Best of The Program | Guests: Sen. Tom Cotton, Inaya Folarin Iman, & Andrew McCarthy | 6/9/20

and Alyssa are always trying to outdo each other.

When Alyssa got a small water bottle, Mike showed up with a four-litre jug.

When Mike started gardening, Alyssa started beekeeping.

Oh, come on.

They called a truce for their holiday and used Expedia Trip Planner to collaborate on all the details of their trip.

Once there, Mike still did more laps around the pool.

Whatever.

You were made to outdo your holidays.

We were made to help organize the competition.

Expedia, made to travel.

Welcome to the program.

It is time for the podcast.

We have Senator Tom Cotton on.

He, of course, is the guy who got his op-ed pulled from the New York Times and the guy who manages the op-ed section fired because he said something that 60% of Americans agree with.

Terrible, terrible idea, the backlash we go over with him.

Also, we talked to Rafael Mangual.

He's a guy from the Manhattan Institute who is really all over the numbers when it comes comes to policing in this country.

Is it true that black people are being constantly targeted by white officers?

We'll get into the numbers there.

Plus, Andrew McCarthy joins us to tell us about the Floyd charges on

whether murder is the right way to go, whether it should be some other charge.

Real skepticism on how they're handling this case in Minneapolis, and we'll get into this.

Plus, we'll find out why calling the police in the middle of the night, if you have a break-in, is a showing of your white privilege.

And it just shows how privileged you are.

Plus, Joe Biden can't get through yet another simple sentence.

It's all on today's podcast.

Go to Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Use the promo code Glenn for $10 off your subscription.

You get all the conservative content that you want, including Glenn Beck, of course, Mark Levin, Pat Gray, Andrew Wilkow, Stu Does America as well.

You can get that show.

And you can subscribe to the podcast.

You get those shows free every day at

Stu Does America or on YouTube.

If you just search for Stu, you'll find it.

Plus, you can get all of these shows every single day from the radio program as well for free on podcast to listen whenever you feel like it.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenbeck program.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

I cannot believe we have this guy on just based on his last name,

Cotton.

What does that make you think of?

You think, puff.

Anyway,

we have Senator Tom Cotton on with us now who has said just things that should not be said at the New York Times, things that,

well,

I think most people agree with, but you can't say those things anymore.

Senator, welcome.

How are you?

Hey, Glenn.

Hey, Glenn, good to be on with you.

So, Senator, I have to tell you, the world has gone

insane.

The left,

the media, I heard the New York Times today talking about how having a serious conversation with somebody about, well, so what happens when you get rid of the police in Minnesota?

Well, you know, we don't know exactly yet, but we're going to work it out and it's going to be great.

I mean, we're talking about major U.S.

cities

just saying, I'm done with the police.

This is nuts.

Glenn, this is what happens when you have a newsroom like the New York Times apparently does, or a city like Minneapolis and its mayor that are run by people who think the real world is a social justice seminar on a college campus.

Right.

I can tell you what happens.

Exactly right.

I can tell you what happens when you don't have the police.

You have anarchy.

I mean, you literally have anarchy because there is no common authority to both enforce the law and be constrained by the law.

That's what will happen in Minnesota or in some of these other major cities where the Democratic mayors and city councils are talking about slashing police budgets like in Los Angeles and New York.

The police are what stand between civilization and anarchy.

And we need police departments that are well funded, well resourced, well trained, so that protects the police.

I cannot believe.

Wait a minute.

I cannot believe we're having this conversation.

You don't have to tell me or anybody in this audience.

I'm just listening to you saying, you know, police departments are important.

Of course they are.

Of course they are.

I just can't believe that we are here at this point.

But

look, Glenn, at what happened with the New York Times.

So as you said, the New York Times is in total meltdown and it has suffered an internal collapse because

its senior leaders decided to publish an opinion from a Republican senator that is shared by 58% of the American people.

