There was a moment early on in the George Floyd trial where the entire thing should have been over. The judge should have dismissed the case with prejudice, admonished the prosecutors, and apologized profusely to Derek Chauvin, on behalf of the state of Minnesota, for this coordinated effort to destroy his life.
I’m talking about testimony from the chief medical examiner in Minneapolis, a man named Andrew Baker. A little over a week into the trial, he was called by the state to make the claim that Derek Chauvin had committed a homicide by placing his knee on Floyd’s neck for several minutes. And that’s exactly what Andrew Baker did, on direct examination. Then, when Derek Chauvin’s defense lawyer cross-examined Andrew Baker, it all fell apart.
Over the course of more than an hour, Chauvin’s lawyer got Baker to admit a series of facts that, taken together, undermined the prosecution’s entire theory of the case. For one thing, Baker admitted that just days after Floyd’s death, he told prosecutors that Floyd had a lethal level of fentanyl in his system under normal circumstances. Baker also acknowledged that Floyd had a severely enlarged heart, and that the autopsy showed no physical signs of neck injury or strangulation. The medical examiner went on to admit that, if Floyd had been found alone in an apartment building, his death would be certified as an overdose without a second thought.
Then, Chauvin’s lawyer delivered what should have been the kill shot. He asked Andrew Baker whether Derek Chauvin’s knee had ever obstructed Floyd’s airway. Here was the medical examiner’s response:
Well, that seems relevant. The entire narrative surrounding the death of George Floyd, up to this point, was that Chauvin’s knee blocked Floyd’s airway. That was supposedly why he ran out of oxygen and stopped breathing. Now, an expert witness — a prosecution witness, for that matter — was admitting under oath that Chauvin’s knee was not affecting Floyd’s airway at all.
This cross-examination received precisely zero media attention at the time. No one seemed to notice it. But more than two years later, Andrew Baker is finally getting some scrutiny now, because of a lawsuit filed by a former Minneapolis prosecutor named Amy Sweasy. As reported by Alpha News late last week and discussed on Friday by Tucker Carlson, Sweasy just claimed in a deposition that Baker privately acknowledged that there were “no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation” in Floyd’s death. As she states in her deposition: “He called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation.”
According to Sweasy, “[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death.” For that reason, Sweasy said in her new deposition, Baker seemingly suggested to his colleagues that they needed to lie about Floyd’s death, due to public pressure. Quoting again from the deposition: “He said to me, ‘Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?’ And then he said, ‘This is the kind of case that ends careers.’”
WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show
At the time of Derek Chauvin’s trial, we didn’t know all of these details. But honestly we didn’t need them. They’re just confirmation of what any reasonable person should have figured out, which is that all these “experts” were lying about George Floyd. There was the body camera footage of George Floyd saying “I can’t breathe,” several times, before he was ever on the ground. He’s fighting with the officers in the back of the squad car. And then he begs them to put him on the ground, because he doesn’t want to be in the car. The jury saw all of this.
There was also the testimony from the doctor who treated Floyd in the emergency room, who admitted under cross-examination that Floyd’s symptoms — specifically the lack of oxygen to his brain — were consistent with a fentanyl overdose.
By the end of the proceedings, even the jury that convicted Chauvin was obviously aware of what a farce this whole trial was. Shortly after they voted to convict, several of the jurors gave an interview with CNN. Listen to their reasoning:
It’s not what Derek Chauvin did, says the jury. It’s what he didn’t do. He didn’t live up to the police department’s motto of “caring.” He didn’t, I don’t know, start mouth-to-mouth CPR on George Floyd. Therefore, he’s a killer. He’s guilty of second-degree murder.
A couple of things about that clip. First of all, you can tell from how they’re talking about their “lightbulb moment” that they were trying to find an excuse to convict Derek Chauvin from the beginning. They knew Chauvin didn’t actually kill George Floyd, and that caused some cognitive dissonance. But they also knew that they had to convict him, or the city would burn down and they’d be racists. That’s why they were so relieved when this woman says, actually, it doesn’t matter that Chauvin didn’t kill Floyd. It was totally wrong and nonsensical, but it gave them an out. The jury went into the trial determined to find Chauvin guilty. The only thing they needed to figure out was why they’d convict him.
This is exactly the opposite of how jury deliberations are supposed to work. What a jury is supposed to do is look at the evidence, and then see if under the law, a crime has occurred. And in this case, the law requires that the state prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that Derek Chauvin’s actions caused George Floyd’s death. That should have been the entire focus of the jury. But the jury didn’t bother with that, because the state never proved that anything like that had occurred. There was nothing that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Derek Chauvin killed Floyd, or that he could have saved Floyd, for that matter.
To give you an idea of how corrupted the judicial system is, Chauvin didn’t have any obvious alternative to this outcome. If he had chosen a bench trial, he still would have been convicted. That’s because the judge was Peter Cahill. He’s handled the cases of every officer who was involved in detaining George Floyd. Recently he sentenced another one of those officers — Tou Thao — to five years in prison. What was his crime? He held back the crowd that was badgering and threatening officers as Derek Chauvin restrained George Floyd. Tou Thao didn’t lay a finger on George Floyd. He wasn’t even looking at the arrest, because he was focused on the crowd. His only crime was being in the general vicinity while a black man overdosed on poison he willfully consumed. But Thao never bent the knee to the mob. He quoted scripture during his sentencing hearing. That infuriated Judge Peter Cahill, so he threw Thao behind bars for five years.
