A New York judge has dismissed state terrorism and first-degree murder charges against the man who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Should the charge have been kept? Why is the state only pursuing second-degree murder charges? And will he avoid the death penalty? Former Chief Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s really to blame for these decisions.
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: We have a good friend, Andy McCarthy who is a Nashville review contributing editor. He's also a former chief assistant US attorney, and a guy who when he speaks, I almost always agree with him. And when I don't, I'm probably wrong. Especially when it comes to things like this, because this was his expertise. He was a former chief assistant US attorney. And he worked on terror most of his career. I mean, he -- he is -- he is well-versed on terror charges and how to try them.
This Luigi Mangione case, the terrorism charges have been dropped. And, Andy, if I remember right, came out with an article I think last year said, this is not going to stand.
These terrorist charges aren't going to stand. And I don't understand why they won't.
And I don't understand how only be charged with second-degree murder.
When it was clear he was stocking the guy. Privy planned on killing him.
He was waiting for him outside.
That's premeditation, which is murder one.
But I know Andy will have all the answers for us.
Can you make sense of this for us, Andy?
ANDY: Yeah. I'm afraid I can, Glenn.
I think to start with the second point first about why it's murder two, rather than murder one. Back in the McCaughey days, which is like the 1990s in New York, when he was governor.
STU: Yeah.
ANDY: They tried to revise the New York capital murder statute. Because they haven't done a death penalty case in New York in decades.
And this was not -- this ultimately was not a successful effort. They still haven't revised the death penalty.
But what they did, they took the things that you could get the death penalty for, which in New York, were only things like killing a police officer or killing a prison guard in the prison.
And they made those the only murder in the first degree. Variety. Homicide, and all other murder.
GLENN: Why?
ANDY: Well, because they were trying to clean up -- their idea was, they were trying to clean the statute in a way that murder one would be revised as capital murder.
GLENN: Death penalty.
ANDY: Right. And all other murder was going to be second-degree murder, so because --
GLENN: That's insane.
ANDY: What we're dealing with Mangione, under New York law, would not have qualified for the death penalty because that would have been very, very narrow, and it's mainly killing police officers or prison guards.
That puts it into the category of second-degree murder. That doesn't mean, by the way, that it's unserious.
It has a -- I think the -- the offense in New York is like 25 years to life. Societies -- it's --
STU: The guy should get -- I mean, you could. You could argue against the death penalty. But guy should get either the death penalty, or life without payroll.
Not 25 years! This guy -- help me out on this one. How is he not a terrorist? He had the intent to terrorize. He said himself, he wanted people to look over their shoulders.
I mean, he is a textbook terrorist. And premeditation. Textbook!
ANDY: Yeah. To -- to prove terrorism, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
And you have to sort of get out of the -- the mindset that murder is terrorizing. I mean, all murder is terrorizing, to the people who are obviously involved in it. And to the extent that it intimidated people. But we can't turn every murder into terrorism.
GLENN: Correct.
ANDY: Terrorism --
GLENN: But he did it for. But isn't terrorism about trying to scare the population to either vote different or change the laws to be so terrorized that they -- in this particular case, he was trying to send a message to the -- the industry, you better watch your back, because there's more of me.
And you'll get it in the end.
That's terrorizing a group of people to get them to act in a way, the terrorists wants them to act.
ANDY: Yes.
GLENN: Isn't that how they define it?
ANDY: It's not terrorizing the government to change policy or terrorizing the whole civilian population. What the judge said, this was very narrowly targeted at the health care industry, and this particular health care executive.
And I --
STU: Hmm.
GLENN: Wow.
ANDY: And I just don't think it trivializes the murder to say that it's not a terrorism crime.
GLENN: Okay.
ANDY: You know, the federal government, Glenn, just so we're clear on this part of it. There were two charges brought here. There's a -- the federal charges and the state charges.
So Alvin Bragg, the -- the New York DA, brought the terrorism charge.
GLENN: What a joke.
ANDY: I said, at the time, I thought he was bringing it because he knew the Justice Department wanted to charge this guy. So he wanted to make a splash. Like the Justice Department wanted to make a splash.
When the Justice Department indicted it, even though Biden is against the death penalty, and the Democratic administration was against the death penalty. They indicted it as a death penalty case.
Because they wanted to make a big to-do over it. Even though, you know, if you look at the fine print, they would never impose the death penalty.
They had a moratorium on the death penalty. So in order not to be outsplashed, what Bragg turned around and did was indict this -- what he -- like ten times out of ten, indict only as a murder case.
If you could get Bragg to indict something that was actually a crime. And he decided to make it a terrorism murder case, so that they could compete for the headlines in the press.
Unfortunately, this is kind of what happens in these -- in these cases.
But to your point about stalking and all of that stuff.
The federal charges. Which are the death penalty charges, include exactly what you're talking about.
The fact that this guy was stalked.
That it was done in a very cold-blooded way.
And actually, if he gets convicted in the federal -- can in the federal system, now that Trump is running the Justice Department, rather than Biden, he gets convicted on the death penalty charge, he's going to get the death penalty.
GLENN: Okay. So it's not like he's getting murder in the second degree, and he'll be out in 25 years. The federal government is also trying him. Will it be the same trial?
ANDY: No. No.
In fact, the interesting thing, Glenn. Just from a political standpoint, I hate having to get political on this stuff.
GLENN: I know. Me too.
