All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:19:00
Guilty Until Proven Innocent | Michelle Malkin and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
I am here with Michelle Malkin.
Now, she is a syndicated columnist, a senior editor at Conservative Review, the host of the most excellent Michelle Malkin Investigates on CRTV.
We'll put the links to all of this below.
And just in case that wasn't enough, a New York Times bestselling author writing six powerful books, including her most recent sold out, How High Tech Billionaires and Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels are screwing America's best and brightest workers.
You can find her at Michelle Malkin, M-A-L-K-I-N dot com and C-R-T-V dot com.
Michelle, how are you doing today?
Good.
Thank you so much for having me, Stefan.
It is truly a pleasure to speak with you, although what we're talking about is rather horrific today.
It is horrific and, of course, out of the ashes of a potential miscarriage of justice.
We hope to bring some gleaming principles forth and rescue common law from the mob.
So, we're going to be talking tonight about Daniel Hosklaw.
Now, you have been working on this for quite some time and you have a two-part series on CRTV.com.
But I wanted to start with some of the general principles before we go into the details of the case because there are so many people who have observed this growing tendency of mob fear, of rioting, of cities being burned to the ground influencing or potentially influencing Court decisions, jury decisions, decisions to pursue prosecution and reasonable doubt seems to be being plowed under at least to some degree by fear of mob violence, of mob retaliation.
This started in Ferguson, although of course it occurred in the 60s, it occurred in the 90s in Los Angeles after the Rodney King acquittals and so on.
How have you been viewing what's going on in the American legal system and some of the outside pressures being brought to bear on it?
Well, it's frightening.
Because it undermines the very principle and the constitutional foundations of a guarantee for free and fair trials in America.
And I think that you can even pull back the lens further and go back to the mob rule of the Salem Witch Trials.
And it really has been, over the course of my career, something I've been extremely concerned about.
It has to do with not only the culture and the agitation of the social justice mob over the last 20-30 years, but it also has to do with the degradation of education in America and our school system.
And at bottom, Stefan, the idea that We are able to inculcate in generations of children the ability, the cognitive ability to think for oneself and the courage to act in the face of the mob, the unthinking mob.
And I, over the course of my career, I've worked in Los Angeles, I've worked in Seattle, and in both states covered The effect of mob rule on very highly contentious and inflammatory legal cases.
You remember the McMartin child abuse hysteria in California?
Well, when I was in Washington State, something very similar happened in the mid to late 1990s in Wenatchee, Washington, where you had overzealous prosecutors and detectives who essentially planted
False memories in children and very vulnerable victims, targets of these prosecutions, were thrown in jail for essentially life until there were people, independent people, who were not legally trained, who did not come from the legal system, who saw the truth and acted on it.
So that's the context in which I brought my own perspective and lens to the Daniel Holtz call case.
And you can't solve social problems by overturning the requirements of proof for individual criminal cases.
This idea that we can have individuals stand in as proxy for longstanding perceived social injustices is sort of the idea of a scapegoat.
You know, like this old idea that the tribe would put all of its evils into one goat, drive it out into the desert, and everything would be better.
Each individual case should be stripped free of collective social injustice, of historical problems, and viewed on the merits of its individual case.
Because if we're going to start asking people to stand in for the dysfunctions of society as a whole, we end up with no rule of law at all, as far as I can see.
Yes, exactly.
And then with particular regard to the Daniel Holtzclaw case, you have somebody who was held as the symbol of collective guilt and was shoved into this narrative that clearly didn't fit.
Somehow he was this law enforcement officer who hearkened back to the days of the Ku Klux Klan, and this guy is somebody who's half-Japanese, and everything that was put on his shoulders had nothing to do with the actual facts and truth of the case, and that's what's so entirely disturbing, Stefan.
And the intersection, I think, of two challenges to reasonable doubt and to the very mantra or the basis.
of a just legal system which is innocent until proven guilty.
The intersection of race and gender and underprivilege, of course, seems to be particularly challenging.
This idea that has been growing in Western legal systems for the past couple of decades that particularly female accusers of male sexual impropriety or attack or assault or rape must automatically be believed because, you know, they could never make it up, they could never be mistaken, they could never lie, they could never be manipulated, they could never be trying to do the best thing Yes, it's alarming for a number of reasons.
the worst individual actions, the idea that women who are accusing men of sexual impropriety or assault must somehow be believed and we must throw out standards of proof regarding that, that to me seems particularly dangerous in its foundations, given that the crimes are so that to me seems particularly dangerous in its foundations, given that Yes, it's alarming for a number of reasons.
First, First, we've seen this trend escalate on college campuses.
And unfortunately, the Duke lacrosse case, or more recently, the University of Virginia case, looked like nothing compared to what may be going on down the line if what happened to Daniel Holtzclaw becomes something more common, looked like nothing compared to what may be going on down the line if At least in the cases of Duke and the University of Virginia, we're only talking about one accuser.
But now you see that the This insatiable need to build larger and larger cases of these accusers aggregating.
And that certainly is what happened with Daniel Holtzclaw, because these witch hunters know that it's going to be more difficult to get away with just one.
But oh, you know, if you've got five or ten, then it's much easier to level that case of collective guilt against these innocent men.
And the argument or the idea that so many protesters seem to have that the injustice has been done, the proof is in the pudding, the proof is in the accusations, and therefore if the individual being charged is not found guilty, we know for sure, 100%, a massive injustice has occurred.
Well then why bother even having a legal system in the first place?
Why not just give people a bunch of pitchforks, a bunch of brands, a bunch of torches, and just let them go to town on anyone who they think is guilty?
The whole point of the legal system is we don't know!
We don't know, and the point is to try and find out to the best of our ability.
But people out there chanting with signs saying, no justice, no peace, and if he's not convicted, then for sure a guilty man has gotten away.
That is mob rule, and that is a kind of lynching, and that is exactly what we've been trying to get away from as a society for the last thousand years at least.
Yes, and that's what's frightening.
Not only that the social justice machine has perfected Those demonstrations and that they're at the ready.
I mean, we've seen it before President Trump came into office and certainly in the ensuing weeks and months.
I mean, it is agitation, protest a day with these people.
And unfortunately, there are too many innocent targets of the social justice mob that are not prepared.
And that certainly was, unfortunately, one of the hard lessons that Daniel Holtzclaw and his original defense team and his family learned.
They had no idea what they were in for.
