Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong with Molly Hemingway and
David Harsani. Just a reminder, if you want to email the show,
please do it radio at the Federalist dot com. We love to hear what
you have to say. Hey, Molly, happy post Super Tuesday. We
made it. We finally made it. I thought it would never happen,
and we are after Super Tuesday. And while we are recording this before it's
going to happen, Nikki Haley will be dropping out today, right right,
Yeah, it's as we record this in the morning. It was reported that
she would I don't think she's made an official announcement yet sexually quit early for
us. Did it go like you imagined it would? Did you think Trump
would have these would trounce in all these places he did. I can't remember
ever caring less about a Super Tuesday than I did this one. I mean,
I just assumed Trump was going to basically run the table, which he
did. Other than Vermont, was it, I think which Nicki Haley won
Vermont, which made me laugh because it was like too many headlines that were
like surprise, you know, Nicky Haley. Surprise went in Vermont, like
it mattered at all. I thought that today Nicki Haley would get up and
say, you know, the fight has just begun. You know, we've
really actually won all these you know, but you know the writing's been on
the wall for a while. David, did you think that, because every
time she lost she would give a victory speech. Yes, thank you for
contextualizing that. My favorite one was Iowa, where Ron DeSantis came in second
place, Donald Trump came in first, She came in third, and she
gave a speech that said, only two people make it out of Iowa,
and that's me. Now, I like, there's a way to understand it.
In fact, Ronda Santis did drop out after that because he'd kind of
staked his whole race on winning Iowa. But still it was just so weird.
And then she kept doing it over and over. She'd be like,
in a way, I'm the winner. Also she will say that today.
Yeah, also, Rondasantis has a state to govern, and there's no real
upside in him dragging out one of these things. Nikki Haley, on the
other hand, I think there at one point was an upside for her in
doing that. I think she went a little this is just from a political
point of view, I think she went too far now and will have probably
no place in a new administration. Though. Actually, let me ask you
this question. Do you think she will stand up there today and Endorsednald Trump.
She already said she won't, and I think that's fine. I don't
think she's running. I don't think she was running for the Republican nomination.
She was running to hurt Trump, so that would be a huge, huge
to do from last night to this morning. And also she probably is in
My theory has always been that she wants to run third party. I don't
know if she'll be able to pull that off, So you don't endorse someone
when you're running third party. And then some people had always thought she was
actually trying to get a cabinet position in a Biden administration, sort of for
future long term financial prospects. In any case, I don't see her endorsing
Trump, and I think that's fine because they really do have differences of opinion.
She very much supports things that he has moved the party away from.
Whether that's well. I mean, the great example being her strenuous support of
wars that are being fought without a clear strategy for success, which is definitely
a relic of a Bush era Republican and most the vast majority of the party
has moved on, but she does represent a small percentage of people who are
still there. Yeah, yeah, please, I'll say, so I have
this, do you do, Tim Carney? Yes? Okay. So he's
an awesome, awesome person and a really good friend. And he did a
thread yesterday where he explained why he voted for Nikki Haley. So he's like,
you know, I believe in candor and transparency and disclosure, and you
should always tell your readers where you're coming from. And so he's like,
I published disclosures about my family and my faith and my finances. And while
I don't think voting is so important, it is elemental democracy. So I
think people who cover politics should disclose what their votes were. And she's like,
he says, this morning, in the Virginia GOP primary, I voted
against Trump. I filled in the oval for Haley, not because I love
her, but because she's the one running against Trump. I wanted to see,
you know, but whatever. And he's like, I thought about voting
for DeSantis anyway, and I but I realize like, I'm not going to
vote. I need to rid the gop of Trump, and he corrodes conservatism
and is thoroughly unfit for the job, and I'm not going to vote for
him in him or Biden in November. So he's like a real never trumper.
So he's like, all my fellow journalists, how did you vote,
how are you voting? How'd you vote in the last election? Do you
know whom you will support in November? Do you want Biden replaced on the
Democrat ballot by whom? So first off, it's kind of interesting because like
Tim is actually a right of center journalist, and you think about that,
what percentage of journalists do you think are democrat or to the left, like
main in mainstream reporting or just like non opinion pages. That mainstream is not
a word to use for left wing media, but yes, in course it's
a misnomer, but it's what people understand, so establishment media. I would
say probably ninety five percent you know, of journalists are left of center.
Probably a large percentage of them are more like progressive, you know, deeply
leftists in opinion pages, it's probably even higher other than token Republicans, and
usually those token Republicans take positions that do not actually threaten very much. But
this is why I had a job. You know. I think that they
didn't see me as a big threat, you know, because I was like
pro immigration, I wasn't against gay marriage. You know. Like if I
had been a social conservative in those days, I don't think I would have
had a job at the Denver Post, you know what I'm saying. Yeah,
and that's what I was. I was going to follow up with the
how many people do you think are left? And I do agree with you
that it would be around ninety five percent, And then of the remaining five
percent, how many do you think support Trump? Handful right? In any
kind of major newspaper or media outlet. So I would like to now tell
how I voted, if that's okay, yes, please? I remember the
first time I talked about voting. It was with that conspiracy theorist who runs
The Atlantic. He had me on a podcast. What is his name,
Jeffrey Goldberg, Yeah, Jeffrey Goldberg. So he asked me how I voted,
and I actually sort of believe in not saying how you vote, but
I was kind of stunned into talking about it then and in twenty sixteen,
I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary and in the twenty twenty election,
or sorry, in twenty sixteen election, I voted for Donald Trump. In
the twenty twenty election, I voted for Donald Trump. This week, Virginia,
where I live, had a primary election, and I first willing to
say that, I actually called a friend to find out what was what all
was going to be on the ballot, because I have been known to not
vote in the Republican primary because the city I live in is so uniparty that
if you want to vote for mayor, or you want to vote for a
city councilmen, and you don't want it to be the really awful person that
your neighbors are about to vote for, you try to like vote for a
reasonable person in the Democrat primary. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah,
I know what you're talking about. My husband taught. At first,
I was horrified when my husband used to do this when we lived in DC,
because I just thought it was like, you can have nothing to do
with the Democrat Party or whatever. But I kind of realized why you do
that in really blue cities. But anyway, I am in Florida right now,
and I was going to be in Florida on Super Tuesday, so I
voted early, and I went down to the place where you vote early.
Turns out there was only a presidential election on the ballot, So I voted
Republican and I voted for Donald Trump. And I was reading Tim Carney's thread
yesterday and was like, I had this revelation, like, Oh, the
reason why people like me and they're so nice about me being on TV or
talking about the perspective of Republican voters is because I might be in a country
of hundreds of millions of people, I might be the only person on TV
who's actually voting the way you know, the vast, vast, vast majority
of Republicans are voting. I find all that very all that fascinating, honestly,
Now, let's talk I want to talk about it a little bit.
