Freedom on Trial: Tucker- Putin Interview, King Charles' Diagnosis & Terrifying Legal Precedents Set in Oxford Mass Shooting

The Adams Archive

Welcome to The Adams Archive, a thought-provoking podcast that delves into the nexus of journalism, politics, and societal dynamics. Each episode aims to dissect the intricate layers of today’s most pressing issues, from the ethical dilemmas faced by journalists to the evolving landscape of global politics and the personal tribulations of public figures. With a keen eye on the implications of legal developments and the ever-changing digital domain's impact on free speech, The Adams Archive offers listeners a comprehensive understanding of the forces shaping our world.

Summary of Discussion Topics:

• Journalism and Ethics: Navigate the challenging terrain of journalistic integrity, exploring the responsibilities of media professionals in an era of global connectivity and political tension.
• Political Dynamics: From legal battles over election eligibility to the intricacies of global diplomacy, get an in-depth look at the mechanisms driving contemporary politics.
• Societal Issues: Tackle the complexities of societal responsibility, legal precedents, and the collective quest for justice and understanding in the face of tragedy.
• Digital Discourse: Examine the critical role of digital platforms in shaping public discourse, highlighting the delicate balance between censorship and freedom of expression.
• Cultural Reflections: Reflect on the impact of cultural controversies, understanding how personal actions of public figures resonate within the broader societal context.

Dive deeper into the narratives that define our times by subscribing to The Adams Archive. Follow us on our journey across platforms like YouTube and Substack, and join our vibrant social media community to engage in meaningful discussions. Your support helps us bring nuanced insights to the forefront, fostering a well-informed and engaged global community.

All the Links:

Connect with us and access all our content through https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams. Here, you'll find links to our episodes, articles, and ways to engage with our community. The Adams Archive is your portal to understanding the complexities of the modern world, inviting you to think critically, question freely, and explore deeply.

Full Transcription

 Adam's Archive. Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the 100th episode of the Adams archive. I appreciate you for being here so much. And I'm so thankful that I get to do this here for you guys. So again, thank you for being here. I'm so excited about what's to come for the Adams archive. I'm Happy with what it's been so far, but we have much more work to do.

So happy 100th episode to all of you, all of the listeners, all of the audience, all of those who have supported any of my shows, appreciated any of the topics that I've discussed, whatever it is you rock. You're awesome. Thank you for being a part of this. I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart.

Let's go.

And I think that's the first time that I've ever used a soundboard. So if you're new here, just know that you'll probably never hear that again. But thank you so much for being here. I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart. And I love doing this for you guys. So let's go ahead and jump into it. On today's episode, we're going to be discussing some pretty wild topics.

So the one being that Tucker Carl is actually going to be releasing an interview with Vladimir Putin, which if you know my stance on this stuff, I think that's incredible. That's called journalism. Who'd have thought there was still some real journalists around, but as a result of this, he's gotten tons and tons of negative, feedback, both from the UK, potentially sanctioning him from being put on an NGO list, which some people are calling a kill list in Ukraine, uh, some pretty wild stuff.

So we will discuss all of that along with listening to the video by Tucker discussing the interview that he's going to be releasing. Then we're going to segue into another topic, which is the fact that Bill A bill in Hawaii could actually be the next state to boot Trump from the ballot, and we will discuss that.

After that, we're going to move into the situation that is actually going down with Prince Charles. Now King Charles, in his short reign, and he has been diagnosed with a life threatening disease. So we'll look back at some of the things that have occurred, and then we'll also talk about what would happen if King Charles himself, Mr.

Sausage Fingers, if you recall those photos that came out, were to pass away. So we'll look at that. Following that, that will move us into a discussion that will be our main topic for today, that we will be doing a deep dive on, which is the Oxford, Michigan shooter's mom has received a jury verdict for her alleged part defense.

In the murder of the four children that her son committed. And now you must be saying, like, did she kill them? What, what, what happened here that you would be doing a deep dive on this? And what I would say to you, when you ask that question, is that This is setting the wildest legal precedence that I have seen in my time of life and we'll jump into that.

What happened during the shooting, what his mom's part allegedly was in this for her to deserve a potential sentencing of 60 years. So stick around the longer you're here, the deeper we get. All right. So if you're new here, thank you so much. I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart. Go ahead and hit that subscribe button.

If you are not new here, and even if you are new here for our hundredth episode, I just ask you, I know right now, how many reviews are in the Apple podcast and Spotify area. And it would take five seconds out of your day if you could just go there right now and leave a five star review. You don't even have to write anything.

I'm not gonna do that to ya. But if you want to, it would be pretty cool. Pretty cool. If you wanna get a little bit of good karma in your heart. It's one of the easiest things you can do throughout your day today. That's going to impact somebody that you know, and love positively. And all you have to do is go into Apple podcasts or Spotify, leave a five star review.

You can write something nice. If you like, tell me your favorite episode out of the first 100 episodes that we've done, but we have many more to come. So hit that subscribe button, leave a five star review and let's jump into it.

The Adams archive.

Alright, so the very first topic that we're going to discuss today is Tucker Carlson interviewed Vladimir Putin and the world is erupting in either positive or negative feedback for Tucker Carlson and some are going as far as entire nations trying to step up to the plate of stifling free speech and making sure that something like this, freedom of speech, never happens again.

Pretty wild stuff. So, here is the video. Let's go ahead and watch that first of Tucker Carlson preempting his interview. He got all of this backlash, and so he felt it was needed to come out and have a discussion about it. We're in Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin. Now I would say, in today's world, in the, the coal mine that is American journalism, the only canary, the only voice of reason, the only light within the tunnel.

It's Tucker Carlson. I cannot think of another mainstream, high, uh, high, uh, I don't know what the word is, high visibility journalist would even compare to Tucker Carlson. He is the man, the man for a reason, they kicked him out for a reason. Because he was just not playing by the playbook of the, the Murdochs and the, the rich elite of the world that owned the companies that he had to play on.

But guess what? Tucker Carlson realized something. Bitch, this is 2024. I don't need to be on cable news. In fact, it would be much better for my career and my pocketbook. If I wasn't. So he moved to Axe, releases every one of his podcasts and interviews on Axe. He'll be doing the same with this one. He'll also be releasing it, I believe, on Rumble.

And Rumble has been one of the only platforms that said, We will not stifle this at all. So has Elon Musk. So thank God for those two platforms, because they're one of the only places left for freedom of speech. So let's, let's, let's hear it from his mouth. And let's discuss it after that. Here we go.

Warren in Moscow Tonight. We're here to interview the president of Russia. Vladimir Putin will be doing that soon. There are risks to conducting an interview like this, obviously, so we've thought about it carefully over many months. Here's why we're doing it. First, because it's our job. We're in journalism.

