Welcome back everyone to a new episode of It 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. And if you enjoy
our work here, you can support the real journalism at the Federalists by going
to the Federalist dot com slash donate. With the elections coming up, I
think it's pretty important, right, Molly, absolutely yes to both things.
Email us, and as you are doing your end of your giving, please
include us in those plans. We are so appreciative of any help you give
us so that we can do real journalism to push back on all of the
bad journalism that is done in this country. So much is going on Molly's
but let's start with the real big story yesterday. It was last night Tuesday,
the Colorado Supreme Court, through Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate,
the leading right now polling wise, the leading candidate for the presidency in the
United States, the former president of the United States, off the ballot in
Colorado. I believe the primary ballot. I think that's what it is.
Yeah, And I think the issue there is that if they were going to
do it for the general, they kind of had to do it for the
primary as well. And so that's why it's happening now a little earlier than
you might expect. As a campaign strategy for Democrats. All the law fair
that they're using against Donald Trump is their campaign strategy for twenty twenty four.
But this is an absolute, like rubicon crossing, extremely bad situation that Democrats
have put the country in. They've been kind of open about having this strategy
of well, if you can even just take a step back here, So
much of what's been said about Donald Trump is designed to treat him as something
like that no norm needs to be kept, no standard needs to be kept.
He is so bad for getting the country out of wars, or having
a thriving economy, or for pushing back against the Left, that you can
do literally anything to him. Unfortunately, I worry up to and including taking
his life because of this. You know just how unprecedented he is. I
don't quite understand like how they've whipped themselves up into their heads into this place.
But the Colorado Supreme Court, which is a one party court, meaning
every single person on the court, was put there by a Democrat had a
like four to three decision or something like that saying that Colorado's will not have
the right to vote for the candidate of their choice if the candidate of their
choice is Donald Trump. But this is something that happened in Colorado, but
it's something that they actually have been trying to do nationwide, and particularly in
stapphire blue states such as Colorado. So let's take this step by step,
because it's somewhat complicated. I think it matters. Hopefully, just to preface
all this, hopefully the Supreme Court will come in and just knock it immediately
down and stop any other court for me amputating this idea. That's not sufficient
for what needs to happen here. But yes, true, but that it
is important in the sense of having I mean, what I'm saying is I
don't want to see Roberts write some kind of opinion that gives other states,
opens a door for other states to try to do this to someone who has
not been in any real way. Well, so let's just take a step
back. So all this is predicated on the Fourteenth Amendment, Section three that
qualifies candidates who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from running
for president. This is all based then on January sixth, which the Court
says in a two hundred plus page opinion, where they say Donald Trump engage
in insurrection against you know, they say, like when he said I want
you to peacefully and patriotically make your voice heard. Their argument is that that
was insurrectionist talk. Is that right? I don't think that's how they framed
it. Now. I'm just wondering, like on what grounds are they framing,
Like did they find him saying anything that suggests first of all, there
was no insurrection and people need to be really honest about that and like punch
people in the face when they call it an insurrection. It was a protest
of a very metaphorically no real punching. We don't want you trouble. This
will be me on TV bang bam. People protested a deeply flawed election.
It would have kind of been insane if they hadn't protested. After what happened
there, you know, radical changes to hundreds of laws and processes to flood
the zone with tens of millions of unsupervised ballots. You had the deep state
having people they pay claim that a laptop that showed how the front runner was
engaged in corrupt dealings with foreign governments. Was itself Russian disinformation, and they
put a lie into the election, and you had it come from the CIA,
and it involved people who were paid by the CIA. You had all
sorts of censorship from the government, from deep state bureaucrats who were telling people
they couldn't talk about issues like you had corporate media making up lights like this
was a deeply flawed election. Just it was. It was poorly done and
people were upset. That does not make it an insurrection. And one of
the you know that is because nobody had any plan for an insurrection. They
were upset by a flawed election. They behaved in ways they shouldn't. It's
sufficient to say that. Okay, like this rhetoric where you say, if
you're on the left, you get to burn down cities, you get to
murder dozens of people, you get to burn down precincts, you get to
besiege the White House, you get to besiege the Senate, you get to
besiege the Marco Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland. That's fine, and you will
be praised and lauded and given like tens of billions of dollars in corporate funding,
and if you protest a deeply flawed election, we're going to destroy your
life and the lives of everyone you know. Like, that's not tenable.
