Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong with Molly Hemingway and
David Harsani. Just a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. We'd love to hear
from you. Molly, I love to hear from you. How you doing,
I'm doing great, David. How's your week going? That's going okay?
So let's talk about the big story that's going on. Actually, I
don't know if it's big for normal people, but I guess it's big in
the media sphere or a political sphere. But Rna McDaniel, who was the
RNC chair until very recently, it's just some background, was hired by NBC
News. I'm not sure if that was MSNBC as well or just NBC News,
doesn't really exactly. And right away you had basically a revolt of the
so called talent on that show. I think it began with did it begin
with Chuck Todd saying something? Or maybe yeah, Chuck Todd, I've got
who else? Kristin Welker is that her name? Kristin? Yeah, Kristin
Welker and Chuck Todd got things going. Runa was scheduled for a Sunday morning
interview with Kristin Walker, who's kind of a crazy Democrat activist, very much
in favor of abortion and other Democrat policy goals. So she gave a hostile
interview to RAA McDaniel, who had just been hired as a contributor, and
she said, like, I just want you to know I had nothing to
do with her hiring. And then they went to a roundtable discussion with like
four Democrats, including or four Democrat people who support Democrats being elected. So
that could be anyone from like a Steve Hayes to a Chuck Todd, you
know. So that's your range of opinion there that NBC allows. And Chuck
Todd, who is a radical conspiracy theorist, I mean, I think it's
worth pointing out he has spent years pushing the Russia collusion lie, the lie
that Donald Trump stole the twenty sixteen election by colluding with Russia. And he
said that he just wanted to begin by trashing his employers, the people who
pay him, that he thinks they are reprehensible for having hired a Republican because
she supported efforts to challenge the twenty twenty election. So apparently you can challenge
elections like Chuck Todd does for years if you are challenging a Republican win,
but if you challenge a Democrat win, that means that you cannot be employed.
So they kind of set a new standard which is only Democrats allowed,
and only Democrat election challengers allowed. And he lost his mind, and he
just went off and everyone sat there like just kind of quietly agreeing with him,
you know, just it was really weird to watch. And I say
that as a TV person who works for a cable outlet that is quite open
about having a variety of viewpoints, and we have at Fox, like I've
worked with Don and Brazil as a contributor, So I mean, this is
the exact kind of scenario that I have experienced as a as a TV contributor.
And I would just like to say that Fox would never tolerate people trashing
a colleague, you know, for any reason on air. You can disagree
with them, you can disagree with them strongly, you can you know,
you can let that flag fly, but you're you're not to be rude to
your fellow employees. Well, Chuck Todd's a bully and also a hack.
Now, people, whenever I call a media personnel like Chuckdaud a hack,
and I have good reason to say that. I've written about him many times,
they're like, don't you have opinions? You're a hack too, blah
blah blah. There's a difference between having strong opinions and or pretending that you
are an unbiased, you know, mediator of you know, of ideas and
that you're recording the news or Chuck does all the time, which he's not.
He's just the activist dem right. Yes, there's certainly a difference between
news and opinion, and the worst kind of opinion is that which comes from
people who are so stupid or so partisan that they like to claim that they
don't have opinions. So there's also It is also true, though, that
there are different qualities of news and different qualities of opinion, and having well
formed ideas and being able to express them is a really good gift, and
a lot of these partisan hacks don't do a good job with it too.
So there are multiple variations here, and Chuck Todd is really at the lower
wrong of partisan hackery, but also he's over seeing the degradation I guess of
Meet the Press, which was listen, it's always you always have some bias
there, you always have. But it used to be a place, so
those Sunday morning shows used to be the place where you'd go to just get
something a little more serious, a little less biased. Right, And he
has completely destroyed I don't even watch it anymore. That used to be for
someone involved in politics, you had to watch Meet the Press, right,
I don't even watch it anymore. It's just not worth it. You know.
It's kind of interesting now you can record shows and watch them and whatnot.
But because I was always at church on Sunday mornings, like, I
never kind of got into that Sunday morning talk show game. But it definitely
was this thing where you, yeah, you had people from different positions of
power that would come in and kind of like face some questioning and it was
serious. And now it's like a complete and utter joke. If you are
a Republican and come on, Kristin Walker will badger you with her far left
Democrat talking points. If you're a Democrat, oh well, good, it
was so nice to see you, and it's great and we're going to ask
some gentle questions about what a threat to the republic. Republicans are and so
it's just like it's like a joke. I don't know any serious person who
takes frankly, any Sunday show that seriously. Right, though just for younger
people, that was not the case in the past. But so I read
just a little more background. I read in Political Very Deep in a story
about this, that Welker had actually met with McDaniel and knew she was going
to be hired and was kind of part of the process of hiring her,
so that she might be lying in general about that anyway. But what made
me, first of all, let's just say that that NBC News and other
out major outlets hire political former political hacks, actual hacks, and political operatives
all the time, all the time. Jensaki has a show, right,
doesn't he have? She have a show on MSNBC. Now she had a
little breakdown. It made me laugh because she said that she the difference was
she doesn't lie, which I'm not going to go through all her lies now
because it would take hours, but she was, you know, she had
lied. Just to give you an example of a of a few things.
She was one of the people that during the reinflationary or when inflation was started.
She said, no serious economist was saying that inflation would get out of
hand, which was a complete and utter lie that she knew. She said
that no one was stranded in Afghanistan after the disastrous Biden pull out, which
is a lie. She was part of the echo chamber that Ben Road set
up before, you know, she was a big part in deploying that.
So she lied about the Hunter Biden laptop stuff. She lies all the time.
Fine, she lies. I don't know that McDaniel lied. Oh yeah,
this is what I wanted to say. Sorry, all over the place
she before working there, had to say that she thought the twenty twenty election
was fair. They made her say that. It seemed like to me,
like, is that wright? Did you watch Did you watch it or read
the transfer? I read about all this. Yeah, I thought she did
a fine job handling the election questions. So, yeah, it was it
was weird. She was Chris Walker was pushing deranged, gaslighting propaganda about the
twenty twenty election being the most secure election in the history of the world.