So let's just go back to the representation on TV. Actually, let's talk
about the representation on TV. So I don't know, I don't watch a
lot of cable TV, but I know that you're probably one of the only
people who would just say that they voted for Trump, probably even on Fox
right. I'm sure there are some others on Fox. But well, and
to be fair, I don't think people say who they vote for, so
it's not something that's talked about. I actually don't think it matters so much
how you vote so much as what you say. And what I'm saying is
I'm probably the only person who will defend a Trump voter and what they're thinking
and why they vote certain way. It's probably why I didn't fall for the
Russia collusion thing was because I was like, well, I didn't vote for
Trump because I'm Russian. I voted for Trump because I really didn't like Hillary
Clinton. You know, like it's a valuable perspective to have. It's one
held by most of the country right now, and I don't really know who
else on TV would match it, right, right, so, right,
So I believe it's it's incredibly irresponsible for major newspapers not to at least let
their readers know what Trump voters are thinking and where they're coming from. And
this is why you have this. It's divisive in a way that it shouldn't
be. I'm I think that politics is about being a part right in many
ways and arguing about stuff, but you should at least know where the other
side's coming from, but they don't want to. They just want to call
people Nazis, pretend democracies at stake, and so on. So that's always,
I think, been somewhat somewhat of a problem, but now it's like
a major problem. As far as telling people who you vote for, I
think that's a good idea for journalists. I used to argue in favor of
that at the Denver Post. I thought that we should tell people, especially
in the editorial page, who we vote for. But then on the other
hand, I didn't see this thread from Tim. But getting into this deep
explanation of why you're voting or why you're not voting for people is also I
think a little bit counter productive, don't you Because I am critical, I
try to be critical of all people, and I don't like I think Trump
is bad for the Republican Party in the long run, you know, but
he's he represents where people are now. He represents where the party is now,
and I want to be critical of him. But if I tell everyone
exactly why I'm voting and who I'm voting for, that kind of undermines my
ability to like just be a critic, which is what I feel I am.
Do you know what I'm saying? Absolutely, I don't think people need
to. First of all, I love that Tim does disclose things such as
what his religion is and what his financial interest is. I think it's really
he's, by the way, a truly honorable man impersonal and public life,
and he's great. But I don't think other people need to. I just
when I read it, I almost retweeted it with with just a blunt Trump,
you know, like I voted for Trump. I voted for Trump,
biaches. I just thought that would be funny. But it just kind of
got me thinking about, oh, yeah, like nobody else in media is
like me, and this is I don't think it's good for the country that
nobody else is in the media like me. It's probably good for myself that
nobody else is. We're all aware the stock market has seen some unprecedented fluctuations
just over the last several years. Silver, though, has historically been considered
a safe haven asset during times of market volatility. When that uncertainty rises,
investors often turn into precious metals like silver to preserve wealth and hedge against economic
instability. Owning physical silver coins also just provides you with a tangible asset that
you can actually hold in your hand. What a thought. In times of
economic uncertainty, having that tangible asset can provide a sense of security and peace
of mind. Now. CSN mint has been providing certified US MINT collectible coins
and precious metals for over twenty years and 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 seasoned investor or a passionate collector, you'll find
a diverse range of products to suit your own needs and your own preferences.
So at CSN mint, trust is paramount rest assured that every product you purchased
includes the original certificate of authenticity or is certified and graded by a third party
grader to ensure origin and purity. With CSN mint, you can build your
collection with confidence, experience world class customer service and support. With CSN Mint,
their team of knowledgeable professionals is here to assist you every step of the
way, from products selection all the way to order fulfillment and beyond. So
if you're going to collect something, it might as well be money. Go
to csnmnt dot com slash Federalist and use promo code Federalists at check out to
get a free silver American Eagle over thirty dollars in value with your purchase of
seventy five dollars or more. A lot of people I know, people in
my family, friends of mine, are very big fans of yours. And
they don't those are great people, Yes they don't. They are much bigger
fans of you than they are of me as far as our positions go.
But there I think what they express to me is that you are you know,
you represent what they feel about Trump, rather than people who are on
there who sometimes try to do that but are like it feels like they're anthropologists
on some kind of expedition, like talking about these rare people in some industrial
town. Well, my family doesn't live in an industrial city in the middle
of America. They live in places that are pretty blueish, right, And
there are a lot of people in this country who like Trump. There are
some people who vote for him because you know, frankly, you vote for
the lesser evil in your in your mind. But there are a lot of
people who actually are very excited and like Trump. As well, and I
don't think the left knows about it or cares about it. That's a big
that's a big problem I think for media. Just one more point about this
issue of voting in Super Tuesday. The New York Times, which is a
publication I love to hate, actually has great election night coverage. Do you
ever visit them sometimes? Yeah, they have, Like it's just a really
great interface and you can you know, like last night, they had all
thirteen states up at the top of the thing and you could just like click
on one and drill down, and they had pretty good quick results in Virginia,
which went shockingly easily for Trump. I did not think that would happen.
It's not that kind of state. The two major exceptions I think were
Arlington County and Alexandria ar Arlington County and Alexandria City, and those went so
overwhelmingly for NICKI Haley. This was also very helpful for me. There's something
nice about just a two person race where you can kind of see where people
are. And it's not just that in the media space. I am maybe
the only person willing to admit that I have voted for the previous Republican president,
but even among the ostensibly right of center people in the Republican Party.
I'm a huge outlier, and that is counterintuitively, almost more difficult than being
with a bunch of Democrats. Does that make sense, Like you're even in
the conservative space or the right of center space or the Republican space in the
DC area, like you saw Nicki Haley one the DC primary. It's just
a group of people who know the the sort of permanent bureaucracy, the establishment
d C, the establishment Party. They are not where the vast majority of
Republican voters are. It's just interesting to observe. I think part of that
is ideological and whatever, but there are also like kind of esthetics to it.
Like Trump undermines so in DC that whole town and people don't know our
LinkedIn Alexandria people those people are connected to d C. You know, those
are suburbs or whatever. Are all reliant on a giant federal bureaucracy doing what
it has always done. And anyone who upsets that that apple cart, you
know, is a danger to them. So it's not just ideological, right,
I mean, it's just that Trump is an outsider candidate still even though
he was president and they don't like it for that reason. So I don't
think so Nikki Halley won the d C primary. When do they even have
primaries? There two interesting things about it. One was that she won overwhelmingly
and almost nobody voted for Trump in the DC primary, say one hundred people,
yeah, yeah, that's the second part is that there were very,
very very few people voting in the Republican primary in DC. And you saw
a bunch of Democrat lawyer activist types making fun of the jury pool that would
face Donald Trump. In one of the show trials, Mark Elias repeatedly was
like, Oh, this looks like a really rough jury pool for the Orange
Man. And of course, one of the problems with the over zealous prosecution
of the J six protesters and the politicized prosecution of Trump is like it's clearly
being done to secure quick and easy convictions, which is a total violation of
the spirit of the law and might be a violation of a letter of the
law. How they're doing these And it was just interesting to me that the
Democrat activist attorneys were highlighting that as if it were a good thing. You
want, you know, if you have an enemy who you think deserves prosecution.
