The Attorney General of California, to a chorus of jeers from most of us
on the right, has announced what seems to be his big priority. He's
actually announced recently, in like the last two days, two different big priorities.
One is trying to stop the merger between Kroger and Albertson's, and the
other is to stop the use of single use plastic bags. So I'm going
to talk about both of those today. And I do want to talk about
the Albertsons Kroger thing because I think it's interesting and it lets me talk about
like some kind of interesting stuff that these areas of law. We talk a
lot in American politics and American law about antitrust, and I think anti trust
is one of those things where a lot of people hear these turns used in
the news, but not a lot of people understand them. And I enjoy
those kinds of things, talking about those kinds of things and explaining those kinds
of things, because I think it just helps. I think a radio listener
can hear about antitrust a bunch of times and then not actually know what it
is. So I'm going to talk about the Albertsons Kroger thing, and then
the single use plastic things. The overriding critique of Rob Bonta, though,
is that California is having all of these different problems with crime. Why is
he so fixated on the Albertson's Kroger merger? Is that some real horrible thing?
Now, let's start with that. Why would the Attorney General be concerned
at all with Albertson's and Kroger merging? So he's concerned with Albertsons and Kroger
merging. I don't know that I'm completely critical or completely hostile to the idea
of the Attorney General monitoring something like the Albertsons Kroger merger. Why well,
because I think it could have an impact on competition within the market. And
that's what antitrust law is about. Antitrust law is basically about ensuring that a
given industry has competition, that one company within an industry can't so dominate the
market, or a consortium of companies conspiring together cannot so completely control the market
that it results in prices being inflated, consumers having less choice, and consumers
bearing the brunt of those costs. So let me explain what I mean.
Let's take gas as an example. All right, almost everyone drives cars that
are powered by gas. I guess, unless you've got a Tesla or an
electric car or something. Pretty much everyone has cars powered by gas. Everyone
needs gas. It's kind of a basic American staple. If only one company
was selling end user gas, gas that you stick into your car at the
pump, gasoline. If only one company was doing that, we don't have
the range of options. You can't get it from Costco or Texico or Chevron
or Sonoco or you know, all the different options that you have. If
every individual gas station was selling the same gas, and each individual gas station
was owned by the same company, well, what incentive would the gas selling
company have to keep the price low. They would have no incentive. They
know that you need gas. They know that you can't go anywhere where else
to get gas. So what they're incentivized to do is increase the price of
gas as much as they can so that they can maximize their profits. Basically,
they just would increase the price of gas until it got to whatever the
consumer's breaking point was. They would increase the price of gas until basically consumers
which say all right, enough, I'll just ride my flip and bike to
work. This isn't worth it. I'm not going to have a car.
So that's the problem with a trust or a monopoly, Okay, a monopoly.
A monopoly is when you have only one company dominating an industry. Now
there are other species of these, kind of anti high competitive practices, which
antitrust law is designed at the federal level and state levels to combat. Another
example is called oligopoly or a cartel. Right in an oligopoly, maybe you
have more than one company dominating an industry. Let's say there are four different
gasoline companies. But let's say that the four CEOs of those four gas companies,
they all get together for a business meeting, and they all say to
each other, Hey, boys, instead of all four of us trying to
compete against each other and trying to keep our prices low so that we can
steal business one from another, look, why don't we all just be happy
with our share of the market. There's enough money to be made for all
four of us. All four of us are going to have yachts, all
four of us are going to have private jets. So what we'll do is
not really compete with each other for price let's all of us coordinate together,
and will all four of us just increase our prices to maximize our profits,
and we don't really need to compete against each other, and we can all
maximize our profits just the same way as would happen if there were a monopoly.
Let's do that. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, that sounds
like a great idea. That's also illegal, okay. Antitrust law aims to
do away with anti competitive practices like that, like companies conspiring with each other
to keep their prices artificially high. And you can also see, anti trust
law doesn't just kick in when there's a genuine monopoly. Okay, if one
business has ninety nine percent of the market share, and well, no,
we have a competitor. We have a very strong competitor. They control,
you know, one percent of the they control one percent of the market.
Well, that's not really fair, that's not actually genuine competition within the market.