I mean, it's like delusional stuff. And she was badgering Rana to agree
to that and she just didn't. Rona was well informed on some of the
problems, including issues in Pennsylvania, and Kristin Walker was like informed at that
level that she clearly just gets the talking points and doesn't actually understand the underlying
issues. So she's like, but the Supreme Court didn't take up that Pennsylvania
issue. Well, yeah, they didn't for reasons that have nothing to do
with the merits of you know, of a gimven case. So I thought
Rona handled that well. And they did this thing where they're like, will
you bow down in supplication and admit that Joe Biden is the most purely elected
person of all time? And Rona was like, he's the president, you
know, he was elected, and they're like, y yah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, but can you say the precise words that this was that
he is, Like, I forget what the exact words. They were like
badgering her to say, but she had to say it in a certain way
that it was the most free and most fair election in the history of the
world. And she handled that part fight. She did not handle the j
sixth part fine, which we could talk about separately, but it was like
they wanted her to use the precise words like we were living in Soviet Russia.
I mean, it was just insane. It's there's so much projection from
them when it comes to this stuff. They think that the Supreme Court should
just come down and say this election was fair. You know what I mean
When they take up cases that are very specific about elections in state states run
elections, they are not empowered to just say he is president, like they
just want the Supreme Court to act like authoritarians. But also it's just true
that no judge, I don't care if you are the most local judge.
No judge likes to get involved in election disputes. They're always looking for ways
to get out of election disputes. The Supreme Court. You might remember from
when the Democrats claimed the two thousand election was stolen by George W. Bush.
The Supreme Court had to get involved in that situation, and the Left
has never forgiven them for that. And the Supreme Court has a lot of
justices who just did not enjoy, like didn't enjoy what that did to their
reputation all and all things like that. But in the situation with Pennsylvania and
other states, sometimes the way that the issue would arise they would say,
oh, well, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just changed election laws and processes in
a way that conflicts with the Constitution. And they would say, oh,
it's like too soon before an election to litigate this, so we just don't
have time, right, like, you know, the October the term for
the Supreme Court starts in October. They don't love to do like emergency things
before that, and then it's like kind of too late to hear arguments and
rule on them all ahead of a November two or whatever it was election.
So like in one of the cases, they were like, oh, it's
like too soon before an election to get involved. And then afterwards, like
one of the issues that was challenged. There are many issues that were challenged
in Pennsylvania, and I can't remember exactly which one it was. It might
have dealt with ballot curing or signature verification, and it affected a certain number
of votes, which was not greater than the margin of victory for Biden,
and they were like, well, you know, it didn't affect the election
anyway, so let's like just skip it. And I can't remember who wrote
the dissent. I think it was it might have been Kavanaugh. It might
have been Alito, it might have been Thomas. I can't remember which one
they were. Like, this is precisely the time for the court to weigh
in on this issue because it doesn't affect the outcome of the election, right,
Like, nobody's passionate, nobody's in the heat of the moment. You
can just kind of, like in clear minds, with no you know,
political pressure, just kind of decide the issue. So that has nothing to
do though with the merits of the case. And so when people say,
oh, there were sixty cases in no court, you know, it's like,
these are complicated issues in each In each and every one of these cases,
Christian Walker does not have any knowledge of these things. And it shows
Rona did better on that front, and she should have because she was the
head of the RNC, so she was intimately involved in some of this.
Well, there's also a broader issue we should talk about a bit, and
that is the inability. I've been saying this for a long time. I
think people like Chuck Todd et cetera. Are authoritarians in the sense that they
have the authoritarian mindset, not just specifically because of laws or but there's an
authoritarian mindset that just is incapable of allowing for any real descent. There is
no real descent on major establishment news channels. Really, we talked about this
the other week. They'll have conservatives, maybe people are disposed to be a
little more conservative, but none of them represent the core of what you know
of the Republican Party right now, which is pro Trump. I can't.
I think there was who There was one guy on CNN. I forget Jeffrey
Lord. He was fired for ridiculous reasons outside of Fox, So I don't
And even there, frankly, you know there are you know whatever, I
think it does a better job. So this goes Remember what happened to Kevin
Williamson at Atlantic. They could not live the mob. People who worked that
could not live with someone who disagreed with them on abortion. There was the
do you remember the case of Sarah Isker. I don't have to pronounce her
name, Sarah Isker. She was at CNN. This was twenty nineteen.
She is not like a pro Trump person at all. I think she works
at the Dispatch now. She was. You know, there was a rebellion
at CNN not to have her work there. You know, it's the employees
are a mob and they will not they will not allow to set at their
institutions. To me, these are two different issues. One is the I
actually love that NBC had a corporate wide, complete and utter meltdown at the
hiring of a single Republican I mean one. You cannot name any other person
at that entire, large, massive like corporate media establishment that is in any
way aligned with the Republican Party. And by the way, Rona is not,
I mean, like I'm sure our listeners understand this. Rona is not
really considered representative of a lot of where the Republican Party is right now.
And she's a relatively moderate voice. I would you would be a good person
to be on like the left range of your Republican voices, of which you
should have about half of your partisan voices. So your news people shouldn't be
partisan. They all are. They all do opinion all the time. Kristen
Welker is the biggest opinion host on the network, for instance. And then
yeah, and then and then you should have a wide variety and we have
it, you know, we have we have a wide variety of voices at
the Federalists, you know, particularly when it comes to contributors, and we
always have and we kind of like that. But sorry, There's one other
thing I want to say, which is we used to have like news and
opinion shows, and those were like different shows. And Fox still does like
Fox still has news programming and then it has opinion programming. So there's a
difference between Brett Baer Special Report and Laura Ingram, you know, the Next
Hour. And there are elements of news in all of the opinion programming,
but there's like a clear delineation that we actually establish, like at the at
the top at CNN and NBC, there is no longer any news programming none.
It's all opinion. And so people underestimate how bad NBC News Digital is,
like they're reporting wing. It's as bad as it's It is a spreader
of conspiracy theories. It is worse, I think than maybe any other outlet.
I don't know if people realize that, Like Fusion GPS is Kendlanian,
I mean, he's part of it, but that Ben what's his name Collins
is as name, but others too. It's just terrible. They spread conspiracy
theories. And because the banner you know, says NBC News, it has
yeah, it has this patina of like credibility still from maybe for older people,
but it is not a credible news organization. So you have all of
these quote unquote news organizations which are really just uh, you know, democrat
news media. Then you have a Fox, which is like got is the
one that actually has the reputation for being partisan. They're the only ones with
a wide variety of voices from left to right, and they're the only ones
that separate news and opinion. They're doing well like old school media TV media
outlets did, so we've but just think about that. You've got like all
these left wing outlets and then you have Fox, and then there's no like
conservative equivalent at the level of the NBC CNN, Meaning there are these right
wing media things I think, I think like o AN and Newsmax. I
don't I don't watch TV news, so I'm like not totally read into this,
but those would be more right wing I think, but they're not in
any way at the same level of NBCCBSCNN. Those excellent You've probably noticed volatility
in the market lately. The stock market has seen unprecedented fluctuations over the last
three years, and silver has historically been considered a safe haven asset during times
like this of market volatility. When that uncertainty rises, investors will often turn
too precious metals like silver to preserve wealth and to hedge against economic instability.