What could explain this judge’s conduct? As you might have guessed, he’s a lot like the jurors. He believes that “equity” is more important than the law. After the Chauvin case, Peter Cahill gave a lecture to a bunch of other judges. During his remarks, he told his colleagues to “work for equity.” He also told them that every case should be about “racial justice.” Watch:
He goes on and on like that. He says it’s important to work for “equity.” He encourages affirmative action hiring. He tells everyone to attend “implicit bias training.” It’s exactly what you’d expect.
A few moments ago, I mentioned revelations in the legal complaint by former Minneapolis prosecutor Amy Sweasy. There were some other revelations related to these lawsuits. One of them, according to Alpha News, is that multiple employees of the Hennepin County Attorney’s office withdrew from the prosecutions of the other three officers, besides Chauvin, who were on the scene that day. These prosecutors believed that charging these officers violated their professional and ethical obligations. But this judge, Peter Cahill, had no problem sentencing these officers to lengthy prison sentences. He smirked while he was doing it, in fact.
Again, if you’ve been following the Floyd case for a long time, none of these revelations are probably surprising to you. It’s been obvious from the beginning that Derek Chauvin was a sacrificial lamb, being offered up to atone for the supposed sins of an entire race. Now we have overwhelming evidence of that, and a lot of people — conservatives anyway — are coming out and saying so.
Speaking of conservatives, one of the things that’s so important about all this new information is that it underscores the cowardly and shameful silence of conservatives when this trial was occurring, and before it occurred. Many right wing politicians and activists did not stand up in defense of Derek Chauvin. In fact, many Republican politicians and outlets explicitly accepted the narrative that George Floyd had been murdered.
All along, it was an obvious scam. And the con artists behind it are now rubbing it in our faces. Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of BLM, is now embarking on a new career as a “nude modern artist.” She’s transitioned from one absurd form of performance art to another somehow even more grotesque form. This is the Hunter Biden approach, except instead of finger painting, Patrisse Cullors is taking off all her clothes and making tapestries with gold and “vintage mud cloth from Mali.” Just like Hunter Biden, the point of this new effort is to hide her own corruption.
As The Independent reports,
Cullors is leaning into her art these days, gaining sustenance and perspective from it. She speaks of it as not just a vocation, but a means of salvation: At one point, the impact of accusations of financial mismanagement at BLM — from which she resigned in 2021 — wounded her so deeply, her mental health was imperiled and she felt her very life was in danger, she says. What has ultimately saved her more than once, she feels, is her art.
There are pictures of her nude performance art, but I’ll spare you. A lot of people reacted to this news with surprise, as if it’s somehow shocking that a grifter would find a new grift. But it’s the most natural thing in the world. And at this point, it takes no great strength to mock Patrisse Cullors as a scam artist, just like it takes no courage to admit at this point that Derek Chauvin did not kill George Floyd. The time for conservatives to point all of this out was two or three years ago, when it mattered. That was the time to organize mass demonstrations in support of the rule of law, and to apply maximum political pressure on the corrupt prosecutors in Minnesota. None of that happened.
Now, barring a miraculous Supreme Court appeal, Derek Chauvin will spend decades in prison. Cities burned and innocent people, like David Dorn, died for no reason. And Patrisse Cullors has inspired a generation of race hustlers to rise up, and seize power in virtually every major corporation and university in the country.
All of this happened because a lot of people lacked the courage to say what they knew was right. Even those prosecutors in the Minneapolis D.A.’s office — who refused to work on some of these George Floyd cases — kept their opinions private at the time, for the most part. The grifters see all of this happening, and they’re emboldened by it. The other day, Ben Crump held an indignant press conference on behalf of Leonard Cure — the guy who tried to strangle a cop to death and got himself shot in the process. According to Ben Crump, it’s white supremacy when police officers shoot people who are trying to kill them, on camera.
At some level, you have to almost admire it. For all his many faults, Ben Crump, like Patrisse Cullors, understands one thing very well, which is that modern conservatives are the most passive political actors on the planet. For decades, universities have been slowly transforming into cesspools of anti-white racism and anti-truth insanity. But many conservatives only went to war against these universities a couple of weeks ago, after Hamas’ attack on Israeli civilians, followed by massive demonstrations on college campuses on behalf of the terrorists. It was shocking to Nikki Haley, for example. She’s now suggesting that some of these universities should lose federal funding, and so are some other candidates. She waited for the safest possible moment to go after the universities. This is the tried and true Republican strategy.
And yes we should go after them. It would be a good place to start, even if it’s an extraordinarily delayed response. But it’s not nearly enough. It should be the default response going forward to any corporation or school that discriminates against any religious belief or nationality or skin color. If the GOP takes this seriously, you’ll see a lot less open support for terrorism on college campuses. Affirmative action will be dismantled, because there will actually be some teeth behind that Supreme Court decision. Anti-white and anti-Asian racism in admissions and hiring will stop overnight. That means there will be a lot fewer Ben Crumps and Patrisse Cullors in the world. We’ll lose out on tapestries of mud cloth from Mali. What we’ll gain is something we haven’t had in a very long time, even before the rise of BLM. We’ll have a conservative movement that actually conserves something.