Legitimately, you don't. You shouldn't want them to be convicted because of
the biases or bigotry of a jury. You should want them convicted on the
strength of the argument, right, I think, well, yes, But
I think I've spoken about Well, we're going to get into that in a
minute, the whole law fair stuff in the scheduling and timing, and how
upsetting it is for or how obvious it is, you know what's going on.
But I just want to say, when I first turned against the idea
of democracy, one of the reasons was I was on a jury. So
I don't have much respect for jury systems or a number of reasons I would
if I guess if I was guilty, I would want a jury, and
if I was innocent, I would want a bench trial, is how I
look at it. Because you know, juries are easily manipulated, and it's
clear that in New York, Trump is not going to get what they reward
in a civil trial. Yet to like just fork over five hundred million in
a case that the that no one brought, you know, I mean,
the bank didn't bring it. No one had a problem with what happened there,
and he had to pay five hundred million. So juries are easily manipulated,
and a DC jury obviously will be easily manipulated. So you don't have
to convince me on that. But it is interesting what an outlier DC is
is in all areas like DC in an optimal country would be in the middle,
right, they'd be very moderates there, they'd be like the town would
be within the middle of you know, of the of the consent or would
be the consensus place. But it's not. It's on the It's on the
left, both for the Republicans and for Democrats. People work in congressional offices
are much more left wing than the normal Democrat in Illinois or something, and
at least I think they are. And uh, it's something to worry about
anyway, everyone knows that. Let's talk about. Yeah, you've got somethingails
on this. I just want to say one other thing on Super Tuesday that
I thought was interesting. CNN was doing exit polls where they were worried because
the vast, vast, vast majority of Republican voters said that they didn't think
Biden's twenty twenty win was legitimate. And I had a few things I thought
were funny about this. Like one, CNN ran the Russia collusion hoax to
interfere in the twenty twenty election. So just on the Russia collusion hoax alone,
lies and propaganda that were meant to affect politics, you could say that
the election suffered. CNN also ran the false claim that the Hunter laptop was
Russian disinformation. They helped provide cover for the censorship and suppression of news and
information. Like CNN, they led the Kavanaugh smear ye, all sorts of
things that affected the integrity of the twenty twenty election. So and that doesn't
even get into like Mark Elias changing all the laws and like all the weirdness
with the unsupervised mail in balloting and all you know, like all the other
is choose their ear and play. So yesterday, California has a primary which
heads to a They do the jungle primary runoff situation where just the top two
vote getters go into the next primary. And Adam Schiff was one of the
two people to make it into the runoff for the California Senate seat. And
he'll be running against Steve Garvey, who's a Republican and former baseball player you
might remember and everyone. Yeah, and everyone expects Shift to win easily because
of the demographic situation. I don't say demographic, whatever the partisan situation in
California where the vast majority of people are Democrats. Adam Schiff is a conspiracy
theorist and liar. He falsely claimed he had evidence that Trump had colluded with
Russia to steal the twenty sixteen election. He said that on air for years,
using a position of authority, and it was a lie. And he's
a conspiracy theorist. And how much did his buddies at CNN, who he
used to leak to all the time, characterize him as a conspiracy theorist winning
the top the likely Senate seat and winning this last night? They did not
say that. And I'm just pointing out, if you want to find conspiracy
theorists, Wait, is this what your book is about too? Yes?
Okay, I mean, if you don't even want to find a conspiracy theorist,
Adam Schiff, California Senate Jack Tapper had Stacy Abrams on numerous times.
Numerous times. Do you know that he did a book signing with her on
their novel with their novels. She is a person who does not accept the
results of elections and democracy, not even to talk about Adams shift and stuff.
So the whole thing's a joke, and I don't really care if people
except twenty twenty, My view is that no one's going to really accept any
presidential election anymore, partly for good reasons because it's a bit of anarchy going
on, but partly because they just don't want to live with the truth,
right, and I have to one accept it they didn't except twenty sixteen.
All of this is just a smoke screen, and that's that. That's it.
I really kind of like that corporate media and other Democrats have said,
if you say anything other than that this weird, weird election was the most
pure and beautiful election in the history of mankind, we will possibly jail you.
And you've got like huge percentages of Republicans being like, yeah, that
just makes me more likely to think there was a problem with that election,
not less likely. There's something kind of nice that makes you feel like it
might be America when you see people rejecting group think and prohibitions on speech like
that. Let's talk about Biden for a second. So he won obviously,
you know, he ran the table as well, but there were a bunch
of uncommitted voters, you know, protesting supposedly his gosen policy. Like it's
up to him what Israel does? I mean, of course he has a
say and he can pressure Israel, but it's not like he's doing it.
But whatever, I don't really care. It's not a huge number. Everyone
says it matters, but to me, something else was key. When you
look at polling. What's it called exit polling independence? He is so people
who consider themselves independents in like California had like, wait, can independence vote?
Obviously they can if there was exit polling of them anyway, I saw
an exit poll of independence in like California, and he's like a thirty two
percent popularity. I think his kind of ridiculous position pro hamas sort of bent
and other things he's doing with the economy of everything else has turned off independence.
So he's so worried about Michigan dearborn voters. He's forgetting that this country
elections are won by independence quite often. And Trump is ahead of him significantly,
do you I mean, he's in a really bad position. I can't
think of the last Republican that has been ahead at this point in polling where
president election. That's what's amazing. You can be behind, you can be
a Republican, can be behind in polling and win easily, and you have
Trump ahead in most polls. It's crazy right now. Obviously it's early,
so we don't know how things are going to shake out. But I can't
think of an incumbent president historically speaking in this kind of position since Jimmy Carter
maybe, and even Jimmy Carter was probably doing better at this point in polling,
because I know that Reagan's sort of like right at the end kind of
took off. Okay, So there are two I totally agree with it.
To me, when you look historically at what we're dealing with, Setting apart
the Grover Cleveland issue of you know, split presidencies, the situation this most
reminds me of is nineteen eighty. It is an you know, sort of
like a weird thing that Carter gets in. People are widely disliking the way
he runs the country, and you have this massive victory in nineteen eighty.
But there are two things that should give Democrats hope. One, Democrats just
do a better job of finding ballots to put in boxes. And I mean
by that not that like they they find people who might not know there's an
election, or might not know who to that they're who's who the people running
are, or when the election is, and they get ballots from those people
into boxes. And so that's not historically what we would call a good way
to run an election. You know, motivation to vote should actually be part
of the process of whether or not you vote. But Democrats have a crazy
advantage, and not just through their private funding of their C three networks,
but also because Biden issued an executive order that requires each and every federal agency
to take part in this type of process of ballot harvesting, and so all
the tax pay dollars are going to it as well. And the second thing
is that we have really powerful and every day they get more powerful censorship tools
to pollute the way people understand each and every story that's out there, and
every story that's out there is a story about the presidential election and gubernatorial elections.
And you have some of these censorship organizations bragging that they're using AI to
supercharge their censorship tools to disrupt whether Americans can freely talk and debate different issues.
