Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of A Little rom with David Hosania
Molly Hemingway. Molly, guess what there was big news. The House has
opened up an official inquiry into the impeachment or what was it called an impeachment
inquiry into the President of the United States. Kevin Carthy has been threatening to
do this for a while or talking about it, and he finally did it
this week. What say you do think it's a good idea? You know,
I mean, what do you think so soon? It seems like this
is such a rush. I mean, there's not been a mountain of evidence
of receipts and phone calls and government suspicious activity reports and on the record testimony
from multiple business associates identified by name, and I mean, it just seems
kind of rash. That was as I'm sorry, the Molly Hemingway clarion call
of reason, rationality and reason is very crisp and clear. Today. You
sound amazing, Oh, because I'm recording from Hillsdale's new studios, so radio
free. Hillsdale has this like amazing newly constructed center and I I can't totally
hear, but I feel like I do sound better. I'm here at Hillsdale,
and I come out once a semester, and I knew i'd be out
here for our podcast. So I gathered my microphone because you know, those
those angry people when I don't have a good microphone. I was like,
I need to have a good microphone. And I did that, and I
got all the cords to connect with my computer and then I was touring our
new facilities here and I was like, wait, I can record this from
here. It's beautiful, It's wonderful. Yeah, you sound great, and
a lot of or some some listeners complain sometimes, but you know they have
to understand you're usually you're on the road. You know, you have a
lot of things to overcome to make this magic happen. But I think there
are a few levels here. We could talk a few different sort of aspects
of this inquiry. We can talk about We'll get to the evidence part in
a minute. But it looks like Kevin McCarthy will not ask for a vote
on this, which was a precedent started by Nancy Pelosi. Yeah, in
the first impeachment of Donald Trump. So I think that's I mean, I
think that's unfortunate and it just is it's unfortunate in the sense that it shows
you how you degrade process and you degrade the importance of what an impeachment should
be about, honestly and the way it should be held. But do you
think that the problem here might also be that he just doesn't have the votes
for it, And do you think that poses a problem for Republicans. Yeah,
I don't know exactly why he chose to follow his predecessors a precedent in
not holding an actual vote. They only have a majority of four people,
which means it has to be unanimous, and maybe it's not there, and
maybe it just was also an amount of work that he didn't feel was necessary
to put into it given the extreme payoff of getting things started. Now you
have the situation in the country where after multiple impeachments on the flimsiest of charges,
you have the base of the country or the party just appalled by the
level of corruption going on in the Biden family, the president's own roll in
that. I think it's pretty clear that while he was vice president, he
was intimately aware with his sons of what his son's business was. He was
meeting with people involved with the business, he was making phone calls on behalf
of the business. You have multiple business associates confirming that Joe Biden was active
and aware that they were selling the Biden family name based on not Hunter Biden,
but Joe Biden. So all sorts of things, and like the issue
with how he did something that benefited his son's interests in Ukraine, and that's
just one of the countries where the business was operating. So there's a lot
of pressure to just get going on this, and so I can see why
he why he did it. Well, there's just tons of circumstantial evidence or
even something I don't know what word would be a higher you know, give
it more, make it more more serious charge. But it's we should say
that Joe Biden has always lied about his relationship here, and that that itself
is a is problematic because he said he had he didn't even know what was
going on, He never knew, But now we have evidence at least that
he almost surely knew and was participating in some sense. Now, whether we
have no proof, why are you hedging this? I don't even I didn't
even know what you're saying there. I mean, we have multip bole business
associates confirming that Joe Biden was actively aware of what's going You had before the
twenty twenty election. You had was Tony Bobolinski saying that he that he met
with Joe Biden and discussed the family business. That was the level of involvement
that Joe Biden had. He explained, what is obvious to anyone with a
functioning brain, This was an influence peddling scheme. You gave money to the
Biden family in exchange for favors that could be granted by the Biden family,
and the power person was Joe Biden. Like, that's it's It's not like
confusing what was going on here. Everybody knows what was going on. Then
you had additional Devon Archer testimony where he confirmed that the business was influenced pedaling
with the name and that he had been sent a letter from Joe Biden thinking,
you know, talking about his relationship with Hunter Biden, and that he
called that he would that he would do these phone calls to show the level
of acts that that they had to the Vice President of the United States.
And you have all the suspicious activity reports, name the money funneling into all
sorts of members of the Biden family. I mean, I don't know why
we're being like coy about it. It's not really that complicated. It's pretty
blunt what they were doing. Well, I'm gonna I was going to explain
I was hedging because I was setting up myself. Oh, I'm so sorry.
It's okay, it's okay to say, this is why we need an
inquiry, Like we have all these evidence, which i'll call you know,
of wrongdoing. But to really get the people, to get people under oath
to really have the power to investigate this properly, you have an inquiry.
There is more than enough evidence for that inquiry because we already know that he
was, as you say, involved in this, or we have witnesses who
say that. We have numerous witnesses, some who have been under oath who
say that. But there's other aspects this as well. I mean, there
is, there is the potential and it looks like it exists obstruction of justice,
which to me is and even speaks more to the corruption of the government
right now than you know, Joe Biden's get rich, you know, making
his family, you know, getting his family rich and himself probably so you
know, I think there's a lot to look into here, and it boggles
my mind. That's someone like ken Buck from Colorado, and I don't know
who else. Oh I have something about that. Okay, okay, So
ken Buck has been weird recently. He's from Colorado. He fancies himself a
member of the Freedom Caucus. He had a bunch of Colorado Republicans who were
just livid about this overreaction to January six protesters, with putting these people in
jail, and they write a letter and he writes back this letter about how
everything's totally fine with Jay six protesters and nothing to worry about basically, and
then he's asked about impeachment. He's like, I think Joe Biden's a good
guy. You know, nothing to worry about there. So I was asking
some people like what's going on, Like is he on drugs or what's going
on? And they were like, oh no, no, no, he's
just very very close to Liz and Dick Cheney. I'm meant to look into
that, telling me, yeah, I mean, I know, I don't
you know, i've met him, I don't know know him, but I've
been aware of him and I've covered him for many years because when I was
in Colorado, and he's always struck me a sort of weird. And it's
I'm not saying that that someone can't believe maybe that following going down the road
is bad politically or whatever, but his claim that there isn't really any evidence,
and it's almost like he makes this, I don't have the quote in
front of him, it almost definitively says it. And someone else dropped a
you know, an anonymous quote to like Politico about this another House member,
which sounded kind of like him, but who knows. That boggles my mind.