Our duty is to inform people. Two years into a war that's reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed. They have no real idea what's happening in this region, here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine. But they should know. They're paying for much of it, in ways they might not fully yet perceive.

The war in Ukraine is a human disaster. It's left hundreds of thousands of people dead, an entire generation of young Ukrainians. And it's depopulated the largest country in Europe. But the long term effects are even more profound. This war has utterly reshaped the global military and trade alliances.

And the sanctions that followed have as well. And in total, they have upended the world economy. The post World War II economic order, the system that guaranteed prosperity in the West for more than 80 years, is coming apart very fast, and along with it the dominance of the U. S. dollar. These are not small changes, they are history altering developments.

They will define the lives of our grandchildren. Most of the world understands this perfectly well, they can see it. Ask anyone in Asia or the Middle East what the future looks like. And yet the populations of the English speaking countries seem mostly unaware. They think that as nothing has really changed.

And they think that because no one has told them the truth. Their media outlets are corrupt. They lie to their readers and viewers. And they do that mostly by omission. For example, since the day the war in Ukraine began, American media outlets have spoken to scores of people from Ukraine, and they have done scores of interviews with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

We ourselves have put in a request for an interview with Zelensky, and we hope he accepts. But the interviews he's already done in the United States are not traditional interviews. They are fawning pep sessions specifically designed to amplify Zelensky's demand that the U. S. enter more deeply into a war in Eastern Europe and pay for it.

That is not journalism. It is government propaganda, propaganda of the ugliest kind, the kind that kills people. At the same time our politicians and media outlets have been doing this, promoting a foreign leader like he's a new consumer brand, not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin.

Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine, or what his goals are now. They've never heard his voice. That's wrong. Americans have a right to know all they can about a war they're implicated in. And we have the right to tell them about it because we are Americans too. Freedom of speech is our birthright.

We were born with the right to say what we believe. That right cannot be taken away no matter who is in the White House. But they're trying anyway. Almost three years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on our text messages and then leaked the contents to their servants in the news media. They did this in order to stop a Putin interview that we were planning.

Last month, we're pretty certain they did exactly the same thing once again. But this time, we came to Moscow anyway. We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin. We are here because we love the United States, and we want it to remain prosperous and free. We paid for this trip ourselves. We took no money from any government or group, nor are we charging people to see the interview.

It is not behind a paywall. Anyone can watch the entire thing, shot live to tape and unedited, on our website, tuckercarlson. com. Elon Musk, to his great credit, has promised not to suppress or block this interview. once we post it on his platform, X, and we're grateful for that. Western governments, by contrast, will certainly do their best to censor this video on other, less principled platforms because that's what they do.

They are afraid of information they can't control. But you have no reason to be afraid of it. We are not encouraging you to agree with what Putin may say in this interview, but we are urging you to watch it. You should know as much as you can. And then, like a free citizen and not a slave, You can decide for yourself.

Thanks.

So quite a bit to unpack there. The first one being that he said that Americans don't seem to understand the implications of what is going on within this war. And I actually agree with him on this. And I say actually, because why wouldn't I? But I agree with him on this completely. The Americans don't understand the implications of this war.

Americans don't just think that we're like sending phony money over to Ukraine that has no effect on us. But there's a lot more difficulties that will arise from this in the future. One being that The brick has come out of this. The brick has become much stronger than that. Not a brick, like what you create your house out of.

Uh, but a brick is in the allegiance or the alliance between the world's superpowers that we are not a part of that being India, China. Russia, all of those countries that have tremendous influence, much of it economically in the world. And up until this point, the U. S. dollar has always been the standard of trade.

And there has been many alliances that have come out of this war that have shifted that. And when you see the three biggest superpowers behind the United States, Russia, China, And India all moving closer and closer together and starting to push us out of that conversation in the US dollar for you to think that that's not going to affect you is naive at best.

And so that's what he's discussing there. And I think he's right in saying that the US citizens don't really understand the implications of this because it's going to be not just the next coming years, not the next 234 years. This is the. Potential downfall of the um, not just the U. S. dollar, but the U. S.

in general from power. And that's a huge issue, obviously, for everybody. Our economic standings, our political standings, our military standings, all of it. Like, if you think about who are the U. S. 's biggest allies. Well, you have the UK, you have, I mean, like there's there's very few countries that you can point to that are the of the scale and power of just those three countries in and of themselves, right?

There's, there's countries Very few. I can't even think of another one that would, that every one of them that we're in an alliance with almost pales in comparison to those three countries. And so, that's a huge piece of this. The next piece of it saying that everybody has flocked. The post war war.

Flocked. to interview Zelensky. Everybody has, has gotten on their knees right in front of the man and let him just preach and preach and preach to the American people, propping him up as if he's not a five foot six comedian who wears leather pants and dances in front of everybody. And so they've, they've propped him up.

They've tried to make him seem like this bigger than life figure. And all that man has done is gotten on his knees and begged, pleaded. Cried to the American people for more and more of your money. Why? Why? Well, we all are starting to put the two pieces together with Ukraine's, one of the most corrupt places in the world.

Crane's one of the, the places where a lot of the, uh, bio labs that nobody wanted to admit were real are conducting horrendous types of experiments. On behalf of the, and commissioned by the United States of America, the Ukraine is where Hunter Biden and his father, the big guy, funneled millions of dollars into their family's portfolios.

So, there's a lot more going on here, and there's a lot more reasons that we have interest in Ukraine, and not we as in the American people, but we as in the political elite class within America. It generally comes down to, who'd have thought, money. It's not that they're trying to protect democracy.

Ukraine isn't, isn't even a democracy. The very first opportunity that Zelensky had, Zelensky was trying to Stifle his opponents, trying to get rid of them, trying to imprison them, trying to stop them from being able to compete against him during this time of war. That's not a democracy. That's authoritarianism.

It's obvious. So all these news medias have flocked to try and interview this man, flocked to try and take government money to go over there, have these conversations with Zelensky so he can plead and beg for more and more of your money. Not like we have a choice in the matter. Anyways. But another great point by him.

And so as we move more and more into this, he talks about how the government actually surveilled and put out news articles, say, like, going after Tucker Carlson for even having the audacity to interview Vladimir Putin. Not even for doing it, but for even Thinking about having a conversation with him and he's right in saying that there hasn't been any conversations at all with Vladimir Putin.

I have been reporting on Vladimir Putin and what's happening in Russia by going to the Russia Kremlin website and pulling the transcripts. From Vladimir Putin's speeches that he's given on the U. S., and I hope you've heard those, and if you haven't, go back and, you know, just look through the podcast archives of, uh, look for World War III, you'll see a few of them, where I've actually read the transcripts from Vladimir Putin calling out the West for eroding the nuclear family, calling out the West for not even knowing what a man and a woman is, calling, just completely embarrassing us, rightfully, and that's it.