And so I just it shows that the irresponsible rhetoric from Democrats and their enablers
has led the country to a crisis point. And partly that's because people who
knew better didn't metaphorically punch people in the face when they said, this is
an insurrection. I agree that it was not an insurrection. Well, so
let's just take it step by step. First part is you have a court
here who is throwing someone off the ball who has not not been convicted of
insurrection or rebellion, not even charged I don't believe, with insurrection or rebellion.
And if I might put a point on that, David, he wasn't
charged with insurrection. And you know Jack Smith wakes up every day wanting to
charge him with insurrection. And if even Jack Smith, who's like a crazy
man, who's like willing to do things that get overturned by the Supreme Court
nine to zero, as he was when he went after a previous Republican front
runner, for the presidency. Bob McDonald, he's willing to do stuff that
you shouldn't do because of his hatred for Republicans. And if even he did
not charge Donald Trump with insurrection, that might be a signal to responsible people
on courts that maybe you shouldn't behave this way right. So, what I
think happened there. I think that many people were there protesting as they're allowed
to do. Of course, some people I would call it a riot,
but barely. I think it's like a political passionate political protest that got out
of hand, and a lot some people did things that shouldn't have done and
should be prosecuted. For most people who were there that day did nothing illegal.
But the whole thing's been turned into this supposed rebellion. Then now the
idea, you know, people call it a coup and an insurrection. The
idea that any of the bozos who ran in there and were wandering around had
any plan, had any support from the military, had any kind of way
to stop democracy from working in the end, is absurd. And everyone knows
that democracy was not in danger that day, you know, So all of
that's ridiculous. So that's the first thing. There was no insurrections, So
throwing them off the balve for something that didn't happen is ridiculous. Throwing him
off for something that he wasn't charged for isus. But let's say they're right.
So what precedent with this set It would mean that any state court could
throw off any candidate. It felt like it could throw Chuck Schumer off a
ballot because he, you know, threatened the Supreme Court. Or it could
throw Biden off a ballot because he sent money to Iran, who you know,
kills Americans. Or actually, he could throw Biden off because he's opened
the borders and doesn't do anything to protect the sovereignty of a nation. Right,
this could happen anywhere the president. It sets is completely corrosive, and
they know it. They know it. So that's why I'm saying, hopefully
the Supreme Court just bulldozes over this case and says it's the most ridiculous thing
we've seen. But if you know, if you have Roberts saying something like
though, I have to say, though, that there are state laws in
play here as well as federal law, So I wonder how this case would
play out. I'm a little bit concerned. But the point is the motivation
behind it is authoritarian. In my view, it's just authoritarian. You're trying
to stop an election from happening. You're doing the same thing you claim in
this very case that Donald Trump was doing. Okay, this is another thing
that people need to metaphorically be punched in the face for right now. So
right now you have everybody on the left being asked by Joe Biden to say
that Donald Trump is an authoritarian. So they're all doing it, and you're
seeing this in every single media outlet, and they're saying, okay. So
Donald Trump, when he was in office previously, was kind of the opposite
of an authoritarian. He had no control over his bureaucracy. For one thing,
he didn't use his DOJ to go after the crimes committed by his political
opponent, even though he could have, Like we should remember his political opponent
went out of her way to create and she was never president and never will
be, and when out of her way to create a secret system so she
could like hide classified information, and Donald Trump could have had his DOJ under
his control, being like we're going to hold her accountable. Like these people
need to finally be held accountable, and he said, I don't think that's
a good idea. You shouldn't go after your political opponents. So you have
that experience for four years, you know, getting out of wars, not
using your DOJ to go after people, in fact, allowing your DOJ to
run basically an insurrection against you, the Molar probe and all of that idiocy.