ANDY: If we can avoid it. The Biden Justice Department was working cooperative with Bragg. I don't think the Trump Justice Department is going to work cooperative with Bragg.
GLENN: No.
ANDY: And the interesting thing about that is under New York law, they have a very forgiving double jeopardy provision. Which basically means, if the Feds go first, that will probably block New York state from going at all.
GLENN: Uh-huh.
ANDY: Because of their expansive protection. And I think what Biden's Justice Department was willing to let Bragg go first.
So that they would go second. And then everybody would have --
GLENN: Trump won't do that.
ANDY: I'm not sure the Trump guys will play ball with that.
GLENN: No. Okay.
So are you confident the justice will be served in this. Oh.
ANDY: Well, I think -- you know, look, I think if your idea of justice served. Are this guy be convicted of a severe murder charge and never see the light of day again?
I am confident in that.
GLENN: Yes.
ANDY: If you believe as I do, that if you're going to have a -- a death penalty in the law, which our Constitution permits.
GLENN: He deserves it.
ANDY: If you're going to have it, he deserves it. And if he doesn't get it. He would be among a long line of people, who probably didn't deserve it and must get it.
Though, I guess it depends on what your idea of justice is. But I guess if we could agree that justice is this guy never sees the light of day again, I think justice will happen here.
GLENN: Right. Okay.
Can I switch to Charlie Kirk?
ANDY: Of course.
GLENN: How is this unfolding? What are your thoughts on this. What are your thoughts on -- you know, I really want to make sure I don't want to go too far. I don't want another Patriot Act kind of thing.
But I do believe, you know, the -- it appears as though, there may have been many people involved. At least in knowing.
What does that mean to you? And what should happen?
What should we be doing? What are we doing that is right and wrong?
ANDY: Well, to the extent -- I'm sorry -- I do -- I do think, Glenn. That this is being very aggressively investigated by both the state authorities and continuing by the federal authorities.
I heard Kash Patel, because I happened to be on television this morning. And they -- they broadcasted that while I was on.
And he was talking about how they are going through all of the social media stuff.
To see, who may have had an inkling about this beforehand. And if there was any conspiratorial activity, they're going to go after it.
Now, the chats that have come out so far, that have been reported in the last couple of days are chats in which Robinson admitted to committing homicide and told the people that he was chatting with -- that he had already arranged his surrender.
If that's all these people knew, that is to say, he had --
GLENN: Then there's nothing there.
ANDY: And he was turning himself in. Well, they might be good witnesses in terms of what his state of mind was at the trial of Robinson.
But I don't think that implicates them in criminal misconduct.
On the other hand, the feds are going to keep digging.
And I assume Utah is going to keep digging.
And if they find out that someone was involved in planning it, I think those people will be pursued.
GLENN: You know, there's probably Texas would be a bad place to commit this crime.
Utah, however, they have the death penalty. And they used the death penalty.
And the governor who I'm not a big fan of this governor.
But, boy, he has been very strong, and I think right on top of this whole thing.
And he said, day one, you will get the death penalty. We catch you. We prove it in a court of law. You do get the death penalty. And I think that's coming from this guy.
ANDY: Well, it's deserving. Because if it's ever indicative of premeditation and repulsive intent, I would say, this is a textbook case of that.
GLENN: The idea that Trump is now going to go after -- possibly RICO charges for people like George Soros and, you know, organizations like that, that are -- are pushing for a lot of the -- the -- the Antifa kind of stuff. Do you see any problems with that. Or is this a -- a good idea?
ANDY: I just think the first thing, before you get into RICO. And all these. You know, RICO is a very complicated statute, even when it obviously applies. So I think the bedrock thing they have to establish, is that you are crossing the line. From protected speech. A lot of which can be obnoxious speech. And actual incite meant to violence. And if you can get invite meant to violence.
You know, I didn't need RICO to prosecute the Blind Sheikh, right? I was able to do it on incitements of violence and that kind of stuff. Those are less complicated charges than Rico.
But the big challenges in those cases, Glenn, is getting across the line into violent action. As opposed to constitutionally protected rhetoric.
GLENN: Is there anything to the subversion of our -- of our nation. That you are -- you are intentionally subverting the United States of America.
You are pushing for revolutionary acts?
VOICE: You know, there's a lot of let allegation that arose out of that, in connection with the Cold War and the McCarran Act. And, you know, you remember all the stuff from the -- from the '40s and '50s, forward.
GLENN: Yeah. I know.
ANDY: And I think when that stuff was initially enacted, the country was in a different place.
I think when the McCarran Act was enacted, it was a consensus in the country, that if someone was a member of the Communist Party.
Hadn't actually done anything active to seek the violent overthrow of the US, but mere membership in the party. I think if you asked the question in 1950, most people would have thought that was a crime.
And by 1980, most people would have thought, it wasn't a crime. Based on the Supreme Court --
GLENN: Yeah. I don't.
Look, if you're a member of the Communist Party, you can be a member of the Communist Party.
But if you are actively subverting and pushing for revolution, in our country, I think that's a different -- I think that's a different cat, all -- entirely.
ANDY: Yeah, that's exactly right. But if you had that evidence of purposeful activity, and look, if you had a conspiratorial agreement between two people that contemplates the use of force, you don't need much more than that. You don't need an act of violence. If you have a strong evidence of conspiracy. But you do have to establish that they get over that line and to the use of force, at least the potential use of force.
STU: Yeah, okay.
Andy, as always, thank you so much. Appreciate your insight. Appreciate it.