I feel like I remember reading this. I don't know if this was
true, but in some sense that that Microsoft was kind of at certain points
during the nineties that Microsoft was kind of keeping Apple afloat just so that basically
Microsoft couldn't be could avoid charges of engaging in anti trust violations or anti competitive
business practices. I'm not sure if that's true, but I think it's interesting.
Now there's also the reality that if you know, you may be able
to create within a small with with you know, with a national economy and
companies that are you know, present throughout the whole country, you can have
a situation where maybe in a given market you might have a monopoly. So
if there are and I think that is what Attorney General Bonta is pointing to
with this Albertson's Kroger merger, that basically there are certain communities, especially in
southern California, where the only the two options are Albertson's and Kroger, And
if the two companies merge, then there's going to be a lot of cities
in southern California where there is not actually any competition in grocery stores, where
basically it's Albertson's over here and Kroger over there, and it's the same company.
So instead of these two separately owned grocery stores owned by different you know,
corporate entities competing against each other for business and therefore incentivized to keep their
prices lower, no, Instead, they're going to have no incentive to keep
their prices lower, and prices will go up for the consumer. Okay,
that's a legitimate thing to be concerned about. The other thing bonto those seems
to highlight and I'm wondering if this is far more operative, because let's face
it, in California, what talks money talks political money talks political muscle,
like as far as votes and getting out the vote, that talks, and
who has more muscle in California than anyone else. California politics is not dominated
by dope smoking hippies from San Francisco. California politics is dominated by labor unions,
public sector unions especially, but definitely also private sector unions. How did
we get ABE five passed, the huge bill that recategorizes all kinds of independent
contractors as part time employees? How did that get pasted? Because every labor
union wanted it. The whole point of AB five was to take a whole
bunch of people from independent contractors who can't unionize, turn them all into part
time employees who can unionize. That was the whole point of AB five.
And now the Biden administration's kind of almost trying to nationalize the AB five rules
for the whole country. So that's that's a big part of this. There's
some thought that if Albertson's and Kroger do merge, then it's going to make
it much harder for workers at albertson slash Kroger to unionize and will weaken the
effectiveness of the union. And it's no coincidence that Rob Bonta comes out to
give the press conference announcing this and he's got a guy with a Teamsters jacket,
you know, standing right next to some union leader with a Teamster's jacket
standing right next to him. Okay, I suspect that that's a big part
of the problem. Now, now I'll be frank. I think workers should
have the right to unionize. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
I think people who work at Albertson's and Kroger have right to a good,
decent living wage, and if unionization is their path to accomplishing that goal,
that's great. I get the sense that a lot of grocery store chains,
if you stick with them, they tend to pay good employees well over time.
And is unionization a necessary tool towards getting good pay decent benefits, etc.
I don't know. It seems like the market is allowing for some of
these things. But look, I don't object to people unionizing, and frankly,
I don't object to Attorney General Bonta at least having concern over the idea
of anti competitive business practices of Albertson's and Kroger by merging, squeezing out competition,
getting rid of of competition, especially now obviously it's within certain markets of
California, is it is that really the case. I mean, it's not
like Ralph's doesn't exist. It's not like other grocery store chains don't exist.
You know, the idea that just certain communities of Los Angeles won't have access
to another grocery store. Kind of find that a little difficult to believe.
You drive about twenty minutes in LA you're in another city in the LA area,
You're in another city. So I find that a little, yeah,
a little little not so sure if that's true. Nonetheless, I think the
problem that we're facing though, that or at least at Attorney General Bonta is
facing, is that we have so much crime in the state. We have
so many problems in the state relating to homelessness, relating to this and that,
and he's the chief law enforcement official of California under the governor. His
job is helping with the enforcement of the law. And yeah, maybe it's
a little bit of a you know, you can't walk and chew gum at
the same time argument. You know, maybe he yes, he should be
able to have an eye on anti competitive business practices undertaken by major corporations in
California, but also but also he can do that while still overseeing the enforcement
of California criminal law. So maybe the critique of what why are you wasting
time with this when you should be waste you should be focused on this.