There's there's far more evidence here of wrongdoing of corruption than there was for
the first Donald Trump impeachment, which was over over the wording of a phone
you know, wording of a phone call. So I don't know, I
sense and I'm not one of these. Yeah, yeah, I'm just looking
on this right now. If my feeling about ken Buck was always that he
just wasn't that bright, you know, he kind of is goofy, foolish
kind of person. He doesn't seem to have much strategy or whatever. But
I just looked up ken Buck and Cheney and there are all sorts of stories,
like from the Denver Post praising him for backing Liz Cheney and for condemning
people for removing the anti Republican Liz Cheney from Republican leadership, and got lots
of favorable coverage from left wing media. Then there's a picture of ken Buck
being twenty seven years old working for Representative Dick Cheney. Interesting he ran for
it's a skate. I think he ran for Senate. I forget exactly,
but it was funny because I think he went to Princeton, maybe Princeton Law
or something. Is no way that ken Buck went to Princeton. I think
went to Princeton entrepreneur. That is a very sad statement on Princeton. I'll
look at up later. But in any event, he came home and he
you know, he put on the cowboy hat and kind of like, you
know, was a tea party or than he was this and he was that.
He's not like a reliable person. I don't want to you know,
kembucks kembuck. But the point is you didn't have did you have any Democrats
who were where? You know, like like did any Democrat not go along
with the impid? Like why didn't Pelosi have a vote. I don't think
it was because they weren't enough votes. Just I don't even I don't even
remember, do you, I don't, I mean, I remember it was
a big deal. It could have been that she didn't have the votes.
I mean, at the time, people probably thought you had have a real
reason to impeach someone, and maybe there were enough people where they were not
keen on it or they thought it wouldn't be politically advantageous. You know.
It was amazing about that impeached that we talked to that Russia collusion for it
was years right already, and then they impeached him on some other thing that
had nothing to do with it, like out of the blue. It was
just so insane. Anyway, we didn't even pause on that. The first
impeachment was because Donald Trump had a phone call in the presence of Alex Vindemann,
who is very close to the Ukrainian regime and also was working in the
National Security Council, which she is not, you know, not the greatest
moment of American management there where he talked about how the Bidens were involved in
some of the massive Ukrainian corruption that's going on, and he asked them to
look into it. And that was viewed as worthy of impeachment, so it
was kind of preposterous. It was more about how they had intended to impeach
over the Russia collusion. They had Mueller testify. Mueller clearly didn't know what
day of the week it was or what his name was, and it all
kind of ended up in a horrible, horrible mess for them, and so
they just immediately glommed onto this other idea, which sort of seemed good at
the time. We now know that the Biden family is completely involved in the
corruption in Ukraine, and we had to impeach someone for asking questions about that,
supposedly. It's interesting. Yeah, I didn't like the way he went
about asking those questions, so I didn't really feel like it was something,
you know, something I want to impeach every present, So everything I think
is impeachable in some sense, but I didn't think that rose to the level
of what normal American would believe should be an impeachable offense. And later learning
how crazy Vinman was or is in the sense of not you know, just
politically how he is and just how he acts, I mean, he is
not a reasonable person, and basing any kind of impeachment on his testimony seems
ill advised. But let me ask you this question. I think politically it's
not going to make much of a difference. But I, you know,
I don't think it hurts Republicans at all to move forward on this. But
there's a lot of you know, there's a lot of handwringing in certain quarters
about how this isn't the right thing to do and so forth. But how
do you think do you think it matters? I think this probably brings the
news to more people who don't even know what Biden's been the Biden family has
been up to. That's how I look at it. So I genuinely think
it's awful to trade influence in exchange for policy. You know, the allegations
that we know about involve paying large sums of cash for money, other transfers
of wealth to the Biden family in exchange for what they could get from Joe
Biden. We already have him bragging on tape that he happened to push bully
Ukraine in a quid pro quo to use the you know, obsessive language of
the first team pagement for the firing of a prosecutor who is looking into the
company that his son was getting a lot of money from and that's just you
cannot have a country where corruption is that open and blatant and nobody does anything.
But My far greater concern, and it also relates to Joe Biden,
is what our Department of Justice did to cover it up. I think that's
actually a much bigger issue. Any buddy on Earth who had the level of
either corruption or corruption seeming activity around them like the Bidens would be, who
was a Republican, would be absolutely destroyed by the DOJ. And they have
done so much to protect him. They have hidden all these investigations. They
have been participants in election rigging schemes, like claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop
which was full of information about the Biden family business and the corrupt people who
were part of it, but that was not real and it was Russian disinformation,
even though they had had that laptop for years like that, you know,
their year at that point, and they knew that it was not Russian
disinformation. Like I am so deeply concerned by the Department of Justice and the
FBI and their intimate role in this corruption scandal and how it has continued under
the Biden administration, but really how this law enforcement and ridiculous intelligence agency are
doing so much to destroy the country. And so I really really hope that
this impeachment inquiry doesn't just look into this like stupid family, but also what
our own government has done to protect corrupt, to protect corrupt people, and
to go after non corrupt people. Hey, y'all, this is Sarah Carter,
investigative columnist and host of The Sarah Carter Show. Thanks for listening to
the Federalist. We all have a heartfelt reason to support our blood pressure.