Saying that you know giving the exact breakdown of the reason that he's he's doing the things that he's doing which Again, I like that Tucker Carlson said I'm not trying to convince you to agree with him I just want you to hear his opinion because that's what journalism is Journalism shouldn't be skewed one way or the other journalism should expose corruption within governmental institutions and corporations Journalism should offer you the the facts and the data and offer you and afford you the opportunity to be able to hear out Both sides and that's what he did here He tried to interview Zelensky and he tried and it did successfully interview Putin and so very very happy to see that this is happening and as a result of this as Expected, you know, he said with the very beginning of this is it's quite the dangerous quite a dangerous endeavor To be able to do so and I can't imagine the amount of threats that Tucker Carlson got as a result of this from very powerful Individuals and people

So, from this, there has been a ton of backlash from several different places. The first one being that the European Union has said that they are seeking sanctions and a travel ban against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Putin. Now, this comes from Brian Krasenstein on Twitter, and it says, I've never thought I would be defending Tucker Carlson as much.

So much within a period of a couple days, but once again, if you support freedom, then you support Tucker's right to interview Putin, just like many others have in the past, right? When you, when you go back, you see that there's been handfuls of, of journalists who have gone over and interviewed Vladimir Putin, but it's only now that you, there's an unspeakable, uh, unspoken rule that you can't go interview the subject of one of the largest military conflicts that have happened in the last, Sixty years.

So. If, if the, all of the people around you, don't, don't, don't talk to him, don't talk to him, you better not talk to him, if you speak to him, we're gonna have a huge problem, right, it's gonna make you start to question, well, why, why, what is your vested interest in me not speaking to this person, right, if you understand, like, when you think of, uh, abusive spouses, When you think of abusive parents or abusive friends, people who have psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies, the thing that they like to do is they like to isolate you.

They like to put you into a bubble that they can then create the environment around, they can create the reality that you live within. And they want to isolate you away from people who pop that bubble. They want to keep you away from people who would, who would question your reality in a way that would prompt you to do the same.

And, and, that's exactly what we're seeing here. The, the authoritarian government, that is the United States government, as well as the European Union, are trying to, they don't even want you to have a conversation with Vladimir Putin. They don't even want you to hear his side of things because What if it's reasonable?

What if what he's, the reason that he's going into this war actually has some merit to it? What if his criticisms of the West, what if his criticisms of the United States actually have value to them? What if we agree with a lot of the opinions of Vladimir Putin? Well, they don't want you to know. They have, they want you to stay in, in your little corner of silence and never hear from the man himself.

And again, I'm not saying that that's what it is, in that you're going to agree with everything Vladimir Putin says. I think if you go back and listen to some of the interviews and transcripts that I've read of Vladimir Putin, that a lot of the things that he's said is very reasonable. A lot of the criticisms that he has of the West are very reasonable.

And I think that's what they're afraid of here. Otherwise, why would a U. S. ally go to the lengths of saying that the single most visible and successful journalist within the United States probably ever Will no longer be able to visit their country. This is what this is. This is pressure. This is mafia style pressure on Tucker to not release the video, to not release the interview.

They don't want him to release this interview, but again. You have to reverse engineer that and go, okay, why wouldn't they want this interview to be released? Right? Why wouldn't they want their reality to be challenged if they're correct? It's the same thing that we see with the left. They don't want you to have a conversation about these things because they know when their argument is challenged that it very quickly falls apart.

The, the picture that they've created, the, the character. Caricature that they've created of Vladimir Putin will crumble the second that the largest journalist, the most successful journalist in the world, has a conversation with him. And all they're, they're, they're terrified of that caricature. Crumbling.

Because then what? What is, what's gonna happen if really, if people start to realize that these things that he is doing or saying are somewhat reasonable? That these criticisms are somewhat reasonable? That's what they're afraid of. Otherwise, why would they be going to these lengths? Right, it says, I'm sure much of what Putin will say will be lies, embellishments, and inaccuracies.

Well, why do you say that? Well, probably because you've been told to think that. Putin is the one. who should be sanctioned further, not an American who is asking Putin questions. The risks of this interview for Tucker shouldn't be sanctions from U. S. allies, is what this says. And I agree. I believe this guy is even a, uh, Democrat that is posting this, so surprising, but good, good.

Something we can agree on is the fact that free speech shall not be stifled. It is an American right. It is a God given right. It is a A right to humanity as a whole to be able to speak the words that they wish to speak without it being stopped by another human. And this leads us to the next part of this.

An absolute hit piece from CNN, where the anchor almost goes into tears talking about Tucker Carlson and his interview with Vladimir Putin. Here we go. We interview the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Tucker Carlson is lying from the streets of Russia, no less. Not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin.

That's a lie. Serious news outlets, including CNN, have requested Putin to interview over and over again. Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine, or what his goals are now. They've never heard his voice. Another lie. Serious news outlets, including CNN, have covered and, of course, reported on Putin's words since this war began, including one of his baseless justifications for the invasion of Ukraine, which he initially claimed was to stop the Nazis.

First, because it's our job. We're in journalism. Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. Not even close. And his former employer, in a court case, actually agreed. Quote, The general tenor of the show should then inform a viewer that Carlson is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses, and is instead engaging in exaggeration and non literal commentary.

Two years into a war that's reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed. They have no real idea what's happening in this region, here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine. For two years, real journalists have risked their lives to report.

That lady can barely even speak. I don't know why she's a news anchor, probably because it's the best that CNN could afford at this point with their, I don't know, 100, 000 viewers. I don't know what's more comical in that video. Is that news anchor about to be in tears or the fact that she twice called CNN a serious news organization and then tried to delegitimize Tucker Carlson for what?

For what? Getting the interview that she allegedly put in for that she didn't get? How funny and then to say that it's it's misinformation or that anything that has to do with the Nazi problem in Ukraine being unfounded. Right? Go, go look at the Azov regime, right? Like, this is absolutely fact that there is Nazis in Ukraine.

Fact! You can, you cannot argue that any other way. And, and so, it's just so funny. You see hippies after hippies coming out. Then there was, uh, This, which came out as well, which was a article, which says that Tucker Carlson on Ukraine NGO, Miro Travis kill list after his Putin interview, and it says Twitter claims fact checked American journalist, Tucker Carlson has been placed on the Ukrainian NGO, my orchard vets.

Kill list. Social media has come out in support of Carlson with users calling Ukraine president Vladimir Zelensky a dictator for using a Kiev based doxing website grossly nicknamed Peacemaker against Carlson following his interview with Russia's Vladimir Putin. And it has a screenshot from it there.

Read Ukrainian or whatever they speak. Um, but it says American journalist, Tucker Carlson has been placed on this kill list. My ultra vets is a Ukrainian Kiev based website that publishes a running list and sometimes personal information of people who are considered by authors of the website to be enemies of Ukraine, or as the website itself States, whose actions have signs of crimes against the national security of Ukraine, peace, human security, and the inter national law.