And I think it's one of the things that drives me.
This case keeps me up at night, Stefan, and it's the first thing I think about in the morning because the kinds of things that we're talking about here, the undermining of the entire legal system in America could happen to anybody out there, not just law enforcement, not just white men on campuses, anybody.
Right.
And we'll get into the details in a second.
But on reading it, Michelle, there was this fantastic, feeling that I had and it was a very very sort of creepy spine tingling sensation because you think of course if you get caught up in an accusation and then one can be accused of anything that oh well you know there's no physical evidence and I'm more than willing to cooperate and the person who's accused me has completely misidentified my physical characteristics and blah and you think okay well that's that's my security that's my safety that is my defense
And then you find out that you might get caught up in a kind of machinery where those things just don't seem to matter at all.
Or if you say, well, you know, if the prosecutor openly misleads the jury about, say, DNA evidence and its source, then that would, of course, cause things to get thrown out.
But you may end up with 263 years prison sentence, even with all of these inconsistencies in what's being brought against you.
Yes.
It's Kafka plus Orwell plus Alice in Wonderland falling down the rabbit hole.
on steroids.
And, you know, there's been more awareness raised over the last 20-25 years of the plight of the wrongfully accused and the wrongfully convicted.
But there's something unique about the Daniel Holtzclaw case in that, unfortunately, I think a lot of the people who are involved in innocence project-type work do not find themselves naturally sympathetic to law enforcement officers who are white or half-white.
And the context in which this case occurred, I think, makes it all the more difficult for people who would normally run into the fire with regard to these wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted cases.
But I would temper that by saying that I have spoken with many, many open-minded people over the last almost year now who I wouldn't have otherwise expected to speak with, you know, someone as devil-horned as myself on the right side of the aisle.
This has been redeeming.
And the last thing before we dive in is I also wanted to mention that it's not just the injustice against Daniel that may have potentially occurred but also of course Either these people have accused him incorrectly.
Now, either nothing happened, in which case they're making things up, which is a desperately terrible thing to do, or something happened in that there's still a policeman somewhere out there in Oklahoma City who is continuing to prey upon these women.
And so, no matter what has happened, the question of his innocence is important because if he does turn out to be innocent, Then so many wrongs have been done or could continue to being done if there's still another policeman out there or maybe a security guard or maybe somebody else in uniform or whatever who's continuing to prey upon these women.
Having the wrong person in jail is not just terrible for that person and his family and his friends and his loved ones but also terrible for the other crimes that may be committed while everyone thinks the problem has been solved.
Correct, and that certainly is the case with most of these narratives that play out of the wrongfully accused, that it's wrong upon wrong upon wrong piled upon wrong.
And so then you have to scrutinize the people who are in charge of these kinds of investigations and their own cognitive or confirmation bias involved in these cases.
They're so tunnel-visioned about who they're convinced is the assailant or the rapist or the criminal in this case that they ignore all sorts of exculpatory evidence and other evidence that somebody else might have been involved in might still be on the streets today.
Right.
So let's start talking about the facts at hand.
Can you help people to understand, who may not be aware of this story at all, what has happened?
So Daniel Holtzclaw is an Oklahoma native, born and raised in Enid, Oklahoma, and is somebody who was incredibly disciplined and hard-working.
When he was in high school, he played football for Enid High School, and wanted to make it in the NFL.
That was his dream job.
He is the son of two police officers, Eric Holtzclaw, who is still a police officer today in their hometown, and Kumiko Holtzclaw, who is a Japanese woman who Eric met while he was serving overseas.
He was in the military, and she also served as a law enforcement officer.
Daniel is one of three children.
He's the youngest and only boy.
He has two older sisters, Jenny and Julie.
And after high school, he won a football scholarship and he was a linebacker at Eastern Michigan University.
Didn't make it in the draft.
That was a huge disappointment.
So decided to go into law enforcement like his parents were.
He had studied criminal justice at EMU.
And joined the police force after, you know, going through Academy in 2011.
Quickly made a reputation and a name for himself as somebody who was a tough, hardworking cop, like I said, and even the sex crimes detectives who investigated him acknowledged how hardworking a man this man was.
And he prided himself on his ability, for example, to patrol solo in the worst part of town, Northeast Oklahoma.
Sterved a stint on the gang unit, which was incredibly prestigious, given how quickly he rose in the ranks.
And then, on a fateful night in June 2014, pulled over a woman for a traffic stop named Janie Liggins, a 57-year-old grandmother in that part of town.
And then what happened?
And I know that there's some footage that's a little bit too grainy to figure out exactly what happened.
It does confirm the traffic stop, but their stories, to put it mildly, diverge from there.
Yes, they did.
It was very strange.
It was two o'clock in the morning.
It was the end of his shift.
And as I mentioned, he served solo patrols overnight in this dangerous part of town, the worst part of town, crime ridden, a lot of drug dealing, cartels, gangs.
She was going through a very busy intersection and swerved, according to Daniel.
So he pulled her over and during a 15 minute traffic stop, which was recorded by surveillance cameras in a very busy and high prominent area with a lot of office buildings.
Like you said, the surveillance video was not close up enough to show their exact interaction, but it confirmed everything he said.
said in his description of the traffic stop with the sex crime detectives who were investigating.
She said that he forced her to perform oral sex during the stop and he had pulled her over and Questioned her asked her to come into the back of the vehicle remember he had to worry about his own safety And saw an open Cup what she smelled she said it was Kool-Aid and
He says that he saw a couple of bottles of hydrocodone pills, but he assessed that she was not going to be a danger and let her go after 15 minutes.
She turned around, going in a different direction than when she had been headed to go back home.
He followed her for a little bit before he peeled off and went home.
The next day, he checked in for work, and so about 12 hours after this alleged sexual assault occurred, he sat down with the detectives for a two-hour interrogation video, all of which is available on YouTube, thanks to the original defense team investigator, Brian Bates.
And that, Stefan, is what convinced me that what I thought about What I thought I knew about this case was absolutely wrong, because you watch that video and it's really hard to square the social justice mob narrative that this was a racially motivated predator.
To sort of stand on thin ice, just in terms of motives, he is a very good-looking, strapping young man.
You know, 6'2", 260, all muscle.
I mean, the man is very disciplined because he works like long shifts and then apparently spends even more time at the gym.
And so he is a very good-looking, tall, you say alpha kind of guy.
