y Stanford and it wasn't peer-reviewed and it's completely non-credible. So totally debunked.

And I think — I'm not positive, but I think this is probably the same thing that Steve Cortes got bumped off of Twitter. He's back, but I think he might have gotten bumped off because of the same fake study. So there is a fake study that says masks don't work. It's attributed to Stanford. They had nothing to do with it. It looks like it's just a fake study. So she got trapped by that. I don't think she knows yet that it was fake.

Alan Dershowitz weighed in on this Chauvin outcome and he seems confident that it will be reversed in the Supreme Court, largely because of too much news seeping into the jurors and them being at personal risk based on their knowing they had personal risks. So we think that maybe they didn't use the facts.

Now as Dershowitz points out, and I think this is important, it doesn't mean Chauvin is innocent just because the trial may or may not be reversed. Because the jurors were too influenced by potentially outside statements by politicians, etc. That doesn't mean they got the wrong answer. It just means you have to reverse it because there would be too much of the wrong kind of pressure. So you couldn't feel it's a credible outcome even if it was the right outcome.

So I always make this distinction between what is credible from what is true or right. They don't have to be the same. You know, right? You can have a credible study that's wrong. You can have a credible opinion that's wrong.

And I'll say again that the jury played this perfectly. And until I get counter-information, which is very likely — you know, we could find out tomorrow that the jury is a bunch of nerdy wells who just wanted to break the system. Who knows? Anything could happen. But as of now, in the same way that I assume innocence until proven guilty, which I did with Chauvin, I presumed his innocence as hard as I could. And then when the jury spoke, I accepted that. You know, I didn't watch the evidence like they did. If their opinion unanimously is guilty, I'm good with that.

Now there are two possibilities that they voted guilty on all counts. One is that they thought he was guilty on all counts, right? We're not going to rule that out, are we? That they actually just voted their conscience. They all thought he was guilty on all counts. Boom, go home for the day.

Maybe the other possibility — and by the way, if that was their legitimate opinion, they saw the evidence, I didn't, not all of it, I accept that as a credible outcome. But what if they were really sending a message to the rest of us by so quickly voting guilty on all three counts that even the most optimistic of us said, "Huh, that's a little bit too on the nose, isn't it?" Like it's a little bit too exactly what the protesters, etc., wanted. It's a little too on the nose. Feels like a message. It feels like a hostage message that we got that said effectively, "We don't know what to do. We're in trouble. We're going to vote three guilties. Get the message."

And if that was the message, I think the Supreme Court is going to hear it. Meaning they're going to hear that maybe the jurors were sending a message. Just speculation, right? Pure speculation. Can't read minds. I don't know what anybody's thinking. I couldn't know that. But so far the facts suggest two interpretations which are both valid at the moment until one of them gets ruled out by future information.

Somebody says Stockholm syndrome. Maybe. Maybe a little bit of that. What is disengagement syndrome? I don't know what that means. Yeah, it would be a stealth kind of jury nullification, basically. They would just kick it up to the higher courts knowing that it would get overturned. But in the meantime they've covere