And that is a huge advantage to Democrats. We saw it in the
twenty twenty election with the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story. But that
was just one example of you know, thousands of censorship topics that get treated
with the utmost seriousness by these left wing tech companies, censorship firms, and
government agencies. I mean, there'll never be another nineteen eighty or not in
our lifetime, probably because it's just a structural political partisan outlooks. It's not
Reagan one, you know, New York and stuff like that. It's not
going to happen again. But and also you know this I'm telling you,
David, is it could have It could happen if we didn't have censorship.
I firmly believe that. I don't believe that that you can move enough artisans.
We did not have a partisan press and censorship, people would be voting,
like overwhelmingly more for the party that is not the media party. This
is an unpopular opinion I have, I think, but in many ways,
I think the media landscape was worse in nineteen eighty for Republicans. I'm sorry,
there were just a few gatekeepers. Now there's this independent press, federalists
part of it that did not exist in those days. The media was better
in a way that I think they were fair in some ways. But I
think Reagan's victory came because he could speak around and over the press in a
way that now you can do. And Trump does social media and so on
twenty sixteen, you don't think so, David, how would Donald Trump use
face book to speak to the American people? Literally? How he was kicked
off Facebook? I mean, I'm saying, wouldn't let you share stories that
way? Like understand, the entire public square is a censorship square. Now,
I'm just saying in twenty sixteen, I think he spoke over the press
through Twitter and it was used in a way that no camp had ever used
it. Yeah, so yeah, locked it down. Then they realized what
was going on, and you know, they they locked it down. Yeah
there, you know, I know their censorship. I mean, and I
think it is censorship. Though I want private companies to do what they want.
When you're just holding to government, that's censorship. That's literally that's fascism
in a way. And you know, and I know that's hyperbolic to say,
but that's exactly what it is. And or I should say a fascistic
So I get all of that, but I'm just saying it wasn't that easy
in nineteen eighty. I just think today people are more hard is less likely
to leave their party even if they know things aren't going well. But anyway,
we'll see. I think that Bind's in a really bad spot. Let
me one last question on this. Do you think there's any chance he steps
down and let someone else run? So I am so bad at predicting what's
going to happen in the Democrat Party that I didn't think Biden would be the
twenty twenty nominee, almost like until the moment they did that whole thing on
Super Tuesday where they like said, you get out of the race, you
stay in, you'll get this prize, you'll get that prize. We're going
to like jigger this, so Joe Biden becomes the nominee. I was like,
there's no way he's going to be the nominee. And then as things
deteriorated, I just don't see how he can be the nominee now either,
but I apparently he will be. And I also feel like their big problem
is they cannot get rid of him without getting rid of Kamala Harris too,
and if they get rid of Kamala Harris too, because she can't be the
nominee because she's even less liked than Biden is and she's very bad. There's
something weird going on with her. I just worry about her health. So
how do you how do you replace him? Obviously Gavin Newsom or Greshen Whitmer
might be a preferable candidate, but how do you How do you replace Biden
with them without disrespecting all black women who are one of the few groups you
have that are like holding on there for the Democrat Party. I agree,
I just don't. I don't know, like in any what the practical way
of doing this is. Kamal is going to not step aside that, so
now you have a fight, and that just doesn't work at this point.
Also, I think we underestimate, not you, but people might underestimate the
kind of ego you need to be president to run for the presidency. Why
would I just don't see Biden, this is his lifelong dream. He's just
gonna step aside now. I just don't see it. I think it would.
I think Jill Jill Budden, doctor Jill Budden might do it first,
think, Jild, you know that is untenable as well, now I do.
I have worried about a thing I probably can't even say on a podcast,
which would be a worst removal, if you know what I mean of
Biden, and I worry that people might that they're the powerful people might want
that. So I think powerful people probably think he's still there best bet at
this point. Okay, as much, that's just my view. I think
for all the problems, the incumbency is a powerful tool. You have the
you know, the entire White House is mobilized in your you know, for
you to bring in now your own a campaign with its own people. And
it's just it's not you know better than I. You know how like big
these organizations are and how much money flows to them. I just don't.
I just don't see it happening. So, David, you know, people
all the time when I'm out speaking, they tell me they're worried that someone
is going to kill Donald Trump. Have I told you my theory that they
don't need to worry about that. No, So we have like deep state
services that are corrupted. I think it's fair to say we all now realize
how corrupted are intel community is. But I kind of feel like if so
much as a hair on the head of Donald Trump were hurt, even if
they claimed it was Russia or the you know, Iran or China, you
know, they could they could try to claim it with someone else, everyone
would assume it was the CIA. So my theory is that counterintuitively, Donald
Trump is the most protected human in the world right now because they know that
the whole jig would be up if he got hurt in any way. I
float of theory a less conspiratorial theory that saying you're wrong. I think there
was a current here that people don't take seriously enough as to why Donald Trump
has a very good chance of winning. And that is this Joe Biden aesthetically
and you know, when he was in the basement and all that, looks
like a moderate. You know, he's an old white dude, he's from
Delaware, all that, but in every real way, so you'll see store
is where they're like, don't you remember how terrible the Trump years were?
Like, how could we want to go back to this? Because a lot
of the polls show that people have a better view of the Trump years than
they do the Biden years. The truth is that Donald Trump is in every
policy way, far more moderate than Joe Biden is. He is far more
in line with a normal American, even a moderate Democrat, than Joe Biden
is, on foreign policy, on economics, on the border, like all
these issues. And I just think that when you think about the craziness of
the Trump years, Yeah, part of it's Trump. He's a weird guy
in the acts in ways that are unconventional, to say the least, But
most of it was about Russia, which now everyone knows was just a conspiracy
theory. So I just think I don't know if Jake Tapper or CNN know
that a lot of people do. Hardcore partisans probably don't, but most normal
independence probably know by now. So there is, like as with Warren Harding
after Wilson, there is this want to get to back to some kind of
normal. Now. I'm not saying the Trump presidency is normal, because there
is going to be a lot going on if he wins, but that is
very DC centric. I don't know that a person in Minnesota is going through
the waves of emotion that like the media is so to them. They remember
twenty seventeen and eighteen is pretty placid, right, And I think that that
might be the reason that he is going to win. And I'm going to
write a call about that. That is such a good point. Sometimes I'm
telling people, you know, as things got really bad really quickly under the
Biden administration and people were feeling like normal, people were feeling like, what
the heck is going on here, I would tell them that the weird thing
was that during the Trump era that might have been beautiful for Americans. They
might have had a really good economy, they might have felt like some of
the excesses of the left were being checked. They might have enjoyed the peace
breaking out all over the world. D C was traumatized by Donald Trump being
president. It was the worst four years of their life. And the moment
Joe Biden was elected, there was this huge sigh of relief in both parties,
like, oh, thank god, we can go back to normal and
things are actually great for DC right now. We talked at the beginning about
Nicki Haley winning the DC primary and Nikki Haley winning Arlington County in Alexandria.
This is because she was great for DC. She would absolutely continue that thing
that people in DC had gotten used to and it is the weirdest thing how
much of a disconnect there is, and just a slight disconnect I think on
the right on this a little bit. Is also that the things that the
left was going nuts about were very conventional, traditional Republican When you had a
tax cut, they said the world was going to end. When you deregulated
the internet, it was the end of the internet. Like just being pro
Israel to them was like the end of the world, like you know.
