What is the range of possible criminal charges that could be brought here?

So first let's talk about the fact that this is gonna be seven separate investigations, right? There is no Cornell Seven, right, where they're all gonna be investigated in exactly the same way.

It's gonna be seven separate people, seven separate investigations.

Possibilities of crimes range from rape, um, to some misdemeanors.

For example, uh, one of them with regard to sending out a lewd photo without the permission o- of the person who is in it.

You could have a possible battery.

Um, you could have sexual exploitation.

Uh, assuming they secure indictment, how, how difficult will these cases be?

What do you make of this Cornell story?

Look, uh, there's a lot of layers to it.

There's a lot of nuance to it.

People don't wanna talk in nuance, right? Everyone wants the absolutes, right? They ought to be charged, or they're getting railroaded.

Well, you know, for those of us who like to evaluate cases individual by individual, uh, with facts and evidence, some of which we don't know, uh, there are a lot of things that we can't answer quite yet, but here's what we can tell you.

I think it is fair to say at this point that, um, it would be a nearly impossible case to win a conviction, criminal conviction on.

Um, with that said, I think that the DA should have done more, right? The, the DA, um, just by looking at the sworn statement and not reviewing the, the full interview she did, I think made a mistake.

Stunning

How do you view the policing and law enforcement landscape in our country today?

Well, look, I, I think we're in a better spot than we were in, you know, four or five years ago.

I mean, the people who called for defunding the police have been embarrassed, right? Um, and you know, even the, the folks on the left who, you know, were calling for defunding the police are trying to distance themselves.

"Well, I didn't really mean defund," or, you know, "I never quite said it." And so, like, there's definitely...

[laughs] It's definitely not a popular, um, position to have taken, right? And it was absurd back then, and, and, and it's absurd, um, um, now.

But you know, look, there are still, uh, problems, right? There are still issues.

Um, and you know, shockingly, as far as I'm concerned, you know, uh, the DC Court of Appeals has even, um, allowed, uh, race to continue to play a role in defining, you know, what is, uh, someone being in custody for Fourth Amendment purposes.

What do you think the transformation, uh, means for the future of journalism and the public's understanding of, uh, of the, of the news?

Can you walk us through what happened and what happens next?

Yeah, so basically the judge reread part of the instruction and told all of the jurors, you have to follow my law.

I'm telling you what the law is.

But the question is, how does each juror interpret that? I think it would have been very hard for a judge to say, yeah, I'm going to dismiss this juror because this juror doesn't agree with the other jurors on how to interpret reasonable doubt here.

That's the entire point of the deliberation process, is for jurors to say, I think this, I think that.

And even if 11 jurors think the one is absolutely wrong, it would be incredibly unusual for a judge, and I think almost unheard of, for a judge to dismiss that juror because the others say the person isn't deliberating in the way that they think the juror ought to.

You say the issue of reasonable doubt is especially important here because of Massachusetts law.

Right, because here the prosecutors have to effectively disprove the defense.

So, Dan, first, did it surprise you in any way when the jury said they were at an impasse? And do you think they can still reach a verdict now?

Yeah.

No, it didn't surprise me.

I mean, this is, as Aaron said, a complicated case.

The country is divided on this.

So I'm not surprised that the jurors are divided.

But I will say I've seen a good number of cases where jurors have initially come in and said, you know, we are at an impasse.

What exactly happens next?

Dan, how big of a deal is it that there were nine women and three men on this jury?

I think some people are making too big a deal about it.

There are a lot of other issues that I think are more important.

Yes, does it on its face seem to be better for her that there are more women? Sure.

But you also have to look at how old are these women? I think younger women.

are better for her you also have to look at what experience do they have or not have with postpartum i mean look i've been looking on these discussion boards on you know court tv and law and crime and there are a lot of women who think she should be convicted of murder so i wouldn't just read into the gender of the jury

one potential clue out there the jury did ask to see clancy's prescription pills and the knife that she used on herself what does that tell you

Look, now we're in pure speculation, right? I can't tell you for sure.

So why would Mangione and his team agree to plead guilty?

Well, first of all, there's a lot of evidence against him, right? That's the first problem he's got.

Uh, number two is I think that he's trying to avoid two trials here.

He's hoping that by pleading guilty in the federal case, that he'll be able to avoid the state case, 'cause New York has a very protective double jeopardy law.

And then finally, I think he'd prefer to serve time in a federal prison, which tend to be nicer than state prisons.