Although it has no official status, the website is regularly consulted at checkpoints to integrate government information systems. Social media has come out in support of Carlson with users calling Ukrainian president Zelensky a dictator for using a Kiev based doxing website. On Tuesday, Tucker Carlson, previously of Fox News, hinted at an upcoming interview with, uh, Russian President Putin.

This interview marks the first time a Western journalist has spoken with Putin since Russia's invasion of Ukraine nearly two years ago. The Kremlin confirmed on Wednesday that the interview indeed occurred. They stated that Carlson's stance was not in favor of Ukraine or Russia, but rather leaned towards being pro Ukraine.

American. An interview of Carlson's, uh, of Carlson's page on the website quickly went viral on social media, but the claims were sued and fact checked by other people online. It was revealed that his name had been put up on the so called kill list way back in June of 2023, proving that it had nothing to do with his interview with Putin.

Fair. Carlson is a well known conservative media figure, critical of the West's backing of Ukraine. He has also previously expressed support for Putin. The 54 year old journalist visits, uh, to the Ukraine Capitol has been. Or, I'm sorry, to the Russian capital has been thoroughly covered by local media reporting on his every move.

There are risks to doing an interview like this, Tucker Carlson said. Carlson mentioned that the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, Western journalists have conducted numerous interviews with Zelensky, whom he repeatedly called a dictator. However, according to Carlson, these interviews are biased and Zelensky's advocacy for increasing U.

S. involvement in the conflict. Carlson labeled them as fawning pep sessions and criticized them for being propaganda. Because they are. Interesting. So, it's interesting to note, what they said there is that, Oh, oh, this happened back in June. This has nothing to do with his interview today. But, as Tucker Carlson stated, he was actually trying to interview Putin.

Right around that time. I forget the time frame that he said in there, but right around that same exact time, he also said that he went to go interview him. But he had all this backlash, so he decided not to. They were, they were bugging his phone. All of this stuff. So, there you have it. That's what's going on with Tucker Carlson.

Now, according to some reports that I saw, Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin could come out as soon as, well, if you're listening to this on Thursday, February 8th of 2024, today. And I'm recording this the day before that, Wednesday evening, uh, the 7th. And so, if that is the case, You all know I'm gonna listen to it and you better to go listen to it It'll be at X on X or on rumble I'm sure it'll be on Tucker Carlson's website as well And then I'll do a breakdown for you guys because that is a very very interesting interview that will occur Alright, there you have it.

There's the backlash. There's Tucker Carlson. This moves us into our next situation, which is that Hawaii could be the very next state to boot Trump from the ballot as they continue to try to find legal loopholes to make sure that your vote is not heard. And it says Hawaii bill to ban candidates for insurrection passes first hearing. So again, is Hawaii going to become the second state now to utilize a, a, the 14th amendment, which was passed to stop Confederate leaders who literally started a, a, a war within our country to overthrow the government?

To be used on somebody who caused a, and I can't even say caused, right? Like the, the, the, there's so many problems with this, but let's, let's go ahead and take a look. It says Hawaii bill to ban candidates for insurrection passes first hearing. It says a bill that could bar former president Donald Trump from appearing in November's Hawaii election ballots received considerable pushback Tuesday from his supporters, some of whom came to the state Capitol dressed in patriotic wear.

Senate bill 2390. Two, in Hawaii, introduced by State Senator Karl Rhoades, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Rhoades chairs, during its initial hearing. It could exclude political candidates who are disqualified by a constitutional or statutory provision. Trump's name does not appear on the bill, but his supporters invoked his name repeatedly during the hearing.

Yeah, obviously it's aimed at him. What? Alexandria Lum, a native of Hawaii and woman, said, We all know what this bill is about, and it's about one person in particular. Rhodes told the Honolulu Star advertiser. After the hearing, that Trump has been indicted for his activities on January 6th and leading up to it.

So it's hard to ignore the elephant in the room. Yeah, this, what, are they trying to say that it's not about him? Like, that makes literally no sense. If Joe Biden participates in an insurrection, it would apply to him too, Rhodes said. And nobody participated in an insurrection, you Idiot, there was no insurrection.

Nobody's been charged for insurrection. Nobody's been indicted for insurrection. Nobody's going to jail for insurrection There's been no single charge that has occurred. That is a insurrection charge in the last four years at all period yet there's trying to pass this this Ridiculous idea that that trump tried to overthrow the government what?

You know, remember the post that he posted on Twitter that got taken down where he was telling everybody to be peaceful and be nice to the police?

There was no inciting of an insurrection. There was no insurrection. It was a bunch of old geriatrics walking through the Capitol building, being provoked by law enforcement officials, hidden as as patriotic individuals, telling them exactly where to go and what to do so that they could plan this. All along, this was a ace in the hole for the democratic party.

This was an ace in the hole for the FBI and the CIA, which should just be obliterated just as Trump and John F. Kennedy have talked about these, these powerful countries within our country that have unchecked power and unknown, ungodly amounts of money. To me, this was all planned. They planted upwards of more than 50, I think somebody said hundreds of federal, of FBI agents within the audience of January 6, so that they could provoke this to happen so that they could do this exact, this was a strategic move for them so that one by one states could try to utilize and leverage this.

Two 300 year old law that was utilized against Confederate generals who caused a civil war, a legitimate civil war where brothers fought brothers, mothers cared for the wounded of individuals who were two states away while they died in their arms. Like it's, it's the, the 14th amendment was not meant to be utilized in this way.

And it's literally a legal loophole, just like they're trying to pin the other 91. Uh, indictments against Trump on is whatever in any way, shape or form that they can weaponize the judicial system against Trump and against you and against anybody else who speaks out against the government. They will, as long as it suits their agenda.

It says in written testimony, this bill not only restricts Donald Trump from the ballot, but also prohibits the electors and elect. Alternates from voting for their candidate. She said that bias and hate for Trump aren't good reasons to change our u. s. Constitution Rhodes told the star advertiser that most people believe the u.

s. Constitution should be followed including age and residency requirements and other like regulations under the 14th amendment section 3 of the 14th amendment states that a person who has taken an oath to support the u. s. Constitution and becomes involved in insurrection cannot hold government Office.

I'm confident the opinion expressed by the MAGAGARS is not the majority opinion in Hawaii, Rhodes said. Michael Golda, Judge, testified to the Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party in Hawaii in support of SB 2392. It's something that should have been in the books already, he said. You violate the Constitution.

You do insurrections. You attack our government. You do not get to be on the ballots and run our government. Okay, Abby Simmons, co chair to the Legislative Committee of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, also testified in support. We believe government officials should be held to the highest ethical standards as required by Article 14 of the Hawaii State Constitution.

