The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome, Welcome, welcome. It’s Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report.
Ooh, wow. Inappropriate is the beginning of the the conversation. And outrageous is the end. A juror from a recent January 6th trial in Washington, DC’s Federal District Court did a 90 minute interview with Brian Lamb of C-SPAN. And if you listen to it, you will be, I think. Very concerned, very concerned. Let’s say that the woman is identified as a woman named Ellen. Ellen, no last name. It’s done on Brian Lamb’s podcast. So it’s not on TV. It’s not on video. It’s just audio. And in the recent case, a number of defendants were convicted by the jury, and juror Ellen recounts in 90 minutes of this podcast why she did what she did, how she persuaded the jury. All kinds of things, and while I’m not sure that anything that is said arises to the level of anything illegal, it certainly feels unethical. It feels inappropriate. It feels slimy. It feels condescending. It feels terrible. It feels terrible. Well, welcome to the Pro America Report. I’m Ed Martin and great to be with you. Don’t forget visit proamericareport.com proamericareport.com and and track what is happening.
We will talk in a few moments. We’ve got a couple of great guests as always, including Michael Volpe. My friend who has a piece on what California is doing to diminish the control that parents have over their children by by putting their thumb on the scale when it comes to transgender. And you’ll see you’ll hear what Michael is writing about investigating, and it’s worrying. We’ll also check in with Dan Schneider of the of the MRC’s Free Speech America project and the Media Research Center, of course, tracks the liberal media and what they do and Dan Schneider will join us. The outrageous thing again, outrage everywhere. I guess it’s what they want us to think about, but it is outrageous, the IRS visiting Matt Taibbi on the day he’s testifying before Congress, they come to his house, pretty crazy, but we’ll see.
But but first, what you need to know I I just can’t tell you how disturbing this story is. I made the mistake of of waking up early this morning and I decided to listen to this podcast when I noticed it. Politico is covering the story, and they’re covering, I say ohh jury in the recent trial reveals the secrets from the deliberation room room. But when you listen to it, it’s it’s terrible. It’s terrible, her condescension, her dismissiveness. Her whole attitude is just terrible. The language she uses, and she reveals that she and another juror who is a lawyer who worked at the Department of Justice in the past. So these two jurors, both women. And they they persuaded the others to convict convict, convict. And the the woman speaking, Ellen is doing this interview with Brian Lamb says, I don’t think either of us should have been on the jury because she herself is a journalist, self-described, who worked at C-SPAN and CNN and the other juror who did the persuading, was a lawyer at DOJ. Think about it. I I I gotta tell you when you hear this, it will not give you confidence in our system. It will not give you confidence in your fellow man and woman. In this Case. It is really, truly terrible, and now I know up on Capitol Hill that some of the members of Congress are looking at this already. I know, Julie Kelly. I sent her this in the morning. She was listening to it by early morning too. And she’s going to write on it. Judge Mehta, Mehta is the judge that’s allowed this to happen. Allow these jurors to serve. And while I respect the fact that people have free speech and the jurors should have free speech too, it is outrageous that she Ellen thinks it’s appropriate to act like this. It’s incredible. It’s incredible. The the reality is. That it is, uh, that it is a absolute betrayal. Absolute betrayal of the people. In this in this in the Washington district, court system and especially the people on trial. It it’s just stunning. It’s almost has to be listened to, to believe, and again, I’m not sure that there’s anything illegal. I’m not sure if there’s anything illegal about it. I I there’s nothing I I can’t sense. I can’t even figure it out but, and I’m not even sure that it’s a violation of any of the core rules because the case is over. But it certainly violates the spirit, and when you hear her talk about how she and the other juror persuaded people. To vote the way she wanted. And one of the things that’s so devastating to me is I’ve told you over and over again, one of the charges, it’s a felony charge that has been used for the first time in history against these defendants is a charge of felony obstruction of of, of obstruction of an official proceeding. And that that has never been used the way it’s being used. It was used for witness tampering in the past, and suborning perjury. Now it’s being used for interrupting the Congress in action. And she says it’s a felony. 20 years in prison for it, maximum term, I think. And this juror says, Oh yeah, no brainer. Of course, they. Obviously they were there. And, you know, and so and Congress was interrupted. There you go. Felony. Never meant to be charged that way, never meant to be used that way, and she just tosses it off like it’s nothing. It’s terrible. It’s terrible.
Here’s my prediction, though, and I’ll finish with this. What you need to know is, this will be a bad story for the judge. Judge Mehta. It will be a bad story for the jury and this woman. It will be a bad story for all of the prosecutions of the January 6th. This is not going to reflect well on people. It is not going to reflect well on the system. It won’t turn out well for them, even though she was as confident as anybody, just acting like oh look at me, I’m going to tell you all that that happened behind closed doors in the secret deliberations. Not good.
Alright, we gotta run. We’ll take a break. Be right back. It’s Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report and we’ll be back in a moment.