But apparently they view that as beyond the pale in the woke newsroom.

Now, I would say that the senior leaders cravenly surrendered to the woke mob at the New York Times.

On Wednesday of last week, they published my op-ed.

On Thursday, they publicly defended it.

On Friday, they renounced it after the mob demanded that.

And then on Sunday, the owner of the New York Times fired the editorial page editor.

I would say that he surrendered to the woke mob, but let's remember, this guy is a woke child himself.

No.

They're eating their own.

I mean, Senator, a lot of people are getting very upset right now.

A lot of people on the right, they're getting upset and they're like, this is got to stop.

I'm actually ready to grab a bowl of popcorn.

I'm interested in just watching them just devour themselves.

It's phenomenal what is happening.

And I don't think that there is, you know, watching Nancy Pelosi

do the stunt she did yesterday is hysterical.

I mean,

hysterical.

So, Glenn,

the New York Times is making a fool of themselves from A.G.

Sulzberger all the way down to their young interns who were demanding heads-on-pikes because

their editorial page editor had the audacity to publish an opinion with which they disagreed, although 58% of Americans agreed with it.

And people are laughing at them.

Reporters from other newspapers, producers from television shows, or even reporters at the New York Times recognize that the New York Times has become a laughing stock and exposed itself for what it is, a far-left-wing propaganda outfit.

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

So one of the things they had a a problem with.

Glenn, look at the replacement of the editorial page editor.

Just take a look at her Twitter feed.

But in the meantime, look at the note she sent out to her

workers just a couple of days ago.

She said that if you see anything at all, anything that offends you or that concerns you,

then just send me a text or an email right away.

I mean, she is telling grown-ups, people who should recognize they're not in a college campus, they're not in a social justice seminar, that they get trigger warnings at work.

So they're not offended by microaggressions.

I mean, this really is the language of campus children brought to the workforce when grown-ups should be able to say, look, you're not in a social justice seminar anymore.

You are in the real world.

And when you're confronted with an opinion with which you disagree, the proper answer is to refute it with better arguments in return.

It's not to curl up in the fetal position, demand trigger warnings, and say that the bad people that publish this opinion should be fired.

And if you don't like it, you can quit.

So tell me, they said that one of the problems is they had a real problem with your depiction, which was completely inaccurate, of the role of Antifa in the protests.

Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom.

Do you have any evidence at all that Antifa is playing any role in this?

Well, I'll just say the Attorney General has repeatedly pointed this out, and I don't know many peaceful protesters and demonstrators who take crowbars with them to marches.

I don't think stacks of bricks get into the street by themselves, Glenn.

Of course, there were agitators and extremists who hijacked and infiltrated protected First Amendment protests for their own purposes.

That was happening the weekend after last, and that's why you saw so much violence on the streets in places like Minneapolis and New York and Washington, D.C.

Now, since the President

demanded that the National Guard be on the scene in Washington, D.C., employed a lot of the specialized law enforcement units that are present around the seat of our national government, since some Democratic governors like Tim Waltz in Minnesota recognized that he had no choice but to call out the National Guard, that violence diminished significantly over the course of last week, to the point where over this past weekend, it was almost all just protests and demonstrations.

And that's because those agitators and extremists realized that the authorities were now onto their techniques and that they faced the risk of pushback from the police and ultimately arrest and charges.

So, I saw an interview with Attorney General Barr, and

they asked him, Why haven't you made a single arrest yet of Antiva if you know that they were involved?

And he said something pretty shocking, at least to me.

He said, Because we're tracking their funding, they're very well funded right now.

He's not going after the guys on the streets, he's going after the leadership, he's going after the

most likely the white

anti-capitalist socialists around the world that have tons of money that are funding these things.

That's going to be a bombshell if he hits that because there will be all kinds of connections to people we know.

Glenn,

that's the right way to approach

a radical organization like Antifa, I'll say that.