So those are very traditional, conventional things, and I think in many ways
Trump was kind of hands off where he should have been, Whereas now you
have the left starting culture war stuff left and right, and people I think
are uncomfortable with that. I don't know that that comes through in polls or
not, but this is my theory of why Trump actually represents normalcy, which
is not something I thought I'd ever say, but it's true. Also the
lawfair stuff, I think people are see right through that you are mobilizing the
federal government to go after your opposition. That is not a normal way that
American systems supposed to work, I think in most people's minds, right.
I was just thinking about that with this week Monday we saw that the Supreme
Court ruled nine two zero unanimously that democrats attempts to remove Donald Trump from the
ballot and prevent the right of people to vote for him was not matching with
the Constitution. All right, Molly, I'm so proud of us. We
nailed that segue like it was seamless. Sorry, And you remember that I
was there for the oral arguments, Oh yeah, yeah, And that when
when I was there when Kaitanji Brown Jackson at the end basically attacked the Colorado
Democrat lawyer for attacking democracy. The whole room that was all Democrat activists,
they just their shoulders sunk. They were like, oh and people kind of
knew right then it could be a nine zero decision. That this was a
surprise to corporate media is yet another indication of how corrupt our press is,
our press are, and how much they need to be not paid attention to.
Well, I have to say they continue to surprise me because I just
assumed that most people knew already that this was not going to go the Democrats
way, or that they thought it was a frivolous kind of that this was
frivolous, Like there are more important issues, you know, and this Colorado
thing and the main Yeah, this is frivolous, but no, they came
out like this, like and what I loved was that just ignored that it
was Nino, and they kept talking about maga extremist courts and about original The
Atlantic had a whole article about how the Originalism is a fraud. They ignored
the three non origin Kazanji Brown Jackson noted originalist scholar. Well, so it
was just made me laugh that they really like nothing. So there's literally nothing
that can stop them from saying maga extremist court nin Oh, they don't care.
We've seen so much persecution of attorneys who did anything to help Republican political
candidates in the twenty twenty election, and that has included disbarment proceedings and just
all sorts of attacks on them. These attorneys who pushed this dangerous idea to
disenfranchise tens of millions of voters by removing ballot access for their candidate, they're
just like walking freely. And an example of one is Michael Ludig, who
who has completely lost his brain. And I just want to also mention that
he was who conservatives thought George W. Bush should have put on the Supreme
Court instead of John Roberts. He was kind of the conservative candidate for the
court. And so I know George W. Bush gets a lot of heat,
but John Roberts is almost certainly a far better choice than Michael Ludig.
Now maybe you could say that there were better options than him as well,
and Michael he almost also put on Harriet Meyer and Roberts, right, so
those I don't know that he was great on that issue, but please go
on. Well, Ludig had lived his life hoping to be a Supreme Court
justice, and he was on the shortlist, and he I think it's you
know, I'm not sure if it's been published, but it's definitely well known
that he humiliated himself in his interview and he never recovered from that, and
he immediately stepped down off of the federal bench and he became he sort of
likes when took a big paycheck from Boeing Boeing, which has had some trouble
recently, and he is now very uneven mentally. I don't know if there's
I don't know what's going on there. I mean, I think there might
be personal problems of some kind or he's not making much sense, and yet
corporate media put him on constantly to talk about Orange Man bad and they act
like he's a respected lawyer, when that definitely was true in twenty years ago,
and it has become increasingly less true every year. I mean, he
teamed up I believe I'm right about this with Lawrence Tribe, another person who's
lost his mind to write a long piece, you know, defending taking Trump
off ballots. His main purpose is every time I see an article or a
headline that's like revered conservative judicial experts says Trump or whatever, I always know
it's going to be floodtig in there, and so you know that's what he's
used for. But we should say there was another So many things happened that
sometimes you forget, but really quickly before before you go on to the other
one. I do also want to point out that principled conservative. Sorry,
anytime I hear the phrase principled conservative, I know it's an unprincipled non conservative,
but principled conservative. David French, writing for The New York Times,
came out far, far, far far to the left of Katanji Brown Jackson,
and it was a stunning display to see that. He said, like
the court was just making everything up and they had rejected the Constitution. And
David French has lot I know he's going through a lot too, but like
he has lost his mind and is now far to the left of KJB.
And this was the man that was held up as the lecturer of Christians and
conservatives. Does it does not? Does it not concern anyone that there would
be an arms race in this if Colorado can simply take candidate off and accuse
him of insurrection, which text it Yeah, yeah, I mean there's no
due process. They're okay, fine, let's say the let's just for arguments
sake, say the Constitution or the founder's envision that happening. So what stops
Texas from taking Biden off? In Florida from taking Biden off? And then
you just have this arms race of people taking ags, taking candidates a ballots.
I mean, doesn't that bother David French? Did they not see that
this is a possibility, David, I'm not sure if you forgot what David
French would say, which is orange man bad So counterpoint, I'm living just
in a political sense of my life is wonderful. I'm very happy. But
in a political sense, I'm living through hell because every they make me defend
Trump. It's just fine. Trump is the good guy. Now somehow it's
not right, and this is my life, Like you know, I just,
I just This is why I wrote a piece. I think the Supreme
Court is the last properly functioning institution in American life. I do think that's
true. I think it's the only thing that's working. And I really pray
that people on both left and right understand how delicate that situation is. I
do not. They want to destroy the court. Left wants to destroy the
court. Okay, So the second thing you were about to say was that
the Court agreed to hear Donald Trump's appeal on one of the Jack Smith cases
about whether he has absolute presidential immunity from being charged with the with the Jack
Smith crimes. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think he has absolute
immunity. But what made me laugh was that Jack Smith asked for this.
The Court says, okay, the expedite it, but the schedule does not.
You know, they didn't ask Rachel Maddow how they schedule it. So
it seems like that they'll have something in June maybe, and that means that
the trial, they can't have a trial before the election, And by complaining
about this, they're just admitting that that's what the trial is for. But
moreover, this is the most important thing that's ever happened in American history.
But the Court's supposed to take a week and come up with an answer to
this very authornity constitutional question that will set precedent forever. They don't care about
democracy. This is all lawfair stuff, is all about just getting Trump.
And they had basically admit that this is the only way they think that Joe
Biden can win by these you know, Chris Hayes, whoever else was complaining
about it. At least that's how I see it. So I have not
studied the arguments well enough to know what I personally think on the presidential immunity
question. From a thirty thousand foot view, I've kind of viewed it as
a win win no matter what they decide, meaning I kind of would like
to hold previous presidents accountable for some of what they did. The lower ruling,
near as I can tell, kind of says, yes, presidents have
immunity for their official acts, but these were not official acts. So therefore
unofficial acts that are done in office can be prosecuted, which will open everybody
up to much litigation. But I also I'm happy about that, and I
hope the right realizes they can do that. Now. If oh yes,
I'm sure they will wake up in no time and start responding in kind.