One of the reasons is because silver is a tangible asset. Owning physical silver
coins provides you with that tangible You can hold it in your hand, and
in times of economic uncertainty, having tangible assets can provide that sense of security
and peace of mind. Don't forget that coins hold both intrinsic and numismatic value.
While you're stacking silver in the form of bars or rounds, it holds
that intrinsic value. Of metal coins, and especially those certified coins, hold
the additional numismata value of being a historic collectible. Now. CSN mint has
been providing us mint collectible coins and precious metals for over twenty years. They're
one of the most trusted names in numismatics. You can explore CSN Mint's extensive
catalog of bullion, bars, coins and numismatic collectibles. Whether you're a seasoned
investor or a passionate collector, you will find a diverse range of products to
suit your needs. And your preferences. At CSN mint, trust is paramount
rest assured that every product you purchase includes the original certificate of authenticity or is
actually certified and graded by a third party grader to ensure origin and purity.
So with CSN mint, you can build your collection with confidence. You can
experience that world class customer service and support with CSN mint too. Their team
of knowledgeable professionals is there to assist you every step of the way, from
product selection all the way to order fulfillment and even beyond. So if you're
going to collect something, it might as well be money. Go to csnmint
dot com, slash Federalist and use promo code Federalist at checkout to get a
free silver American Eagle over thirty dollars in value with your purchase of seventy five
dollars or more. My cat wil won't leave me alone. You saw my
lap Sorry, listener, David and I get to see each other while we're
taping these and what's amazing is just like intermittently a cat comes into the screen,
David gets frustrated and moves the cat, and then the cat comes right
back like moments later. Only because my wife's not home right now. Otherwise
this cat would not care about me exactly, want to say, even at
even at where we work, where we're you know, first of all,
I don't think that you can be unbiased. Everyone, any intelligent person has
some biases. So I don't believe, really believe, I believe you need
to be fair and have a good faith debta bad stuff for me. Me,
it's about that which does not happen on NBC. So everyone's like,
why are you obsessed all the time with the media, Like because they're the
Democratic Party. They're just the wing of the Democratic Party. That sounds very
you know, that sounds like a cliche we've been talking about forever, but
that's what they are. And they're very powerful, and they have a lot
of money, and they have a big reach, and they they they're the
ones who drive the debate. They drive us towards certain topics. They you
know, create narratives. I hate that word. But so it's important I
think to talk about them and to to to debate, you know, fight
them and debunk what they're saying. So I would like to say that I
saw that this guy who's a reporter for Semaphore said yesterday. NBC News staff
are concerned that the hiring and abrupt firing of Ron and McDaniel will damage relationships
with GOP sources, making it more difficult to break news. Some Republicans have
been complaining to journalists at the network about the move. So sorry, Like,
what in the world this obviously yes, saying that you cannot tolerate a
single Republican on staff. Yes, you might imagine that wouldn't be great for
pretending to be a news organization or for contacts with Republicans and having it be
so public every single host melting down and saying we will not tolerate a single
Republican. We demand ideological conformity of like an extreme degree. I can't imagine
that's good for their reputation. But I'm also like, what in the world
is any Republican with even like two brain cells to rub together doing thinking that
NBC can be trusted in any way? They were major perpetrators of the Russia
collusion lie, and they did not face any consequences from it, clearly because
you got people now saying, oh, because you fired Rana, I might
not talk to you. How about that you ran the Russia collusion lie for
years and have never stopped it. How About the Kavanaugh rapesmear that you ran
and you gave like major media coverage too. How About you know how you
treat Joe Biden as if he were competent or capable, or that his policies
were decent. How About how that network, like some of its sister networks,
is antigp in every single thing it does. How About if you people
had two brain cells, you might have started thinking about eight years ago to
start holding these people accountable by not going on their airwaves, not talking to
them, maybe they wouldn't be in the place they are now. And I'm
sorry, I really doubt that if you were fine with all of those corrupt
propaganda things, you're not really going to care that they fired a single Republican.
You're going to still talk to them, still think they're your friends,
still like try to get on air with them. Like it's so embarrassing the
Republican Party is, there's such losers. And I loved the piece we ran
from Chris Jacobs that like the real scandal with this firing, hiring, firing
of Rana was that she ever thought that that would be a good place to
work. In the first place. I mean, listen, I'm not just
went there for money. I mean they probably paid her. I think it
was three hundred K. That's good money, right, I mean, yes,
if people are going to give you money, you're going to go.
I would. I would work at a place if I knew that I could
say whatever I wanted. No one's really ever stopped me from saying what I
wanted, and that's those are the places I work, which I should mention.
Like here at the Federalist, I have real deep disagreements with my colleagues,
right, I'm right here you but others as well, and I have
you know, and there's a way to do that respectfully, and sometimes it
gets heated. But in the end you have to learn to I think I
think the right is much more open. Maybe I'm diluted, but I think
you want to share what one of our colleagues was doing to you. After
listening to our podcast last week where you talked every time you would say something,
you would you would remind people that you don't like Donald Trump. I
do not like Donald Trump. Eddie Eddie Scary says that he plays a game
where whenever I say something defending Trump, or saying something nice about what he's
done. He waits to see how long it will take for me to say
I'm not a fan of Donald Trump. I want to actually defend myself there,
because I'm not saying it so that people will, you know, the
right people will like me. I think that it's fair to say that I
don't really care if people like me. I mean, I think that's fair
to say. So. I say it because I want to frame it in
a way that's that shows that even people who don't like Donald Trump need to
understand that there's that there are real problems here, you know, like the
law fair I'm not saying it because I'm saying that you that there. You
know, if you believe in the neutral principles of governance and the process and
fairness and and a good strong republic or even a republic in any you know
of any sort, these are issues that should matter to you, even if
you don't like Donald Trump. And that too many people have been have just
lost their minds over Donald Trump and don't care about anything else. I think
that works both ways, and it's not good either way, just giving up
all your principles to defend Donald Trump or giving up all your principles to go
after him. So that's why I think I mentioned it. And maybe I'm
just maybe that's sanctimonious to say, but I think that that's just the truth.
I don't, you know, it is what it is. It's what
you believe, so you should say it. So I do want to say
why I don't always say something like that, which is I wish I could.