In fact, more than half of the US population would benefit from blood pressure
support. Super Beats heart shoes are easy and convenient way to support healthy blood
pressure and promote heart healthy energy. Appaired with a healthy lifestyle, the antioxidants
and super beats are clinically shown to be nearly few times more effective at promoting
normal blood pressure than a healthy lifestyle alone. I tell you this, I
felt it. I love taking super beats. Not only are they tasty,
they're great to chew, but I love to know that I'm supporting a healthy
heart. It's effective and clinically studied. Super beats is the number one pharmacist
recommended beat brand for cardiovascular health support. It's blood pressures Support. You can
trust. Get a free thirty day supply of super Beats Heart shows and fifteen
percent off your first order by going to get Superbeats dot com and use promo
code Sarah. That's Saar eight. Get Superbeats dot com code Sarah to get
fifteen percent off your first order. Get Superbeats dot Com promo code Sarah.
Yeah. I mean, you need a commission, you know, you need
a commission to really get to the bottom of that. And I just don't
see any sort of real effort you think, by part and buy in to
to really look at that sort of abuse. And that's not going to happen
in this, in this in the contemporary times. It's not something that's going
to happen in the past. It might have because I think there's I mean,
it's clear to me that there's if there's a it's cover up too stronger
words, you're gonna tell me. You always tell me, you're going to
tell me it's not. But I mean, just thinking about the investigation into
Hunter Biden and the special process, you know, the Special Council designation,
which was unneeded, and now we hear that there's going to be gun charges
and stuff like that. Just it is clearly been slow walked. I mean,
we have whistleblowers who say so. I always feel like this should be
two separate investigations one and like you sort of insinuated just now or said that
we should have an you know, a commission looking into the FBI and the
DJ and we should have an impeachment inquiry into the Biden family. But I
don't know. I mean, obviously he's not going to be removed even if
he's impeached. So this is more I think a way to let to circumvent
the media maybe and let a lot well. I think it makes a challenging
I read a little bit about what the media said. There was this ABC
or CBS or NBC, I don't know, they all blend together for me
saying despite the fact that there's no evidence wrongdoing from the Biden family, Republicans
impeach. I was like, right, Yeah, despite the lack of evidence
except for the email traffic, the photos, the contemporary evidence, the suspicious
activity reports, the on the record testimony, be on the record claims with
other people, Yeah, except for all those things, there's really not much
there you know, certainly, it's not like the Russia collusion hoax, which
was built on the imagination of people with no evidence. It's not like notthing
like that. But oh yeah, My point being, it'll be more difficult
for the media to do that, even though they're doing it right now,
it'll be more difficult for them to do that over the long term when facts,
information come out, when there are when there are televised hearings. You
know, it'll be just hard for them to continue their lives. I'm not
saying they won't continue, but it'll be more difficult. So I think that
is a big feature of this. There's another aspect to this that always annoys
me. It's that they constantly say there's no incriminating evidence pointing to Joe Biden
benefiting himself from this. But listen, if I am doing something corrupt or
illegal to enrich my kids and my wife and my you know, and my
brothers and everyone in my family, that is still corruption. I mean,
you know, money, As I've said before, it's fungible just you have
this sort of family enterprise. I don't care that there's no you know that
Joe Biden, there's no account somewhere where Joe Biden's name on it. There
might be, But I'm just saying, even enriching, you're helping enrich,
which we know he did your son in the shady deals using the office of
the Vice presidency is at the very least corrupt, if not illegal. So
that's bad enough. You don't even need any more evidence. Yeah, even
if it was just paying for his son and his son's family, that would
be very bad. You also have Hunter Biden claiming repeatedly that he was paying
his parents' bills, and I think you have evidence toward that as well,
that he was paying them money for rent and so, you know, like
kind of exorbitant amounts for that. So we'll see when the House looks more
into this. It is insane that journalists have not looked into this more.
I mean, Washington Post, New York Times of course, have the resources.
They could put hundreds of journalists on this. You might remember when they
sent like twenty seven reporters to dig through Sarah Palin's trash cans, Like they
have the resources they need. They were sending people to Russia and to Czech
Republic and you know, regurgitating every silly anonymous league that they were getting from
the FBI and Department of Justice, like they had words of reporters on that
they've had nothing on the Biden family. It has gone from there's nothing there.
I never spoke to anyone. He's completely clean, to hey, what
he did wasn't illegal. There's no you know, direct tangible evidence that he
himself took money. I mean, the goalposts have been moved miles already,
and I don't you know, who knows where they end up. Anyway,
it's going to be because one other thing about the compeachment inquiry, which is
it needs to go to it to some kind of end, Like, yeah,
they only have a four vote majority in the House and Democrats are pretty
much in lockstep in supportive corruption. Apparently the Senate is controlled by Democrats.
The media aligned against him. But I would hope that at least if the
inquiry could lead to thinking about how you fund you know, say, the
Department of Justice or FBI, or whether they really need to have their budget
increased as much as they want, and like all that would be really important
too. Y. I mean, if I were if we had real journalists,
they would get a Democrat on and they would say what where I would
say, I would ask them what exactly would be enough to convince you that
Joe Biden did something wrong? And that I list, you know, do
you need a bank account that shows money going to visit enough that he helped
someone in his family make money? Like what level of corruption is acceptable to
you or not acceptable to you? As far as impeachment goes, I suspect
that there's nothing you can do that's going to get a single Democratic vote.
Shoot a man on Fifth Avenue. Anyway, today, let's go to let's
move on. As I said before, it's going to be crazy. It's
going to be crazy. All the trials, the impeachment, everything that's going
to go on into there'll never be There's never been an election like this before.