And they're saying, okay, and if he's elected again this time,
he's going to be an authoritarian. So it's like, well, there's no
evidence really to support this at all. But also right now we have a
president that has done things like had a Supreme court say what you did with
student loan debt was unconstitutional, and he said, screw you. I'm going
to not obey this law, this ruling from the Supreme Court, and I'm
going to keep doing it. You had a guy who on day one said
I'm not going to protect the country as the Constitution says by having borders.
I'm going to tear down any protection and start welcoming in like tens of millions
of people to destabilize the situation you mentioned, the situation you know with Iran,
like giving aid and comfort to sworn enemies of the United States, And
you have a guy who's not happy with Elon Musk, so he's having every
single one of his regulatory agencies that has any ability to go after him go
after him. And he has personally requested his DOJ to do more against his
number one political opponent. Right now, that's happening. So it's not just
like how insane it is to talk about how someone who had a chance to
be an authoritarian and wasn't will be in the future. It's about right now
now, really dangerous things are happening, and it's all done to the cheers
of corporate media. Yeah. The Watchdot 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. Where's the fastest rising area for commercial real estate?
Train stations Another huge effect of COVID are people's chim meets too and from their
office. While office buildings in major cities are getting cleared out, the only
parts of the cities that are growing are train stations. 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. I think, listen, I can't know
what Donald Trump would do. Well, let me take another step back.
There's so much going on. So a few weeks ago, maybe a month
ago, Joe Biden's campaign sent out a letter to all to the press leading
with them to let me give you the exact language. Here's what they said.
It's time to meet the moment and responsibly inform the electorate of what their
lives might look like if the leading GOP candidate for the president is allowed back
in the White House. Not but a week after that email, story after
story started coming out comparing Trump to Hitler. Listen, Trump uses language I
don't like quite often, but to jump to Hitler immediately and the dictatorship that's
coming and this and that, it's just completely concocted by the media. Right
now. I don't know what Trump will do in the future, but I
do know this. His administration was far better for the Constitution in almost every
way imaginable than the Biden administration. Biden ignores the Constitution constantly. Biden is
uses executive power in unprecedented ways that Donald Trump never would have and never did
Donald Trump put people on the court that uphold the Constitution. Biden puts people
on the Court who don't care about the Constitution. Those things matter to me.
I wish I had better choices in this next election, but those are
the choices we're faced with. And as you say, not only did Trump
not go after Hillary, but I think he offered some kind of comment where
he's like, it would be bad for the country to go after politicians who,
you know, your opponents. Hillary was guilty as hell. She should
have been any if her name was Smith and she was some mid middling,
you know, bureaucrats, she would have been in jail. And then of
course she also undermined the Constitution in the US government by also concocting the whole
Russia collusion hoax that came from her camp, and you know she was behind
that as well. So I don't know what Trump's going to do, but
I do know what's happened, and there is no comparison in my mind.
And even right now, as you mentioned, the Supreme Court, democrats are
working over time to destroy the legitimacy of the court that upholds the Constitution,
the only bureaucracy right now, the only institution that does that, going after
Clarence Thomas Constant, just years and Nonsense and all the other originalists. So
it's a very very dangerous time for the Constitution in America right now, very
really dangerous. I'm not you know, this is just Colorado, but the
way that a lot of the not every Democrat supports Colorado's Supreme Court decision,
I have to say, but most do, and that tells me they're willing
to do the same kind of thing all over the place. Now you know
what I mean. Not necessarily this is coordinated strategy put out by norm En
types at the Brookings Institute. This was they ran it up, multiple flag
poles from different states, and Colorado has apparently a week enough Supreme Court that
they were like, will participate in this. I do want to say back
to what you were pointing out about Joe Biden asking his allies, his main
allies, which are the corporate media, to start doing assassination prep. Basically,
you know, to be out there and say like Donald Trump is Hitler?