I wish I could go back and identify the person that challenged me on
this. But when I was first doing TV, every single time I would
criticize some like unconstitutional action taken against Donald Trump, I would make sure to
point out that I that I have like not liked Donald Trump's personality for decades.
You know, I would always say something like, well, he did
this wrong, but this is worse, and you know, like that,
And this listener viewer challenged me to not feel the need to do what he
called ritual malediction, which he was sensing across the you know, people were
spending a lot of time explaining that Donald Trump was a bad person before they
would get to the part where like Democrats were destroying the Union. And I
don't know why. It just kind of really hit me that I was.
I was doing it for the reason like you said, you're you don't care
what people think, and I was doing it because I wanted people to understand,
like I'm a good person. I'm not like one of those people who
actually, you know, cares about you know, who's like who's like on
the on the orange man side or whatever. And then I realized that that
was kind of cowardly and that it was also just wasting precious time. So
now I have no problem criticizing Donald Trump from the from the right, which
is not viewed as valid by a lot of these like Trump haters, Like
if you criticize Trump, but you criticize him from a conservative position, that
doesn't count. They only want you to criticize from like their shared delusional,
hateful position. But I only do it for like when it actually adds value
to the conversation. And I don't do the ritual malediction. But that's because
I was doing it for the wrong reason. And I totally agree with you
that you're not doing it to be liked, because you clearly don't care.
I don't care, really, and I try not to do that in my
columns, honestly, like I try not to say I'm not a fan of
Donald Trump, but I think when we're talking about the lawfair stuff, and
I guess my instinct is just I'm trying to stress that these are horrible things.
If it's Donald Trump or whoever else, it would be that, especially
the lawfair stuff is undemocratic. It's again authoritarian and bad for the Republic.
And you know, so I think that's why I mentioned it. And maybe
I'm deluding myself. Well, maybe I just want to be loved deep down
inside. Okay, maybe debt it keeps you tossing and turning at night.
You can't get away from it. But the truth is the system is designed
to trap you in debt insanely. I interest credit cards and loans make it
nearly impossible to actually pay off your debt. There's a new way out of
the debt trap, Pivotal Debt Solutions. Pivotal Debt Solutions isn't like the old
school debt relief companies that string your debt out for years. They have new
aggressive strategies that can end your debt faster and easier than you thought possible.
Pivotal Debt Solutions can cut or even eliminate interest, find programs to write off
your balances so you owe less, stop those threatening phone calls without bankruptcy and
without a loan. Bottom line, they find every solution possible to end your
debt permanently. Before you do anything, contact Pivotal Debt Solutions first. Talk
to them for free. Find out how fast they can help you get out
of debt. Visit zen ap my debt dot com. That's zapmdut dot com.
Zapmdut dot com. On that front of lawfair, I think we should
just like quickly discuss all the lawfair issues that are going on. So I've
spoke to in another instance and you went through it for me, and I
thought it was incredibly helpful. So I hope you can do that so we
can go through each case. What I just don't have notes, but I'm
going to do my best. Yeah, do your best, just to go
through the cases. There's a lot going on, and I'm someone who sort
of pays attention, so for me it was helpful. So I imagined many
of the listeners will be helpful as well. I think there are seven,
so everyone buckle up. But the first situation is the case dealing with e
Jene Carrol. We had this in the news recently when George Stephanopoulis lied and
said that that case was about Donald Trump being found liable for rape. That
is not true. That is completely inaccurate, but the story arises from It's
actually interesting. There was a party at Molly jong FAST's house to celebrate Kathy,
who's a comedian who held up the severed head of effigy just the words
from Madam. So, you know, a comedian who's not funny but who's
very angry. So there's a party to celebrate her. And Ejen Carroll was
there with a bunch of like major anti Trumpist illuminaries, you know, like
George Conway, Kelly and Conway's husband ex husband, and I think it's Reid
Hoffman, who's this big Democrat mega donor. And New York State passed a
law that allowed like a one year opening up of claims. It was sort
of like a me too law that you could take really old claims without any
standard of evidence, like no police report, no witnesses, and make a
claim against someone and you had like a year to do it. And I
think Egen Carroll did it like on the last day that you could do it
bankrolled by Reid Hoffman, who they worked really hard to keep it secret that
one of the Democrat Party's major billionaire donors was actually bankrolling this. So her
claim, which she put in a book during the Trump presidency, was that
in her fifties, in her mid fifties, she went into a Bergdorf Goodman
and happened across Donald Trump, who was also in the Bergdorf Goodman, and
he was, you know, maybe around fifty at the time she was in
her fifties, and that he took her to a dressing room and raped her.
This did happen to match the precise details of a Law and Order Special
Victims Unit episode from like the twenty tens, and there was, you know,
no evidence to support it. And in fact, the jury said that
they didn't quite buy the rape, the rape of the mid fifties you woman
by one of the world's most famous men happening to be alone in Bergdorf Goodman.
But they did find that he had defamed her by saying that it hadn't
happened, which is kind of you know, interesting judgment from a New York
jury. And then when he kept complaining about it, they upped the fine
to like eighty eight million dollars. When she got this huge payday, she
celebrated with Rachel Maddow. They joked that maybe they could buy penthouse apartments in
Paris and go on shopping sprees. And so that's that's the first case.
The second case was by Alba. Quickly make a comment about that. So
just want to quickly say, even beyond what happened to Trump there, which
I think is ridiculous, is that statutes of limitation exist for a very very
good reason because it's difficult to prove things, and then jury's can just act
on their emotions, which is exactly what they did in that case. Sorry,
go on, Yes, So then Alvin Bragg has this case to a
non disclosure agreement that Trump paid ahead of the twenty sixteen election to Stormy Daniels,
and he says that because he used his personal funds and not campaign funds,
that that was a campaign violation or somehow defrauded people, when of course,
if he had used campaign funds instead of personal funds, that would have
been the problem. This is widely regarded as the weakest of a series of
weak Democrat cases against Trump, but that's going to go to trial here pretty
soon. Recently, the FBI got in trouble because or to the Southern District
New York, I don't know, they didn't hand over like a ton of
documents that they were supposed to to both parties that were somehow related to this,
and so that delayed things. And I'll just point out another interesting thing
is that Alvin Bragg's office has four years been given sort of pro bono or
like been given really highly paid lawyers got leave from their major Democrat law firms
to help with these cases and to help challenge like any hold on records that
Trump was trying to claim. Really superpowered, high powered Democrat attorneys. And
then there's another what's the other? Oh yeah, the other case is Letitia
James in New York. She ran for office saying that she would find a
crime to charge Donald Trump with. Now that might sound like, oh,
just politics, it's actually like a horrific violation of our understanding of due process
and rule of law. We associate this type of sentiment with Soviet Russia,
where you had labyrinthine Bria say show me the man, and I'll show you
the crime. Like we will take care of our political enemies. We will
figure out a way to charge them with a crime. And that's what she
ran on. That's what she was elected to do, and that's what she
did. So her claim is that Donald Trump defrauded New Yorkers because he took
out a loan and repaid it within interest in a way that his banks were
happy with. The banks testified on his behalf like we're happy, you're happy,
everyone's happy. And she says that he overvalued mar A Lago and that
it might be worth as little as eighteen million dollars according to a tax assessment.