I don't want to get too far into the details of what may or may not be

investigated and what techniques our federal government is using, but there's a long history of our federal government trying to

identify informants within criminal organizations and conspiracies to roll them up and end up not just getting the foot soldiers out on the street, but all the way up to the kingpins and the funders.

That was how a U.S.

grant took down the original version of the KKK in the 1870s.

That's how we took down the mob in the 50s and 60s and 70s, drug gangs in the 80s and 90s, terrorist organizations over the last 20 years.

The federal government has a long record of rolling up large organizations through careful investigative work and the use of informants and intelligence.

And that's what we should be doing with Fantifa right now.

So, Senator,

if you see how the Soviet Union after World War II

flipped Czechoslovakia and Hungary and everything else, they did it without a shot being fired.

And it really is the bottom-up, top-down, inside-out thing.

You put communists in the government in a deep state, if you will.

Then you fund and you support rioters on the streets.

The people rise up and say the government's got to do something.

And that deep state-controlled government comes down, and you lose your country and you lose your freedom.

They did it over and over and over again, and I believe it's exactly what is happening here in the United States.

How are we doing on the investigation into the deep state and all of the people that

were responsible for the Russia collusion garbage and

ratting out

and finding these people that are working against freedom in America, in our own government?

Well, we're moving forward a little bit more slowly than I would like, Glenn, but it is moving forward.

In part, because we lived through two-plus years of the Mueller investigation, even though I think it's now clear that the FBI knew from the earliest days, even before Bob Mueller was appointed as a special counsel, that the still dossier was full of garbage, probably full of Russian intelligence disinformation,

and that there was no collusion.

Whatever efforts Russia undertook on its own, there was no collusion with the Trump campaign.

I commend the Attorney General and the U.S.

Attorney in Washington for dropping the charges against Mike Flynn.

They shouldn't have been brought to begin with, and that was long overdue.

We've seen other reports, for instance, from the Inspector General and the Department of Justice about how the senior FBI leaders abused their authority in 2016 and 2017.

Of course, John Durham is continuing to investigate the entire origins of the Russia collusion hoax.

And I expect that will be announced well before the election.

And, of course, Lindy Graham, the Senate, has begun a series of hearings that will end up calling in some of the central players involved in those decisions, like Jim Comey and Andy McKay, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page.

Now, nearly all of them, MSNBC or CNN contributors.

Yeah.

You know, the president's poll numbers, you know, depending on who you look at, and I don't believe them at this point, and I don't I can't imagine America going for a group of people that are supporting what's happening on the streets, but you know, whatever.

America is a different place now, I guess.

But this is important for these things to be

cleared up before the president leaves office.

We would have really dangerous people

coming in.

And if the American people don't see some arrests and don't

we're not cleaning things up, I worry what's coming next.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: Well, that's one reason why I'm confident, Glenn, that these investigations will reach their natural conclusion before January or even before the election.

The Attorney General recognizes that this is a closely divided country when it comes to electoral politics.

We had a split decision in 2018 with Democrats winning winning the House and Republicans winning the Senate.

I think this will be a closely contested election as well.

It's important, though, that electoral politics, whoever win the election, not get in the way, not get in the way of uncovering the truth about what is perhaps the biggest political scandal in our country's history, which is the Obama administration's efforts to disrupt the peaceful transition of power and use the organs of law enforcement against its political opponents.

So,

one last thing, because you were on the coronavirus early,

and

there's a lot of people now that look at what's happening with the medical community coming out and saying, well, racism is a much worse disease than coronavirus, so you can go protest.

These mayors and these governors that were arresting people that said that people who were protesting the shutdown were irresponsible, going to kill everybody's grandmother, they were anarchists, etc., etc.

Those people are now marching in the streets.

The coronavirus

experts are really endorsing going ahead and

rioting, or at least marching in the streets.

And I think there's a lot of people that say, wait a minute, we destroyed our economy.

For what?

Did you people even believe this ever?

