Brad Young on Lindsay Clancy, and Ricky Horton talks umpires!- h2

0:00second of half Uh, man, uh, let's talk about the Lindsey Clancy case first, uh, like breaking news, uh, the defensive turn. I think it seems reddington, uh, just asked President Trump to pardon Lindsey Clancy, which I don't think is a thing, right? He has no control over state charges. Am I right? Correct. Uh, it would be a pardon, um, irrelevant pardon, really, because as far as I know, she's not charged with any federal crimes, they're all state crimes and the president has no pardon power when it comes to violations of state law. Yeah. Yeah, it's kind of surprising because he seemed like a pretty good lawyer.

1:00Um, what a weird finish. Like I had never heard like when the judge, first of all, the judge seems a bit like a whoos to me. Like I, I don't need a tyrant, but he does seem kind of whossyish and just kind of like, you know, flippy floppy. And when he said, I think I'm just going to be a mistrial and then defenses like, give me an hour. I, I want to try to get a stay. I've never, okay, I've never heard of a stay of a mistrial order, but you know, I haven't done it in 25 years. No, I've never, I've never heard of that. And it was really unclear at the, at the get go, Dave about what that judge was even asking for, whether he was asking for you, you get an hour to get the state Supreme Court to issue a stay or whether he was asking for you go back and in an hour, convince me why I shouldn't issue a stay. There were so many, uh, very, very hardities here, particularly when he was interviewing solitary members of the jury. Up that is, I'm not going to say it violates the rules, but it violates the procedures

2:03that have been followed for hundreds of years. So this case was ripe for appeal because of those types of errors. Also, as you know, that one of the lynch pins of any case on appeal, Dave, is situations dealing with the jury instructions. And there was a last minute addition at the judge's instance of, uh, or insistence rather, of adding the manslaughter charge at the last minute. So this case was fraught with errors. And, uh, and really when you look at it though, uh, I'm not sure there's going to be a retrial. It would not shock me. In fact, I would, I would probably think there's a greater than a 50% chance that the party's work out some kind of a deal where she pleads guilty by reason of insanity, uh, gets to go to a state mental institution, avoids prison time. I think that's probably, uh, the, uh, that's probably what's going to happen at this point.

3:03I agree. I was also thinking, um, on my time off Brad about this and, uh, just so you guys know, Brad and I were texting about it, uh, during the day, and he sent me a very sexy pick. Um, so I appreciated both of those tools. I told you not to mention that. I know. But I decided I know. Don't ever trust me with things like that. Um, but I thought that the issue of the holdout juror as I told Brad last week was fascinating because in essence, on one side, you go, well, the guy that he's just giving his opinion, he's not convinced, uh, what if it was 11 to 1 the other way, you know, and I think that the defense attorney even came out, uh, afterwards, after crushing him, the holdout juror and saying, I support his, you know, right to do that. How did you see it? Well, I saw it as the potential for, uh, for jury misconduct, not not the juror misconduct,

4:03but jury misconduct, meaning attempts to influence the jury because listen, the defense attorney, Reddington, he apparently had access to information from the jury, not just that it was 11 to 1, but the reason why it was 11 to 1, meaning it was 11 votes to either a quit or to convict by reason, or not guilty by reason of insanity. And the one was the, was a soul holdout. He shouldn't even have access to that type of information. How did he get it? How did he obtain it? Uh, did the judge tell them? I mean, there's so many questions here. And, and listen, if you try to be right, a single solitary juror member because they're quote, not, uh, following the instructions, unquote, because that juror isn't doing what you want them to do, that's tampering with the jury. So there's so many questions, uh, like you like to say, you could almost write, uh, you could write a, a, a text book on this for law school of what not to do because of all