Now, mar Lago is one of the maybe like the nicest property on
Palm Beach. It has beachfront on both sides. It is a massive property.
You have like empty lots in Palm Beach being listed for like of small
lots like relative to mar A Lago being listed for like two hundred million.
So it's insane that you would say that mar A Lago was worth as little
as eighteen million. So the crazy activist judge on that case who oversawt agreed
to what was it like a four hundred and fifty million dollar fine with it
going up every day, and you can't appeal unless you pay the full fine,
and and so the on Monday of this week was when he had to
pay it. And if he didn't pay it, Letitia James said she was
going to start seizing properties like mar A Lago, which would have been interesting
because you know, he lost the case on the grounds that mar A Lago
was worth eighteen mil and he was she was definitely going to seize that and
sell it for more. She sees property in other states. I think so,
yeah, it was. It was one of a series of properties that
was at risk also all the all you know, in fact, including properties
in Scotland. And at the last minute that was the bond that had to
be paid. And i'lso say an thing. Nobody wanted to put up the
bond because Letitia James is such a lawless activist that they were worried that she
would start targeting them if they in any way helped Trump put up the bond.
So that seems like an attack on the Eighth Amendment. To me,
that's an excessive, excessive fine. I don't care if you're a billionaire or
not. It's a civil case. And I think previously the Supreme Court ruled
that the Eighth Amendment doesn't apply to civil cases. But I could see that
being revisited because of what New York is doing. Because their government's involved here
in the sense that they are have precipitated the case itself. It's not as
if it's a weird civil case, right, because no one would have brought
this forward. The bank didn't care. Let's be honest, Rich people do
this all the time, and it's really no way of completely knowing what people
are worth. Right. Also, like if you take out a loan and
you say what your assets are, the bank doesn't just like take you at
your word. They do their own investigation into it. And the banks did
and they were like fine, and obviously it worked out well for them.
Every single one of these cases is unprecedented, not just the ones we talked
about, but the ones we're about to talk about. So we're leaving New
York and let's go to Georgia, which is the Fawnie Willis case go case
against like twenty Republicans in the state. So there are two underlying issues here.
One is the phone call that Donald Trump was on where he asked Brad
Raffinsburger the Secretary of State of Georgia to find me the votes, and that
has always been misinterpreted. That was a call where they were discussing basically the
Republicans. The Donald Trump campaign had put forth a lawsuit related to the Georgia
election, and they could not get a judge to hear the case. It
was insane. So they were truly they had a bucket of like one hundred
and fifty thousand votes they thought were in question, and they just needed Raffinsburger
to agree to, like one more than the margin of victory in order to
get things challenged as they wanted them. And by the way, they actually
were right in this lawsuit. One of the buckets that they had was that
it was illegal, according to Georgia law, to vote in accounting that you're
not a resident of and they had evidence, and Brad Raffinsburger really had the
evidence that that was happening with a greater than the margin of victory number of
votes. That was later found to be true. So when he says,
like find me the votes, he's not saying, like invent votes. He's
saying, just agree with us on a certain number of these votes, and
we can kind of like move forward. But let's recall that the initial leak
of the call was completely misrepresented, excuse me, and basically it was a
lie. And then I think the Wall Street Journal reported the fuller context of
it later on correct. So there were two phone calls that were leaked by
Brad Raffinsberger's chief of staff, I forget her name, Jordan Fuchs. The
first one was that actually it was like her characterization of a phone call,
and she had just completely lied or made it up. It was not accurate.
And it later came out that they had a recording of the call,
and the recording of the call showed so according to like Jordan Fuchs, donald
Trump threatened one of the people in the office according to the call, that
didn't happen. It was one of the things that was used in the impeachment
against Donald Trump, the second impeachment and later turned out to just not be
true. Then she leaks this other phone call that was characterized, yes,
as if he were asking people to commit fraud, when that was not an
accurate represent I mean, I've listened to it. I'm not saying that Donald
Trump should have been on the phone. I'm not even saying he should you
know, Like to me, it seems imprudent what he was doing, but
it was just a complete mischaracterization. I reported a couple of weeks ago that
also that call has now been admitted to have been illegally recorded. So Jordan
Fuchs lives in Georgia but was visiting her grandparents in Florida when she illegally taped
the call. Florida requires all parties to consent to such taping. She did
not ask for or receive consent. She recorded it, she says. By
the way, her defense would be that it was for law enforcement purposes.
Within hours, like within minutes, she had leaked it to the Washington Post,
not a law enforcement organization. So I've broken that law many times,
by the way, I hope not. You shouldn't know for sure, But
in the old days in Colorado, I used to break that law all the
time. Sorry, great, well, I hope nobody could, no.
I just because a lot of times people lie about what they say and it's
just worth it. But anyway, I'm sorry. I'll probably cut this part
out so that that's not come for me. So the second issue is that,
well, like that's an issue that it was illegally recorded because Fannie Willis
says she started this investigation because of that phone call, and you're not allowed
to start investigations from illegally obtained evidence. And so there is a whole fruit
of the poison tree issue that probably someone who's been charged by Fannie Willis should
bring up. The second issue is that it all relates to an alternate elector
issue. So the Republicans had filed a lawsuit in Georgia, but the election
had already been certified and there was an electoral college vote that was coming down
the pike. So the electors, the Democrat electors were all ready to go.
But if the Republican lawsuit were found to have merit, they needed Republican
electors ready to go, right, And so there is so all the people
are being charged because they were part of this alternate elector plan and it never
should have been charged because there's an actual transcript of the meeting where they decide
to like put forth this alternate elector plan, where one of the people who's
charged, David Shaeffer, is like, I just want to make sure we're
clear on this. We're not claiming we're the electors. We're claiming like,
we're taking this right to reserve a spot should our lawsuit be found to have
merit. And the attorneys say that is exactly right. And so Fannie Willis's
entire case is that these people tried to defraud by pretending to be electors when
they weren't. And you have people on the record with a court transcript court
court reporter like transcription saying that they did that they were not doing that.