It's just going to be insane, and that's good. I'm looking forward
to it. Can I say one thing about that election issue, which I
plan to write about, But I do love when you ask me if you
can say something every week and I tell you you're the boss. But yes,
So I was thinking about how there are these pillars for what makes for
a free and fair election, and it can get kind of complicated, you
know if you're not letting certain people registered to vote, do you have a
free or fair election? But one of them, one of the main ones,
is are people allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice? And
we routinely condemn other countries for not allowing people to vote for the candidate of
their choice. I think it was like twenty nineteen in Moscow. They did
not let the opposition party the opposition to putin. They did not let them
on the ballot. And I think they did it on the grounds of they
had been in they've been organizing illegal protests and they were rioters, and so
therefore they couldn't be on the ballot. And we and everybody every other civilized
country condemned this as a violation of elections and made for unfree and unfair elections.
And you right now have very prominent people in the Democrat Party and the
media and other regimentities working to move the primary political opponent from the ballot.
It's essentially canceling elections. I mean, if you say you can vote for
whomever you want as long as it's a Democrat or someone we approve of who's
not a Democrat that we think is okay to be un vote. That's not
a free or fair election. It's essentially canceling. It has the effect of
canceling the election. And people are openly talking about it as if it's not
this horrific, awful assault. And I know you're not as big of a
fan of democracy as many other Americans, David, but these are people who
claim to care about democracy and they're just trying to remove their opponent from the
boat. I just don't treat you know, democracy as a you know,
as a right, as a riot or a sacred religious, you know,
religious process, because has a lot of bad results. But anyway, I
want to get into that, but I will say I agree with you.
I think people this is why I'm against term limits actually an age caps and
stuff like that. People should be able to when they do vote, vote
for whoever they think, you know, want to vote for. And this
fourteenth Amendment, these lawsuits using the fourteenth Amendment to take Donald Trump off the
ballot because he has participated in an insurrection to overturn the constitution is first of
all, it's complete nonsense, because a Donald Trump has not been convicted of
any kind of insurrection or anything of the sort, not even if he was
convicted on any of these charges that are you know, these indictments that are
late, you know, out there right now. I don't think any of
you know, none of them would rise to the level of him participating to
an insurrection, even if he was found guilty. And I think there's a
Colorado as a suit and Minnesota as a suit, and hopefully the I mean,
I feel like the Supreme Court will overturn them. But I agree with
you. These people who keep telling you how important democracy are won one party
rule, that's what they want. I mean that the Biden's speech, the
semi fascist speech that he gave before the mid terms, was an argument for
one party rule. I hear this all the time that if Republicans win elections,
democracy is over, which is a weird argument to make. You have
to vote for our party and only our party, or democracy is in you
know, imperiled. So yeah, I mean they've been making this argument for
a while now and it's not even really an argument. It's just an authoritarian
way to look at the world. So so yeah, I agree with you.
And even before twenty twenty, I mean, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Ship,
these people said that if if Donald Trump won the election, that it
would not have been a fair and election because he cheated in some way and
democracy would have been over. So I don't even know how these people compean
thing. Remember Trump was like, if I win, is fair, and
if I don't win, it's not fair anyway. Yeah, but yeah,
that is that isn't is annoying. Hopefully the Supreme Court knocks it down and
we can get over over over that dumb argument anyway. This week to pretty
dramatically change topics right now, this week, there were was a hearing in
the Senate on banned books. Molly, you know, Republicans are banning books
all over the place, and Dick Durbin was up there saying that it was
a lie that Republicans have, you know, spread that that that anyone wants
any kind of pornographic material in any library or any school. So I had
tweeted out at the time. Then when I saw that that the best way
to prove this would be to read some of the books like lawn Boy,
I forget what the names of these other books, read it into the congressional
record and see see see how it feels. Of course he wouldn't do that,
but Senator Kennedy from Louisiana did do that, and it was great watching
left wing twitter, uh tweeting Kennedy saying, you know all this stuff which
streamely graphic, graphic ten year olds engaged in sexual activity and and so on,
it is unquestionably pornographic material. It wouldn't even be it's beyond pornographic.
It would be like child pornography. Right, Yeah, the book lawn Boy
is basically child it's child pornography. It's masquerading is educational content as child pornography.
And it's not the only book. The other you know, there are
other books like gender Queer. Uh, it feels so good to be yourself,
Like these books are pornographic. And anyway, he was reading it,
and left wing twitters like can you you know Kennedy's having a normal one,
and like mocking him. And but the thing is, I think he proved
a point. I mean, you can read, yes, yeah, No,
their mockery of him just proves the point that this is not something that
any kids should be able to read. But I just wanted to make one
quick point that I think a lot of people missed. Yes, it's pornographic,
but even if it wasn't pornographic. I don't want my kids, or
I wouldn't want my kids if they were young learning all of these pseudoscientific gender
terms and nonsensical verbiage and idiotic thinking in schools. I should have a choice
and so should other parents, to not have this read to them now.
It is pornographic because it is organically pornographic, because this is all about sex.
But it's not just about the pornography. The Watchdogo on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the
economy and how it affects your wallet. Ever heard of Goldilocks? Remember,
bad news is not good news. No matter what they claim to say about
biodynamics. Unemployment is still rising, wages remain stagn and job numbers are now
revised. There's still no soft landing with this plane. Whether it's happening in
DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed.
Check out the watchdild on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts. So frequently when people are talking about
the appropriateness of a given book for a given age that gets referred to as
book band. So if someone says, I'm okay with my kids learning best
sex, but I think it's to be high school where you learn this,
not kindergarten, people say you're banning a book. Or if you think,
like, oh, this book is more appropriate for fourth grade instead of kindergarten,
they claim you're banning a book. It's so stupid, because of course,
every single person in the world has any number of books that they don't
think are appropriate for in general or for a given age group. But I
had seen this done at school board meetings where you'll have left wing operators,
and I don't like the idea that it's Republican or democrat because a lot of
these parents are not Republican. They just don't want their children groomed for weirdness
at the school library. And they might. You know, it doesn't require
a particular political persuasion necessarily to be opposed to that, and the school bird
will denegrate these people who want to have a discussion about these books, and
invariably a parent will start reading at the school board meeting the books. They
will get kicked out, sometimes arrested. They will have their mics shut off,
and it's like, oh, so it's not appropriate to say it at
a public meeting of adults, but it is okay to shove it down your
kid's throat. Really, that's your argument. So I'm glad that Senator Kennedy
read it. I had no idea when I first someone sent it to me.