5:07of the inconsistencies here that we normally don't see. Yeah. Very, very strange case. No, that about it. Yeah. Uh, Brad, I'm wondering just, you know, as an attorney, how frustrating is it for you to see a high profile case like this and realize that so many people just seem to be taking like whatever fits their narrative, whether it's, you know, you think she should rot in prison or she should go free. It's so clear that people take what they want, not everyone, of course, but like so many people on social media just take what they want, uh, from the situation. It, I don't know. Just how does that feel for you as someone who understands the process to, to kind of see that play out? Well, let me answer it with this way. Uh, I get a lot of feedback when I'm, I'm doing my Wednesday morning segments with Megan Lynch. And I don't really, I don't advocate a position. I give both arguments. I give both sides. I might give predictions on how it turns out, but I never give, or never really give

6:08my opinion about what I would like to see happen. And yet so much today is a Rorschach test that, that, that people only see what we want them or what they want to see. Uh, and the facts aren't really all that important. What's important is the, uh, the confirming of our beliefs. And look, and everyone said this, I, it's not original to me. But if you look at someone's social media history, so typically they're, they're surrounded by people who agree with them, politically, right or left. And so that becomes an echo chamber. And then it becomes a prism by which they look at these high profile cases. And, uh, and it is, uh, it is disappointing that we've lost the ability for rational analysis in favor of reflexive, uh, reflexively giving our opinions on what we want to happen instead of analyzing what has happened. You know what I was thinking too. And I get why we don't do this.

7:08I understand the defendant's right to a jury. I still remember some of law school. But in a case like this where someone admits through counsel that I did these things, I committed these acts. In a case like this, doesn't it make much more sense? Doesn't seem more humane to have maybe a panel of three psychiatrist work along with a judge and assess the situation and say, we've come to the conclusion that X, I mean, I trust that group more than just a group of jurors because it's really a matter of law at this point, right? Well, that's true. But yet the greatest power that the state has is to take away our freedom. And it would certainly be unconstitutional, maybe better, uh, but it would certainly be unconstitutional to see that ability to remove our freedom from us to a panel of doctors or psychiatrists

8:14instead of a jury of our peers because we're entitled to that. Yeah, I see your point that it seems it would be logically would make more sense because they would have a perspective that maybe regular people don't have. But then again, isn't that true in almost any area where people are casting judgment on someone else, experts might do a better job, but that's not the system we have under a constitution. Good, right? Brad, there's, there has been one thing that's been bothering me throughout this case. As I understand in Connecticut, where this, I'm sorry, was it Connecticut or Massachusetts? Massachusetts, it's part of me, pardon me. In Massachusetts, Lindsey Clancy had maybe a different circumstance than she would in other states as far as, you know, proving psychosis or, you know, the prosecution has to prove that she didn't have psychosis. But from what I understand, she was never formerly diagnosed with psychosis. And even when they had a psychiatrist on the stand, the psychiatrist said she didn't have

9:16psychosis whenever she killed these children. So is this something that you can just claim? It was confusing to me that there was never a diagnosis, but we're all going like, Oh, okay, well, she had psychosis. Well, she was a diagnosed by a treating physician, but their experts did create diagnoses. And that really swerves into a whole different area of discussion, Rachel, which is so much of what we have in litigation is a battle of paid experts. And you look right now at the, and I'm going to give an example. I'm not involved in this type of litigation, but look at the baby powder litigation. And you've had so many experts that testified that there was talc and that this caused all of these problems. And yet you had an equal number of experts testify that there was absolutely no problem. You had the same issue with the bear litigation over Roundup, where you had a whole fleet of experts saying it caused non-Hotchkins lymphoma, even though there's no study that shows

10:17that. And Europe doesn't even acknowledge that Roundup can even cause non-Hotchkins lymphoma. So that's the problem we get into with experts versus treaters. I battle that in my own law practice. That's why I typically use experts who are also treaters instead of just using hired guns, but that's the problem with any type of litigation that involves an injury. Sorry. No, no, no. When you say they're paid, are they paid by a lobby, I guess? Oh, let me answer this one. That's how I was going to jump in. So I only did about 10 years, my legal career, which brought me to kind of the top of taking depositions, defending depositions, hiring expert witnesses. And I don't know how it is today with 25 years of technology behind me, berates, there are literally lists of these doctors. And if I need someone to say that the crock pop blew up in your face, here's my guy. If I need to say that this person should have had the baby deliver because of preeclampsia,