Well, what is like the what is the phrase we always say about
or what's like the question we always ask about Hitler, if you had a
chance to assassinate Adolf Hitler, would you do it? So when you're calling
people Adolf Hitler, what you're doing is sending a message out to people who
are willing to take that step to do anything they can. Maybe what they
can do is threaten the fabric of the country by doing a Supreme Court ruling
out of Colorado. Maybe what they can do is kill their political opponent.
But what you're trying to do is open up people's minds to like, you
can do things that are very dangerous and bad, and everyone has to do
their part. I mean, it's really reckless, irresponsible stuff we're seeing from
a lot of people on the left. And these are people, you know,
prominent people at the Washington Post, prominent people at the New York Times,
prominent people in the presidency. Like these are people who are playing with
serious fire. It's like they're wanting to have some kind of major conflagration and
they're just poking and prodding and doing whatever they can to bring us to like
the brink. Like we know they don't like the Constitution anyway, so they're
like doing whatever they can to put the country in jeopardy. And that's a
little alarming how few people are meeting the moment, as you might say,
Joe Biden, We're meeting the moment by pushing back decisively, like every single
Republican and every single Democrat who has even like the tiniest sentilla of decency should
be saying this will not stand. We will not take these attacks on our
republic or on the right of people to vote for whom they want. The
way to defeat Donald Trump, if he's really so bad, is to convince
the majority of Americans we're planning on voting for him or whatever, you know,
like that they shouldn't. That's how you handle it. You'll notice when
look a couple of things. Yeah, I'm working on a book about how
the paranoia of the left and how it kind of like fuels their entire movement.
And I was going back reading all these stories and freak outs from just
for five six years straight, and each one is like a compounding smear,
Like even when it's not true, it keeps creating this environment where where people
are told over and over that there's an existential threat to their lives, to
democracy, to all of this stuff, and Basically throughout history, every single
authoritarian movement has said that they're here to save you from something else that's threatening
your lives. And that's exactly what's happening now. If you think someone hitler,
like you say, you might want to kill them, but let's say
you don't want to kill them, but you're willing to do a lot to
stop them. And that's what Democrats and many of them, I think they
were just cynically using this because they know that Donald Trump is, not,
to say the least, a sympathetic figure, so it's the perfect straw man
to start doing these things. Like that's why they're all of a sudden.
Clarence Thomas is this maga figure to that guy, it's been around forever,
defends the Constitution all the time, but he now is in go hoots with
Donald Trump and it's okay to go after him. Yeah, but but I
don't know where this ends. But you know, oh yeah, that's why
I want to say so. But you'll notice when they thought for a while
there that DeSantis might be have a really strong candidacy, that he also was
hitler, that he also was all the things that Donald Trump was, even
though he's not even like that at all. So I don't buy that this
is just a Donald Trump problem. I know it's hard to defend principles when
they're you know, when it's Donald Trump who is using them if you don't
like Donald Trump, and I don't, But but it's the principle you should
be thinking about, not really the man all all the time. Though it's
difficult, you know, that's all. I don't actually see why it's so
difficult. I think about this all the time. Like people will say things
they don't like about Donald Trump, and I'm like, yeah, I agreed,
that's bad, or I don't like that aspect of his personality. I
don't like any politician. I don't actually understand what causes the extreme hatred towards
this person. I do get that he's like frustrating because he's kind of good
at what he does, and that that can be really frustrating for a lot
of people. But well, I don't like the language like vermin, blood
of our soil. We just do a little detour on this one too.
There's this great guy named do matt or Flea. Do you ever follow him?
He writes sons Familiar actually does videos for Matt Tabee's excellent substock situation,
and he did a little like look through history, recent history on vermin.
So when Joe Biden asked his people or demanded that his people start calling Trump
hitler, one of the examples they were using is Hitler called people vermin,
and Donald Trump called Antifa or something, you know, like people who are
trying to destroy the country. He called them vermin. And that's dehumanizing rhetoric
and there can be no tolerance for this in any way. And so Matt
or Feleia went through and just like looked at what the Washington Post had said
about Trump and his people while they were in office, and would you be
surprised in any way to find out that the Washington Post's favorite way to describe
Trump and his people were as rats who had infested the White House. So
I am so sick to death of these people saying, like, we get
to call you rats, and then if you call our most extreme figures rats,
we're going to say you're like hitler. This is like just stop it.