Okay, I've never liked those kinds of arguments because it's kind of like,
yeah, well, the Attorney General should be able to focus on both,
but the problem is he's not really seemingly very focused on the enforcement of California
criminal law. And here's this guy. You know, so many attorneys general
have been concerned about, say, you know, TikTok and the national security
risk can result in in the you know way in which the Chinese tried to
harvest data, and even down to the level of you know, the Chinese
seemed to be deploying TikTok deliberately to make American kids stupider while making Chinese kids
smarter. And who's sending out his TikTok? And a bunch of states have
outlawed state and the federal government have outlawed state and federal officials from using TikTok.
But here's Rob Bonta sending out emails every week with the you know the
the TikTok and Rob Bonta's TikTok of the week. Where do his priorities really
lie? Doesn't seem like with enforcing bread and butter California law. When we
return his crusade to get rid of single use plastic plastic next on the John
Gerardi Show, Attorney General Bonta, he's really focused on what matters in California.
No, not crime, not stopping crime. We're we're focused on the
Albertson's Crowger merger and single use plastic packaging. Big old press release from the
Attorney General California. Attorney General Rob Bonta joined today joined a coalition of eleven
attorneys general in submitting a comments letter supporting the US General Services Administration's proposed rule
to reduce federal purchases of unnecessary single use plastic packaging. The proposed rule would
encourage the federal purchase of products that use single use plastic free packaging plastic free
packaging, and incentivized suppliers to develop sustainable alternatives to single use plastic packaging.
In the common Letter of the Attorney's General commend the proposed rule and recommends GSA
to implement a mandatory phase out of all single use plastic products, with reasonable
exceptions for products whose plastic composition is necessary for health or safety reasons. The
implementation of this rule would be an effective tool in the fight to address the
plastic pollution crisis across this country. It's a crisis, folks, Yes,
Is it really a crisis if nobody is aware of it? While the GSA
is moving in the right direction, the plastic pollution crisis is only get going
to get worse without prompt federal action to eliminate plastic consumption, said Attorney General
Bonta. That's why, alongside Attorneys General's Attorney generals, shouldn't it be attorneys
general nationwide? We are calling on the federal government to adopt an aggressive timeline
not just to phase out the purchase of single use plastic packaging, but to
phase out all single use plastic products in federal procurement. By tackling the issue
head on, we can build a healthier planet for future generations to come.
Can you just say for future generations or generations to come? Seems kind of
redunbt for future generations to come. No, I want it for the future
generations who are already here. But then they're not in the future, all
right, whatever. I find this really hilarious, given one specific California policy
that probably all of you have dealt with, and I want to hear if
this experience of mine is your experience as well, and what I suspect is
happening most of the time. Okay, so for years going to the grocery
store, let's go back in time, twenty years okay, twenty years ago,
when you went to the grocery store and you were buying your stuff and
you're checking out, what would be the question to you, paper or plastic?
Okay. I had always been taught and believed, and I thought this
was true that paper was better than plastic. Paper is recyclable, so and
I always thought paper is, you can put more stuff in it, it's
easier to carry, you can use it for stuff around the house. Like
so paper. We would always do paper, and then all of a sudden,
several years ago, there came this shift that no, no, no,
we don't want to encourage paper or single use plastic. And that was
the problem with the plastic bags back then were single Basically they weren't strong enough
to be used multiple times and they wouldn't degrade, right, so whatever.
So instead of just saying, hey, just use paper, all of a
sudden the last few years, in addition to the additional charge you have to
pay for plastic for a bag, there also came this new form of plastic
bag. And they didn't think of a plastic bag, some kind of plastic
bag, some kind of non paperbag. I guess that you could actually throw
away, or that you could actually that you could throw away that would safely
biodegrade. You know. We came up with that with straws. I mean,
the straws stink, the paper straws that biodegrade easily. They they're terrible
as straw but at least we did cook that up. No one thought to
make a plastic bag that would actually biodegrade, or a plastic bag that could
be readily recycled or whatever. No, instead we come up with the plastic
bags that they use at grocery stores. Now, which the idea of it
is no, no, no, you're supposed to have them for multiple uses.
Well, no one remembers to use them multiple times. No one remembers
to bring them with them keep them in your car all the time. Because
it's a very laborious household chore. You'd have to bring the plastic bags in
your house, empty them out, put all your grocer's away, then bring
all those plastic bags back to your car to store, make sure you have
enough in your car depending on what's going on, and God forbid, you
want to use the plastic bag for something else. No, so what tends
to happen? Well, in my house, it means I've got a tub
chock full of these stupid plastic bags and you can't just normally recycle them.