So like the entire case is a joke, and that doesn't even get to
the issue of Fannie Willis hiring her married secret lover who was underqualified, and
that whole issue that we saw there. So that's also don't forget as AOC
has noted, RICO is not a crime anyway, and the wise AOC has
informed us that. Okay, So then you get to the I just want
to say, there's like one case that's already been resolved and done with,
and that was the coordinated Democrat effort to disenfranchise people from being able to vote
for Donald Trump, like removing him from the ballot, and that was happening
in Colorado, Maine, Illinois, but with plans to do it in every
Democrat state and I mean, if the Supreme Court came back and said that's
fine, they would have done it in other states as well, for sure,
Oh absolutely, And they instead the Supreme Court came back with a nine
zero decision to say, like, not good. But I just want to
point out that in other countries, when we judge elections as to whether they're
free or fair, probably the number one issue that makes it not free or
fair is when the ruling party has removed the opposition party from the ballot.
It's kind of the type of stuff you see in Russia and other countries that
are not known for free and fair elections. But that was a well funded,
widely coordinated Democrat effort. Okay. That leaves the final two cases,
which are both brought by Jack Smith, the tenacious Democrat special prosecutor that Biden
put in to go after Trump. So the first case is actually the one
that's widely considered to be the strongest case against Donald Trump, or maybe even
the only strong case against Donald Trump, by which I mean people who are
saying think it has merit and it relates to classified documents. And Jack Smith
had a grand jury in DC ramp up the case. But then he had
to move it to Florida because that's where the alleged crime is actually taking place.
He of course did the whole raid on mar Lago, which really shocked
and appalled a lot of people around the world that Joe Biden was going to
those lengths to go after his political opponent. But the problem for Jack Smith
is that it got assigned to like a normal judge, a normal federal judge
who's just like treating it like a normal case with normal privileges, or even
as an extraordinary case, and therefore making sure that everything's being done correctly.
She's being attacked viciously by Democrat media like the Washington Post and the New York
Times, but it's not going as quickly as he wants, and so he
kind of could see that early on that it was not going as well as
he wanted. Plus there was the problem that the federal government was choosing to
charge Donald Trump with a crime that apparently every other person had committed, and
so they had to set up a fake special counsel to go after Joe Biden
for the very same thing, except it was worse because he wasn't president when
he was alleged to have mishandled classified documents and then they cleared him of that.
So it's like, so clear him. They did not clear him.
They just said he was too interesting. I'm sorry it might have been messy
how they had to clear him. He's not being charged with anything. That's
true. But I just want to say a lot of people, a lot
of people in the media say falsely that he was cleared of charges or I
forget. Yeah. I just want to stress to people that her was asked.
Robert Hurr was asked whether he, you know, if he was on
age Ori convicted Biden, and he said yes, I believe so. Yeah.
Yeah. Real wealth takes time and effort. Don't look for a quick
and easy way to make a book. The Watched Out 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. Internet scammers are opposing as billionaires to
try and give you financial advice with captions about where you should invest your money.
Be careful of anything you read online, whether it's happening in DC or
down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out
the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever
you get your podcasts. So Jack Smith had to come up with something else,
because the whole point of all of these cases is to bankrupt and imprison
their political opponent before the election, like it has to be done before because
if it's after, things get messy and weird, and so the rush is
serious. So he came up with another case, which is the j six
case, which deals with criminalizing political speech in violation of the First Amendment.
But that's what he's doing. So there are like four charges related to his
speech around January six. Now two of them are actually being discussed by the
Supreme Court right now, but not but not directly, meaning two of the
charges are related to what the Department of Justice has been throwing at a bunch
of January six protesters, which is this obscure Sarbanes Oxley provision, which allows
them to like you know, kind of like go after people for supposedly interfering
with a congressional proceeding. This is not used for Democrat protesters, who say
interfere with a Supreme Court confirmation process by having a widely coordinated and well funded
effort to disrupt those hearings. Nope, there's never been used for that.
It's not used for Jamal Bowman when he pulls a fire alarm to delay a
vote related to something that Democrats care about. But it is used for a
protest at the Capitol and is used against Donald Trump. The Supreme Court is
hearing whether that's constitutional this term, and I think it's kind of expected that
they will find that it's not. So that throws out two of those charges
against Trump and the other two just deal straight up with political speech. So
even if and then that's the case where Trump is challenging whether he can even
be charged as a president. That's being heard by the Supreme Court right now,
and I think they actually will say that you can charge someone like him,
that you can charge presidents with crimes. They'll return that at the end
of June. That will give the Democrat judge, like very partisan judge Tanya
Chutkin, who has been not showing any kind of judicial wisdom and how she's
rail roading this through. But it'll give her only like you know, she'll
have to have like six weeks or so to prepare for the trial there and
jury selection, and so that could get going right around Labor Day and then
that trial would probably be about five six weeks. So you could have a
DC jury convicting Donald Trump right before the election, also keeping him off you
know, the campaign trail during the heat of election season. And that case
would of course be like even when, if when the DC jury finds him
guilty, the Supreme Court would overturn that like in a heartbeat, because the
actual underlying charges are such bs, but it wouldn't happen until after the election,
right, So I think I agree, the immunity will probably be he
does not will not have that immunity, but then the underlying case is terrible.
Though the immunity case is bad too, but it doesn't matter. So
let's go through. Those are all the cases, correct? We have Eaging
Carroll an Eighth Amendment violation, but a civil trial, so it doesn't really
matter, and that's you know, for the election. Then you have Alvin
Bragg, which is basically just a process crime. What would that be?
Just a fine in the end, right, yeah, but it's also complete
and utter like ridiculous, is garbage, but what I'm saying, Okay,
Then we have the Letitia James stuff which isn't I'm sorry that first one I
said was a eaging Carroll is not an eighth Amendment. It might be,
I don't know, but Letitia James is just trying to basically bankrupt the guy
also civil and his family trying to bankrupt him and his family. Then we
have the Fannie Willis Rico case, which is considering her corruption. I just
think that politically speaking, at least, that is already a failure for them
on the law fair front. Then we have the classified document case, which
is also a failure for them on the political front, because now everyone sees
that Hillary Clinton can get away with it, that Joe Biden can get away
with it. If they go forward on that, I think it's going to
really make people angry. It's just selective prosecution through and through, and people
tell me, oh, the difference is they cooperated, that none of that
matters, and they didn't cooperate. I just want to stress that Joe Biden
has been hoarding these documents when he wasn't president, some of them from his
Senate days. He used it to make money when he was telling his ghostwriter
and writing his book about this classified information. That's clear, so that doesn't
work for them. The other the J six stuff is a pure attack on
the First Amendment. Donald Trump did not engage in sedition, incite it for
sedition. It's clear. I've reread his tweets. I've reread what he said
that day. You know, he's not you know, if you want to
say, there are you know, what's it called dog whistles in there?