11:22here's my lady. And Fred, I'm going to be magnanimous and say most are ethical, but a great many of them are not. And they are paid by the party. So if I'm going to hire expert witness, Kevin Wheeler and his retainers $10,000, no things probably going to cost $50,000. And he's going to give me the opinion that I want. That's how it works. How can that be legal? I mean, how can you pay for someone to say what you want them to say on the stand? Not only is it legal, that is the standard in practice. That's crazy. And because at least in theory, Rachel, you could say in this perfect world, you go to this doctor and he's going to give you a fair and balanced reading of it. Sometimes I hire experts and they come back and they say, Brad, I can't tell you what you want me to say. Like, okay, fine. Here's your retainer and God bless you. But then other times they'll come back and say, hey, this is where I see it because

12:23they know what I want them to say. Right? And in this case, if the defense hires an expert psychiatrist, they're not going to come back and say, oh, she's completely a saint is saying can be. Otherwise, they're not going to get paid. Okay. Can I take one more left turn here? So when you explain all of this with the paid experts, I'm thinking of cases like, I don't know, the medic case where attorneys general are suing them and I'm assuming everyone's paying expert witnesses on their side with the resources that a company like Meta has, that leads me to believe that the evidence is just so damning that they can't even hire someone to do a convincing enough job. Does that make sense? Yeah. No, it is so easy. As Dave's already said, it is so easy to find experts to say literally anything that it's just, it's not a problem. I can find, I had a case one time and I'm not going to take much time with this, but they base their opinion. It was my opposing counsel, whom I want to trial, by the way, but the opposing counsel

13:25hired a doctor that was basing his opinions on the writing of some doctor from the 1880s. And that was his entire basis for his opinion on what some guy said in 1880. And my cross examination was great. I said, well, in 1880s, they said smoking is good for you. Do you agree with that? In the 1880s, they said bloodletting was fantastic and we should use snails more often. You agree with that. And it was easy to break that person down, but literally you can find an expert for anything. Right, I'm going to get a quick break. More with Brad after this. I'm not sure if I want to go, you know what I mean?

14:27It's like, I'm not sure you can go one on one enough for me. Well, here's the bottom line. And bottom line is, do I think the Supreme Court is going to take this case? And I don't because you have a state Supreme Court with an unanimous ruling interpreting Missouri law and applying Missouri procedures. So I don't think there's any room here for the Supreme to take it with one caveat. One example or one exception to this. If the Supreme Court does take it, it will be on this point because the Missouri Supreme Court not only said that you can have a referendum on the ballot in November to validate or reject the legislature's institution of a new congressional map, but the Missouri Supreme Court reverted back to the 2022 map for the general election, even though it was the 2025 map that governed

15:27the primary. So now you've got people who ran in the primary, those districts may not even exist now. And the districts that did not exist in 2025 in the primary, rather in 2026 from the primary, are now magically resurrected for November. So because of that conflict, that's the only avenue that I see where the Supreme Court may step in and say, you can't have a change of a congressional map between the date of the primary and the date of the general election. But we're going to have trouble even nationally, don't you think? I mean, with the mail-in stuff, I mean, the elections like next week, I mean, we're right up against it. Right. And it's right around the corner. In fact, today is the deadline in Missouri to change anything for the November ballot. Now, that's still subject to if the Supreme Court says we're going to issue a stay. Okay, there's nothing the state's going to do about it. Of course, they're going to follow what the Supreme say. But today's the deadline because it takes a long time to finalize a ballot, to mail

16:32it out to people, to send it to military people overseas. That'll take time. And it's not like you just update somebody's social media feed and you can now vote in November. It's a lot more complicated than that. So listen, this is basically the Lawyers' full employment act. Every November now, every time there's an election rather, it's a lot of litigation. And I just don't see that changing anytime soon. We only have a couple minutes left, but I want to get your and everyone else's thoughts on these takeovers. It happened again over the weekend in South City. And I think they took the cops a long time to get there. And this is becoming embarrassing and dangerous. Yeah, it is. And it shows a fundamental, I don't know, our paradigm for what do we look at the cops to do? The bottom line is, more often than not, the police can't stop crime before it happens. They're much better at solving it after it happens. And so do we expect that there's going to be a police division, a monitor social media