Apparently, only this is the rule is coming up. Apparently, people who
are most enthusiastic about recycling and appropriate use of garbage, they think that the
way to do it is to make things more complicated. All the new garbage
rules that we have in California. Oh, you're supposed to put a pizza
box in the green garbage can? Now? Why? What? How is
that intuitive? How does that make sense? Like all this stuff about what's
compost that needs to go in the green can now, and what winds up
happening when you make it complicated for people, People just go to the avenue
of least resort. So my wife and I, I guess, have enough
guilt that we're not just throwing our plastic bags that we get from the grocery
store away in the garbage can. We're holding onto them in a tub.
And I still don't exactly know where to take them to recycle them. I
think, like, I think I can just take them to a grocery store.
But it's just creating another chore for me along the way of you know,
when we have clothes that we need to give away and I need to
take them to Goodwill and that's a pain in the but or Catholic charities or
something that's kind of a pain in the butt to do. So, Like
I am sure that we're actually because of these California policies, just making the
process of recycling more complicated. We're probably actually throwing more plastic away than we
were before. We're probably recycling plastic less. It's so unbelievably stupid that these
people who are most concerned with garbage, recycling, et cetera, have made
it so complicated that I still don't exactly know what to do. I've got
all these stinking light bulbs in my house that are burned out that I don't
exactly know what I'm supposed to do with. I'm not sure that I'm supposed
to throw them away? Where do I take them to recycle them? Like?
They just make this so flip and complicated. You know, we were
only doing trash and recycling so the same way for like my whole childhood,
and now all of a sudden, I'm in my mid thirties and they're changing
up all these rules. This has been the greatest get off my lawns segment
I think I've ever done in the history of this radio show. All Right,
when we return, I want to talk about something with the Trump and
Biden indictment slash non indictment decisions over their retention of classified documents and why I
think Trump has a major good point about selective prosecution. That's next on the
John Girardi Show. I haven't talked about it much in last week or so,
but there's an interesting point that Andy McCarthy, who's one of my favorite
writers at National Review. He check him out, by the way, look
up Andy McCarthy National Review and try to read his stuff at National Review.
He sometimes he's got op eds in the New York Posts and other places.
Really sharp lawyer. He was a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of
New York under Rudy Giuliani and really really sharp guy, really sharp legal commentator,
and he's done a lot of stuff for National Review, kind of covering
issues with all the stuff basically from the Muller investigation onward, and I think
has been really required reading during the last eight or so years of politics.
Now he's talking about basically the decision by two different special counsels, one to
prosecute Donald Trump for unlawful retention of classified national security documents at his house,
and the decision by another special counsel, Robert Hurr, not to prosecute Joe
Biden for unauthorized retention of classified national security documents at his house. Both men
brought documents to their house after they had left office and were no longer authorized
to have those documents. One of them is getting prosecuted for it, the
other one is not. Why now the rational Now, Trump and his legal
team noticed this discrepancy, and they raised emotion that this is selective prosecution,
that this does not make sense. Why would you prosecute one person and not
the other person. Both persons are actually pretty similarly situated. Joe Biden was
retaining these documents when he was a former vice president, and really the focuses
on Biden had these documents when he was not in office. Okay, he
had these documents from twenty seventeen to twenty twenty one when he was just a
private citizen and he was not authorized to have these documents. He was allowed
to have them in his home when he was vice president, he was allowed
to have them in his home when he was president, but there was a
four year gap when he was neither. Also, let's remember that the durect
Now, let me actually just get into the piece, okay. Biden Justice
Department Special counsel Jack Smith responded to former President Donald Trump's selective prosecution motion to
dismiss the Mara A Lago documents indictment by repeating yet again this Biden administration mantra.
Trump and Biden are not similarly situated because Biden cooperated with investigators while Trump
obstructed them. Right, So that's the argument for why Trump should be prosecuted
and Biden shouldn't, because Trump didn't really cooperate with investigators, but Biden did.