I was like, what is going on? Like why is he what
could he possibly be doing here? I had no idea there was this hearing
going on. But yeah, they cannot show on television what he said.
They cannot show it on the radio. They cannot play it on the radio.
And that is a very powerful thing to say. We were discussing whether
kindergartner should have access to something that we actually can't show you on television.
Kind of wins the argument for the people who we're making it. Yeah,
the Illinois Secretary of State was there when this was being read, and he
said that that sounds disturbing coming from me or mouth. Well you know what,
it would sound disturbing for me coming from anyone's mouth into school in front
of kids. And thank you for mentioning the book band thing. That book
bands are a book band is a euphemism for curating a library like my book
books are in your books are not banned in schools or school libraries. They're
curated in a way that doesn't have them. Maybe they should, I think
they should, but I mean I've challenged people, just name me any of
one of these books, and I will have it to you literally overnight,
and it will be on your front porch by by tomorrow, because they're not
banned. But I will say also that a lot You're right, it's not
just a part, isn't part is an issue. A lot of parents in
these schools in Virginia, Yea and elsewhere, you know, fought back and
were abused by school boards. Listen the suburban mom and dad, like you
know, they're they're scared to be called bigots. And this is the kind
of you know, terrorism for lack of a better word, that these left
activists engage in. They continually change what it means to be a bigot,
to be phobic of something, and they use this to cow, you know,
and lord over people who don't don't want it in their schools. So
also parents need to stand up and like they can't care about their kids.
Who cares if someone calls you a bigot or phobic because you don't want your
kids groomed for sexual activity at a young age. Like, I don't care
what you call me. I really don't. I'm protecting my kids and I
don't care about my reputation among the people who think it is okay to do
that stuff. You don't care enough about your kids, and you should just
like really reevaluate your life. Yeah, obviously, I think this also plays
into issues of the importance of school choice, but I just don't. I'm
not just talking about vouchers. I'm talking about local communities or states or whoever
being able to control their own curriculum, curriculum and teach kids what they think
is is right. So that also, by the way, goes for pseudohistories
that that kids are being taught that across the country that aren't pornographic, They're
still not the truth. Just like this gender trendy gender pseudoscience isn't isn't truth
either. I wouldn't want to teach my kids things that weren't true, even
if they you know, and if I believed in this, you know that
that you know, whatever these people believe. But anyway, I'm so happy
he did it. I just wonder how many people will we'll hear about it,
because there are so many stories out there about banned books and what you
know, library associations could do about people want to band books and listen some
of these some of these activists go overboards sometimes and try to get rid of
books that are classics. But the you know, the Life was doing that
with Mark Twain and others for years and years already, So I don't know,
Yeah, I would not. I would expect the propaganda press to continue
their lives. I've been shocked at how effective some of that against Ronda Santis
has been, where normal people who would think do a better job of reading,
underlying, you know, reading the source material, have accepted the New
York Times version of events that he's some kind of book banner. But you
have to everyone should be fighting that. I mean, it's real life propaganda
in the sense that it is the definition of prop one of the you know,
main thrusts of real propagandas repeating something over and over until people start believing
it and speaking and you know, and using the phrases and words like band
books. It's like the media is this propaganda, you know, real propaganda
outfit, and they just keep, you know, bombarding you with these with
these phrases, and people start picking them up, and it's really difficult to
fight back. Can I fear into something else that's probably a little awkward to
talk about, and it's also about the media, So let's do it.
Yeah. Last week, Tucker Carlson on his do we call it X yet?
Or? Is a stream eat that name? X? I like Twitter?
I thought Twitter was a great name. X makes it sound dirty and
weird, and I don't like it, But yes, I guess we call
it X or is everybody's X formerly known as Twitter. It's like someone someone
pointed out, I forget who that it's going to be weird when that X
bill shows up on your American Express bill and you have to explain it to
your wife, you know. But so Tucker Carlson interviewed a guy named Larry
Sinclair who claims they smoke crack and slept with Obama in nineteen ninety five.
I think I'm multiple, maybe twice or something like that. Now. I
don't like to talk about stuff like this, honestly, but I would like
to talk about the media dimension of it. Everyone was disgusted by this.
This is just terrible, you know, unethical, like just that, you
know, is the low Tucker Carlson's lowest moment, you know, just terrible.
And you know, I just don't see any difference between this and how
I do see a difference, I'll tell you in a second, but just
substantively. I don't see a difference between what Tucker did ask some question from
someone who was making some claims, and what the entire media did do it
with Christine, with the cabin, all the accusers of Brett Cavanaugh, some
of them far less credible than others, though none of them credible at really
at all, or what they did with Donald Trump and the pe tapes,
which I went and looked, was mentioned in some way in every major you
know outlet, right. I do not like to traffic in unsubstantiated allegations about
people's sex lives. I think that's wrong. I don't understand how any member
of corporate media can say that they also think that's wrong when that's all they
do. I mean, that's all they do. I hadn't even thought of
the p tape example. But in the case of Christine blasi Ford, no
one ever substantiated that claim that she had. You had her naming four other
people who were there. Not one of them, including her best friend,
said that they could could agree with her about what happened, and one of
them actually came to doubt her story. You know, it wasn't just that
she couldn't remember it. She remembered that summer really well, and she did
not remember any such thing like that happening. And she yeah, So the
Washington Post turned that into a series of articles. They ran the campaign against
someone who was a very well respected federal judge of twelve years, who had
gone through multiple background checks, was a very pious and you know, like
honorable husband and father. And I don't find these particularly credible about Barack Obama.