So I think that he's hoping, uh, that that will lead to a federal prison, but don't assume this is necessarily gonna happen.

It's what Aaron said.

So Dan, what could this mean for that state case?

Why keep the people anonymous, the jurors anonymous in this case?

Yeah, yeah, I think that the judge is concerned about potentially influencing the jurors.

I mean, this is a case where it's not just that people are interested in the case.

They're interested in the outcome, and I think that's of particular concern to a judge in a case like this.

So many people so passionate about what the outcome ought to be, and as a result, he wants to do everything he can to protect these jurors and protect the sanctity of the process, and that's why I'm not that surprised, even though it is incredibly unusual that this became one of those rare cases.

So explain exactly how this process is going to work, and if the jurors are anonymous, do they have to be sequestered?

Right.

Good question.

So can you-- can we talk about that?

Yeah, sure.

That's the sort of thing that is actually being talked about in financial circles by a lot of academics because, you know, they, they want to, uh, guide people in how to construct a portfolio.

And, you know, you, you wanna have a certain amount of risk associated with your portfolio, but not too much risk because, you know, you, you wanna protect it.

Same thing with your bankroll.

But they realize that the amount of money you have in your portfolio now doesn't represent the whole story.

You have to take into account how much future earnings you're gonna have.

So how did that work in sports, and does that go well with investing in other things?

And do what?

And they would have to come forward and make it clearer that, you know, uh, what their authority was, why this should still apply.

They have a new vote on, on, um, on restricting the president's power, and, uh, there'll be some challenge in the courts to the constitutionality of it, and they'd have to get an expedited review, et cetera, et cetera.

My- the point is that, that...

Look, here's the good news about what's happened with this administration, is on the big issues, I hear people say the words constitutional crisis, right? "We're in a constitutional crisis." And my response to them is, "No, we're not." A constitutional crisis is when the, if the administration starts ignoring court rulings.

Now, some people will say, "But they have ignored.

They've ignored some of the immigration rulings." Okay, they've made arguments as to why it wasn't ignoring, why it was a mistake, that things happen, et cetera.

Mm-hmm.

Right.

Right? Um, or advocates, uh, you know, for lib- for liberty, et cetera.

Um, and that's the danger, uh, that a lot of these groups face and that they've fallen into.

I mean, look, I, I mean, the ACLU is actually a great example that I have somewhat personal experience with, which is, you know, my dad, who's a first a- well-known First Amendment lawyer named Floyd Abrams, he represented Mitch McConnell in the very famous Citizens United case, which is now one of the big Supreme Court cases that many on the left blame for there being too much money in, uh, in politics.

And my dad's position was that it was a First Amendment right, uh, for, um, companies, et cetera, to take a position on issues of public importance, um, and to donate money, et cetera.

And the ACLU had been on his side.

They were also on the side of the speech, and then they got the heat.

Wow

What really stands out to you about this case?

Well, look, we don't know yet, right? I mean, remember in the Bryan Kohberger case, people were saying, "Oh, the police bungled the case," and then, you know, weeks later we realized, oh, actually they knew ex- they figured out exactly who it was, and they were able to use cellphone records and video and match them up and be able to, you know, identify exactly who did it.

So, so I- I, it's a little early to start saying, you know, who bungled it, et cetera.

But I will say this, there are a number of irregularities with regard to how information has come out, right? And what I hope has not happened is I hope they didn't wait too long to reach out to the FBI.

I hope there's been communication going on between the local officials there and the feds and even the local officials amongst themselves, um, because that's critical i- in an investigation like this.

You know, look, I, I think there are a lot of people who are saying, "You know, well, why did it take so long," for example, "to get the video?" Um, you know, look, my understanding is that it wasn't easy, that they literally had to sort of go by hand, um, to go through all of the Ring camera, et cetera, to try and find something that hadn't been saved.

Um, typically, um, should that be able to happen faster? I- I- I don't know in, i- i- without knowing the very, very specifics that haven't been made public about this case.

What do you think, uh, makes your show stand out so much and made it such a hit?

There's two networks that are 100% conservative, Fox and Newsmax.

Yes, correct.

And I think that they...

The, the ABCs and CBS's and...

Put aside cable for a moment, right? The broadcast networks, the places that everyone used to get their news from, the folks who are on the right will now very often go to someone like Bret Baier on Fox News, uh, to get that "newscast." Or they'll go to folks like you, by the way, who are on their own, independent, not beholden to a bigger entity.

