Think about Mangione. He shot someone in the back. As clear as you're looking at me or I'm looking at you. He shot. He looked like a pure assassin. Luigi Mangione may have just escaped the death penalty. [00:00:16] Should he be convicted of the crimes he's been accused of. Because Donald Trump and other members of his administration really can't keep their mouths shut. So the defense is going to use that to their advantage and call for the death penalty to be taken off the table. [00:00:33] Now, as you can recall, Mangione allegedly murdered UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson last year in what police believe to be a premeditated and targeted attack. Now, as a result, he faces 11 state charges and four federal charges, including murder with the use of a firearm. [00:00:52] Now, earlier this month, a judge dismissed two federal charges against Mangione for first degree murder and for second degree murder related to killing as an act of terrorism. So this was the terrorism charge, essentially, that ended up getting dropped by the judge. [00:01:09] And I had a feeling that would happen anyway. But nonetheless, let me read you the rest of that. He has pleaded not guilty to all remaining charges. But since he's pleaded not guilty, it's going to go to trial. Now, if convicted of a federal charge of murder, through use of a firearm, Mangione [00:01:29] could still face the death penalty. And Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a public statement in April directing prosecutors to seek the death penalty. But there is a complication developing. So back in April, U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett basically warned prosecutors that they [00:01:50] needed to follow local Criminal rule 23.1. Now what is that? So the text of that rule imposes an affirmative duty on the lawyers, police officers, private investigators and employees of the defense attorneys or government prosecutors involved in a case not to release or authorize [00:02:10] the release of nonpublic information in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation with which they are associated. If there is a substantial likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. [00:02:30] Jake, that's lawyer talk. Tell us what that is. Yeah. So the judge often, will tell, the lawyers. Hey, don't say anything publicly that's going to taint the jury pool. And so there's other reasons to give those instructions, but that's very well known [00:02:48] in the legal community. You often don't even have to say it. It's kind of obvious. But with the Trump team, they're always like shooting their mouth off. So the judge was smart to give that warning. And did they listen to that warning, Anna. It appears they have not. Okay. [00:03:05] So I'm going to get to what I mean by that in just a minute. But just a few more details about rule 23.1. It lists multiple examples of subjects that presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial, [00:03:22] or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of this rule, including any opinion as to the accuseds guilt or innocence, or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case. [00:03:37] So over the last few weeks, Mangione's name has actually come up quite a bit for obvious reasons. Now, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, people have made statements about political violence. Who tends to carry out that political violence? [00:03:53] You get the picture. And many people in the Trump administration have been linking the Mangione case to left wing extremism, Antifa, along with what happened to Charlie Kirk? So let's hear the full clip of what Trump said about Mangione [00:04:09] on his September 18th Fox News appearance. He shot someone in the back. As clear as you're looking at me or I'm looking at you. He shot. He looked like a pure assassin. I was surprised, actually. [00:04:24] You know, you would have thought this guy would have been out of central casting in the movie, and maybe he was, but he think of what he did. He openly. It's not like there's a question. If there's a question, you can understand it. Maybe, but there's not a question. He walked up to a man, didn't give him warning, didn't say turn around, [00:04:44] didn't do like the Old West where you have a gunfight, you know, each have a gun. He shot him right in the middle of the back, instantly dead. And now he's like, I'm watching. The girls are going crazy for him. This is the sickness. This is. [00:05:00] You know, this really has to be studied and investigated. This is not an important point, but I have to mention it. Look, I don't think people or women are going crazy over him, over what he did. He's just an objectively good looking guy. That's all it is. [00:05:16] But what he did was horrific. Carrying out acts of violence like that solves absolutely nothing. But Jake, like, okay, I get the argument that this could be, you know, tainting the jury pool, but can they really use Trump's public [00:05:31] statements as an argument to get the possibility of the death penalty dropped? Well, they can try and they might succeed, but I would vehemently disagree with it. So this is, a layup for us to go. Ha ha. [00:05:46] Trump screwed it up. He shouldn't have said that. And it's his fault for screwing up the prosecution. But no, I've never agreed with this rule. I remember debating it in law school. So either we trust the jury or we don't. But oftentimes our system treats the jury like they're morons. [00:06:02] Oh, don't tell them that. Don't let them know about that. Don't include that in the evidence. It'll taint them. It'll bias them. No, I know the president's making a political point. I'm not going to listen to that Trump interview. And all of a sudden my mind is going to melt and I'm like, [00:06:17] I can't be objective anymore. I'm definitely going to think, no, I'm going to listen to the evidence. And if you don't trust that we're going to do that, then don't use a jury. So I've always been against this concept, and they often exclude evidence that is so important to a case, usually to be honest, to help the defendant. [00:06:34] And I don't agree with that either. Okay. Just trust the jury. Let them do their job. So, I mean, look, the guy's a goofball, right? Trump he released everything through movies. He's out of central casting. Everyone who, like, looks like a normal human being. He's out of central casting, right? And