Well, Glenn, I hope and I pray that we will not see a surge in coronavirus cases and ultimately deaths because of the large-scale protests and demonstrations over the last couple of weeks.

We'll know in the weeks ahead.

I hope that's not the case.

And if it's not, then that might give us even more confidence to get the rest of our economy back up and open again.

However, I think it's obvious that just de facto, the lockdowns are now, in effect, over.

It's going to be very hard for any governor or mayor to tell his or her people, you've got to stay at home, you can't earn a living, you can't open your business, you You can't take your kids to a park.

You can't go worship in church

after they've seen these very same mayors and governors not just permit, but encourage and celebrate protests and demonstrations with people marching in the streets shoulder to shoulder by the thousands.

I would also suspect that to the extent those governors and mayors try to enforce those lockdowns, you know, against, say, churches holding services, that they're going to face lawsuits and those lawsuits are apt to be successful.

I mean, it can't be the case that we condone First Amendment activity by the thousands in our streets, but we prohibit First Amendment activity by the dozens in our churches.

Yep.

Senator Tom Cotton, thanks for being on.

Father's Day is getting closer.

Have you been hinting about gifts at all or thinking about what to give to dad?

Why not do a Father's Day up in style and get a RekTech grill?

We as a family are cooking a lot on our RekTech at my house.

I've been thrilled with it ever since I got one.

It's sturdy, it's sleek, it's built like a tank, it's smart grilling technology because I am the dumbest griller alive.

I have, I'm, I'm, I'm approaching master griller.

I used to burn everything, and on top of that, I can control it from an app.

You don't have to get off the couch to start it up and get it ready.

No doubt about it, it's RekTech Grills.

RekTech, they're the best Father's Day present you can buy, and right now, RechTech is running a contest to give one away.

You can enter today for your chance to win the same grill that I use with RekTech's Father's Day contest.

RekTechGrills.com.

That's R-E-C-T-E-C grills with an S dot com.

That's rechtechgrills.com slash back.

RekTechgrills with an S dot com slash back.

Anaya Fulren Amman is a writer in the UK, freelance writer.

She is also somebody who stood in December 2019, the UK general election, for the Brexit party in Leeds Northeast.

She is speaking out now in the UK, basically asking the same thing many of us are asking: is this really about racism and police brutality, or is there something else going on?

She was born in 96.

Holy cow.

She was born in 1996 in London.

She is of Yoruba heritage.

She

was raised in a British-Nigerian single-parent household.

Welcome to the program.

How are you?

Thank you for having me.

I'm very, very good.

Thank you.

So

many people call you the Candace Owens of the UK.

I've heard that bantied around.

Tell me your take on what...

I don't know if you take that as a good thing or a bad thing, but we mean it as a good thing.

Tell me about what you're feeling.

Positively.

Good.

On what's happening in Europe.

In the UK, they've just defaced the guy who fought against fascism better than anybody else in the world, Winston Churchill.

They just defaced a statue of Abraham Lincoln.

What's going on in the UK?

Yeah, I mean, first and foremost, I want to say that I think a lot of people for the past kind of few months and even years in particular have been worried about kind of the rise of China and what implications that has for kind of international politics.

But I think that what we've seen in the last week, we can be in no doubt of American cultural hegemony and how kind of American racial culture wars has now been kind of exported globally.

Now, you know, I love America, I think it's a fantastic country, but I have actually been surprised to see thousands and thousands of people in Britain, in central London, putting their hands up, saying, hands up, don't shoot, to one of the most demilitarized police forces in the world, which is the British

Police Force.

They don't have guns.

How can they shoot?

They don't have guns.

They don't have guns.

So I think what we've seen is a kind of attempt to create this kind of homogenized narrative about what it means to be black in the world.

I think, and it's been one that has been essentialized to be one of kind of racism, oppression, victimization, irrespective of the kind of nuances and complexities of specific countries.