Let's dig into that. It is true that Trump was not very cooperative
with investigators. At one point, he had a special he had a grand
jury issue a subpoena for all the stuff in his house. He gave them
the stuff there was. There was suspicion that he hadn't given them all his
stuff, and the FBI rated mar A Lago and found a whole bunch more
stuff. And there was also a decent amount of evidence seemingly I need to
hear both sides of it, but there was a decent amount of evidence that
Trump knew he wasn't giving them all the stuff. So it's true. Trump
was probably not as was certainly not as cooperative with investigators as I think he
keeps claiming he was. He was pretty devious about it. He was kind
of deceptive towards his own lawyers about it. And that's the thing with Trump
is that that frustrates me sometimes is that I think he's his own worst enemy.
Like this, this is a total this whole thing was totally avoidable.
Now, Well, the thing is, though, the fact that Trump was
more cooperative, that doesn't change the underlying reality of what he did and what
Biden did. And let's also remember this. As bad as Trump's conduct was,
in some ways, Biden's was worse. Let me explain why. Right,
both men retained documents they weren't allowed to retain in their personal homes while
they were out of office. Fair Enough, Biden was doing this for decades.
Trump only did it for like a year or two. Biden had documents
in his home that he had squirreled away back when he was in the Senate.
Okay, and that's a really important distinction. Okay, if you're a
senator or a member of the House, you don't get to take classified documents
home with you. You just don't. Here's how you view classified documents when
you're in the House or you're in the Senate. They set up a secure
room in one of the House or Senate office buildings. It's a secure contained
room where basically they have the documents there for you to review. You go
into the room at a set time. There are people guarding the facility that
it's very secure. Only authorized people are allowed to go in. You go
into the facility, you review the documents, you leave without the documents.
You leave the documents there. There's no way Biden could have those documents in
his house, which he did, without someone having done something illegal. Someone
had to have squirreled away those documents for him. He he got them knowing
presumably that they were classified, and he retained them for years and years and
years and years and years. Okay, he stopped being in the Senate in
January of two thousand and nine. They're still in his house in twenty twenty
three, so presumably for over a decade he had for over a decade he
had retained these documents that he had gotten through some ill gotten method. So,
on one level, Biden's conduct is actually worse than Trump. It maybe
a little apples to oranges. I think both of their conduct was bad.
But the idea that Biden is this, oh my stuff, put stuff in
the wrong box ball. No, it's also true. By the way,
just this about Biden, because Biden keeps throwing out this long Oh, my
staff puts stuff in the wrong box. Okay, the stuff Biden was squirreling
away. And I had this conversation actually with my dad the other day where
my dad was like, I don't know, maybe it's just maybe he's on
Biden's behalf. My dad was sort of saying, I don't know, maybe
Biden, you know, you're your president or your vice president. You've got
a lot of boxes of stuff. Maybe stuff gets put in the wrong place.
Maybe maybe his staff did put the stuff in the wrong place. And
I sort of retorted to my dad with, well, I can understand that,
but I don't think it's the case with Biden. Here's why. The
stuff that was in Biden's house, a lot of it had to do with
Afghanistan. In fact, they were able to identify some of it as Biden's
classified Afghanistan papers. Because so when, by the way, when the president
or the vice president is briefed on something top secret and the president or the
vice president takes notes on a legal pad about it, the stuff on the
legal pad is now classified material. Okay, that's now subject to law.
You can't just take that home. You just can't. Can't retain that or
scrol that away. Willy nilly, Okay. That stuff is now also classified
top secret. They were able to identify some of that stuff because Biden had
it in his house and they could see that it was Biden's notes because of
the way, the characteristic way that Biden would always misspell the word Afghanistan.
He would always leave out the H after the g afgh An isda N.
So Biden was squirreling away a lot of stuff relating to Afghanistan. Why when
Biden was running for president in two thousand and eight and during his first year
as vice president, he was not supportive of a troop surge in Afghanistan,
and within the Biden administration he was like the leading voice opposed to it.
Well within the Obama administration, rather, he was the leading voice opposed to
it. Obama did not follow his advice, ignored him, and did a
troop surge in Afghanistan in two thousand and nine into twenty ten. Like One
of the things retained was this like memo, this like last ditch memo Biden
wrote to Obama over Thanksgiving two thousand and nine urging him not to do the
troop surge. And it's clear that he talked about this with his biographer.