And even like I was like shocked to see so Donald Trump, I
didn't actually hear, did not watch this in context, and it kind of
was like, all of a sudden, everybody was like, oh, Donald
Trump has read mine comp and he's reciting passages from mindcomp And clearly that's because
he's this intolerable person who needs to be assassinated. And it was about how
immigration has poised. So when you actually look at what Trump said, it
was something about how like immigration has been used to poison the country. And
so then all the newspapers and all the media outlets were all outraged that Donald
Trump had said something negative about immigration in this way. Holy bleeping bleep.
When will people start caring about the actual policy that is doing so much damage
to the country, Like maybe we should be about a million times more upset
at what Joe Biden has done to the border and a million times less upset
about the manner in which someone's complaining about it. Like if you have done
everything in your power to restore rule of law and care about borders and care
about being a country and care about immigration policy, and you tell me the
way Donald Trump said something was like inappropriate. I'll listen to you. But
this like situation where people are like totally fine with destroying the country and if
you say something and not quite the right way about how you're destroying the country.
That's who gets offended, Like, that's who gets the all the all
the ire and the anger. That is what's wrong with this town. That
is what I hate about the people who live here. They have no perspective.
Everything's a problem about how Donald Trump says something, but they don't care
that they're destroying the best nation we've ever had in history. I can't disagree
with that, but that you asked me why he's unsympathetic, So I'm just
letting you know. Oh sorry you. Mark says he can always tell when
we're doing our podcast because he hears yelling from my office, and I feel
really badly, like, I'm sure he's up there. I admire your passion.
No, you're you're right about that. You're right about You're right about
out the gauging what's important and what's not. But it would be helpful if
he didn't make it so easy for people to do that. That's all I'm
saying. They're going to do it anyway, I get it. I just
feel like he has an authoritarian I don't mean it in a legalistic sense,
with like an authoritarian manner that is off putting. To a lot of people.
There's no denying that a lot of people don't like Donald Trump, and
I think would be more open to his message if he didn't act the way
he does. I went to bus the way he does. I went to
this wonderful lunch that I get to go to every Christmas. That is a
small gathering of like prominent ladies, and everything's off the records. I can't
start meaning the people who are there, you know, in the specificses.
But there were some people there who were they're all they're all right of center,
but there was like light complaining about what you just said, you know,
like the way he says things. And this one lady was just like,
I don't want to hear any of it. I'm just done hearing complaints
about the way he says things. I don't care, Like we have a
country to save. Just stop. And it made me laugh that she just
was disallowing any complaints about the tweets or the way that you any another thing
about this, and you may disagree, I don't know. The thing is
that used to happen with George W. Bush, where he'd be like one
second he'd be this evil genius who was plotting to you know, make us
into Nazi Germany, and then next day he was a complete idiot, couldn't
do anything. So you have to choose which one you're talking about. In
my view, I don't think Trump could be a dictator, even if he
wanted to be a dictator. I don't think he actually wants to be.
He doesn't have the competence or what. I just don't think he put he's
surrounded with people who can do that, or you know, you know,
just to go off another just to go off in another direction per second.