17:36to figure out where these street takeovers are going to happen? They're not equipped for that. So the question becomes, do we need to change policing to keep up with these changing dynamics of crime? I mean, I'm trying to, I understand the way it went Sunday night. There were multiple things that happened in St. Louis, right? We had an, I was a police cruiser that was involved in an accident. There was a hostage situation over in Tower Grove or something along those lines, right? So I understand it wasn't the only thing going on. But do we not have the ability to respond in less than an hour to something as significant as cars on fire, people waving weapons around and taking over an intersection? We don't have the capability to respond to more than one or two things at the same time. And I'm not blaming police. This is not up to me. It's not on them. We don't have enough of them. We're 250 officers short. Yes. But what we're budgeted for, and I get the challenges, but at some point, the answer needs to be we have an answer. It can't be throw your hands up.

18:37Well, we don't know what to do. Well, I don't know. Maybe have enough people or a plan in place to call in the state troopers or to call in neighboring police departments when something of that magnitude is happening. You can't just be like, we're surrendering the street to 150 teenagers. It's insane. Well, we've already got a plan for that wheels. For example, a couple of years ago, there was a state city partnership where the state gave state troopers to the city to do routine things like pulling people over, checking for DUIs. Finding those kind of routine things so that the St. Louis police could have more manpower to focus on the street takeovers, the murders, the shootings. And yet that was so short-lived, I thought this is a model. This is a partnership plan for how to solve problems on a short-term basis. And yet we're not even following the model that we've already tried and we know it works.

19:38Thank you, bad. Appreciate it. My pleasure. Oh, no, I think we lost him. Hey, Andrew, can you call Ricky? He has dropped off the thing. He's playing possum with this. He's sitting there giggling. Let's see how long they'll wait. I guess the phone, the signal in San Francisco is not that great. Guess so. What's tonight? What's that game? Oh, the game time. I think it's another nine o'clock. Oh, sorry. Hey, it's not that bad. 845. Oh, that's not bad. That's not bad. That's not bad. That's not bad. That's not bad. That's not bad. That's not bad. That's not bad. That's not bad.

20:39That's not bad. That's not bad. Poor Matt Polly. He doesn't want our sympathy, but it's funny because these all mean really late nights for him. Yeah. And this stretch of LA and then Colorado on the weekend, but it wasn't the weekend for Mads and Doody. But then you get to San Francisco now. These are long nights, man. And these have been long games. The cartels have been playing long games lately because they're scoring a lot of runs. Yeah. They're averaging seven runs a game on the road trip. Crazy. Yeah. Here comes the power and it's again, we know it's the ballpark. It is. It's the same thing. They're there. If you look at the pitching, the pitching is more successful at home and the offense is more successful on the road. And just nothing to be done, huh? I don't think so. I mean, you know, people are arguing maybe you move in the fences, but that's not going to make it make you win more. Yeah. They'll have you hit more home runs, but it's not going to affect the income because the other teams get to hit them too. Right. We have Ricky on the phone now. Hey, Rick. Hey, what's going on? Sorry. My phone battery died kind of like the game died yesterday.

21:40Yeah. So you see I do the segue. I'm been around you guys so long I get with the segue. The old battery dying. I know that one. I think you know he's going to be good. I bet you just want to be friends, don't you? My battery. Yeah. So my battery's a little bit because I just did the walk through the streets of San Francisco, which, you know, I know they used to be hilly, but I think they're hilly or. I don't know. Maybe it's my age, but man, nice long walk through a beautiful city and, and you know, that kind of cleared my mind of yesterday's yesterday's loss, which was not a not a bad loss, but it was a bad game to lose. That's how I would describe it. Yeah. Rick, I was going to brag to you that on my birthday Sunday, I played golf with our mutual friend Ed Curtis and out drove him on one hole, but he's on the stream. So I won't say that. He played that whole blind photo that that that that that work.