The idea that, because the alleged, well I guess now it's considered proven, the oral assault, right, the oral sex assault, apparently lasted 10 seconds.
So to me the idea, and there was no ejaculation, so the idea that this, you know, tall good-looking guy with a great-looking girlfriend, you know, NFL guy, you know, he's probably had no lack of success with the ladies over the course of his life, that he is going to force a grandmother to perform oral sex on him for 10 seconds and risk everything because of that.
Again, if he were some terrible guy, it'd be hard to pin down his motives, but that was one of the things where I went, well, that seems like a not very sensible cost-benefit analysis, if I can put it as coldly as that.
Yes, yes.
There are so many things about the details of how this allegedly transpired.
As I mentioned, it was a very prominent intersection.
He had put on his flashers They were on the whole time.
You can see it in the surveillance video.
And the cars are going by as well.
The cars are driving by, so it's not a private area.
It's not secluded.
That's right.
And not only were they driving by on the street, but adjacent to them were these office buildings and a parking lot.
And there was actually a car that pulled right into the parking lot.
You know, just feet from where they stood.
And you know, this is a YouTube-everybody's-Facebook-living-everything culture.
If this kind of thing were actually occurring, we would actually see it.
And then there's just the whole logistics of how Janie Liggins described the alleged assault occurred.
One thing that's interesting at the end of the interrogation video, again that you can see on YouTube at Brian Bates' YouTube channel site, is that he has to take off his uniform pants to hand them over to the detectives.
And it takes a long time to deconstruct the entire uniform.
Not only did Janie Liggins allege that he just whipped it out, pardon my language, but so many of the other accusers, every one of the other accusers, also described what is a highly improbable, in my view, impossible scenario of in my view, impossible scenario of him just whipping it out when he wore compression underwear that doesn't have a hole in it, where there were stretchers or extenders that extended from the bottom of his shirt to keep it taut.
Underneath his very tight pants, then the gun belt, then the protective vest, all of that.
And, you know, it's a shame that there wasn't a defense counsel who were more able, and in a sense more theatrical, to have Daniel stand there and do that for the entire jury so they could see how impossible it was to do what these accusers said he did.
Well, and one of the officers said it's tough to even go to the washroom when you're wearing that kind of getup, let alone, you know, sort of whip out your penis for, you know, some instant gratification.
And so when Daniel was being interrogated or interviewed, I don't know whether you'd call it one or the other, but he's very calm, very cooperative.
And this is 12 hours after he's supposed to have sexually assaulted three women in one day.
And he's very much, no, this didn't happen.
Yes, you can search my apartment.
You can search my cell phone.
He signed a document.
I'll take lie detector tests.
You can take all the DNA that you want.
I just want to get this behind me because the people who Don't know this kind of world and I'm ambivalent about my knowledge of it these days but people who don't know this kind of world don't know that the police department in this neck of the woods they will receive a complaint of sexual impropriety on the part of an officer about once a month and almost all of them end up being falsified or withdrawn or retracted or disproven It's a way to get back at someone.
Again, this doesn't mean that every single one of them is false, but it's important to know that this is not an unusual accusation from somebody who's been pulled over by a cop, and the majority of them do turn out to be false, which, again, the general public might not be aware of.
Yes, that's right, and one of the people who pointed this fact of life in Oklahoma City law enforcement out was The sex crimes detective who was co-lead in the investigation against Daniel Holzklaw, a woman named Kim Davis, she was quoted in the Oklahoman newspaper after the verdict basically saying that this is what happens with so many of these accusers in that part of town.
Retaliation.
You know, Daniel Holzklaw was unapologetic about Being somebody who was tough on the streets, he needed to be.
I mean, Oklahoma City is one of the most crime-ridden, gang-infested cities in the country.
If you're not familiar with American cities, it might sound strange to you.
This is flyover country.
But in fact, they've taken hold there.
And that's not something that was properly illuminated to the jury, I think.
Because Kim Davis and the prosecutors essentially plied this narrative to the jury to the jury that there was no motive, they said it over and over again, there was no motive for these women to lie when they know in their own daily lives that these people lie all the time.
So the accusation of Fos Arlesacks, the accusation, he touched her phone and he had his hands on the roof of his car, no No fingerprints on the roof of the car, no DNA or fingerprints on her phone, and of course an exam of her mouth where they looked for DNA, found no sperm, no seminal fluid, no DNA from Daniel in around this woman's mouth.
That's interesting because in the interview, you can clearly see the detective saying, so, you know, we can find pre-ejaculate, we can find seminal fluid, we can find DNA, even if you didn't ejaculate.
I can't believe we're talking about this topic, but it is important for the sort of facts of the case.
So they're saying that they can find all of these things if they're there.
But then when they don't find any of these things, it doesn't seem to affect their decision to go forward.
Exactly.
And that is the tunnel vision, the confirmation bias adult way in which they plowed forward anyway.
On CRTV, in my two-part series, I had sat down with Detective Kim Davis as well as her co-producer, Co-lead, her partner in this investigation, Rocky Gregory.
And they always had an explanation for everything that did not redound to their benefit and the accuser's benefit.
And it was very jarring for me to sit down with them and ask them time and time again, The sexual assault nurse examination test came up empty.
The extensive dusting for fingerprints as well as DNA evidence all over his car.
Nothing!
Nothing supported Janie Ligon's story.
Everything confirmed what Daniel had told them.
And then when they explained things away, for example, Um, when I asked about the lack of fingerprints or any kind of forensic evidence on the car, Kim Davis said, well, his car was dirty.
No, the inside of his car.
The inside of it.
This was like, okay, he touched the roof.
So where were the fingerprints?
And they say, well, the inside of the car was dirty.
And it's like, but that's not where the fingerprints were supposed to happen.
The fingerprints were on the roof of the car.
So what does it matter what the inside of the car is?
It doesn't matter at all.
And yet, You know, after sitting with these people for two hours, not only were they absolutely still convinced that Janie Liggins was telling the truth, but even the known liars, the convicted felons among their pool of accusers that they procured, and I use that word because that's exactly how all of the rest of them cascaded,
Absolutely 100% convinced that all of these women were telling the truth, even when the jury rejected the cases of five of the 13 who were part of the pileup.
And the detectives did not, as you mentioned, they didn't take his underwear, which would be important.
They didn't issue a search warrant for his own personal car, for his home, or for his phone to examine information or data or facts or fingerprints or DNA or anything.