And they'll say, "You know what? I like O'Reilly.

Uh, what does he have to say about this?" I think people now have a lot more choices than they ever had before, and I think that has made a huge difference in...

Am I wrong?

Yeah.

And there are clear explanations as to why it's not comparable, right? Which is when you actually look at the Biden DOJ, the Biden DOJ ended up investigating or prosecuting more Republicans than Democrats.

There is, uh...

Sorry, more Democrats than Republicans.

This administration is only gonna go after people who are opponents in, in any sort of political-related cases.

Um, they didn't do that.

How do we know for sure? Well, what about Trump? What about Trump? The prosecution of Trump, Merrick Garland had decided not to prosecute Trump for January 6th.

Mm-hmm.

I wanna thank my haters too, because...

It's everywhere.

Like, we hear it from the second we wake up, if you live with anyone.

And even if you don't, you know, they're, everything's talking to us.

And w- we just get so acclimated and adjusted to kind of a, a constant onslaught of voices in our life.

Just a ringing bell.

It's kind of a coarse way of thinking about it, but, you know, there's probably far more to it than that obviously, but i- if you're looking for a scientific explanation as to how a voice becomes rewarding, um, this seems like a fairly non-controversial kind of connection there.

What about the idea the New York Times defamed Baldoni and the producer just by printing the article?

Yeah, I mean, so- so the position was that the New York Times took Blake Lively's account, according to the Baldoni side, that they should have had questions and doubts about its veracity, and instead they just published it and became part of the, quote, "smear campaign." But in effect what the court is saying here is that, you know, there- there was no evidence, that the Baldoni side hasn't even really presented specific allegations that the Times would have or should have had serious doubts about the piece that they did or about the statements that came from Blake Lively in her complaint.

What's that?

Right, so what the judge is saying is that based on the evidence in front of him, kind of as a technical matter, he needs to dismiss the entirety of the counter-suit.

(instrumental music plays) But there are claims that Justin Baldoni could still make in an effort to say, in effect, "She intentionally tried to, you know, ruin my career and end professional relationships I had," but you have to do it in a separate lawsuit.

And I'll evaluate that entirely, uh, using a different standard and in a separate way than the lawsuit that currently exists.

So number one question: Is the media, the linear media, corporate media, losing power in America?

Absolutely.

That's an easy one.

The mainstream media, the media that you and I grew up on, has definitely lost influence.

It's lost, uh, viewers.

It's lost its power.

It doesn't mean it's powerless.

Am I wrong?

There's two networks that are 100% conservative, Fox and Newsmax.

Yes.

Correct.

And I think that they, the, the ABCs and CBSs and...

Put aside cable for a moment, right? The broadcast networks, the places that everyone used to get their news from, the folks who are on the right will now very often go to someone like Bret Baier on Fox News, uh, to get that, quote-unquote, newscast.

Or they'll go to folks like you, by the way, who are on their own, independent, not beholden to a bigger entity, and they'll say, "You know what?I like O'Reilly.

Uh, what does he have to say about this? I think people now have a lot more choices than they ever had before, and I think that has made a huge difference in...

Am I wrong?

There's two networks that are 100% conservative, Fox and Newsmax.

Yes.

Correct.

And I think that they, the, the ABCs and CBS's and...

Put aside cable for a moment, right? The broadcast networks, the places that everyone used to get their news from, the folks who are on the right will now very often go to someone like Bret Baier on Fox News, uh, to get that, quote unquote, newscast.

Or they'll go to folks like you, by the way, who are on their own, independent, not beholden to a bigger entity, and they'll say, "You know what? I like O'Reilly.

Uh, what does he have to say about this?" I think people now have a lot more choices than they ever had before, and I think that has made a huge difference in...

Am I wrong?

There's two networks that are 100% conservative, Fox and Newsmax.

Yes, correct.

And I think that they, the, the ABCs and CBS's and...

Put aside cable for a moment, right? The broadcast networks, the places that everyone used to get their news from, the folks who are on the right will now very often go to someone like Bret Baier on Fox News, uh, to get that, quote unquote, "newscast." Or they'll go to folks like you, by the way, who are on their own, independent, not beholden to a bigger entity, and they'll say, "You know what? I like O'Reilly.

Uh, what does he have to say about this?" I think people now have a lot more choices than they ever had before, and I think that has made a huge difference in...

You know, the- these, these guys used to be the gatekeepers.

It was all about if, if you weren't...

Am I wrong?