22:41And it's not like I took a picture of it. I could send you already things. So, but you know, he's kind of coaching you. So he probably gets a little bit of joy out of that too. So I mean, he's trying to help you. Right? He cares. He didn't look very joyful, but yeah, you may be right. We've already we've already done this with wheels. Scott Terry will be with us in three PM. We'll do it with him as well. But as a former big league pitcher, I got to get your opinion on the Rincone tilted hat thing with the ump. Okay. So, so I think I think the ship has sailed with worrying about how players dress. So I feel like if you're going to be old school, you're like really old school now. Because I mean, I don't think that way. I mean, it's like, look, players are going to be players. You're going to there's so much flare and league over the last 30 years, not 30 minutes, 30 years. Right. Okay. So that's not a that's not a big bone to pick in my mind. I am no longer a get off your long kind of guy when it comes to that stuff. So I just thought what bothered me most about that and I kind of went off on that on the TV post game is is look, this guy's making his major league debut.

23:45That is sacred for this young man and for his family and for his friends. This is a moment that he will remember the rest of his life. And the first thing you get is fix your hat. I mean, that's the and by the way, you're getting somebody to sing that to you in a language you don't even understand because he doesn't speak English. So I just thought that that was terrible timing and just almost cruel to that to that young pitcher. And you know, I what I did love though is the teammates response to that and not only the Cardinals teammates and the Rockies players, but really the rest of the league is kind of rallying behind that moment. I thought that was really interesting Ricky because it comes in the midst of a whole bunch of other things in that game too. And it sure makes it seem like Doug Eding's came into that with some kind of, I don't know, bug up that. Yeah. Well, it seems I sure does seem like it. And I can't I don't know the intentions of a sword. I'm not saying that, but obviously it's something you have to be concerned about when you're talking about the integrity of the game of baseball. And I think the integrity was I think it got pushed.

24:48You know, one thing that bothered me tremendously and I noticed the guys on the TV said the same thing and the Rockies TV guys. Yeah. The emphatic call at third base. Yeah, he was saying, I mean, he didn't say that, but kind of. And I mean, it was very clear. He was rooting for that call to go against the Cardinals and the way he said that and that is just you can't have that in an umpire and umpire is impartial and an umpire on top of that. And I don't want to get myself in trouble for this, but the reality is an umpire also is to be is to have integrity and everything he says and everything that he said post game to Derek, cool, the pool reporter, uh, to explain what happened. Everything he said was either let's just say it was less than accurate about about whether it was, I mean, I can't again, not judging him, but everything he said was not correct. I mean, he said the Cardinals didn't complain until after the kid gave up runs. That was that was one of the quotes. And the point is, Olli didn't know until then and he knew that. Olli didn't know until he went out to the mound and Bernal told him and that's when

25:48Olli went off. So the point is everything was very kind of deflective, which I don't, I don't think an umpire should do that. And I'm actually pretty pro umpire as you guys know, most of the time I know it's a hard not job to do, but you know what? I'm pro player too, but sometimes players do, players do dumb things. And I just think that was a very, very bad moment for a nation based moment. I'm tired. It didn't help that he also threw a rockies hitter under the bus and all the rockies that are said, we didn't say a word. So why don't I know why he's making stuff up? And then there's no public accountability, which I think is the big part. And I don't want to get you in trouble, Ricky, but I can't get in trouble for this. Major league baseball has this wrong. You cannot have infractions that the public sees and hears and then not have consequences that the public sees in here is just like players do. Yeah. Just like you do or a manager does or a general manager, everyone else gets public consequences, but not umpires. So there's, there's, there's implied consequences that I think the MLB would answer that by saying there's implied consequences.