Whatever, But he did not say anything me that was that. You know,
maybe he was wrong. I think he was reckless for sure, But
I think that's fine because everyone knows I don't really like Donald Trump. And
then there's the uh. Then there's the disenfranchisement that people try to pull in
Maine, in Colorado and so on, and that failed. In fact,
I think that that actually backfired as well as far as just lawfair stuff goes
politically speaking. And I just want to point out, like a lot of
corporate media will say, oh, let's talk about Donald Trump's legal troubles.
These aren't legal troubles. This is lawfair and it's like a threat to the
entire republic. When we were trying to imprison and bankrupt people for the crime
of being Democrats' political opponents, that's you cannot have a republic survive that.
And when you you know, I keep on name about Alexei Navolni and how
you know, Yes, he was eventually you know, eventually dies in prison
a few years after being poisoned and somehow miraculously surviving that. But like you
know, dies at a young age in prison after a bunch of law fair
you know, they've went after him for obscure, weird financial crimes when he
complained about those about those suits against air that he's being charged with this.
Then they go after him for contempt of judge. Then when he does political
protests, they call it an insurrection. Then they poison him and then he
dies in prison. I don't think people realize that, you know, corrupt
regimes use the law to give a pretense of like justice for going after their
political opponents. But this is how they do it. Like it's it's the
Letitia James Alvin Bragg, Fannie Willis Jack Smith method. And it's widely coordinated,
widely funded, and I mean, by the way, truly coordinated.
Like I just read that book. Oh my gosh, i'mutially forgetting that Michael
Issakoff wrote was this Hay geography of Fannie Willis, and it goes in detail
about how Liz Cheney colluded with the Fulton County Prosecutor's office to like have maximum
effect of their shared Trump patrid movement. And it's coordinated, obviously, everyone
knows that, but it still needs to be so. And sometimes coordination you
can work in concert without exchanging emails that tell you exactly what to do.
Everyone knows what other people are doing, and they work and off each other
and they plan, you know, they work. You're saying, like if
prominent people write pieces for The New York Times, saying, yes, you
can disenfranchise people, and that's a good thing in defensive democracy, that that's
like open and it doesn't need to be like private coordination. But I'm talking
about this book detailing actual meetings and emails and phone calls and like access to
information and rules on when you could use it and all that kind of coordination.
And here here's what worries me as well. Russia. The Russia collusion
hoax was actually successful. It wasn't successful. Everyone who has a brain now
knows it wasn't true. But it completely undermined the presidency the first term of
Donald Trump, he could barely do anything because it was just enveloped all things.
So that works. So they're going to do that again. They continue
to use conspiracy theories. If the lawfair stuff works, they're going to do
it again. And if the lawfair stuff works in the sense that Donald Trump
doesn't win because of it for some reason, then Republicans are going to try
to use it as maybe try to use it as well, and that's going
to be the norm for this country moving forward. That is a terrifying thing
because it is complete, you know, just anarchy. And I think that,
like the Russia collusion lie, a lot of Americans get this innately,
like they get that this is a problem. What's weird is to see prominent
you know, supposed conservative media or prominent supposed conservative members of Congress being kind
of like, oh yeah, no big deal, no big deal. They're
just trying to destroy the republic and destroy rule of law. But you know,
Orange Man bad, So what are you going to do? I do
think a lot of though I don't want to get into this, but you
know, Andrew Carthy's written some good stuff on the law fair and so I
think there are people who are helpful but I think a lot of people hate
Trump so much that even though they know it's wrong, they just like,
I don't really care. You know, he deserves it. But let me
tell you one another thing quickly. I've been writing a book lately, and
I've been looking back at the history, at recent history, and when they
thought that Ron DeSantis was going to be the new, you know, Republican
presidential candidate. I think a lot of people thought that that would be the
case a year ago. They were doing the same things to him, and
you know, they were saying the same things about him. I assume there
would have been some kind of law fair used against him. I think this
is now the norm and it's not going to matter if it's Trump anymore.
And that's something for Republicans who don't like Trump to remember it like myself who
don't like Trump need to remember as well. All Right, I think we've
covered a lot there. Do you want to talk about culture? I do.
Okay. I heard a rumor that you've been watching two, not one,
but two separate shows. I'm very excited to talk to you about them.
Okay, So first one I was really excited about. I love Kristin
Wig and my husband, like Super Loves Kristen Wig. It's called Palm Royal
and it's about a woman who's trying to get into an exclusive club on Palm
Beach Island in the sixties. And is this a television show? It is,
and it's like star studded cast. Like you are going to ask you
where it's running, but you will not be able to tell me, will
you? Oh? It screaming you like someday you need to talk to my
kids and husband about their frustration that I still don't you know, still do
not know how to turn on televisions and I have no idea how it gets
in front of me. Mark Candles that it is running on Apple TV,
you know Apple TV. Just so people, Okay, great, but you
don't need to know because it is so sadly not good. And I mean
I think I watched like two or three you know, I tried to give
it a good try, and it is not good. It is it should
be a dark comedy. It's not dark enough, and it's not comedy enough.
It's like just not working in my view. If other people have gone
further and see Merritt, please let me know because I'm not going to go
further. And then the other one is actually something I think you recommended,
which was Gentleman The Gentleman. Oh, yeah, I didn't watch. I
gave it. I gave it a mixed review. Oh and you watched the
whole season. Yeah, I thought there was it was more style than substance.
I would say the story itself was kind of thin. I thought,
when you really thought about it, I could have used a mystery or something
more. So, you know, Mark was saying that he thought it was
kind of formulaic, and then like the last three episodes in my view,
were not formulaic at all, and I really enjoyed it. But I liked
the style and I so I remember I went to Paris with on a trip
that Robert O'Brien, the former National Security Advisor led in heat of COVID.