That might serve to provide more information.
And the chilling thing for me, Michelle, was when it was Miss Davis, she's now retired, the detective.
She said, oh, I believed her.
I believed her.
Now, I'm not a cop, and I'm not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me That your feelings should not sway what is going on in your investigation.
The idea that you just believe someone sets up such a trap of confirmation bias, such a trap of avoiding information that's going to reject your feelings or Your instincts or whatever.
I don't want police going on instincts.
I really don't want them going on feelings.
I want them going on empirical facts and objective data.
So the fact that it's like, well, I believed her.
Well, what about all this evidence that was against it?
No, no, no.
I believed her.
And it's like, the law is not about your feelings.
The law is about the facts, or at least it should be.
Yes, it was appalling how many times both she and Detective Gregory spoke in that kind of language.
I had a gut feeling.
And from the very beginning of my interview with Davis and Gregory, they were very explicit in acknowledging that yes, even before they had a chance to sit down with Daniel Holtzclaw, who they had never met before, it was the first and last time they had ever spoken with him in that two-hour interrogation video, that they had already predetermined that he was guilty.
There's nothing he could have said.
There's no exculpatory evidence that could have been produced that would have convinced them that he was innocent of the charges that were leveled against him by Janie Liggins.
That's what's so frightening to me, that this was rigged from the start.
Well, and of course, if they had been able to get evidence placing him in her narrative in some physical way, then they wouldn't have needed to do, or probably wouldn't have needed to do, what they did next.
So perhaps you can help, because the similar evidence seems very compelling to people, right?
And the detective even talks about it.
No, if you have one person, that's one thing, but when you have 13 people... But of course, The important thing is that similar evidence to my mind, and the same thing happened here with a Canadian broadcaster named Jian Ghomeshi.
They said, oh well, you know, these women all have the same... But if people have a chance to coordinate stories ahead of time, and if they're exposed to similar information through the media, if there are, say, pictures plastered up all over the neighborhood where the guy's face and what he's accused of, or if the detectives call up these people and say, well, we think X happened to you.
then similar stories, similar descriptions, become far less compelling.
And it's really, to me, it's poisoning the well to give people advanced information, to give people advanced cues of what you expect them to say, and then say, well, you know, there does seem to be some similarities.
Yes, yes.
And again here, the context and how this pile-up and aggregation took place is very important.
So, June 17th, June 18th, the early morning is when The Liggins stop happened and then there was this ensuing investigation in which detectives Davis and Gregory conjured up a profile of black women from Northeast Oklahoma who had either drug use or prostitution other criminal histories where did they
get this from?
And why then?
And why those circumstances?
Well, August 9th was the Ferguson shooting.
And just keep that in mind that as that conflagration literally heated up and the city burned down, there was this sense of increasing pressure in my assessment of what was going on and how this investigation unfolded to come up with somebody that they could hang from a tree, basically.
And over the course of the summer, there was a need to put somebody out there publicly.
Now, Janie Likens had actually gone public In that summer, as the investigation was unfolding, and it was after she went public that the detectives went out and actively sought women that Daniel Holtzclaw had actually come into contact with.
And this is what's, I think, so dangerous, Stefan.
One of the things that Brian Bates, the original investigator points out is that the hardest lie to disprove is one that's inserted in a framework of truth.
He says that the framework of truth here is that, you know, Daniel Holtzclaw never denied coming into contact with these women.
The way that some mysterious list was compiled that was winnowed down into this, you know, this The portfolio of women who fit the so-called profile was that they looked at his Veruna files.
When you call in, you have to check on these women to see if they have wants or warrants.
There were thousands of people that he had come into contact with, even in the short three-year period that he had been surfing.
And then one of the things that didn't make sense about this so-called profile, of course, is that the woman who had first become the public face, Janie Liggins, actually didn't fit this profile.
So it's rather curious about how that all happened.
But again, if you think of the social climate in which this was occurring, then it starts to make sense.
Yes.
I mean, the initial woman did not have a police record.
She had taken a sleep aid before driving, she had admitted to taking at least one hit off a joint before driving, and I think she was driving with a license that had been revoked.
So true, no record, but not exactly on the squeaky clean side of things.
Right, right, that's right.
So what happened was, and this is illuminated in our series, And Daniel in the Den on CRTV is that there had been another woman who had brought a sexual assault allegation against an unidentified police officer in May.
So this is about a month beforehand.
And Detective Gregory, Rocky Gregory, had had been involved in trying to locate that woman.
She did not want to be located.
She wanted to be left alone.
And it turned out that the circumstances under which she eventually named Daniel as the assailant were all very strange.
She had been stopped because she was in a domestic incident with an ex-boyfriend and she was incredibly unhappy that he was seeing someone else.
She was a drug abuser and she had named a different location for the alleged assault than the actual location where Daniel had pulled her over.
And then all of a sudden this evolved and the addresses all of a sudden transformed and matched up.
And this was the sort of context in which the detectives, you know, sort of were able to procure these women and get their stories to fit.
In the show, we mentioned one of these accusers, Carla Raines.
And I listened to, you know, the entire audio interview.
It was one of the interviews that was actually recorded.
And seven times, and we have a little bell that goes ding, ding, ding, ding, every time she denies that anything happened to her.
And then once again, all of a sudden the story is transformed and she too becomes a magical victim of Daniel's predation.
Well, and this path where the detectives comb through his call-in history and identify the black women who've had trouble with the law.
They call them up and they say, well, you know, we've received a tip.
This is all paraphrased.
We've received a tip that you may have been sexually assaulted by a police officer.
And in one case, the detective actually named Daniel directly.
Oh, he's a very bad guy with lots of victims.
And this is, again, I'm no lawyer, but in court, I think that would be called leading the witness.
What you want to do, of course, if you're trying to solicit information, is to be as blank as possible.
Did anything happen to you over the past, you know, whatever period of time frame that you, you know, and then see if anything comes up.
But if you say, well, here's what we think might have happened to you and so on, and if you say, he's a bad guy with lots of victims, then people might say, well, maybe if I can help put this bad guy away, By saying something back to the police want to hear, maybe they would have that motive to do so.
Maybe they dislike cops as a result of arrest history.
Could be any.
Or maybe they, as is happening now, know about these civil suits that can arise from these where you can get a significant payout.