26:49We made him apologize to Goodman and to Rincone. Okay, well, that's not like really a public thing. That's kind of like it should happen to see it. I mean, so, and by the way, the apology to Rincone was said and then Rincone later said, well, what did he say? Because I don't know. I didn't understand. I mean, so, so does it count as an apology if the person doesn't understand you? Is that really communication? No. The answer is an infatic no. I mean, that that was very, that was improper in my mind for both him and the league to expect that that counted as an apology. You know, so I'm not really big on that either. So yeah, I get it. I mean, I think at MLB should issue a statement and then I don't doubt that there is accountability. I really don't doubt that there's accountability to him for that kind of moment in time for him, those bad two innings, which he just seemed to have lost it, but the fact that the public doesn't fully know about it are are notes, by the way, that day said that was produced by Majority Baseball said, watch out for fireworks in Colorado.

27:49The Cardinals might throw at Goodman, okay? Wow. They've been long that is. Yeah. They've been long that is based on what he said, he started a firestorm. So honestly, the Rockies were matter than the Cardinals were the next day. They really were. Now, the Cardinals response was great. It was a, hey, we're going to do an us thing and we're all going to wear our hands outside and we're including John Rudy, by the way, John Rudy had his hat side. That's awesome. That would have had set on. I really salute that J.R. for doing that. And I didn't find a hat on. I'd done the same thing. Yeah. First of all, I thought there was a little too much look at me in the apology. Oh, we're going to wait until the game is going and stop in the middle of an inning and do it out there on the field. You should have done that privately. Number one, number two, if I were the commissioner, Doug Eddings would have been sent home after Friday night. He would have been done for the weekend because that behavior and the lying afterwards should never be okay. So here's the deal. The Cardinals won that game. Okay. So what if they hadn't, what if they hadn't, what if this was a meaningful game in September,

28:51which it was now, you know, maybe the loss yesterday makes it kind of a lot harder for the Cardinals to get in the playoffs. Let's be honest about that. But at that moment in time, that's a game that started swaying in the other direction. And his actions created a whole lot of momentum for the Cardinals to lose that game, which they didn't. So to their credit, they didn't lose. It didn't become a bit, but just because it didn't become a big deal doesn't make his actions less of a big, and I don't know him. I'm not, you know, not condemning him. I'm just saying, you know, I mean, hey, everybody has a bad day and they get, you know, you either get credit for it or you get, you get fine for it or punish for it or whatever. And I think that, again, I'm with you guys. It should be public. I do know that this, I don't want to keep the whole segment on this, but I do know that immediately after that incident, all kinds of former players on social media were like, yep, that's Doug Eding's does this all the time. And one of them was Chipper Jones. So this has been gone on a long time if Chipper's chiming in on it. I saw that and there's, yeah, no, there's, and players know and players support players. I mean, it's it.

29:52So despite what everybody says, it's a players game. It's not an umpires game. I mean, maybe when the game was invented by Avenue Double Day, it started with the umpires. But right now, it's a players game and they, you know, they have to kind of, they create the culture around the game and the culture is, you know, embracing the fact that it's now an international game. And if if any majoring umpires spent some time in the Dominican or in South Korea, I mean, I haven't been there, but I've been in the Dominican and Puerto Rico. And I know the game has a different kind of flair there. And if you don't embrace the fact that what 40% of our players are, are Latin players, I mean, I mean, you got to stop that. That's just, it's just not appropriate. All right, buddy. We appreciate it. Have a great game. We'll talk to you on Thursday. You're back, guys. The Mac DJs. We've got Terry coming up.

30:52A lot of uh, Cardinal baseball today. We want to apologize for it. The uh, story about uh, the voice guy Jim Thornton from Wheel of Fortune is, is wild. Uh, wild. Here's what I understand. You guys correct me. Please crack me from wrong. My understanding is that when he was on a flight, someone was sitting behind him looking at his screen. He says that he has been involved in suicide prevention. And there's a website called something, something lifeline.com. And he was trying to go there, but it took him to lifeline.com, which I guess is a site for people who have problems with pedophilia. And I think it's sort of like, hey, let us help you through this buddy. Kind of a thing. Well, so here's where to find hot kids. Well, not exactly. If you had, because you can read the text that's on his computer. And you can see that they're not saying, oh, I'm really struggling. Um, I don't know what to do. And the other people are like, oh, you know, don't your head and ice water.