Biden did in twenty seventeen after he's done as vice president, and they've got
audio tape of him saying, Oh, I got the Afghanistan stuff down in
the basement. Biden was wanting to develop this historical record and this historical narrative
that he was the one guy who was right about Afghanistan. He was the
one who said this was going to be a quagmire like Vietnam. Because Biden's
not that smart and he can only compare things to other historical examples he has
in his head. So he kept going on with this Vietnam comparison, apparently,
and it seems like that's why he was retaining this stuff. That it
wasn't just a random box of stuff. No, it was stuff that he
specifically wanted to develop a narrative around himself that he was right about X,
Y and Z. So it wasn't just random stuff. Now, when we
return, why I think the fact that Trump cooperated Excuse me, why why
I think the fact that Biden cooperated with investigators and Trump didn't cooperate with investigators
should not matter to the prosecution. Question. That's next on the John Girardi
Show. What was the basis for charging Biden but not for charging Trump?
But not charging Biden with the retention of documents? Apparently it's because Biden cooperated
with investigators Trump didn't. This is silly. If Trump didn't cooperate with investigators
but Biden did, that might be a rationale for charging Donald Trump with obstruction
of justice. It's not a rationale for not charging Biden with unlawfully retaining classified
documents. And that's the rub. It's completely unfair that Biden gets to skate
on this but Trump doesn't. They both did effectively the exact same thing.
They brought a bunch of classified documents to their private houses when they weren't in
office anymore, and they weren't allowed to have them. End of story.
Like the idea that well, Biden cooperated with investigators, well, all criminal
defendants are expected to cooperate with investigators. If they don't cooperate, then you
also charge them with obstruction. It doesn't mean that they get to skate on
the crime. Furthermore, what you have to show is just what the prosecutor
has to show the mental state of the defendant. That the prosecutor has to
show is gross negligence. It's clear that Biden was kind of strategic about the
things that he was squirreling away. He wanted to squirrel away all this stuff
about Afghanistan to show that he was right and Obama was wrong about the Afghanistan
troops search in two thousand and nine. He was specifically squirreling away that kind
of stuff. And the argument that because his memory is so bad that therefore
well he couldn't have been wilful in deciding that to no, no, no,
that's not even the legal standard is wilfulness. And furthermore, just the
fact that his memory is bad doesn't mean at the time he didn't he didn't
intentionally do the thing he was trying to do. I just find the whole
thing. It's kind of blindingly unfair, or at least a blinding double standard
anyway, that one guy's getting prosecuted for this and the other guy completely is
not. One guy has to deal with this prosecution in the middle of a
presidential campaign. The other guy does not have to deal with it. It's
a complete double standard. This idea that liberals keep crowing about in reference Trump,
Well, no one should be above the law, No one should be
above the law. I agree. The mar Lago documents thing is the one
Trump charge that I actually think. You know, I've tried to call balls
and strikes with Donald Trump the whole time, through all these legal woes that
he's been subjected to in the last year. I think most of the cases
against him have been bunk. I think the New York District Attorney's case has
been ridiculous. I think the Georgia District, the Fulton County District Attorney's case
was ridiculous to charge him with a ricoast with a rico violation. I think
all the January sixth prosecutions against Donald Trump, I think were big stretches.
The one thing that I actually agree he probably did something illegal and it wouldn't
necessarily be unfair if he was convicted of it is the mar a Lago documents
retention thing. And it's the exact same thing that Hillary didn't. It's the
exact same thing that Biden did. You either let them all off the hook,
or you got to prosecute them all. If not, we basically live
in a Banana republic, we basically have the Justice Department deciding. It seems
as though the Justice Department had the fix in from the beginning that Biden was
going to skate on this and Trump was going down, and you know the
idea that, well, it was a special council decided it wasn't the Trump
administration. No, the special council still answers to the Attorney General. The
Attorney General clearly picked Jack Smith, a super who is super aggressive and so
obviously ideologically, so fiercely anti Trump. There's no way that this is just
some random pick. Of course, Trump is going down. That's the point
of all this, and I think it's banana. You either charge both of
them or you charge neither of them to decide. Oh ye o Trump,
who did basically the same darn thing Biden did. He needs to be prosecuted,
but not Biden is ridiculous. That'll do what for John Jrardi Show,
See you guys next time on Power Talk