I think absolutely, you know, racism exists that needs to be combated.

But in response to the George Floyd killing, for the first time in, you know, I think years, there was unity across the political spectrum, pretty much internationally, saying that this was, you know, a wrong thing.

And, you know, the man's now been charged and people can debate about what charge that should be.

But at the end of the day, that's on our way to justice.

That's a very positive thing.

And so what has now transpired to me is something very, very, very different.

We are seeing what looks like, to me, a kind of concerted effort to paint Western society at large as this kind of bastion of evil and hate and kind of racism.

And I think it's sending a really toxic and demoralizing message to a generation of young people who haven't had it so better in terms of racial equality, progress.

There's much more to be done.

But the narrative that is being told is completely divorced from reality.

And I think it's got much darker intentions and kind of consequences unless we seriously grapple with what has happened to our culture.

Can you tell me what you think?

Because I agree with you, and

everything that you're saying here leads me to the things that we have been investigating for a long time,

at least on my program, and that is this concerted effort by a radical leftist

group of organizations and people that want to tear down the Western world and capitalism.

Do you believe that that's what you're seeing over in the UK as well?

No, absolutely, because it is something that's not just sparked solely out of the protests.

We've seen it in terms of the education system, even in the universities.

I think there's a similar thing that's happened in America in terms of this kind of pampered free speech ward.

We've seen it with the gender debate.

And also in the UK, we saw it up until the election until Brexit, which is essentially overthrowing the democratic system in order to kind of push forward a certain agenda and I think I don't want to make too many connections but I do think it's all part of the same underlying ideology that has a deep bitterful resentment kind of Western society and sees you know many of these political upheavals as an opportune opportunity to exploit it to kind of push forward a very radical left agenda.

And

I think it's really worrying.

I think at least in the UK we have a situation where kind of the Conservative Party won the election and a lot of us thought that that was a positive thing in terms of pushing back against this.

But the left, I think again it's similar in America, have right now a monopoly on culture.

They have very significant sways in terms of the media.

And in terms of changing that narrative and reclaiming a kind of more positive and realistic representation of the West and kind of speaking to the young people that this picture is not actually the reality of something that is still,

you know, there's a lot more work to be done there.

So it is really concerning.

So I've recently

met the

founders and the heads of an organization, Turning Point

UK.

And

I've been really excited to see the

ideas of freedom start to take root in a younger generation as well.

But it's almost like it's a cute little effort overseas because

you don't have our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and quite honestly, we don't either right now.

So it's a different look at liberty, and it's kind of a hard sell in some ways.

How are you seeing the pushback on this globalist, Marxist kind of

ideology?

Is there

growing pushback on that at all?

Well, you know, even in Britain, we don't obviously, as you mentioned, have a written constitution, but we have a really strong and rich tradition of liberty in terms of John Stuart Mill and kind of the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.

It's a very rich and kind of amazing tradition there.

And I think a lot of that, again, has kind of been brushed aside and downplayed in this swell of cultural self-loathing, which has really encapsulated many of the left in particular, but a lot in the West.

But I think in terms of the pushback, I think it is something that's growing.

So I'm part of an organisation in the UK called the Free Speech Union, and we've now been really proactive in terms of trying to defend people that are even facing

losing their job and their positions to simple things that they've said.

I mean, even recently in the UK, it's quite horrifying,

a gentleman, a radio presenter was

kind of, is being investigated for criticizing Black Lives Matter.

So,

it is a really, really serious thing.

And obviously, you know, there's a whole situation in terms of the New York Times and America over there.

So the pushback is

there, but it definitely needs to be much stronger, much more forthright.

I mean, if we look at the lockdown, you know, in Britain, I've been quite surprised at how there wasn't that much pushback in terms of the biggest peacetime removal of our liberties.

And so I think that a lot of people have felt quite

felt kind of exhausted by the constant barrage of negativity.

But I think that what we see now, something feels different to me in the UK.