But if there was any profiling, it was not by Daniel, but it was by the detectives who were going through, as you said, the thousands of contacts he'd had and picking out particular people who then came in and a lot of them said nothing happened, a lot of them described the wrong kind of person.
There was very little consistency prior to what was presented to the jury.
Yes, correct.
You used the term poisoning the well, and that's exactly right.
We're priming the pump.
And there are multiple times in the transcripts where And as you mentioned, they told these women, well, we have a tip that you may be possibly a victim of sexual assault of a law enforcement officer.
And then there were the cases in which, again, as you alluded to, and as I've reported on since I started this, that a number of these so-called victims described their assailant as, quote, a short black man.
There was a woman named Sherry Ellis, and that is the woman for whom Daniel was convicted of on the charges of, and it's the longest amount of time, 62 years, for a woman who described her assailant as a short, black man.
She's 5'11", and she was very addled in much of her interview with Kim Davis.
But the one thing she was absolutely certain about was that this was a man who came to hear on her nose.
And there were a number of other accusers who also described their assailant as quote-unquote dark-skinned, when Daniel is very light-skinned, 6'1", around 240 pounds.
And none of this mattered in the end.
None of it mattered because the 13 women who Ended up as part of the prosecution's case were treated in the aggregate and in Daniel's appeal that was filed on February 1st This was one of the most important propositions in the appeal that It was the aggregation That you know helped lead to 263 years in prison was you know clearly
Unconstitutional in the way that the jury considered them as a whole, rather than assessing the sufficiency of the evidence on each individual case.
And there's no way, unless they had been all tied together, that he would be behind bars now.
And as far as I remember, Michelle, correct me anytime I go astray, but the jury was not made aware.
That seven other individuals claimed that Daniel had sexually assaulted them, including one man, but their allegations were dismissed as impossible or absurd because, for instance, they said he assaulted me on such and such a time and Daniel wasn't even at work at that time and so on.
Yes.
Or they recanted when they were sort of presented with the evidence that what they said didn't add up.
In fact, one of these accusers actually admitted, finally admitted in a videotaped interview that she'd made the whole thing up to help the case.
And she was actually convicted of falsely reporting a crime.
So if you look at these women who are the accusers and say, ah, well, you know, there's similar statements and a preponderance of evidence.
But if you don't know that seven other people came forward who were directly found to have falsified things or have recanted, that seems to me kind of important information to not bring to the jury.
I, I assume that the defense wanted to bring it and were disallowed, but that seems quite important.
Yes, and then on top of that, the defense team knew that there were, I believe, upwards of 30 women that the detectives had interviewed, whatever list they had called, who said that absolutely nothing happened in their interaction with Daniel.
And you just think about the alternative scenario that might have transpired in a truly free and fair trial where all 30 of those women had been put on the stand to say, nothing happened, nothing happened, nothing happened, nothing happened.
Shani Barksdale was the one would-be accuser who was convicted of perjury, but a number of these women were just and the one man were simply allowed to walk.
That to me is troubling in and of itself.
But, you know, it tells you that these detectives knew, just like Kim Davis had told the Oklahoman, that these women lie all the time.
But I suppose, you know, in the world of social justice agitators, that lies in the service of their agenda are noble lies.
Well, yeah, I mean, that's back to a platonic distinction.
And the big challenge, of course, which we know in situations of allegations of sexual abuse or assault or rape,
is that if there is direct physical evidence you know then you're sure you know I mean if if the person is found guilty and it's it's clear from physical evidence what occurred then yeah lock them up throw away the key but the challenge of course is in the he said she said stuff where there's no direct physical evidence but there are allegations now to me the he said she said stuff I don't know how it can ever rise to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt you know ninety five percent or more
But if you are an accuser and you're relying simply on the he said she said stuff, the moment that you are proven to have lied about something, to me, again, I don't run the court system, I don't run the legal system, but to me, if it's all based upon the veracity or the integrity of your word, the moment that you're found to have lied about something important, not just a misremembering and so on, but a direct lie, I don't see how it can continue.
If you've been proven to lie and everything relies upon the truth of what you're saying, How can it move forward?
That's sort of my standard, but it doesn't seem to have applied here.
No, and there were so many cases in which these accusers impeached themselves on the stand.
But I think it shows you the pressure that this jury was under that they literally split the baby and that is the term that even Detective Gregory used in my interview with him and sort of just shrugged his shoulders because there were 36 charges of all manners of sexual assault that were leveled against Daniel and exactly half of them were accepted by the jury and half were thrown out.
And there was very little reason or logic or rationality in how they picked and chose which of these accuser's stories to believe or not.
In the case of Shardarian Hill, she was the one that we showed in Daniel in the Den, in our series, who at the very end of her interview with Detective Gregory said, well, even if he didn't rape anyone, that something bad should still happen to him because he shouldn't be contacting these accusers as Daniel had contacted her afterwards to follow up and see how she was doing.
She was somebody who had chewed on glass vials of PCP during a stop where he and a partner had checked on her in some stranger's truck and then rushed her to the hospital.
He saved her life, potentially.
He saved her life, potentially.
She could have overdosed ingesting that much.
Yes, and this is how she paid him back, by absurdly accusing him of somehow sexually assaulting her in a busy ER while she was handcuffed to the rail of her hospital bed.
And in that case, at least, the jury realized it was so freaking ridiculous, even they, under the gun of the social justice mob, who was outside the courtroom screaming, give him life, give him life, as they were deliberating, uh, refused to believe that story.
Guess what?
To this day, Detectives Davis and Detective Gregory believe This lying woman.
Now, the GPS record in Hultzfloor's car deny some of the geography of the allegation.
Now, of course, geography is not proof you can be someplace and not committing a crime, apparently, although not in this case, apparently.
But there are indications where there's a matchup between what the accusers have said and what the GPS shows in one instance where he allegedly broke into someone's house without permission, woke the woman's boyfriend and told him to go outside and so on.
And the GPS does seem to match up with some of the allegations.
I wonder if we can help people untangle that challenge.
Yes.
So the mere fact that GPS or AVL, as they call it in Oklahoma law enforcement, matches up with a story of sexual assault.
In a lot of ways, you have to assess the accuracy of the GPS and AVL in the first place.
It could be an accuracy of up to 1,200 feet.
And then there's a way in which it pings to show you when the car is moving or when it has stopped.
And I think what I said earlier about what Brian Bates says about lies inserted into frameworks of truth holds here as well.