But you know it's not because he hasn't admitted to doing drugs. You
know, he was a member of the Chum gang and he had a reputation
for doing cocaine. Also, it came out a few months ago, actually
came out years ago, but it kind of recame out a few months ago
that he had told multiple girlfriends that he had fantasies about gay sex. In
one letter, he said something like, I have sex with men every day,
but only in my mind, and nowhere did the media say that those
things made his made this. Larry Sinclair thinks some more credible. In the
case of Brett Kavanaugh, who had like nothing but character is like up and
down the Eastern Seaboard, they ran wild with a story and accused him of
being a serial gang rapist roaming the streets of suburban Maryland. When a woman
claimed, in fact that he was a serial gang rapist who took part in
like repeated parties to gang let a gang rape cartel, she said, the
Washington Post said that she was a highly credible, very respected person, and
she wasn't. First off, It's just like they said with Christopher Steele that
he was like beyond reproach. He wasn't. That wasn't true. And I
thought that that might be what Tucker was doing, by the way, in
having this interview, to just showcase how corrupt our corporate media are. What
they're willing to do with much less solid circumstances. Well, you'll you'll definitely
remember, but listeners might not that a book had come out of after Kavanaugh
controversy, I'll call it and written by two New York Times reporters, and
they didn't they have a someone who accused Kavanaugh, or they said there was
a victim of a Kavanaugh assault, but the person herself couldn't remember the incident.
Is am I getting that right? No, But I want to tell
about this because I don't think I'm not sure if I've told about this before.
So Kerry Savorino and I wrote the national bestseller on the Kavanaugh confirmation,
Justice on Trial, so it was like the number one book in the country.
We really wanted to get out before all these other books were coming out.
Every left wing journalist was going to try to do what they did with
Clarence Thomas. So like with Clarence Thomas when they ran that smear campaign against
him, and at the end of that, nobody really believed his accuser.
Everybody believed him. They just were like, well, that's fine, We'll
spend the next thirty years pretending like it was true and relitigating it over and
over and over again. So we kind of knew that would happen with the
Kavanaugh situation, and I really wanted to get my hands Carrie and I really
wanted to get our hands on the other books before they came out so that
we could read them, because as you know, nobody reads books that come
out, so I just by act of reading them, you can can break
a lot of news and stuff. So someone I know went to a local
bookstore ahead of the release of that book, which was by these two New
York Times reporters. It was called The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, and she
just asked for a copy of the book, and they should not have given
her one, but they gave her a couple of copies, and so I
was able. So we just purchased them early and we read them. And
it was at the same time that the press campaign was coming out for this
book. The New York Times published that there was another woman, but if
you actually read the book, it was clear that there wasn't another woman.
There was a left wing activist who claimed that he knew of a woman,
and in the book it admits that the woman herself is like, I have
no idea what you're talking about. So the New York Times published that there
was another accuser and that she was very credible and all this stuff. It
wasn't even true based on their own book, and it was supposed to be
a huge, huge release and we broke the news before it came out that
it was not true. I think those two reporters probably hate Carrie and me
for what we did. But anyway, yeah, so yeah, but so
then the victim herself could not remember the alleged attack. But victim, yeah,
alleged. I mean, she wasn't invicting all right, now, this
person. I'm sure that these two reporters got uh, you know, we're
on every in every you know. I'm sure the book was reviewed all over
the place, and I'm sure they were interviewed all over the place, even
though it didn't do very well, you know. But so here's what happens
what the media does when you have some like the let's talk about the PE
tape. I hate to talk about the TP tape. I'm going to talk
about it. So I went through every story, or not every story,
but many of the big stories that had mentioned it, and they do it
in this kind of underhanded way where they are like, well, someone brought
it up, so is it fake or real? We don't know? Or
New York Times column here's the headline, lordy, is there really a PE
tape? You know? Real or fake? It was either way allegations of
lou tape poses challenge for Trump. So what they do is without verifying,
without doing any journalism, they spread the story all over the place. And
when something happens like this where a Democrat is being accused, they then it's
a completely different process. They deploy fact checkers, they contextualize things, reporters,
columnists, you know, you know, and so forth. I hate
it that every single time we speak, we're talking about double standards. But
I just don't understand how we can go on when this is how the press
functions. It's just impossible for us to trust anything they say. And the
Tucker interview just reminded me of that. I don't know if he did it
on purpose, if he's engaged in some kind of information warfare. He's a
smart guy, maybe he is, but it that's what I took away from
it is all I want to say. Yeah, great, So, since
we're on the Supreme Court, I want to bring up another edious story and
the Supreme Court this is about so maybe so Justice Samuel Alito has been the
you know, the target, one of the targets. But a Maine I
would say, after Clarence Tom it's the main target of people who are looking
to de legitimize the court and to smear the justices, And then do you
want to explain this? So yeah, I actually think it's kind of interesting
because he's been on the court for so long. You know, as an
a point, you have George W. Bushes and has always been a pretty
powerful force on the court, but he's not had Justice Alito has not been
like in the news as much as some of the other justices were, And
while he was not getting paid much attention to, he was quietly reshaping the
court. So like most dramatically, he's the author of the Dab's decision,
which takes up like fifty years of abortion jurisprudence, and you know, does
this like major thing of fixing a huge problem on the court with the Road
decision. And so now all of a sudden, there's a there's a ton
of interest. There's the race fueled hatred towards Clarence Thomas that a lot of
the left has had for a long time. Now, they also hate Justice
Ledo and so they're trying really to attack the integrity of the court. But
they also practice this thing where you personalize your attacks, and so those two
do seem to be the primary targets, but not only those two. I
mean, I think people keep forgetting Justice Kavanaugh and his family were targeted for
assassination. He has young children. They nearly were killed. And this is
a coordinated left wing attack on the legitimacy of the court, and it's led
by people in the Senate and highly funded outside dark money groups. And Sheldon
white House in the Senate was trying to get Justice Alito to recuse from a
case. And forgive me, I don't remember what the particulars of the situation
were. He actually wasn't trying to get Justice Alito to recuse himself. He
was trying to get Justice Roberts to force Alito's recusal. And Justice Alito wrote
wrote into the docket something on recusal that was so awesome and devastating. It
was sort of began just you know, how things are done or around here.