You know, statues, as you mentioned, of Winston Churchill being brought down, historic cultural monuments being defamed and violence against the police and all of these really kind of significant things.

I think a lot of people are now waking up and saying that we cannot let this go on or this is really going to spiral into something much, much darker than it already is.

So

how does the United States of America, and be honest,

I'm not asking for a

nice fluffy answer here.

How does the United States of America look to those in Great Britain who may have looked on us favorably in the past?

What does the average person think about what's happening over here?

I think the average person is

probably sees a lot of parallels, but it depends on the perspective.

So, I think what I found is that a lot of people that were in favor of Brexit, which was actually obviously the majority of the country in the Democratic vote, had a lot of sympathies with Trump, not necessarily in terms of the particular policies he was advocating, but in terms of what he represented in regards to a kind of figure that is taking on the establishment, taking on these kinds of institutions that have been so entrenched, but not really dealing with the kind of issues that are plaguing so many people.

And so, I think a lot of people in Britain that supported Brexit have been very sympathetic towards that and do see parallels in terms of the way in which, you know, for example, in America, particularly the kind of radical left weaponized impeachment to try to, in some ways, you know, subvert democracy,

the way that many people, particularly on the radical left in America, were the most

fervent in regards to the lockdown and things like that.

So, I think there are quite similar parallels.

But I think similar with here, it really depends on who you speak to.

And I think, unfortunately, I think particularly the mainstream media in the UK don't always paint America with the most positive deception.

But I think there's a growing number of people that do see through it and kind of see that a lot of the time that the way that the media represent political events in America and also in Britain is not actually the full scope of what is happening.

I will tell you that I think we look at Great Britain, many of us look at Great Britain in the same exact way.

While we didn't understand all the ins and outs of Brexit, we were with you because it seemed as though you were experiencing the same thing with a government that had just become abusive to the people.

It doesn't matter what we say, they just do whatever they want anyway.

It's that deep state, is what it's being called over here.

And

it's happening all over the Western world, and it's really got to stop.

It's got to stop.

Go ahead.

No, I was just going to say, well, there's an election obviously coming up in November, and there was in America, and obviously in Britain, there was in December.

So I think it's definitely through democracy and through arguments that we need to push back and not full succumb to the kind of tactics of the radical left.

So great talking to you.

All the best of luck over in London and stay free.

God bless.

Thank you.

Thank you for having me.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Andy McCarthy, contributing editor, National Review, senior fellow for the National Review Institute.

He has been on with us several times.

Good friend of the program.

Andy,

you wrote a great piece for the National Review.

The new Floyd murder charges will be tough to prove and may imperil good cops.

As I'm reading it, what is happening with the prosecution seems nuts.

Seems nuts.

Yeah, Glenn, thanks so much for having me and calling attention to this.

The case is kind of weirdly overcharged and undercharged at this point.

And I keep having to kind of police myself because I have the same cynicism about Keith Ellison

as I gather you do, and

I need to kind of like try to put that in a box and just look at this in a clinical way rather than freighting it too much with what I think of him.

So for what it's worth, you know, on Chauvin, who's the main guy, of course,

I think the second degree charge, the second degree murder charge that Ellison put in, which was sort of designed, at least politically, to say that they had ratcheted up the charges, is a reach.

But it's not an impossible reach.

And the thing I think we have to keep in mind is that the way they do their charges, and let's remember now, we have not seen an indictment yet.

So far, these guys have only been charged in complaints, so we don't know what the final charges are going to look like.

But if they look like this,

there'll be three different theories of murder.

And just common sense says to me that a jury watching that last indefensible eight minutes is going to convict this guy of something.

So to me, my complaint and my worry about the second degree charge, which is the felony murder theory, under which what he's basically saying is that when the cops first put hands on this guy, And as that whole situation evolved, that was an assault and the and Mr.

Floyd later died.

So that's the felony murder theory.