Presidents break the law all the time outside of their normal you know, presidential
duties and functions, and they should be held accountable for those things. Now,
I want to say, I think the case he has in this regard
is terrible, you know what I'm saying, Like, I think the what's
it called the insurrectionist case is ridiculous, but I think the immunity case isn't
great either. I just, first off, want to say something that I
thought was hilarious that I've read from Kurt Schlichter, who is a conservative journalist
and attorney, and he was pointing out he said he thought that the court
would say that you don't have immunity for acts that are not official, that
it would then send it back to the lower court to determine which acts were
official in which acts weren't, at which point, you know, part of
Jack Smith's argument is based on President Trump's tweets, and during the previous Trump
presidency, the resistance filed a lawsuit to prevent him from blocking people on Twitter,
and the decision was that, in fact, President Trump could not block
people on Twitter because tweets sent by the president are official acts of the president
and therefore he has no right to block. And Kurt Schliffer was like,
wouldn't it be hilarious if this previous resistance campaign ends up completely saving Trump in
this later election or in this later prosecution. I don't know. It just
struck me as funny, but yeah, can I just really quickly say something
about the order of events here? Yeah, you're right. He asked the
Supreme Court to expedite review of the question of presidential immunity, and the Court
said, no, Donald Trump might be hated by you, but he gets
his normal procedures. So it went back to the DC Circuits panel of three
people who rushed through a decision, got it done in like a matter of
hours, at which point and then said, you don't get to appeal this
to the full court because you're Donald Trump and you're bad, So we have
different standards for you that we never use in this court. You either if
you appeal it to the full Court, We're going to let the lower court
continue with the proceeding because the whole point is to prosecute and convict you before
the election. So if you don't want to, if you don't want that,
your only option is to appeal to the Supreme Court directly. So he
appeals to the Supreme Court directly, which Jacksmith had already done back in December
and gotten slapped down. And the court considers, obviously it's an incredibly important
issue, and so they decide to take it take it up. The arguments
will be in April, the decision will likely come down at the end of
June. And then depending on what that decision is, if it's favorable to
the political prosecution of Trump, then the judge Tanya Chuckkin, who's like the
descendant of Marxists activists in the Islands, she will get the trial going,
but it'll take a couple months to get that going, and so the trial
might not start until like after Labor Day of the election year. And so
you will have Biden's Department of Justice prosecuting Biden's political opponent. In the weeks
leading up to the election, all in a race against time to make sure
that the opponent is convicted in a Stalinist Putinist style before the election. It's
insane, so so not ironic, but pretty notable. Is that all Chrisses,
especially but others. That's only one I watched complain that the that the
Supreme Court is corrupt because it's creating a timeline to make sure that he has
not tried before the election. When Jack Smith waited a year. This happened
in January of twenty twenty one. All of this supposedly, and he purposely
waited to try to write I mean the first the DOJ and then he tried
to, you know, to make sure that this truck coincided in the thick
of the election. They're the ones who were trying to get a timeline going.
The Supreme Court is acting as it does in any case of this nature.
In fact, it's probably expediting it in a way that they wouldn't most
often. And yet they were the ones complaining about timelines because, you know,
does it interferes with their lawfair schedule, I mean, the gall of
these people. One other issue I want to point out, the Supreme Court
already agreed to hear arguments from one of the J six protesters about whether a
Sarbin's Oxley provision being used by Biden's Department of Justice this is appropriate or not
to to It's been used to amplify or you know, make worse what the
J six people did, and it was supposed to be used for financial proceedings
about obstruction of congressional investigations or something like that. And I think the court
will almost certainly rule that this was an inappropriate use of the Sarbanes Oxley provision.
It's the lower court ruling, which was a little bit of a confused
ruling, included just like sort of an air tight explanation of why this was,
why this was wrong, even though the two Democrat justices on the panel
were otherwise okay. I think Trump has four J six related charges. Two
of them are related to this, and those two will then be thrown out,
and then the other two I think related to tweets, which, as
we just discovered, you know, might also not work out so well.
So Jacksmith's case is kind of crumble. I also think that the J six
case was thrown together precisely because the real case he was working on, which
was the argument that if you're a senator or a vice president and you mishandle
classified documents, that's awesome, But if you're a president and you have a
document dispute, you should go to jail. That case is not proceeding with
the pace he wanted down in the Florida Court because the judge down in the
Florida Court is just like a normal judge instead of a partisan judge, so
she's, you know, hearing all arguments and taking the normal pace of time
for a case like this. So he like rushes out the J six case.
That's partly, you know, partly what's going on here. But I
do love how he keeps saying you have to rush this, you have to
do it right now, But he never says why. It's just like asserted,
you have to speed this through. It is a vital importance. The
only reason it's a vital importance is because it's an election interference prosecution. But
he can't say that without harming him. On this insurrectionist stuff on J six
stuff, a lot of it is speech related, and I just find it
really offensive, not because I just it would create precedents where virtually any politician
could be charged with insurrection. Think about if you are a justice on the
Supreme Court, and a couple of years ago, the Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer went on the steps of the Supreme Court and called for violence against you,
So that would be course, it was a veiled threat. But yeah,
it was a threat to release the whirlwind. Yeah, yeah, you
will pay the price is what was said. You will pay the price.
It was perceived as a as a call for violence. And I will point
out that one of those justices did face an assassination threat and an armed gunman
who was attempting to kill him and his family. Okay, Department of Justice
didn't even look into it. An actual call for insurrection against the Supreme Court,
and Department of Justice didn't look into it. Nobody called it an insurrection.
Nobody really like even remembers that this happens. And you're being asked to
hear a case about someone who said go peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol and
make your voice heard, and they're being asked to say that was a violent
call, a call for violent insurrection. When you experienced what you experienced on
the steps of the Court, just a few years earlier. Are you kidding
me like I've been? I'm sure you remember. But for a while there,
while Trump was president, there was a movement among Democrats and among pundits
to make Trump officials uncomfortable, to or Ted Kruz to go to a restaurant,
don't let him sit there, like to get into people's space, their
physical their families, you know, make them uncomfortable. And that was,
you know, it was fine. I forget what the you know, rationale.
I mean, I don't the rationale is clear, but I forget what
their justifications were for doing that. But yeah, but you know, I
read those Trump First of all, they always have one of the Trump tweets.
But right after that he tweeted again to say be peaceful or something of
that nature. And yet they never even talk about that. Now, again,
I think his rhetoric was wrong, but the idea, and I don't
think Schumer should be investigated either, honestly for his statements. I think we
have to give it the widest latitude of free expression, and Trump is afforded
that just like anyone else, or should be so. A few weeks ago,
Politico had a story about a dangerous new thing that was happening in DC,
which was people going to like Anthony Blincoln's home to protest. I was
like, are you kidding me? Right now? Are you kidding me?
You know, Politico, which actually probably helped produce the assassination attempt against Kavanaugh
by publishing the decision, the Dobbs decision before it was finalized, says there's
like a new thing happening because they were so happy when this was happening to
Trump officials and their children, their underaged children, which happened in my neighborhood.