Yeah, well maybe if they're, you know, involved in Chinese financial scandals, maybe they shouldn't either. Maybe we should invoke the amendment on that. Oh wait, we won't because we're not as low as this, this craziness. As to try to, to legally weaponize the judicial system against, well, illegally weaponize the judicial system against our political opponents, just like they do in Maoist China, just like they do in, in any other authoritarian state.

state, North Korea, right? Like this, it is so crazy and so saddening how far our, our government has fallen. Like not only it's, it's like, it's like if you, if you were in a situation where you're, you thought the world of your, your parents and your https: otter. ai Transcripts provided by Transcription Outsourcing, LLC.

It's like that's what that's what's happened to our government in my eyes is like I was such a patriot I was I was so somebody who was so patriotic and so pro america and so pro You know like freedom of speech and all the the the constitutional amendments and nothing could do you know? Like our forefathers and and the way that they wrote this is incredible And I don't disagree with that today that our Constitution was Written correctly and I don't disagree that we are the greatest nation in the world today I absolutely believe that but I do believe that our government has been hijacked by a bunch of people who want nothing but for our Constitution our government to crumble around us for their own power and money grab This goes on to say the Democratic Party of Hawaii said in the written testimony They believe citizens deserve the right to clean and transparent elections where public servants meet the requirements of the United States and state of Hawaii constitutions Yeah, whatever.

Alright, um,

Just trying to see if there's anything of value here. Interesting. This is the only way that they think they can beat them now. Because they already played their election, uh, little BS that they did last year, or last election, with the mail in ballots, with the overnight changes in votes, with the, you know, all the things that happened there.

And this is their ace in the hole, is they're going to try and get them removed from the ballot. So that he candidate, you can't even vote for the candidate of your choice. Right? And this, this brought this up to me, which shows something from Reddit, which was a, a post that I just recently posted myself, which showed this.

It says 10 Wars and it has the past five presidents before Donald Trump. And then it goes on to show Donald Trump and it says Zero wars, right? So you have, you have Donald Trump with zero wars, you have the last five presidents with 10 wars, and then you have zero indictments. against the last five presidents and 91 indictments against Donald Trump.

And you have to ask yourself, why? Why? Because that's what they want. They want more. They want, they want us to be in conflict because that's what makes us money. They don't want peace, and when you threaten their money, they threaten you right back with the entire power of the United States government behind them.

And that should terrify every single one of you. And that's exactly what's going on in Hawaii, is they are weaponizing the justice system. Just like they did in the first state that did it. Because if they do it to Trump, what stops them from doing it from any other potential candidate in the future?

Weaponizing the judicial system so that you cannot vote for who you want to vote for. And I believe that our Democracy, our voting procedures, the way that we view voting as a country today, has shattered. Like, I don't believe in our voting system. I will still vote. I will, because based on principle, I don't believe that it should be as, as, Uh, you know, can't say the word, but as, as fixed as it is today, but it is, it's absolutely a, it's a, it's a game that you cannot win through sheer voting.

It is not a true democracy. A true democracy would take into consideration the votes, and there wouldn't be all of this political lobbying, and there wouldn't be this two party system, and there wouldn't be one candidate for each one of them, and it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be this big money game. If we were to re engineer politics in a way that was truly for the people, it wouldn't have to do with who could gain the most money from the most corporations to gain the most support by the institutions that could then control them later down the road.

That wouldn't be it. It would be who's the most intelligent, articulate, Caring individual that we see as being powerful in their speech and capable in their actions that we would want to represent us on a world stage. And then we vote. And each vote counted the same. I still don't absolutely believe in the electoral colleges the way it is outlined today.

But, that to me is a true democracy. We don't have a true democracy. We have, uh, corporatism is the current state of our government today. And that moves us on to our next thing, which is going to be a completely different government type, which doesn't seem to be too far off. You know, the, the, the Royal families in the United States today is the Royal Democratic family and the Royal Republican family.

And whoever those families fix the show enough so that their son or daughters or brothers or sisters or friends from down the road can get into those political positions and so be it. But the Royal bloodlines in the US is the Democrats and the Republicans. That's what it is. But when we look at Buckingham Palace, it's a little bit different, but not too far off.

Which brings us to our next segment, and that is the fact that King Charles has been diagnosed with cancer. And if we followed the news since his inauguration, or not his inauguration, his coronation, you would find that there was All sorts of questions surrounding his health at the time. There was a picture that came out that showed his fingers that looked like absolute kibossas in the packaging and, uh, it made you start to question it right away.

It says King Charles has been diagnosed with a form of cancer, says Buckingham Palace. It's not prostate cancer, but we as was discovered during a recent treatment for an enlarged prostate. The king began regular treatments on Monday and will postpone public duties during it. The palace said the monarch 75 remains wholly positive about his treatments and looks forward to returning to full public duty.

As soon as possible. No further details have been shared on the stage of cancer or prognosis. Charles informed both his sons personally about his diagnosis, and the Prince of Wales said to be in regular contact with his father. The Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, who lives in the United States, spoke to his father and will be traveling to the UK to see him in the coming days.

The King returned to London from Sadringham in Norfolk on Monday morning, and Palace says that he has started treatment as an outpatient. Although he reposes public events, the king will continue his constitutional duties as role as head of the state, including paperwork and private meetings. It is understood that his weekly audiences with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will continue and will be in person unless doctors advise that he limits such.

Contact. Hmm. Now, this kind of brings us to the conversation of like, what would happen? Who would the, who would the crown go to? And that, of course, is Prince William. Prince William being the same Prince William that we'll get here to a second who had some controversies around his name just one year Ago.

Hmm. This goes on to say that Prince William has also temporarily withdrawn from public engagements while he helped his wife, Catherine, the princess of Wales, as she recovered from abdominal surgery she had last month. But it was announced earlier on on Monday that she would return to public duties later.

This week, the King was seen in the church service in Sadringham on Sunday, where he waved to crowds and walked for about 10 minutes. Don't see anything of value here. It says U. S. President Joe Biden expressed his concerns and said that he would speak to the King. In a post on X, he later said navigating a cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship takes hope and absolute courage.

Joe and I joined the people of the United States Kingdom in praying that His Majesty experiences a swift and full recovery. Mr. Biden's son, Beau, died of brain cancer at age 46, and his long term friend, Republican Senator John McCain, died of cancer in 2018. Charles acceded to the throne on his death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth, in September 2022.

Hmm. The King and Queen are scheduled to visit Canada in May in Australia, New Zealand, and Samoa. Interesting. The palace has yet to confirm whether the tours will go ahead, with no date suggested. There you have it. There's your prognosis. And what we find from this is that Prince William would be the one that would actually follow his reign.

And there's been some interesting controversies around Prince William. And here it is. This happened in 2022. And it says that it's been more than a week since social media exploded with astonishment, glee, and far too many memes involving royals bending over in their polo kit. Over a scandalous and unsubstantiated rumor involving Prince William, an alleged affair, and a sex act that rhymes with jegging?