The felony is a third degree assault under Minnesota law.

I think from a policy standpoint, that's a really dumb thing to do because it puts cops on the street, good cops, in fear of the idea that if they do the things you have to do in order to do effective policing, like use superior force

not egregious force or excessive force, but superior force against someone who's resisting arrest, you have to now worry that you could be charged with a felony.

But that doesn't mean that juries don't do policy.

They do the one case with the one

defendant and one victim.

I could see the jury convicting on that theory.

I think it's more likely they convict on his second theory, which is depraved indifference, because I think that's

that's a good match for what their evidence is.

That basically

yeah, I have to tell you, Andy, I think that is where this whole thing meets.

When I watched that, it didn't seem like I'm out to murder a guy.

It looked like I don't really care.

I mean, really, truly depraved indifference is

what it appeared to be.

Right.

That's what I think, Blen.

Now, I know people who practice law in Minnesota who tell me that there's some troublesome case law with that.

And I know that as a prosecutor, you have to worry about that stuff.

When we, for what it's worth, I mean, when we indicted the blind shake a million years ago, there was some bad law in our circuit on attempted bombings and some other stuff that we had to worry about.

But we really felt like, and I think the prosecutors here should feel like, Their evidence is so strong in terms of the recklessness and depravity of that.

I just cannot see a jury acquitting on that.

Okay, so

that's good news, right?

Because he would go to jail.

But would that be the second ⁇

is depraved indifference part of the murder count of second-degree murder?

It's third-degree murder.

And, you know, Glenn, I think people are getting too hung up on ⁇ you know, they've watched too many episodes of Dragnet or Hawaii 5.0 or something.

You know, if it's not Book of Murder One,

people don't think it's serious enough because it doesn't sound serious enough.

Murder three is murder.

And I think if this guy gets convicted of murder, no one's going to remember that it was third degree murder.

It's a murder track.

Correct.

And sometimes

I was just going to say, sometimes categorically, you know, you go first, second, third because of seriousness.

Sometimes it's just that the conduct is so different, they have to put it in a different section of the statute.

It's not necessarily a reflection that it's not as serious as second degree.

All right.

And how much of a sentence does that usually get?

How much time would this guy spend behind bars?

Up to 25 years.

Okay.

Now, the other three.

Second degree would be up to 40, just so you know.

So that's, I mean, that's the difference we're talking about.

Okay.

So the other three,

aiding and abetting.

And in your article, you talk about how this one you have to run through hoops because

they're also charged.

Are they not also charged with second degree?

They're charged with aiding and abetting both second degree and manslaughter.

And I think theoretically, this is where you worry about Ellison being more of a

sort of a radical ideologue than a technical lawyer.

Negligence,

manslaughter in Minnesota is negligent homicide.

And as we all know, negligence means something happens that nobody intended, right?

You're careless and something that you didn't foresee, but you should have, that's terrible, happens.

You're careless, it causes a risk and a guy dies.

Aiding and abetting liability means that the accomplice, who's the aider and abetter, has to understand what the principal is trying to accomplish.

and then join himself and did something active to bring it about.

Well, no one tries to accomplish negligence.

So

I have a problem with the theory of aiding and abetting being matched up with negligence.

But I think he would have been fine, and he would still be fine when they ultimately indict, if he indicts them not as aiders and abettors, but as principals.

Because at least the two guys who were holding Floyd down along with Chauvin, they had to know what they were doing was careless and wrong, if not depraved.

And I think

you could convict them just as

people who committed manslaughter rather than trying to go through the mental hoops of did they understand what Chauvin was trying to accomplish and how did they try to join?

You know, I mean,

that kind of mental gymnastics is, I think, overcomplicating, which should be a pretty straightforward question.

Yeah, and how do you prove that any of them were trying to accomplish killing this guy?

Oh,

I think that's a great point because the evidence that's in the complaint suggests the contrary.

You know, these bird brains didn't do what they should have done to stop this from happening.