GPS data doesn't tell you that a sexual assault happened.
And so, you know, in cases where it clearly didn't match up, sometimes the jury exonerated Daniel on those charges.
But there are some cases where it matched the accuser.
And even in those cases, they didn't believe the accuser.
So I think you're referring to, I mean, there's so many of them.
I want to make sure that I'm absolutely accurate.
But I think you're referring to the Tabitha Barnes example.
And I think in that case, what had happened was There was some stranger outside the house, and he had questioned the stranger, then come back in to talk to her, and she was mad for some reason.
And I think in the end that that was an example of what Detective Davis had talked about with regard to retaliation, in which she conjured up a sexual assault in that case.
A sort of shocking repetition to the accusations and the lack of physical evidence.
So one of the accusers, a known drug abuser and prostitute, said that, well, Daniel, you know, took her to her house, sexually assaulted her in her bedroom on the chair and later on the bed for about 10 minutes.
And then forensics examination, they looked at the chair, no DNA from Holtzclaw.
There was DNA from two unknown Which again shows that if there's activity or contact that you will see DNA.
And again, this kind of stuff is a real challenge to square with what is said.
But let's go to what I think one of the jurors who was interviewed later said was the most damning piece of evidence.
The tiny scrap of DNA from the 17-year-old woman or girl that was found on his zipper.
I wonder if you could help people understand the relevance and the power of that in the eyes of the jury.
Yeah, I do want to go to the case that you had mentioned before, because that is a woman named Rosetta Great.
And what's striking about that was, she told this incredibly vivid tale of how she had been, I believe both vaginally and orally, assaulted and that she had had the wherewithal to wipe herself and wipe the railing of the bed and throw a towel or piece of cloth that was going to have her DNA and his DNA all over it and put it in a closet.
Well, this prompted the police department To call the gang unit, the same gang unit that Daniel had been a part of, to go and, you know, take this huge, you know, SWAT-like police force to break down the door to find all of this supposedly damning DNA evidence that was going to hang Daniel.
They found nothing.
Nothing.
And again, what's striking with that comparison, too, is this is how they handled all of that.
And yet, these same detectives didn't bother to go to Daniel's own apartment, get his other uniforms, get his other underwear that was in the laundry, which hadn't been washed, which they mistakenly believed had.
Even if it had been washed, it still might have DNA on it.
It's very persistent.
But that juxtaposition just is very strange in and of itself.
So let's go to the actual so-called smoking gun DNA evidence.
On June 17th and 18th, there were not just Janie Liggins, but there were two other women that eventually became part of the case and accused Daniel of sexual assault.
And one of them was a 17-year-old girl who was very troubled
Had a criminal history and had been called in by her mother who accused her of assaulting her that day So Daniel had actually come into contact with this 17 year old twice and one of those times she was with an alleged pimp and a woman who presumably was involved in prostitution of some kind and there was some sort of
conflict or fight among them.
And Daniel took the 17-year-old to her house, her mother's house, but she apparently didn't have any ID on her.
He didn't know for sure that it was her house, so they were on the porch.
together and eventually a story was developed that this woman had been vaginally raped on the porch in daylight by Daniel and the Oklahoma City Crime Lab did testing on Daniel's uniform pants and
A minuscule amount of what was characterized as epithelial DNA, skin cell DNA, was detected over the course of swabbing it on the inside and the outside of the zipper.
There were four samples, 17Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4, in which the teenager's DNA was identified.
One of the things that I think is extremely important that did not get plumbed during the trial was the amount of DNA, the quantity.
In the appeal documents that were filed on February 1st, this was finally illuminated that there was more DNA found in one of the swabs on the door handle of Daniel Holtzclaw's patrol car than there was in the amount of DNA that was eventually detected on his pants.
And I want to sort of remind people of this because DNA is considered to be a smoking gun.
I think a lot of work has been done showing the unreliability of eyewitness accounts in trials.
But DNA is considered to be this, you know, it's like having a video camera and a full confession.
But, to my mind, if this rape had occurred, there would be more than, what was it, like a millionth of a gram, or some completely infinitesimally small amount.
If the rape had occurred with pants on, then there would, to me, be quite a lot of DNA and staining and so on.
It got transferred from some other way.
Even if there'd been some rape and then he touched his zipper and that's how it got transferred, that indicates that it could be a transfer that has nothing to do with a sexual assault.
Daniel had talked about going through her purse and so on, which, you know, she's got makeup and she's got cell phone things she's touched.
Then, of course, her DNA can go to his hands.
Then he goes to the bathroom, unzips himself, and then it transfers that way.
So it seems like a smoking gun, but this kind of casual transfer of DNA is shockingly common.
You know, I sort of feel like you put that kind of light on yourself and you don't even know.
You touch a coin.
You touch someone else's cell phone.
You pat them on the back.
You don't know where this stuff can come from.
Yeah, that's right.
We shed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of skin cells every single day.
And it was the failure on the part of the crime lab analyst Elaine Taylor, the prosecutor who direct examined her, Galen Giger, and unfortunately the failure, the abject failure of Daniel's own defense attorney, Scott Adams, That really doomed Daniel.
I mean, there was so much scientific misinterpretation, so many scientific omissions in explaining not only the phenomenon of trace or transfer or touch DNA, but also the context in which It was tested.
I interviewed for my CRTV show Dan Crane who's a leading forensic expert and he's been involved in many of these high-profile cases where transfer DNA has been involved.
He's at Wright State University and he talked about the absolute need for a control, substrate controls, none of which was done on these pants to to test other areas for the possibility that in fact there was a completely non-nefarious, innocuous explanation for the presence of the DNA in that area.
If they found it in his pocket, say, on the inside of his pocket or his back pocket or something, then that would indicate to me at least another explanation other than sexual assault as to the transfer of the DNA.
But if they only test one spot, then it seems to me, again, that's the confirmation bias.
Aha!
We found what we want!
Now, if we keep testing, we might undermine things.
So they're not after the truth, in my opinion, in that situation.
That's right.
And I asked Detective Davis directly about this.
Well, why weren't other parts of the pants tested?
And she just blinked at me and said, why?
It would be funny if it wasn't so freaking chilling and if an innocent man weren't behind bars for 263 years.
You know, it's not what these people know that's so frightening, it's what they don't know they don't know.
