point, given that we know there's no evidence of a crime, would everybody agree with that? Both the jury and the judge are completely aware there's no evidence of a crime. We all know that now because we saw the trial at this point.

Do you know what the best thing to do would be? For the judge to declare, I don't know what the legal term would be, but just to cancel the trial. Here's why. If I were the judge, I would simply make this statement. We have this trial and the jurors are justifiably concerned for their safety. And that matters because we're going to protect the system. We're going to protect the legal system. And when you have a situation where the jurors are afraid for their lives, you can't have a verdict. You can't do it. And furthermore, there is no evidence of any crime that was presented in the trial. I, as a judge, I'm just going to cancel it. Not a mistrial, not a mistrial with prejudice. That's too weak. Just call it a nothing. Don't call it a hung jury. Don't even call it a mistrial. Just say we're done. Just say we're done. I'll go home. There's no evidence of a crime. Everybody go home. Tell me that wouldn't work. Wouldn't it? What would be more powerful?

See, my problem is that if there's a mistrial, people are going to read it as a technicality and they're going to think he was really guilty. Am I wrong that a mistrial would make some percentage of the country think that he was actually guilty but got away with it? But if the judge said there was no evidence of a crime and we're worried for our lives, which they should be, we're just going to go home because there was no evidence of a crime. There's nothing to do here. What do you think? Because that would just rock the whole country, wouldn't it? Because there's no name for that. It's not a mistrial. It's not a hung jury. It doesn't have a name. That's why it would be brilliant. Oh, is this dismissed? Is that a thing? You saw. I'm so ignorant of the law that summary dismissal would that