he is pulled out of the car, he's resisting a wrist, and then they're trying to put him in the back of the squad car for his own protection, and he won't go.

He will not bend.

And they're like, come on, get into the car, and he won't bend.

And he's like, I am getting in the car.

You won't let me.

But he's not getting into the car.

Was he trying to hurt him?

There wasn't a shortage of cameras filming this whole thing.

Are we supposed to believe that herding George Floyd in front of all of the witnesses and the cameras was the real intent rather than restraining him?

Not in a million years would you be able to prove that, one way or the other.

So what's actually going on here?

Is this about justice or is this about making a bigger statement?

Now I want to talk to you about the the jurors.

How are the jury going to be able to handle all this?

They see the news.

They know what's on the line if they decide that, you know,

he's not guilty.

They know that violent political groups, what they're wanting them to do, they're from that city.

They know they're in trouble if they don't go along with the mob outside.

And some of them agree with the mob outside.

Now, they should be going in with no facts, no opinions, no headlines.

But the media has made this impossible, as did the riots, for a good reason.

The media has done a lot of this because the jurors

have those headlines floating around in their heads.

So this has made jury selection very, very interesting.

And I want to play something from the New York Times.

This is the New York Times on the selecting of the jurors.

And there's actual audio of the interviews of each juror.

This is Michael Babara

speaking with the New York Times criminal justice reporter about the list of questions sent to potential jurors to determine what lens they see the case through.

Now, listen carefully to not only the questions and the answers, but how it's being framed by the New York Times.

I want to just start with what this jury selection process looked like and felt like.

I know you watched it very closely.

My sense is that it was always seen as something that was going to be very difficult just to pull off because of how many people have seen this video that's at the center of this case and how many people have developed a pretty strong opinion about what happened.

That's right.

The judge set aside three full weeks, almost as much time as he set aside for the trial itself, just to pick the jury.

And last fall, they sent out a 14-page questionnaire, which was returned by more than 300 jurors who filled this out.

And sort of a first take at screening jurors for

some of the mundane things like, could you even do this?

Do you have young children?

Will your job allow you to do it?

But more importantly, questions like, what are your attitudes about the criminal justice system?

How do you feel about Black Lives Matter?

How do you feel about the police?

Do you think the police are racist?

I mean, just pages and pages of questions.

And they're trying to get at this really central idea, which is, what is your lens?

We're all going to look at the same set of facts here.

We're all going to look at the same video.

But what lens are you seeing it through?

And what did you make of that?

What do you think the lawyers are trying to really get at there?

Well, the lawyers are using these questions to try to figure out who they want to kick off the jury and who they think will be on their side and they want to keep on.

So this is not about

these two people or really just the police officer.

Because the jury is asked just to judge the police officer and what he did.

No, no, no, we have to make it about more than that.

So what did the prosecution and the defense do?

They sent out for these potential jurors over 300 forums and had all kinds of question, pages and pages of questions, about the people so they could figure out who they wanted on the jury and who they didn't.

Now I want you to listen.

Here's how the

prosecution

was interviewing people and deciding who they were going to have on and who they were going to dismiss.

Listen carefully.

This is from the daily podcast from the New York Times.

Listen.

Each of these things is like a cue.

It's like the prosecution and the defense are putting little check marks in their columns.

Yes, no, good, bad.

Pro-defense, anti-defense.

Come on up, have a seat.

And there was one woman, they asked,

you know, there were some people, and perhaps very vocal folks, who would say that the restrictions that the government placed on people for social gatherings and whatnot went a little too far.

How do you feel about the COVID restrictions?

It's been pretty tough, right?

Bars, restaurants, gyms.

What's your opinion of

the restrictions there?

Erring on the side of conservatism and just trying to keep it as

safe as possible.

I think also that may have,

as it turned out, gone overboard.

But then you hear.

And she said the COVID restrictions have been a little too tight.

So that again is like proxy for kind of conservative attitude that the prosecution wants to avoid.

So they moved to get her off the jury.

That's kind of fascinating, Shiloh.

So this juror's objections to government restrictions on people's movements during the pandemic was seen by the prosecutors as potentially something that could inform

her bias against George Floyd or towards the police?

Yeah, I mean, it's a little reductive, but they have all of these indicators and they fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

And they just don't want.

too many conservative puzzle pieces, nor do they want someone whose conservative views are really strongly held.

So strongly held that they can't set them aside.

Okay.

So they're so strongly held that they can't set them aside.

I don't know if you heard the woman.

She was dismissed, but she said she thought at first the government was, you know, maybe doing an, you know,

standing on the side of error for safety.

You know, it's better to do a little more than it is to do less.

And she thought that was fine.

and then maybe perhaps it got a little out of control

but then again she said but then again you hear reports so she was not steadfast in this she was questioning she was open and didn't know it was this way but maybe maybe it turned out to be wrong but then again you hear reports that say it was right so i don't know that's what she was saying she had to be dismissed.

And the New York Times didn't really seem to have a problem with it.