31:56That's what I do. And it works for me and the thoughts go away or whatever. At one point, an account, I think it might be his account, uh, says that they went to Golden Corral. And it was a quote, all you can eat, boy, fey. Okay. Yeah. So not great, not great, not great for him. Uh, definitely does not back up any of the things that he's saying. Almost certainly is lying about all of it. Well, the one big lie was he said, as soon as I went to it, I saw what it was night and I left. And the person who was watching him said, I watched him for an hour. Yeah. There are screenshots from numerous points in time. And it's funny enough, one of the screenshots, he says, like, I'm on an airplane doing this. How crazy is that? And all the other guys in the chat room are like, don't do this on an airplane. Very crazy. Don't be in the pedophile chat room in public, man. And he's like, no one's paying attention to me. And turns out somebody was indeed paying attention to him. And he was, you know, he was wearing like, we, we'll affortune merchandise at the time

32:57and stuff like all around, uh, completely insane thing to be doing. Wow. Very, very stupid. I'm looking at that chat you're talking about. I do this is insane. It is insane. And somebody says, well, you're on a plane, right? What if someone sees, he's like, what if someone sees a random sequence of lines on a screen? I love it. What? Yeah. Just saying. Just me. Just saying no one could possibly be looking at and figuring out what I'm doing as somebody sitting directly next to him is like glaring at him and filming it. He says, I'm not touchable. I'm the freaking announcer for Wheel of Fortune. You really think they're ever going to be able to take me down? I tell you what. He said that? No. I was carrying this guy. His actions are saying. Well, the thing, yeah, the thing is the story is crazy enough that that is a believable thing to come to it. No, he, it's, it's, if you read the text that is on the screen, it's not been modified

33:58anyway. It's just a picture of him typing on the, on the chat room. There is absolutely zero chance that he could be thinking mistaken. There's no chance that he thinks that he's in a suicide prevention chat room when people are calling golden corral and all you can eat, boy, Faye. So one of these comments says, I mean, it's not like you're doing anything illegal, LOL. And then the response line is wait till I fire up and it's blacked out. You can't see it because it's probably a site that says wait till I fire that up and start looking at the galleries. He, he, he, this guy said that. Well, if that's his handle, whoever is this Nicholas B 77, which is believed to be his account, which is also the boy, Faye one. Wow. Yeah. I saw that, that website name, unblered and the website name is literally something like littleboys.com. Oh my God. Like it is again, zero reasonable doubt. There is absolutely no reason to look at what his site of the story and the photos and

35:02go, I think he might be telling the truth here. No, it is absolutely beyond any doubt in my opinion. Well, it's also if you just see the screen, that's not a normal, I mean, I don't really go on chat rooms because it's 2026, but that's not really what they look like. So it looks like, it just looks like Toddry and untoward the, the chat room itself. Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah, it's terrible. Yeah, it's not modern. No. It kind of, it kind of looks like a chat room you would envision in the 90s. Yeah, exactly. So it, to me, that says like we're using very bare bones things here because we're doing something that we're not supposed to be doing. Yeah. You're not here for that. Right. Right. Whereas if it was some sort of therapeutic chats, I think they would have it a little bit more together. Oh my Lord. Yes, speaking of 2026, we all have to assume someone's looking at us all the time, right? I mean, you probably, I mean, I don't know, I guess in this case, maybe it's a good thing

36:02that he wasn't. Well, yeah, because you know, we might find out that, you know, some bad stuff was going on, but yeah, I think it's probably pretty wise to, you know, if you're watching a movie that it's appropriate for people that are around you on a plane. It's interesting that the police were called, met him and didn't arrest him. So I guess what he was doing was not illegal, but enough to get you fired from real fortune for sure. Right. Yeah. I guess being in a chat room is probably, unless you're trying to entice someone is probably not in and of itself a crime. And that's interesting. That's interesting. That's interesting. The question of like at what point does that become a crime? And what point is it, one of those things where it's like, you know, intending to, you know, distribute material, what classifies material? I don't know. But I mean, it definitely the right call to fire him from whatever public-facing job he has. Yeah, for sure.