Constantly calling him hitler and making him radioactive in Washington is going to be really
bad when he has an administration if he wins this presidency, because I actually
want competent people to work for him, normal people to work for him so
that he can achieve a lot of the things that I like. And if
he surrounds himself with I don't know, irresponsible people or you know, if
no one's going to be administration, because they'll be ruined forever and prosecuted after
as many of the people around him have been, no one's going to want
to be part of that, and you're going to get even more incompetent people
in there, or maybe people who actually are not great people. So I
don't know if that makes any sense, but I think just kind of smearing
him like in this way is problematic, and going after everyone who is in
his administration afterwards is a big problem as well. That's true, And I
will just say there are these outside groups that have been putting a lot of
effort into getting competent people ready for the next Republican administration or next conservative administration,
like whoever that would be, And Heritage Foundation has this project twenty twenty
five or they are doing a lot of like pre vetting and thinking through issues
because when Trump won the first time, he came in without an army,
and a lot of really bad people came in with him. And I mean
that like bad in all the ways you could be bad, bad because you
don't actually share his vision for what to do with a paired down government or
bad ye and your like truly hostile to it or bad in terms of the
competence to understand how to navigate the bureaucracy, which is overwhelmingly far left democrat,
And so you need both the right political views, but you also need
the right level of competence, and so I am very thankful that Heritage and
a few other people, a few other groups are putting the time, energy
and money into like identifying these people beforehand so that things can go better in
what will be the second term. Also that reminds me of something else when
people we didn't really talk about, like the political fallout of what Democrats are
doing with their law fair and how it's been playing out in Colorado. I
do think people should know that even if the Left succeeds in this like brazen
anti democratic assault on the voter, that if Trump won in twenty twenty four,
it would not be the first time a Republican had won after being kept
off ballots in many states. Does that make sense? Who was kept off
ballots in many states? Lincoln? Lincoln was like not even on the ballot
in nine or ten states and one and I'm not saying he would have been
like and actually the points he would not have won, you know, Georgia,
for instance, a Republican's not winning Colorado, a Republican's not winning California.
So even if they're able to criminalize being a Republican and do this like
really dangerous, like dangerous thing. It might not affect the outcome of the
election only if they're able to do it in a state where it can really
make a difference, would it. Yeah, But what happens then, well,
let me can I make two points. One is I actually the undemocratic
nature of it is not what bothers me, because the Constitution does many undemocratic
things, And if there was actually a person who had engaged in insurrection,
I believe they should be held off ballots. I think they would be perfectly
constitutional and fine. I just think that the core issue is that Donald Trump
did not engage in that. It's not the democracy part of it that bothers
me. It's the false accusation that bothers me. That's just me. And
the second thing is that I think, speaking to your last point, is
that this ratchets up, there's going to be an arms race at some point
where what's going to happen is you're just going to have people who are going
to win elections on ballots. In most places, they'll just be purple states
that everyone will fight over. I don't even know if those exist very much
anymore, but so I do think it rows the Constitution in every way imaginable
as far as elections go. If the Left succeeds in this effort, then
what you should have happened immediately in Florida and Texas is removing Democrats from the
ballot for their support of like no border. I just I even when you
say it, it just I hate. I like though, I like very
small government, I like order, I like laws to be upheld, and
just the notion that people are going to be going around and Democrats are starting
this obviously, but the notion that we're just going to go around taking people
off ballots, and well, people, more and more voters are gonna be
like, they don't care, why should we care. We're going to do
whatever we have to do, and then you have no constitution at the end
of that. And I do want to really precarious situation. I completely agree
with you that there are people who should not be on the ballot for one
reason or another. And I don't even mean that in like a judgmental way.
The Constitution has guidelines on age, for instance, and that's unbemoscratic,
but like it's okay, nobody thinks no, even the people doing this,
they know what they're doing is undemocratic. My point being, nobody thinks that
there was an insurrection. Nobody being honest with themselves, thinks that. They
don't think anyone was charged with it. They don't think anyone was convicted of
it. They know what they're doing is just trying to keep people from being
able to vote for the candidate of their choice. So we should not give
them We should not treat this like it's a legitimate situation here that they were
confused, they thought he'd been charged and convicted, and that's why they did
this. No, they just want to remove from the people the right to
vote for whom they want, and so they should be called up for them.