And so what's important in the filings from last week is It's not only the appeal that raised insufficient counsel, prosecutorial misconduct.
Galen Giger flat out asserted, arguing facts not in evidence, that the DNA came from vaginal fluid when no serological tests were done, when no fluorescing of the pants were done to even raise the possibility that it was vaginal.
He just outright asserted that vaginal fluid was absorbed in the pants when Elaine Taylor, the crime lab,
Analysts said herself that the only thing she used to assess that was a just a ambient bright light that she had in in in her office No, no, no alternative light source that's accepted by any, you know self-respecting forensic experts and and that she herself had admitted under the stand on the stand that yes, it's possible that it could have been a
So, there's an application for a Sixth Amendment evidentiary hearing where an affidavit by another well-respected DNA expert, Michael Spence, was filed, and we'll have to see if that hearing is granted, but he goes into even much greater detail about the ways in which Elaine Taylor and Galen Giger, and like I said, Scott Adams,
...failed to illuminate to the jury that there was unknown male DNA detected in these samples.
And the reason that that's important is twofold, Stefan.
One, because the prosecution was operating on this theory that since there was no male DNA, the only way the DNA could have gotten there was from this vaginal rape.
Well, it's not true, and the bench notes and the notes and the reports that Elaine Taylor made at the time that she made her test assessments show that, and yet she did not testify to that explicitly.
trial.
And the second reason it's important is because if it's not Daniel's DNA, whose is it?
And again, that underscores, you know, the very likely most reasonable possibility that this was transfer DNA, completely innocent transfer of DNA.
Well, you know, and being on the jury, I can understand that if secretions from the inner wall of the vagina end up on the inside of the zipper of a guy, it's kind of tough.
It's kind of tough to sort of say that there's an innocent explanation for that, because even if it wasn't rape, he would have to have, even if it was his fingers and so on, then he would have had to have his fingers in a vagina or something.
But, and this is the part that to me is really, really shocking, and there's so much about this that is shocking, is that in his concluding statements, the prosecutor says, yes, it's vaginal DNA.
It's vaginal DNA.
Now, in Oklahoma, of course, the prosecutor goes last.
There's no chance to rebut that lasting impression in the minds of the jurors.
But the prosecutor himself later, when interviewed, said, well, there's no test that can really confirm that.
And now there are a few tests that are usually not used in courtrooms.
But he himself said, isn't this not a confession?
So misrepresented a crucial piece of evidence to a jury.
And this was the piece of evidence that was considered the smoking gun.
Everything else was circumstantial.
Everything else was he said, she said.
This was the only direct piece of physical evidence that tied him to a rape.
I misrepresented the origin of it.
to the jury later when asked about it, I said, well, there's no way we could know.
I mean, how is this?
I mean, this is astonishing.
It's galling.
And the context in which he asserted that there were no tests for this, even though he had asserted in his closing statement that it came from vaginal fluid.
In that context, he accused Daniel's team of lying.
You know, here all of these people have profiled Daniel as some sort of sociopath when they're the ones that exhibit the most sociopathic behavior in all of this over the course of this two-year nightmare.
The section in the appeal which, of course, none of the Oklahoma media has even bothered to report to Oklahoma citizens that goes through all of Galen Giger, the assistant district attorney who tried this case, all of the examples of prosecutorial misconduct would make the hair on the ends of your arms just stand up that he got away with so much of it.
But again, this was a cauldron of incompetence, political correctness, rape culture, feminism, the racial demagoguery that was involved, and then I think the narcissism of the state.
of the government in this case that really did Daniel in.
And again, I just want to talk about that social justice climate in which he was convicted because somehow the city of Oklahoma granted a demonstration permit for these Black Lives Matter types and these feminists to be standing outside the jury and the courtroom in earshot of their deliberations and during trial.
And in the appeal, the public defender somewhat absolved the state saying, well, they couldn't control this, they couldn't have helped it.
Actually, they could have.
To courtroom, I think the state has some jurisdiction over who's just out front.
And this, to me, is what I want people to get from this.
I mean, the injustice that potentially was done against Daniel is horrifying enough, but this could be anyone.
You know, there's that old saying there, but for the grace of God, go I. Anyone can accuse you of anything.
They can call up, you know, some old girlfriend, some old boyfriend can call up the cops and say, you did something terrible to me years ago.
And if the cops believe that person, But then they may start going down a road of trying to gather things and ignoring certain things and focusing on certain things.
There could be confirmation bias.
You don't know when these lasers can land on your forehead, and this is why this cause is more than just an individual cause.
I mean, this is one which has floated to the surface of our consciousness and of the media and of your show and so on.
Just think of the many, many cases, uncountable number of cases, which haven't risen to this kind of prominence, where the same methodology may have occurred.
Think of the history of this police department, where they may have gone.
In this direction, this is a kind of chilling situation that is not just some other guy in some other place.
Could be your son, could be your daughter, could be your mother, could be your father, could be you.
Yeah, that's right.
And I think that's why I'm committed to following this case all the way through.
It's not just my own personal attachment that has grown to Daniel.
I've visited him in prison now several times and gotten to know his family.
It's about more than that.
I have selfish reasons.
I have a son.
He's 13 years old.
He sees what's going on.
And the idea that he might be falsely accused in such a manner frightens me to no end.
I mean, this case keeps me up not only because of my fears and my concerns as a mother, as a human being, and certainly as a journalist.
You know, we've barely touched on the media malpractice here.
But in the context of all of this recent discussion of fake news, it's not just when they fake the news, it's when they won't report the truth.
It's the whitewash, it's the cover-up, it's the conspiracy of silence that I can't tolerate.
Stefan, it is a privilege to be able to work in journalism, as long as I have, for a quarter century.
But the idea that That these so many of these social justice warriors who masquerade as reporters look down their noses at people like you and me who are able to operate in a new media environment and introduce facts that they would rather cover up because it doesn't fit their own narrative.
I had the police department being quoted by Oklahoma media that what I was doing wasn't journalism because it was a business project and I was biased and my questions to the detectives were quote-unquote aggressive.
You know as I told people when I toured for CRTV in Oklahoma It's not the tone of my questions.
It's not the source of the questions.
It was the questions themselves.
Why bother working in the journalism business if you won't ask questions that nobody else will?
Well, this is the thing, too.
I mean, people who can't answer the questions always attack on tone.
That's almost a given these days.