But at least one of them says to Chauvin, you know, don't you think we ought to roll this guy over on his shoulder?

Or, you know, I'm a little bit worried that he's going to go into, you know, various forms of medical distress.

And Chauvin, who's the 19-year veteran and is the senior guy out there, says, no, no, no, that's why we're leaving him on his

stomach as he continued to sit on the guy's neck.

Right.

So how?

That guy's going to be able to say, I wasn't trying to kill the guy.

When you're trying to kill the guy,

you don't ask, do you think he's doing okay?

Do you think we should roll him over?

I don't mean sight of it.

I just, you know, the defense lawyers are going to have a field day with that sort of stuff.

But I think if you charge them with this is negligent homicide,

the prosecutor's position is, look, you can't continue to sit on the guy's back

with somebody sitting on his neck two minutes after he has no pulse.

You know, even if you didn't have the worst of intentions, that's careless.

That's manslaughter.

That's what we have manslaughter for.

And stop worrying.

You know,

don't charge the case in a way where you have to prove what these guys must have thought Chauvin was trying to accomplish.

I've been on a jury before, Andrew, and

we wanted to

send this guy away for a very long time.

All of us knew he did it.

Most of us knew he did it.

And just had a feeling that we were going to release this guy out into the wilderness.

But we could not agree that the charge was the right charge.

And we're like,

that's not right.

And we kind of even danced around, well,

shouldn't we just give it to him anyway?

Because he's going to get out and do it.

No, no.

And it's a very different thing in a jury room if they screw this up and charge them.

I don't know if this is unique with jurors, but that was my experience.

We didn't go in there.

We went in there thinking this is a very bad guy, but it doesn't match what they're telling us to do.

And they're telling us specifically it's got to be X, Y, and Z.

Well, that doesn't fit.

Yeah, Glenn, that's that's my experience with the jury system, 20 years of being a trial lawyer, all as a prosecutor.

Juries are really very, as a general matter, you can always find outlawers, but they're very conscientious.

They follow the evidence closely.

They really do do what the courts tell them to do as a general matter, and they don't convict people.

even though the evidence can be horrifying if it doesn't match up what the judge them has to be proved.

So

you're right to be concerned about how this case gets charged.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: One last question.

Is there anything that the feds can do just in case?

I mean, I know I'm very, very,

you know, I'm just pessimistic when it comes to Keith Ellison, and I don't trust him.

And it would be very, very good for a radical to have this just, you know,

in the last moment slip away and then they walk free.

Is there anything that the feds can be doing at the same time?

So, God forbid they screw it up at the state level.

It's not a walk away, he's free.

Yes, they are conducting a civil rights investigation.

Now,

that's a tougher proof than a straightforward state murder prosecution because you have to prove an intent basically to discriminate and to deprive somebody of their constitutional rights and their legal rights.

So it's a tougher case to prove, but they would get,

if they think they can make that, they can get a second bite at the apple because we have

what's known as the dual sovereignty doctrine.

It's an exception to double jeopardy, and it basically means the feds and the state are different sovereigns.

So just because you get acquitted in the state, the state can't prosecute you again, but the feds could.

Okay.

Andrew, thank you so much.

I appreciate appreciate it.

Andrew McCarthy contributing editor to the National Review.

I find it really interesting that what I'm worried about is exactly what RFK was worried about, just in a different way.

He was worried about these cases going down and the

prosecutors botching the case and the jury just

doing what they want to do because they were all white.

I'm worried about the same thing.

He was worried about the guys walking free that did the crime.

I'm worried about the same thing, and I'm worried about the prosecution just for a different reason because I think this guy is a radical.

And God forbid this is true.

I ain't even saying it, but it's just, I mean, you're telling me crazier things aren't happening now?

That this thing is overcharged and they fail on the prosecution, and we have a massive, massive problem on our hands.

I hope the federal government is watching this closely.