he's like, you remember the Wild West? [00:06:53] It actually, this has nothing to do with the Wild West or any cowboy movie you saw, right? So. But anyways, overall on this, I'm Trump not guilty. We love finding folks who are good fits for us, right? I love good fits. When you're sleeping, you definitely need a good fit. [00:07:09] So I, you know, I don't get enough sleep during the weekdays, but because at least it matters, at least on Saturdays, I'm getting some great sleep and I'm waking up in the morning thinking, I got this, I got this. So I love that they have free shipping. I love that they have easy returns. That's super critical for me. 100 day trial. [00:07:25] - What else do you want? - You got you got to get that trial. And they've given away 42,000 mattresses. We love companies trying to do good in the world. So they're good guys and they've got great mattresses. They're philanthropists. You can't lose with this. So that's why we picked them. We hope you do too. [00:07:40] Go to.com for 25% off, plus get an extra $50 off with promo code T exclusive to our viewers. That's l e s.com promo code for 25% off, plus an extra $50 off. [00:07:56] But be sure to enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you. Lisa.com promo code. The president has to talk about it. What is he not going to do? - Talk about. - It. Okay, so hold that thought okay. Because so far I do agree with you, but I've got some more context. [00:08:12] Okay, so the president making those statements is one thing. The dissemination of those statements is also part of the argument that the defense is using, because Trump didn't just have the interview and then everyone left it there. The way the Trump administration was spreading that message is, [00:08:30] is something that the defense is going to kind of lean on in making their argument. So the, the Trump clip was shared on Trump's Rapid Response 47 X account. Which opened the door for another high ranking DOJ official or other high ranking [00:08:46] DOJ officials to amplify it as well. So Mangione's defense team specifically cited this tweet, which was posted by Chad Gilmartin, the deputy director of the DOJ's Office of Public Affairs. And it was also retweeted by a guy by the name of Brian Neaves, who is the chief [00:09:05] of staff for deputy AG, Todd Blanche. And then these comments were made by white House press secretary Caroline Leavitt, and Stephen Miller was also cited as an example. So take a look at this. [00:09:20] A left wing assassin shot UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson right in the back in the heart of New York City. This country is dealing with a rising threat of radical left wing terrorism. There were two very nearly successful attempts on President Trump's life. [00:09:37] Of course, the health care CEO was brutally gunned down by another self-described so-called anti-fascist. That was then celebrated by other self-described anti-fascists, who, of course, are really communist revolutionaries. [00:09:57] He's not a communist revolutionary. Okay. All right. Anyway. All right. So, so as a result of all of this, right, Trump's statements and then the dissemination of his statements by administration officials, Mangione's legal team is arguing the following. [00:10:14] The government very well knows this statement to be false, as they are in possession of his alleged extensive journal writings, where the writer never once mentions being anti or pro fascist. The government has indelibly prejudiced [00:10:31] Mr. Maggioni by baselessly linking him to unrelated violent events and left wing extremist groups, despite there being no connection or affiliation. I think that's a pretty legitimate argument to make. [00:10:48] Yeah, I don't know. So first of all, I can't stand Stephen Miller's comments or Caroline Leavitt's oh, they hate each other. There's this mythical radical left wing extremist coordination. Who did Mangione coordinate with? Who did Tyler Robinson coordinate with? [00:11:05] You're just making it up like, oh, there's oh, Antifa, Antifa, they're still on Antifa. I've never met a single person from Antifa. I've never seen a single person from Antifa on air. Maybe I'm missing it, right? I'm not saying that none exist. Right. But, like, creating it as, like some sort of boogeyman. [00:11:20] And there's cells of antifa. It's just all nonsense. It's going to be a catch all, you know, label for anyone on the left. Oh, can you believe they're against fascists or whatever they are saying? Okay. But the reason why I'm saying, overall, if I'm in the jury pool [00:11:37] or if I'm on the prosecution, I can make the counterargument. He's saying that Mangione was left wing. They said left wing a bunch of times, because they're trying to drive their own political agenda about how everyone in the country should hate the left wing and we should all hate each other, etc.. Right. And but New York is mainly left wing, so maybe that helps him that they [00:11:56] keep characterizing him as left wing. - That is actually a pretty good argument. - Yeah. And so we either trust the jury or we don't. If they heard that, you know, loathsome. Stephen Miller speaking as Mangione, I don't know. Stephen Miller is like one of the most unpopular people in the country. [00:12:13] Like that. Again, that might help Mangione like, oh, Stephen Miller's against you. Okay, then. Now you might be a good guy, right? So like that. My point is, you don't know which way it's going to cut you. That's true. But it still would prejudice the. Then we can't. All of us can never say anything about the Mangione case, [00:12:30] because it might taint the jury pool. It's absurd. Do we all have to shut up about it for the rest of our lives until the case is over? - I don't think so. - No. No. So, no, I don't agree. I don't, I actually like the jury system. A lot of people don't, but I do. But I would trust the jury way more than we do right now. [00:12:48] I agree with you on the jury. Let's also just note that Jake is commenting on the argument used by the defense to try to get the possibility of the death penalty dropped. That doesn't mean Jake is in favor of the death penalty. [00:13:03] So I just don't want anyone to conflate the two things because he's on the record as against the death penalty multiple times. Yes. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets his wings. Totally not true. But it does keep you updated on our live shows.