But as soon as it happens to one of their beloved partisans, then
now it's a problem. Weren't they doing it to like Amy, Amy Coney
Barrett too. I mean, I think they were in front of the houses
of all the court justices, I mean the originalists, not all, not
all of them, because some of them don't have particularly easy houses to access.
But you know, and by the way, even that is a problem.
If you can't live in a normal neighborhood because left wing activists are trying
to kill you, that's not good. You want your judges living in a
normal neighborhood. Justice too, It's tough because you don't, you know,
you have an a lot you're allowed to protest. I think people have you
know, for instance, what's that law called where abortion protesters aren't allowed to
go near abor, you know, closer to abortion, like they're special rules
for certain protesters. Base. Yeah, I mean those things are clearly unconstitutional
in my view. So anyway, let's severer away from politics tuckle culture.
To wrap up, I actually watched a few things this week. I'll just
give you two feeld good movies I watched that We're both not very memorable.
One was made in Italy on Netflix. It has so it has Liam Neeson
and his real life son and he's a widower and you know, he lost
his mom, which is happened in real life. Miranda Richardson is his wife
and so on, and I thought the movie was just meh. I think
mostly because Liam Neeson's son doesn't know how to act. Yeah. And the
other field good one was called House of Dave, which is a movie in
British movie about this guy in a small northern British English town who wants to
start his own bank so it can help locals who don't have a lot of
money. There's a lot of like socialistic propaganda within this movie, but I
think it's heart was in the right place. So if you can get over
a lot like you'd be under the impression that banks don't lend money to people
like normal people, which I don't think is the case even in Britain.
But anyway, it was, it was Okay, I have more, but
let me hear some of yours first. Oh, I don't really have much,
but I do want to share a message I got from my friend Katie,
who's this like beautiful young mother. She says, listening to the culture
section of your podcast is eerily similar to watching an old movie with my parents,
where they're just constantly asking each other what other movie they saw that one
guy in that one time we are bad with names. I would just like
want to be like Katie, just wait till you're older, okay, and
then you will know what that's like. Did you see the reader email about
you know, how I'd talked about seeing that We Are the World video?
Yeah, and there was this reader who said he kind of greed. I
think it was a he he agreed with what I was saying about it not
being like the most amazing documentary, but he said that he said this thing
which I actually felt at the time, but he articulated really well about what
struck him about the documentary is it's all these like top pop stars, some
black, some white, and there is like no problem between these people.
There's no racism between these people, like I think there was. There were
a few like things about race that were playing into the documentary, Like one
the whole idea of doing it was because a lot of black artists felt like,
you know, they've done the do they know it's Christmas over in the
UK for Feeding Africa, and a bunch of black artists were like, we
should, this is really something we should do. So the genesis comes from
some of the top black artists and producers. But and then at the end
there's a line from someone I think it was either Quincy Jones or Lionel Richie
where they're talking about how they were really impressed that the white that the people
brought it, like the white people really did a good job on the recording,
but everyone's getting along. There's so much like racial harmony, and it
was kind of sad given what we're dealing with now, where like everything was
like racially awful and tense and you know, people everything has to be like
focused so much on identity, and it was not that way. And because
I was alive during that time, like I remember that it was nice.
It was a nicer you know, and as a kid, but living in
places where you know, I was a minority in a place where I lived
in California and then in Colorado, there was just it was nice. Does
am I making any sense there? No, you are, I don't remember.
Listen. I'm not going to pretend I grew up in some huge,
multicultural, multi racial area, but there were plenty of people of other races
around where I grew up, and I know there were some racial tensions sometimes,
but there was not this like constant identitarian view of the world all the
time, everything having to do with race. And I thought things were at
least from you know, I thought things were getting better in the country.
I think honestly, when Obama became president, we took a wrong turn there,
you know, not electing him because he was black, but because he
then instead of things getting better somehow he made things worse. He was constantly
obsessing over race rather than getting over race. And since then, I just
think we've been headed in an okay verbal direction since I was in articulate,
I'd actually liked to read the email which I just found. So this guy
Jason said that as he was watching the closing credits and watching everyone say goodbye,
it struck him like seeing the ghost of a lost loved one. He
says, nobody, nobody during that nineteen eighty five experience cared one lick about
race. It was talent, admiring talent. They were beyond race differences,
and that attitude reflected where we were going as a society. Nobody can put
a percented john how far along we were. But as a kid of the
eighties growing up in Ohio, I believed that racism was a thing of the
past. I believed that, so I cried when I saw that lost memory
documented. We have regressed so much since nineteen eighty five, and he goes
on, but I felt that when I read that, I was like,
that articulates kind of something I was feeling from there. So I also,
I've been traveling a lot, so I haven't been able to watch my stories
on my rowing machine. But I was home for an afternoon and began watching
a new documentary called I Think it's called Nolan, so it's about Nolan Ryan.
Woh, and I'm enjoying it. Speaking of crying, I gave up
baseball because Major League Baseball attacked Georgia for having slightly improved its voter laws.
And that was years ago, and so I haven't watched baseball since then.
And there are some scenes watching Nolan Ryan have these like amazing closings or you
know, just other great performance says, and it made me cry. Well.
I was rowing because I just love baseball so much and I love pitching
so much. There's molly rowing and crying. Yeah, I have not watched
that. I will. Actually, I'm not going to let them take away
baseball that easily, though. I was very annoyed by that entire episode.
Did you see the letter writer who asked if there was any way for you
to come back to baseball, if you could get over it. There was
a letter writer I don't exactly remember how she phrased it. She asked she
thought I had given up baseball too, which I haven't, but is there
do you think you will come back to baseball? I would come back you
back in a heartbeat if they apologized, And I know that's not going to
happen, but to me to have any sort of dignity for myself, I
need them to apologize. And I, by the way, even know that
they think they've apologized by bringing the All Star Game back to Atlanta and by
moving away from some of their extremist political stances. I need them to apologize.
That's why I kind of like mention it. I don't know, people
knows. I mentioned it on TV all the time, just gratuitously because I'm
still so upset about it. You know, I think that MLB got caught
up in that whole Black Lives Matter thing, and it was more. It
was more that these corporations were scared that they would be fingered as not being
on board, you know, so they did a lot of dumb things.
I will say, I think there's been a backlash, as you mentioned.
Also in hockey, which I am a big fan of, there's Pride night,
you know, and it was the other night, and the New York
Rangers, a team that I follow, does not make the play. They
do not make the players wear any kind of special warm up jersey, you
know, with the with the rainbow flag or anything like that. And there's
a lot of kind of and this is New York City, you know,
and there's blowback, but they they don't do it because I believe some of
the players are religious and wouldn't wear it, and they don't want them to
be, you know, attacked. So I don't know. Hopefully there was
a bit of pushback to all this kind of kind of stuff. I also
read. I read a book. We never talked about the books we read.
We should do that, But I read a book by Michael Isikoff and
someone else about It was called Find Me the Votes, and it was this
political hagiography of Funny Willis. And you know how you know, there are
always these stories from people who are writers about how they published a book on
nine to eleven, which was like the worst day to ever publish a book.