Hmm. If you somehow missed the story, catch up here. Let's catch up there. Uh, it says this particular maelstrom was kicked up by a recent blind item tip via gossip account, Des Moines, but the regal tittle tattle around William and one of his And Kate's circle of countryside aristocrats, aka the Turnip Toffs, Rose Hanbury, has been doing the rounds since about the time those sprayed on jeans were in vogue.

This salacious story was a trending topic on Twitter for nearly two days, and while William and the Palace haven't officially responded to it, their unofficial relations motto of never complain never explain means that they almost never comment in stories like this. There has been some interesting content emerging that could be seen as indirect response to the maelstrom scandal that captured the internet's imagination for a wild 48 hours.

Very, very interesting. So let's see if we can find the check out this article as a response to this. And see what it was about, but I'm pretty sure you can use your wild imagination to figure out what rhymes with jegging that will tell you about the affair that he allegedly had, according to this article.

Um, so I don't know if we need to dive into that, but I thought that to be pretty funny and the very next in line for. The throne seems to have had an affair where he may have been on the receiving end of not only the drama, but potentially something else, uh, that rhymes with Bilbo Baggins, just the first part of that.

Um, okay, so this will segue us into our next conversation and that would be the fact. that there was a recent situation. Well, I guess Prince William responded to this situation about his father, and I don't really care to read it, but if you do, it's on Fox news. And the title of the article is Prince William break silence on Charles's cancer.

Who cares? All right. So this moves us on to our next situation, which is going to be the deep dive for the day, which is the fact. That a mother in Oakland County, Michigan was found guilty for involuntary manslaughter. And as I mentioned earlier, this is the most, by far, the craziest legal precedence being set that I have ever seen.

Which is the fact that now if your son or daughter commits a crime, you can be found guilty. Alongside of them. This is the first that I've ever heard of anything like this. There's very little case law that supports this. Nonetheless, I did want to walk through it with you because I find it to be very, very interesting.

So let's pull this up. Imagine living in a home where you keep your car keys. On a hook by the door. A common slight in many households, this says. The setup is all too familiar. Now let's say one day, while you're not paying attention, your teenager grabs those keys, takes the car for a spin, without your permission, and ends up causing an accident.

Suddenly the blame shifts to you for simply having the keys accessible at home, despite never actually handing them over. With the intention of letting your child drive unsupervised. This situation mirrors the complexities surrounding the Jennifer Crumbly case. It brings into focus the intricacies, intricacies that are dancing between trust, responsibility, and foreseeability.

Within the family unit, it questions the extent of parental liability for their children's actions, particularly when indirect access to potential harmful objects leads to unforeseen consequences. The discussion isn't just about who left the keys out, but about the broader implications of responsibility and control in a world where accidents happen.

Now, to be fair, it's not really an accident what happened. I, nonetheless, I do think it's interesting to point out the similarities between the situation. The legal case against Jenner, Jenny, Jennifer, Jenner, Jennifer, Jenny Crumbly, the mother of the Oxford high school shooter, Ethan Crumbly marked a significant and unprecedented event in the United States legal system.

Jennifer Crumbly was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the 2021 shooting carried out by by her son, which resulted in the deaths of four students. This verdict represents the first incidents in U. S. history where a parent has been charged and convicted in relation to a mass school shooting committed by their child.

Here are the key facts surrounding the case against Jennifer Crumbly, the mother of the son. In the Oxford school shooting now, let me give you some context on this because I think that's important understanding the totality and and the the concern surrounding this case. Now, this is not me sympathizing with this mother.

This is not me agreeing that she did everything right. This is not me saying that this is not me saying that this situation could have been could not have been prevented by proper parental duties being You Taken within this context, but it is me saying that this is a scary, absolutely terrifying legal precedence to set in today's world.

So, here's the situation. Ethan Crumbly, Oxford, Michigan. The shooting occurred on November 30th of 2021. michigan. Ethan crumbly k injured several others. T was a nine mm sig Sawyer father and given to Ethan gift. Ethan pleaded guilt murder and terrorism, ack in the shooting. He was s Of parole. Jennifer Crumbley, his mother, was charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the shooting, making a significant legal action as it pertains to parental responsibility and such incidents.

She was found guilty of the charges, making it a landmark case regarding culpability of parents, their children's actions when involved. When it involves access to firearms, prosecutors argued that Jennifer and her husband, James Crumbly, were grossly negligent by failing to secure the firearms and ignoring warning signs of Ethan's potential for violence.

Jennifer Crumbly's defense contended that she was not directly responsible for the actions of her son and that the tragedy was unforeseeable. As of the updates, she was charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, 15 years. Each. Totaling 60 years in prison as a result of this. So to me, this is a pretty serious case law being, precedent being set for case law in the future.

Which is the fact that if your child does something wrong, should you be held legally liable as their parent? And I think that my, my response to that right off the cuff would be no, your child has their own decision making your child has their own terrible potential for violence, but that doesn't make you as the person who birthed them, or as the person who housed them responsible directly for their actions.

And, and so this could be used in, in so many ways. And it, it parallels to me. The authoritarian legal system that happens in North Korea. If you are found guilty of going against the North Korean government, they don't just punish you for the actions. They punish your parents. They punish your cousins.

They punish your entire lineage as the result of your actions. Whether justified or unjustified.

And so, are we going to start prosecuting every parent of every child under the age of 18 for every gang member under the age of 18, which again is one of the leading causes of gun violence in the country? Are we going to go after the parents of every individual? In Chicago, who's under the age of 18 who committed murder, are we gonna do that?

Hmm. Are we going to charge the parent of every child who committed theft? Are we going to charge the parent of every child who committed any crime at all? Because if this is the case law, if this is the precedent that we're setting, you have to go back to every single murder, every mass murder, every shooting, every, every beating, every assault charge, every, every shoplifting, every, every charge essentially ever and prosecute the parents.

But where does it stop? Why just the parents? Why not charge? I don't know, the gun manufacturer, which I'm pretty sure they've tried to do in several instances. Why not charge the government for enabling all of this? Why not charge the school? Why not charge the company that created the car that got him there?

Why not charge the company who made the clothes that he was wearing? This all seems ridiculous, because it is. A human is its own separate entity with its own decision making abilities, its own potential for doing massive amounts of good and great things in the world, and also massive amounts of evil and terrible things in this world.

The decisions of your child do not directly, legally, at least shouldn't legally reflect the decisions of the parents. This is a conversation of nature versus nurture. Does your child have its own thoughts, its own ability to take action outside of the rights or the, or the, the, uh, the, the governor that is set by the parents.

And so here are the different arguments. Let's give you an outline of the case. The prosecution argued that Jennifer Crumbly was grossly negligent for failing to secure the firearm and ammunition at home, thereby enabling her son's access to the gun. Okay.