It was like the summer of twenty twenty. Have I told you this before
about like I'm sure. So when you're flying on those planes, they you
can watch a movie, but it's like everyone has to agree on the movie
because it's on everybody's screens. Wow. And we were flying back and everyone
just like went to sleep, and Guy Benson and I were on the trip
and we were not going to sleep, so we chose to watch the I
think it was called The Gentleman. It was like also Guy Ritchie, but
it was a movie with Matthew McConaughey, and we liked it. I liked
the movie better than the show. It had what's the guy's name from?
Hugh Grant was in it, right, I think, so, I sort
of don't remember. I kind of want to watch it again. And that's
what I kind of like about Guy Ritchie, even if it's not super memorable,
you kind of have a good time. But at the end of the
movie, Guy Benson had fallen asleep. So I picked a second movie,
and I picked Bad Boys for Life, Bad Boys for Life, whatever number
bad Boys that is, but I'm not sure. Okay, so everyone's sleeping,
so it's fine, but then Guy wakes up and he's like, what
are you What are you watching? And I was like explaining, He's like,
I'm in so he so it is horrible. I remember he passed me
a note joking that this should be nominated for Best Screenplay, Best Adapted Screenplay
or something because it was like so bad and it's like women in bikinis on
the beach and car explosions, and like the rest of the people on the
trip are very nice, decent people. So we're like hoping that nobody wakes
up, but everyone's sleeping. But then like they do that thing when you're
flying international where they like turn the lights all on and they wake everybody else
up to feed them a meal. And they did that, and so then
we pretended that we didn't know how that movie had gotten put on the screens.
What's going on? We're like, huh, oh, what is this
m You know, we always intended to wake up too. When he was
young, I loved like action movies and all that stuff. But now I
find it's so boring, you know, so boring. Guy Ritchie's amazing,
like stylistically Lockstock and Two Smoking Barrels. I love that movie, even though
he's done some other movies that aren't, like about British Crime, which I
don't like. But I don't know, I just found the Gentleman Like I
was bored a little bit. I have to say, what about that super
hot chick who's the drug kingpin, queen pin? Whatever? Yeah, I
mean what am I supposed to say? She was hot? And I mean
like her her outfits were great. Like, I was so interested. It's
fun to look at. It's really fun to look at. It's fun to
listen to them talk. I just like the accents. I like the castle,
I like I like the brother is nuts. I like him. I
liked a lot about it. I'm just saying that I could have used a
little better story, right, That's all I'm saying. That's interesting. You
actually watched something that I had recommended. It's just rare. Liked it and
liked it. I only I've been somewhat busy. I've only I watched one
thing, and I regretted watching it almost immediately. It was a terrible experience
and and it hurt to watch. But I watched it to the end.
And it's Roadhouse, the Roadhouse remake. That makes me sad because I would
love for it to be good. Yeah, so I love the original.
It's one of those amazingly bad movies. For those who haven't seen it,
not to ruin it. Patrick Swayze is as famous bouncer you know, fixes
up places, but he also has a PhD in philosophy from NYU. And
it is very like late eighties early nineties in a lot of fighting a lot
of fun, you know, so this is a remake and oh my god,
how come I can't pronounce his last name? Jake Jillen Hall. Jillen
Hall plays the character, but he's like a I know nothing about popular.
He's a UFC. Is that the right way to say it? Fighter?
UFC? He's a UFC fighter, So right away the movie doesn't like he's
already a fighter. The whole part that made Patrick Swayze interesting was that he
was small and that he wasn't naturally a fighter. Anyway, the movie's just
idiotic and not really any fun. I mean, he's okay, but everyone
else is terrible, you know, is in it? Connor McGregor, the
Fighter, he's like the main bad guy. He is, so it's embarrassing.
He's not like just watching him. It's just terrible. I don't eve
really know how to say. There's just no it misses out on all the
fun of a movie like that, just very one dimensional in about not a
good amazingly bad way, but just a period a bad way. So anyway,
I would not recommend it. Many people agree with me, but I've
seen some people say that they liked it, So I don't know maybe give
it a shot or do whatever you want. I guess, okay. I
do also want to just give an update that I am. I'm like slowly
reading the Bible, but and I'm enjoying sort of the slowness of it.
But I'm in the Gospel of Luke now. And did I mention how like
crazy it was when I started the New Testament? In which way, let's
talk about it next week, actually because I kind of want to talk about
it in greater detail than I can now, but I have I just cannot
encourage people enough to do this, like read it from the beginning as a
story. Everything like hits better and different. It's just wonderful. I've been
driving a lot lately, so I've been steeped in my listening to my Paul
Johnson History of the Jews book, and then he was talking about my monodies
and his rational prosch uity. So I started reading listening to a book on
my monodies. So I'm I'm I'm doing Old Testament stuff right now myself,
and it's really just fantastic. I don't know, it's not really a I
recommend the Old Testament to that too, you recommend the New Testament? I
recommend the Old Testaments. I recommend the whole thing. I mean, it's
just like that's what was so moving to me when I started the Gospel of
Matthew. It begins with like the genealogy of Jesus, and when you're reading
it and the Old test me, you're kind of like, oh, there's
a lot of bigats and whatnot. And it goes into the genealogy, which
you now realize like, oh, I sort of get why this is so
significant that this person is in the line of David. And then also it
goes right into Joseph, like talking to Joseph about how Mary is going to
bear the Savior and how he should be cool with it because this child will
forgive the sins of the world. And I mean, I was like reading
it sobbing. I've read that I don't know four hundred times before, like
it's part of our part of our you know, regular readings, but it
was just amazing to read it that way. And then also so I love
the Gospel of Matthew. I loved how detailed it was and how it kind
of doesn't really dwell on the early part of jesus life but has so much
about what he said, and after reading the Old Testament, going through like
the peaks and the valleys and the constant like rejection of God and the re
establishment of covenants and everything, and then to hear Jesus preaching forgiveness of sins
and like fulfillment of all these laws and how to really take it far what
God wants for us in terms of how we treat other people and that we're
forgiven. It's just like it's overwhelming. It's like it's like a relief.
It just like feels like so unbelievable and so Matthew Mark. And now I'm
doing Luke, and I'd love that Luke has all of this like early part
of Jesus' life. And anyway, it's great, sounds like the right thing
to be doing on Holy Week, right, Yeah, I've been kind of
enjoying it, like right at this moment. But it's weird, like I'm
not rushing it in part because I'm enjoying it so much. Okay, Like
originally, originally I wanted to make sure I finished everything within a year,
but I think I started at the end of April last year, which maybe
I'll finish in a year, but maybe it'll be a little more. That's
okay, Yeah, I say it's okay. Thank you, Molly. It's
nice talking to you this week. I'll see you next week. Until then,
everyone of your lovers of freedom, anxious