This book came out at the end of January, and I almost felt
badly for them, Like what it's all about, how Funny Willis is the
most amazing human being who ever walked the earth, And it's like released right
at the time when she's on she's having to give testimony about how she lied
about hiring her secret married lover boyfriend who was otherwise unqualified to help her with
this political prosecution of Trump and other Republicans, and it just ages poorly in
light of you know, what's come out in these proceedings. But one thing
that I thought was funny about it is that Michael Issakov, who I think
a lot of people know from he was related to the Monica Lewinsky story,
but I always think about him as the person who was the first to write
the Russia collusion. He was the gulible reporter who was like, yeah,
all spread your Russia collusion lies, and it was picked up and used to
spy against innocent Americans. So that's his claim to pay. But I had
some respect for him honestly years ago, way before that, because he would
go after Democrats if he had a good story. But then after the Russia
collusion thing, you know, kind of fell apart. Well, anyway,
the story this book has all this stuff about like Fannie Willis and her secret
married lover being in a car together or at other locations away from the office
together, like you read the book and they're constantly together, like he knew
man nothing, But no he doesn't say like either he knew and he hit
it or he didn't figure out that these people were knocking boots and it just
cracks me up, like nothing gets past this guy. But one thing I
loved about it, and I will be writing about this, is that they
admit something that I had long suspected. So sorry to be political in our
culture, but there were these two leaked phone calls to the Washington Post about
Georgia. The first one was not a leak of a phone call. It
was more like a leak of a characterization of a phone call. And then
later the actual transcript came out. It turned out it wasn't true, and
the Washington Post admitted that the person who falsely characterized that was this woman named
Jordan Fuchs. The second call I always assumed was leaked by Jordan Fuchs.
She's the chief of staff for Brad Raffensberger. Not an elections expert, but
definitely like a political pugilist, and she hates Donald Trump and his supporters,
and so she was just very political during the disputes down there. I had
long suspected that she had taped the phone call in Florida and not Georgia.
And the reason why that's significant is that Florida requires consent from all parties being
taped on phone calls, and Georgia does not, and so if she taped
it in Georgia, that would have been illegal. And the book admits that
she taped it in Florida, that that is illegal. That that is why
Liz Cheney did not call her to testify in the show trial up in DC,
because of the political exposure. And the reason why this is significant is
the whole book lays out the case that the phone call is the entire basis
of the entire prosecution of everybody that Fannie Willis is prosecuting, and if it
were illegally taped, that means that the entire prosecution could be thrown out because
of the fruit of the poison tree. And in the book they say,
a, if Florida decides to prosecute for this law breaking just a misdemeanor,
and b her defense could be that she did it for law enforcement purposes.
But of course she couldn't say that because she leaked it within a matter of
minutes to the Washington Post. She did not record it for law enforcement.
She recorded it for political gain. So interesting. I'm sorry that was so.
If I remember correctly, the quote was characterized just slightly off to make
it sound like he, like Trump said find these votes, when he what
was it? What did the actually Well, that's the other issue with it
is that the phone call has always been mischaracterized. So the Trump team had
a bunch of stupid lawsuits like elsewhere, but in Georgia, the lawsuit was
really good. Everyone kind of acknowledges that they had different buckets of voters that
they were worried about them being illegal votes, and they were right, by
the way, greater than the margin of victory included illegally cast votes. And
this is where people went from one county to another but voted in the previous
county, like they moved from one to another but voted in the previous county.
It's kind of a long standing problem in Georgia that election experts there have
been trying to get the Secretary of State to care about. So yeah,
when Trump, in his like completely inarticulate phone call that was rambling in a
mess, says find me this number of votes, what he's saying is like,
you don't have to agree on all one hundred and fifty thousand votes that
we think are questionable, but if you could agree with like greater than the
margin of victory, then we can proceed here. And so the call itself
actually wasn't wrong. It's been mischaracterized. But also it was illegally taped,
and that tape was used to then begin a crazy prosecution. There were other
problems with Fanie Willis, by the way. For instance, she's saying that
people who were alternate electors broke the law because they were trying to present themselves
as something other than what they were, But she had a transcript of the
meeting where they decided it that includes David Schaeffer saying, I just want to
make sure we're clear on this. We're not presenting ourselves as the electors.
We're doing this in case we win this court case. You see what I'm
saying. Like, so, everything's wrong about it. But even if she
gets to proceed, the fact that they admitted that this tape was illegally procured
should provide another avenue of defense for all these people. Interesting. You know,
I used to quite often take people illegally called me politicians to have their
you know, they would yell at me or whatever. I would tape it
and I'm not sure if where I was I needed their consent, But I
would do that because their liars, and they would mischaracterize things or lie to
you know, I would quote them and then they would lie and say they
didn't say it. So I would just take people. I do not do
that anymore because I don't know how to tape people on cell phones. I
think we should advertise our podcast as a place where the hosts casually admit to
crimes. I've destroyed those tapes. I had Bill Owen's on one of those
tapes, yelling at Me, which was my favorite one which I listened to
occasionally. I can't believe. Okay, I don't get into Colorado, but
I can't believe how left wing Colorado has become. It's really kind of incredible.
Okay. So here I watched the show called a Tourist. It's on
Netflix. I was confused because it's set twenty twenty four, but it's and
it's a show I thought I had watched on HBO Max like a year ago,
but this is just the second season. It's moved over. It's with
the guy who's Irish, who was in those movies, the sado masochistic sex
movies. What are they called shade Shades of gray or whatever. Oh yeah,
fifty shades of gray. Fifty shades of gray. I don't know,
let's explain these things. So but it's actually a mystery and it's good.
I would recommend it. It's it's not it's violent, but it's not like
terrible, terrible. And the other thing I did was, and I want
to stress again that I love Peter Fowk like he is now, like he's
a hero to me. I just think he's the grace after I love Colombo.
Actually read a book called Shooting Colombo this week, which is about the
show. But because I'm so into him, I went and watched John Cassavetti's
rewatched John Cassavetti's movies He's were in, which are like kind of the indie
movies of the seventies. I watched Husbands, which was with Ben Gazzara,
John Cassavetti's and Peter fock one set. You know, it's an acquired taste.
I don't know if it's for everyone. And then I watched a movie
called Nicky and Mickey or Mickey and Nicky I Forget, which was directed by
Ellen may It's like this movie that's quite yeah, this movie that's quite famous
because it took she went like over budget, like Ishtar kind of thing where
she went, you know, she also directed Ishtar. That was her next
movie, so she didn't direct for like ten years. But it's this movie
that went way over budget and like it was just nuts. The studio took
control of it, this and that. But it's John Cassavetti's and Peter Fock
and it's a fun watch. And what I enjoy a lot about these movies
is probably not its intent is just to see like New York and city scapes
in the seventies and how it looked like and how run down it is and
how dirty it is, and it's just and how different it is, and
to me, that's fun. So that's all I have on culture. Anything
else from you, no, Okay, Well, it's nice talking to you,
Molly. I hope you have fun on your travel during your travels,
and everyone else will see you next week. Until then, you lovers are
freedom and anxious for the fray. To me, what today that comes after
Monday to what today gone very far? Wednesday? To me, what today