But that's not a charge in and of itself. They didn't charge her with negligence when it comes to firearms. They charged her with involuntary manslaughter. They highlighted that she and her husband ignored warning signs of her son's violent tendencies and mental health issues. Okay. Fair. Pretty sure if I recall correctly that her son was hearing voices in his head and The school went to them about it, and they didn't seek psychiatric help.

Okay, that's fair, but I don't think that means that she murdered these children, at all. It was also noted that she failed to alert Oxford High School that the family owned guns, including the handgun used in the shooting. Okay, I own firearms, absolutely not going to call and alert my child's school as a result of that.

Like if I called my child's school and said, Hey, uh, just letting you know, I own firearms. I'm pretty sure they would call the police on me because they would seem like a threat. Um, so those are the arguments for the prosecution. The arguments for the defense was Jennifer Crumbly's defense argued that it was not, she was not responsible for buying or storing the gun used in the shootings.

True. They contended that there was no clear warning signs that her son could commit such a crime, asserting that the tragedy was unforeseeable. And the defense argued that it was her husband James Crumbly's responsibility to keep track of the gun and that Jennifer did not see signs of mental distress in Ethan that would require psychiatric intervention.

Okay, fair positions. So to me, it's like, how, how do you take that from, like, and how do you give this woman 60 years? There's people who have literally curb stomped somebody to death and are serving less time than that. Like, you're sentencing, you're just sentencing this woman to death because she's, what, 50 years old?

Like, 60 more years? You're sentencing her to death. Says rationale behind the verdict. The jury, which included gun owners and people familiar with firearms. Found Jennifer Crumbly guilty of involuntary manslaughter in all four counts, one for each student killed. The conviction was based on the argument that Jennifer Crumbly's negligence in storing firearms and ignoring her son's mental health and behavioral warning signs contributed significantly to the tragedy.

This case can be seen as a potential precedent for holding parents accountable for their roles in enabling their children's access to firearms in shootings. But it says specifically school shootings, but I'm not going to harp on that because if this is the case, you have to go back however many times and prosecute the parents.

Manslaughter in Michigan carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison. Jennifer Crumbly's sentence was scheduled for April 9th, while James trial on similar charges was set to begin in March. This landmark case underscores the legal and moral responsibilities of gun ownership and parental oversight, especially concerning securing firearms and attentiveness to children's mental health needs.

Okay, so let's look at some of the philosophical arguments surrounding this. One argument of this, being the argument in defense for Jennifer, Well, let's do the other side first, the argument against Jennifer Crumbly. From a moral standpoint, parents have a duty to care for both their children and society.

This includes not only providing for their basic needs, but also ensuring they do not pose a danger to themselves or others. Virtue ethics, which focuses on the character and virtues of a moral agent, would suggest that part of being a good parent is instilling moral virtues in one's children and preventing foreseeable harm that they might cause.

The concept of negligence highlights a failure in this duty of care. If there were signs of Ethan's distress for potential violence, ethical theories like utilitarianism, maximizing well being, would argue, well, this is very specifically philosophical, not exactly what I was looking for, but nonetheless.

The argument for the moral autonomy and unpredictability would say that the argument from a standpoint of moral autonomy that individuals are primarily responsible for their own actions. Basically what I've said. Ethical theories like existentialism emphasize the importance of individual choice and personal responsibility.

In this view, Ethan Crumbly's actions, though tragic, were his own, making it morally problematic to hold Jennifer Crumbly responsible for the actions she did not directly commit. Yeah. The principle of unpredictability, and that really comes down to the word of involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary meaning that I didn't even myself commit this?

Like, that's probably the bigger legal situation that I would harp on if I was the legal counsel of this individual is like, I would attack the word involuntary. Involuntary does not mean I didn't do it. Like voluntary means I did it purposefully. Involuntary means I did it unpurposefully. Right? Like, then, then, then how far can you take it?

You want to talk about the butterfly effect? Like, you ever seen the movie The Butterfly Effect? It's like, How far can we stretch the word involuntary until it means not only the mom, not only the dad, but the cousins, and the grandparents, and the, the, the, the owner of the house that they lived in, and the manufacturer of the clothing that he wore, and the gun manufacturer, and the car manufacturer, and the wheels that were on the car at the time that he drove to school, and the school for being there, and the desk that he sat in for not, like, how far can you stretch the word involuntary?

Because to me, and if we look at like the legal, what is the legal definition of involuntary? Let's see if we can get an answer on that. But to me, you cannot convict somebody of something for involuntarily, by proxy, committing murder or manslaughter against somebody else when they weren't even within a mile of the situation that you were, that the murders were conducted in.

Right? Like, how can you say that? It's such a legal situation. Stretch to say that this woman was responsible for these children's death. And a terrifying legal precedent to set because then, as we talk about the judicial system being weaponized against anybody and everybody that's political opponents, right?

And again, this is like, this is a tragedy. This is horrible. The kid that is responsible for this got life in prison, as he should have. If not, he should have got the capital punishment as a result of this. I'm not against that in this situation. He pleaded guilty. He said it was me. It was obvious that it was him.

It was a horrific act. Tip for tat, eye for eye, let the guy rot in jail, or eliminate the, the, the burden on, on our tax dollars for taking care of him after this horrific and tragic, terrible act. But to, to, to take this to the parents and say, you did this, you are responsible for this legally, like morally, maybe.

Morally, maybe you should have stepped in. Morally, you should have taken your child to see a psychiatrist. Morally, you should have locked the guns away. Morally, you should have done this, and you should have done that, and you should have notified the school, and you should have done, like, morally, sure, make those arguments.

And if we're talking about a Twitter thread where everybody's shitting on this mom for all the things that she should have done, Sure. Morally, she should have done more. But to set a legal precedence, which says that she is now responsible for those children's deaths legally and needs to pay for it through time in prison until she dies?

Is an absolute abuse of our justice system. And so I actually had somebody that, that I have a tremendous amount of respect for that I have done, uh, juujitsu with that is a police officer, has been a private invest, or not a private investigator, but, uh, um, um, an individual who has handled certain situations like this.

Um, but, but before I get to that, let's, let's go ahead and read this article. Which says, that should parents be responsible for child's mass shooting? The jury says yes. Hmm. Again, and it's not even like mass shooting because that's not the legal precedence that's being set here. It's should parents be responsible for their children's unlawful acts?

Jury says yes. Because it doesn't just stop at mass shooting. It's gonna be, if your child commits vandalism, if your child gets into a car accident and they're at fault, if your child, whatever it is, this sets a terrible legal precedence. And it says, A school shooter's mother is headed to prison after a Michigan jury found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

The verdict is the first of its kind in America, and puts the onus of responsibility on parents in a way that has never been before seen in a mass shooting case. The question of whether parents should be held accountable for the murders committed by their boys has reverberations that date back to the Columbine shooting in 1999.