But in preparing for our conversation today, Michelle, I mean, I read a wide variety of different perspectives on it.
And it really is, you know, like this old Japanese story of Rashomon, what happened in the woods, you know, and everyone has their particular description of what happened.
And it seems to me like we're increasingly living In my particular opinion, there's enough here that there should be a re-examination of everything that happened.
Do I have any certainty of conclusions?
No!
I would like to come to some more certainty of conclusions, which is why I think this needs to be re-examined.
But in reading the mainstream media views of this kind of stuff, it is such a different world from what is going on on the other side, and I'm sort of concerned just about
The culture and the country and the civilization as a whole, that if we end up inhabiting these different perspectives without, you know, truth and reason and evidence to reconcile us to each other's viewpoints, I mean, how can the country, how can the society, how can the culture even stay together when people are so certain of something and people are so certain of the opposite and there doesn't seem to be any way to bring these two perspectives together, which is, of course, what the whole point
You know evidence and reason and argumentation is supposed to achieve it's to build these bridges between these different perspectives Yes, it's alarming.
It's alarming when you think about how How a society can have a functioning criminal justice system?
when you can't trust individuals to assess facts and evidence in a rational manner when you cannot conduct a a fair trial in the context of these social justice mobs that are activated, you know, at the snap of a finger.
And I think this particular case is so extreme because it's a combination of race, gender, law enforcement, and... And class as well, I would say.
And class as well, yes, yes.
Absolutely.
And all that just created a perfect storm.
So the question now, you know, as Daniel heads towards his appeal winding its way through the courses, can we trust judges in the system to do the right thing?
And of course we've had a larger context of that with the Supreme Court nomination going on.
And the 9th Circuit Court Review of Trump's Executive Order and so on, yeah.
Yes.
And Oklahoma, unfortunately, has a history of its Court of Criminal Appeals not doing the right thing based on law.
I read an incredible book that I think has a lot of resonance for Daniel's case called The Innocent Man by John Grisham.
Now, of course, he came in at the very end of a process where two men were Exonerated, and there wasn't the same kind of racial aspect to it.
But you have to think about the culture here, and it's interesting you mentioned class as well, but just sort of regionally, you know, from a parochial standpoint where you've got, you know, a very chummy legal system of both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys and judges who all went to the same two or three law schools.
The cronyism that's involved there, and so on top of everything else, you've got this stacked judicial and legal deck that the wrongfully accused, and Daniel in particular, have to battle against.
So I want to just make a tiny little closing statement, then I'll give you the forum to talk about why this is important, why people should get involved, and we'll put links to information below.
But there's an old It goes back hundreds of years, but it was very forcefully expressed in A Man for All Seasons, which is the idea that if you're on the right side of the mob, you think the mob is a great thing.
You know, when they're pursuing the agenda that you want, then you think, well, the mob is just, and the mob is right, and so on.
But just remember that every power that you grant to the mob can be turned against you should the mob change direction.
And we know from history, the mob always changes direction.
So the people who are the social justice warriors that are chanting, yelling, screaming, they know for sure this guy is guilty, and they're beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there are vague threats about...
riots and so on if he's not convicted.
Okay, so maybe you get your way this time.
But if you put into your legal system the precedence that the mob controls the outcome, or the mob strongly influences the outcome, or people are going to make calculations of social utility and defense rather than the pursuit of truth and justice, someone else at some point is going to get that power away from you and then it's going to be pointed at you.
And then how will you feel about your participation in creating that weapon that is now trained upon you and those you love?
I couldn't put it any better than that, and that explains why I'm investing so much of my time and energy in this case.
As I said, for me, a lot of it is about Daniel specifically, but I believe that if and when, and I do believe it's when he is exonerated, that it will be a victory, not only for him individually and his family, but it will be a victory for truth, and righteousness, and logic, and fairness, and our Constitution.
His 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights were so excessively violated that if this is allowed to stand, it bodes very ill for every man
Every law enforcement officer, every innocent law-abiding person just minding his or her own business because it has completely upended the idea of reasonable doubt and the standards and proof by which We're supposed to find people guilty or not guilty in America.
It is also a case that not only has implications and consequences for some of the issues that we care most about with regard to social justice and mobs and racial demagoguery and poison, but for anybody who works in forensic science and who cares about the integrity of his or her profession,
the idea that the wholesale junk science the idea that the wholesale junk science that was used to convict Daniel.
The idea that this would be allowed in a court of law also impinges on, you know, the credibility of forensic science.
And the thing is that experts in this field know that there's a Grand Canyon size gap between public perception, public knowledge, and knowledge, unfortunately, or lack thereof, on the part of so many prosecutors and police detectives and crime lab staffers themselves, versus where the science actually is.
That gap needs to close.
It needs to shrink.
It needs to disappear.
If there's If there's to be any sense of rationality in the criminal justice system as those smoking guns are fired more and more often in the system.
So I'm going to keep following the case for CRTV as well as use every social media platform that I have to spread word about what's going on with this case.
The appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeals in Oklahoma may take up to a year, year and a half, maybe two years before we know whether there's going to be a retrial, and if there's not, then Daniel and his family are going to have to keep fighting, and he's not going to have a public defender available to him if he goes on to the step of post-conviction relief.
That means that, you know, if people want to put their monies where their mouths are with regard to fighting back against social justice mobs, they can do so by supporting this family.
And his sister Jenny has a website, FreeDanielHoltzclaw.com, and Brian Bates is continuing to release and disclose As much information as possible going forward.
I mean, social media is so important now.
I think that there's a political or ideological or media jujitsu that can happen because the same forces that led to, you know, the mob hanging him can also be turned around and used in his favor.
And, you know, the idea of having all of your, you know, your listeners and viewers being able to crowdsource this case Yeah, I mean, the only way we're going to join together in the divisions of ethnicity and gender and class and so on is if we all agree to meet in the great antechamber of facts and reason and evidence, and that, I think, is what we are in pursuit of here.
Thanks so much for taking the time today to step people through this very, very important situation in America.
Please want to remind people, go to MichelleMalkin.com and CRTV.com.
Michelle is on there with Mark Stein and Mark Levin and others who produce some wonderful thought-provoking material.
I hope we can get you back on as the H-1B visa fight heats up.
I'm sure we'll be having more to talk about with that.
Michelle, a great pleasure to talk today.
Thank you for all of the work that you do and have yourself a great day.
You do.
▲
Export Selection