It is up to each justice to decide when to recuse. And you
don't have someone else, you know, do it for you. You can't.
It's not like from a top down thing. So just you know that's
how it works. I will also point out usually you don't say why you're
recusing when you recuse, and there's there's a we can get into why that
is. But he then goes into all these oh, I know what,
Yeah, Sheldon Whitehouse that he had to recuse because he'd sat for an interview
with David Rifkin and James Toronto of the Wall Street Journal, and David Rifkin
is also a practicing attorney, and he had some issue before the court,
some tangentially thing, and so he was like, so clearly you have to
recuse. A Justice Alito did this unbelievable beatdown of Sheldon Whitehouse where he just
listed all the times that justice had sat for interviews with people who had business
before the court. Usually it's left. Usually it's left wing media with left
wing justices, and they do even like mentioned where one of them had written
a book with a left wing journalists who had business before the court and didn't
recuse. And it was just, you know, it wasn't snarky, it
was just brutal in its recitation of facts. Yeah, it should, but
here's what happens. Though I think the case was more versus United States,
like a tax case or something. It was ridiculous. And the problem is
that every outlet then has a headline that says, sam Alito refuses to recuse
himself from case as if there was ever an expectation of any by anybody,
reasonable person, exactly in the past now that he should do that. So
now for the casual onlooker, it looks like sam Alito should have or this
question, it will recuse himself from a case that perhaps even perhaps he should
or whatever, when as as he pointed out, there is no no way,
I mean, you know that he that he should. So it's amazing
because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was like best buddy is with that person at MPR what
was her name needed She's a book out now called something like My Journeys with
Ruth. So again, just a ridiculous double standard. But but they have
become so they're just so excellent at kind of manipulating media coverage of these things
that I'm not sure how you fight back because Aldo's excellent response is going to
is not going to be read obviously by even a fraction you know, of
the of the number of people who read a headline that says a leader refuses
refuses to refuse himself from whatever. So but yeah, you know, it's
it's like watch these polls where they ask you, like, which institutions do
trust in the Supreme Court? Trust level, as you know, continue to
dip, and then the Democrats use this as more fodder for why there needs
to be ethic or ethics reforms and so forth. I meanwhile, they are
the ones who are destroying the reputation of the court. Right, It's like
those Menendez brothers who killed their parents and then they plied that they should get
leniency because they were orphans. That's great, right, that's great. Yeah,
No, that's that's a good way to look at it. All right,
let's talk about culture. Okay. I have to say I've been somewhat
busy. I haven't done much. I always say that, and then I
like name like t watch now, list the twelve TV shows that you've binge
watched in the last week. I am watching a show that's on HBO Max
or is it just called Max I forget? But it's called Gangs of London,
okay, And it is exactly what it sounds like. It's about get
some the gangs of London in modern day London. And it gets really great
reviews. I think it's up in the nineties on Rotten Tomatoes. I think
it's okay. I mean, you know, sometimes it takes a little while
we get warmed up get into a show, but it's okay. I do
want me to do my list, and then you will do your list.
Did you want to go back and forth? You can go back and forth.
Okay, what do you want to do? You go? Yeah.
I haven't really watched anything other than I was supposed to fly to Grand Rapids,
Michigan on Saturday, and then we had storms in DC and they did
a ground stop on the plane and they canceled my flight. So I suddenly
found myself with some time on Saturday night that I wasn't expecting. So one
of the kids wanted to watch Lawrence of Arabia, and we watched that,
and, you know, much like when I saw The Godfather and began telling
people that I had seen a very good movie called The Godfather, I saw
a very good movie called Lawrence of Arabia, and just cinema cinematographically, that's
how you pronounced that. I was blown away. I really was. I
just thought some of these shots were so cool. This shot where someone's kind
of appearing on the horizon very slowly. I'm like, I just couldn't believe
like how they did or like a sunrise, it's just beautiful. I really
liked. I didn't totally love, you know, like it was also an
interesting story and all that, and Peter o'tools very interesting, but I liked
it. Was it an email or a tweet where someone pointed out that you'll
like, you'll say something like he made like Gone with the Wind, but
you'll give it the wrong name, and then I don't know what you're talking
abo. I did nothing wrong that time. I was like, Oh,
she's going to talk about an old movie. I'm gonna get to correct her.
But you did. Yeah, Lawrence Raby is beautiful. Is The cinematography
is wonderful, those epics. I think David Lean made beautiful movies. M
Doctor Chicago. Maybe not a single woman in that film, and I kind
of liked that. It's kind of fun to just watch men together. Oh.
Also, there's this part where there's this tribal leader who Lawrence has work
with him, you know, on some stuff, and he's looting the train.
The train attack, there's a train attack, per traded. There's like
this Turkish railway that Lawrence would was attacking and I just learned yesterday that that
train is still there, that the train that they attacked it it just crashed
and then it's just there still one hundred years later. But anyway, one
of the tribal guys is looting the train and he's preparing to go back home,
and Lawrence's supervisor's like, how can you just leave? Like we've got
more work to do, and he's like, I got what I needed,
which is like the loot I now I'm going home. Don't you go home
when you got what you came for. It's like Lawrence is going to go
home when he gets what he came for. And Lawrence agrees, and then
the Lawrence's boss is like, I will not go home when I got what
I came for. And I was like, oh, that is an early
Neocon, you know, like you but she your objective and now you're going
to stay for another twenty years. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.
Yeah, but the British or Neo Kin's because they bled the places they were
for, you know, to enrich themselves, or we didn't even do that.
We became poor, a little different kind of empire. But yeah,
I'm a fan of T. Lawrence, who was, you know, a
big fan of the Arab people and Arab nationalism later but also believed in a
Jewish state, and they believed they could coexist. So it's an interesting fella.