Those 13 deaths in Littleton, Colorado are widely seen as the opening of a dark era in which American schools and towns have become shorthand for the mass murder of children. We shall see the effect over time, but if this does not get overturned by a court of appeals, and of course I expect there will be robust appeals, it sets an approach to parental responsibility.

And I think over time it could actually be a very Yes, that's, that's my, my legal standpoint on this is this is setting a crazy legal precedence, not just for this case, because there are some super weird things about this mom like they fled to a warehouse miles and miles away, because they heard the police were looking for them and like, Not smart, not the thing to do, but also this sets a, such a weird legal precedence.

Uh, the trial garnered widespread attention given the severity of charges filed against the shooter's parents. What the outcome portends to, uh, portends for similar tragedies in the nation's ongoing battle with gun violence in 2020 for the first time firearm related incidents were the number one cause of death among children and teens.

So, here is the situation. Here's the post that I found from somebody that I, again, respect highly. It says, I told them, and it finally happened. 30 year career, 7 spent as a detective. 4 of those 7 I investigated crimes committed by juveniles and against juveniles. And again, I'm using this just as a platform to have the conversation and see both sides of this.

No venom against this person for posting it. Highly respect them. Um, but I, it is an interesting person that I think has a lot of merit in this situation. More to speak on than I, who has a, a passionate opinion from a law enforcement perspective on this. Uh, and so here it is. It says, um, 30 year career, 7 spent as a detective, 4 of those 7 I investigated crimes committed by juveniles or against juveniles.

Every morning morning, there would be 5 or 6 new cases on my desk, crimes that took place Friday night through Monday morning. The story was the same. Usually, the parent of a 12, year old child, the phone would ring at 8am sharp. My child is out of control. You have to do something about it. I would politely and tactfully tell them their child was their responsibility.

To be a good parent, get involved in their lives. Get them in counseling. Basically, supervise them. They generally push back. I don't have time for that. You have to do something. I would end the conversation by telling them, You do know you are responsible for your child's actions until they turn 18. They often replied, I can't possibly be held accountable for what my little Johnny does.

Yes, you can. Today's verdict proves it. Accountability. Okay, so here's somebody calling the police and saying, My child is doing something that I don't agree with. I would like you guys to step in and do something. This person saying, Well, that's not my job, sir. That's your job. Okay, and this is why, to me, it comes back to a psychological debate, which is nature vs.

nurture. Is a parent truly responsible for every action that their child commits? And not even that, because the child's going to school. The child's being influenced by teachers. The child's being influenced by principals, by social media, by all of these outside factors. It's not just the parent in today's world.

In fact, More often than not, it's not the parent in today's world. Is it that the Reddit threads that they're on? Is it the Instagram followers that they have that are commenting on their stuff? Is it How many factors can you look at and say, Okay, we're gonna prosecute everybody this person has had contact with over the last six months for involuntary manslaughter and hopefully they all go to jail for 60 days.

It's like, how do you, how do you dwindle this down to its most important parts and say, okay, you, you, you, and you, you're all responsible for the actions of this individual down to the point where if they go to jail for murder, you're going down too, buddy. It's like a Rico case against the entire family.

Like, no, I, I just, I, I don't see that as being the case. And, and even when somebody's going to the, the police and saying, Hey, my child needs help and I don't know what to do, you're saying Good luck, bud. And in that case, like, what if that was the parents of, uh, crumbly saying, Hey, my child's going to, I'm thinking they're gonna do this thing.

Like, to what extent can you stop them? Can you lock them in a tower with a dragon in it for the rest of their childhood until they're 18 and you're no longer responsible for their actions? I just don't, I don't see this. as having a positive outcome. I don't see it. Like, I don't see case law that could be utilized in this way.

And if you look at the state versus Norman, 1989 in North Carolina, here's a case law against it, which says, although dealing with self defense, this case highlights the principle that individuals are primarily responsible for their own actions unless there is a clear, direct causation from another person's actions leading to the harm.

If this, if his mom, if the Oxford shooter's mom was shown in text message saying, go to school, Take this gun and shoot those children, then yes, she should go to jail.

And maybe not for involuntary manslaughter, that would be murder, right? But she didn't do that. That wasn't the case. They're talking about negligence. Which, if you go in that weird, confuscated, gray area of negligence, like, there's so many Crazy ways that you can take this. Another one is that, uh, People vs.

Kevorkian. In Michigan, the Supreme Court has addressed issues of indirect involvement in criminal acts, focusing on direct causation. While not primarily analogous, Kevorkian's case, which dealt with assisted suicide, emphasizes the necessity of a direct link between the defendant's actions and the harm that occurred.

Yes, for sure. Now, if we want to look at the case law against this, we have to go all the way back to 1944 and 1907. One being in Massachusetts, which is the Commonwealth v. Walensky, which said this case established that the precedence for gross negligence, where the owner of a nightclub was held liable for the deaths caused by a fire due to inadequate safety measures, The principle here is that the failure to prevent foreseeable harm can constitute criminal negligence.

Even that's so shaky. Like, so shaky. Like, you're going to give them involuntary manslaughter for everybody who died as a result of a fire? Maybe in 1944, I guess? Even still, that just doesn't make sense to me that that person would be held responsible for that. Maybe the person who lit the fire should be responsible.

Right? It's like if somebody, sure, if there's an arsonist and they go to a nightclub and they light it on fire, that person should go to jail if people die. The owner of the nightclub, for not getting their sprinklers changed on time, should not be responsible directly or indirectly or involuntarily for the deaths of those individuals to get 60 years in prison.

The other case law this points to is 1907. The Michigan Supreme Court case dealt with a man who failed to get medical assistance for a woman who overdosed in his home resulting in her death. He was initially convicted of manslaughter although the conviction was later overturned. The case however discusses the duty of care and how failing to act can lead to criminal liability under certain circumstances.

So to me, in my opinion this is going to get turned in the court of appeals. I don't see how this legal precedent can be set because it just is such a a pandora's box of issues legally that could cause a ripple effect and and a a Utilization and weaponization of the law against people who are just unknowing and not non participants in crime just due to uh, just due to their um relationship with somebody, which in and of itself is not a illegal act.

Like it's, it's crazy to me that this is, this is being set and she was convicted. And I guess we'll see the same thing happen with her husband until this goes through the court of appeals. And I could see this going all the way up to the Supreme court because the importance of the legal precedence is going to be set as a result of this case.

Alright, and that, my friends, is what I have for you today. I appreciate you. I love you. Look out for that Tucker Carlson video. Have a great day. Thank you so much for listening to the 100th episode of The Adams Archive, and I'll see you next time right here, wherever the hell you're listening, whether it's Spotify, Apple Podcasts, leave a five star review, subscribe, do what you gotta do, but have a great day, and I love you.

Thank you so much.