I watched for the first time in my life, Miss Congeniality, Yes
with Sandra. Very fine film, very fine film, did you. I
didn't love it. I don't know. I didn't think it was that funny,
but I did. I am a big Michael Caine fan, and I
just I think it's amazing that he can base in his career, could play
any kind of role, you know, right, Yeah, He's just amazing.
I'm a big Sandra Bullock fan. I think she does great physical comedy.
I did annoy my friend who who gave us a tour of the Alamo,
by talking about that movie while there, so because there's a pivotal scene
at the Alamo. She's likable. Ah, she is so but she's always
just herself, isn't she. I guess that's true. But I like her.
I like I like her so I like I like it when she plays
herself in these rooms. Okay. I also went to a concert last week
the Ocean Blue. Do you remember them? No, you don't remember The
Ocean Blue. M it's a good band. I thought you might like them.
I don't know what it's called. It's like a particular it's there were
a lot of men there, which kind of surprised me because it's kind of
gauzy, chill music in eighties band. Huh. I listened to them in
the nineties. I think that they were mostly all in the nineties. Oh
yeah, first album is eighty nine The Ocean Blue. Yeah, that's a
really great album. You cannot tell me you don't know that. And then
it was really in his next And I had a friend who I thought would
really like that concert that I was going to take her to that concert,
and I got four tickets so that her husband and my husband and I could
all go. And then she moved, so I still enjoyed the concert.
It was great. And then earlier in the week, my husband went to
death Cab for Cutie and the postal Service, so that was kind of exciting.
And yeah, it was exciting for you that your husband went. No,
he's just like, you know, we'd seen them. We've seen both
of those bands, and a younger part of our lives. But I watched
a movie called The Eagle. Never heard of it. So it stars Channing
Tatum oh is that his name? Yea and some young men. This is
like, this movie's from like a decade ago. But it's about the disappearance
of the Ninth Legion in Britain, which is kind of this it's debated,
we don't know if that actually happened. But a legion disappears in you know,
Roman legion in Britain and he his dad led it. So he went
to So this person goes to try to find the Lost Standard, you know,
you know, to to sort of bring back you know, the Eagle
Standard, to to to sort of bring back you know, to to bring
back his family's name into and to uh you know. So anyway, it's
the story. It's the worst bitch. I don't I don't even know.
Remember, well, I'm not sure. Here's the thing. If there's a
movie about anything Roman, I'm going to watch it. Okay. So the
Ninth Standard thing has been It's been a device in many Roman movies through through
the years. There's another movie called Centurion, which was with my Chael fast
Bounder as I say his name bender who which is a better movie I think
than this one, but I will watch all of them. And The Eagle
was okay. It had Jamie Bell. Do you know that is he's kind
of like now when he's a little kid. He was in that. Oh
my gosh, I wish I could remember anyway. That does remind me about
the thing I have been watching, which is only Murders in the Building.
And I think I mentioned too that I once was talking about how much I
loved Steve Martin and Martin Short with all the fancy women who revealed that they
hated Martin Short, like they couldn't stand him and they thought he was awful.
Did you see that there was that guy in Slate last week who wrote
that Martin Short is like the worst, most annoying person ever. Yes,
And it sparked a backlash, and everyone was talking about how much they loved
Martin Short. I almost want thought to those ladies and be like, look,
one of the stories was so sweet. You know, his wife had
passed away from cancer, I guess ten years ago, so he was on
like Good Morning America and Kathy Gifford was that her name? I don't know
anyone's name. Kathy Gifford was like talking about his wife as if she was
alive, and asked him if they were still in love, and he said
something like I'm deeply and madly in love with her, but didn't correct her,
you know. And they asked him later WoT and he said he didn't
want to embarrass embarrass her, you know, which is it just seems like
a nice man, you know in general. And I would say I was
a fan. I like him better. Now, what was that character that
I mentioned the other week that does the interviews, Jimmy Click Jelly. I
cannot get enough of that, that character. It's just so funny, so
sor right. My kids know him from when years ago we went to Disney
what's the one in Florida World or Land, Disney World, Disney World.
I wrote about it in the Federalist. Actually the piece was called into the
Heart of Darkness. And he know him because he he was like, you
go into this Nations of the World exhibit and he is the guy who talks
about Canadah. Yeah, there you go. Sometimes why am I on here?
And what am I talking about? This is not this is a show.
This isn't just me boring Molly with my nonsense anyway, good, all
right, do you have anything else? No? Lovely talking to We'll chat
next week. Yeah and until then. Yeah, people, you forgot to
tell people where the email. And that's always important because we get the best
emails. And it's a I think radio at the Federalist dot com. That's
exactly where it is. That's where you can email us. We do.
We get really wonderful emails, like explaining to me what poor him is about.
Thank you, you were gonna you were going to tell me this week,
and you almost didn't. I know, I know. It just reminded
me. So you asked me the Jewish hoey of hor, and why do
people get drunk? And why do they get dressed up? Right? So
I believed, but wasn't sure that this was just sort of more recent tradition,
not any kind of real religious reason. It's not like a mitzvah to
do it, to get drunk, you know, it's not a mitzvah to
get dressed up. But so from what I gather, the drinking part comes
from the Talmud, I think, where it asks people to be happy,
happy about surviving near genocide, I guess, and to be happy about the
outcome of it. You drink. You're supposed to drink, but you're not
supposed to drink so much that you do things that are against the tour,
embarrass yourself and put yourself in danger, which I have to say, growing
up many people seem to do when they were doing this. And the dressing
up there is also a traditional thing, and there's some debate over but partly
it's because as to herself basically dressed up as some you know and hit her
identity in a way. So I think it might be connected to that sort
of thing, at least that's what I gathered, but again I'm not a
rabbi. Great, thank you very much. Okay, you're welcome. So
and he lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray, and talk to you
next week.