Like, I get that you're not like the biggest fan of democracy,
but at the same time, government of by and for the people is important
and serious and this attack on us, you know, And I'm from Colorado,
so I do take this kind of personally. This affects my family,
This affects my people, and they know they're voting for someone who's not going
to win. They want very much to have the right to vote for Donald
J. Trump. Yeah, I agree, but that's the motivation. But
there is a legal component to this, and I just want to say,
for the amendment is somewhat problematic because it doesn't say you need to be convicted,
do you know what I'm saying. So, so that's it. So
that's the reason they can even try to do this. So I think it
needs to be clarified. But my only point is that they're the ones arguing
that this is a great day for democracy, and I'm saying taking democracy is
not really the point here. The point here is that you're just using this
amendment to take someone off a ballot. But on the issue that you just
said, which like you hated hearing me say that Florida and Texas should take
democrats off the ballot if okay, I do. I was talking with a
like really wise smart person the other day about how nobody's being decent on the
left, basically like they're they're trying to destroy the Supreme Court, and they're
doing this by going after Clarence Thomas, his wife other things. One of
the things that really annoys me is again this situation we have where the left
is willing to do literally anything to attack the Court, including falsely accusing someone
of being a serial gang rapist in front of his daughters. You know,
who are like twelve and ten or like they're willing to do anything out of
their hatred of a court that has an originalist view of the Constitution. No
family member is off limits, no idea is off limits, no amount,
there's no dignity. And on the right you have people who are like not
mentioning anything. So like all of these judges that are involved in these cases
who are married to left wing activists, or people at the Department of Justice
who are married to left wing activists, and they all get treated by the
Washington Post and the New York Times is if they're nonpartisan and really credible,
and their spouses get treated it's nonpartisan and really credible, even if they're crazy
whack job lefties. And I'm sick of it, Like people need, people
need to be called out, and they need to hurt a little bit if
they're going to do this kind of stuff. And I just want to give
an example. So, while the left was running its attack on Brett Kavanaugh,
which every single person involved knew was completely like not true, Like they
knew this man, They knew that they were smearing a man as a rapist
who was not They know that, Okay, there was this one guy who
went out of his way to insert himself into the process. His name is
Max Steyer, and he's like part of some quite supposedly like good government,
nonpartisan group. He's not. It's like it's a it's a it's a partisan
group. He inserted himself into the process to go out of his way to
say, like he heard from some other people that that Brett cave I had
had too much to drink at a party and was kind of like man handled
in such a way that was like inappropriate for this other woman who was in
the presence of these people. And so he he like goes and tells the
story, which doesn't even make any sense by the way, tells it to
the FBI, and then and then he tells it to these two New York
Times reporters. They put out a story in the New York Times, like,
you know, a year after his confirmation saying we found another accuser,
and they put it out in there, and like the whole country blows up
over this. There's another accuser. We knew it. Red Kavanaugh is a
serial gang rapist, and like we were right to try to destroy his life,
his family, everything. He holds Deer and Carrie Savarino, my co
author in our first book on justice on Trial. We got an advanced copy
of the book, we realized that the accuser is Max Dire And furthermore,
the woman supposedly in question is like, I have no idea what you're talking
about. So a man, Max Steyer, does all this right just to
like go out of his way to be awful, and these two New York
Times reporters try to make it sound like there's another accusation, the only problem
being the supposed victim has no recollection of what the hell he's talking about.
This man is married to Florence Pan, She's on the d C. Circuit
Court of Appeals. She's the one who wrote the opinion that, yeah,
you can use legislation that was designed to preserve paperwork for financial crimes against J
six protesters so that we can put them in prison. You can do that.
She's the one who wrote this, and that case is now being picked
up by the Supreme Court, and I have a you know, I think
reasonable people anticipate that her decision will be overturned. But that's the kind of
like level of partisanship we're dealing with here, and this is the same woman,
by the way, and I wrote about this at the Federalist. Do
you mind me going off on this? I feel like okay. So Jack
Smith has one operating principle, which is speed. He wants to He wants
to try and convict Donald Trump in front of a DC jury which will indict,
which will which will convict any Republican of anything they want to. He
wants to do it with utmost speed so it can it can maximize the effect
on the election. And he has been rushing everything through and at the district
Judge Tanya Chutkin, who's a Jamaican born lady from a family of actual Marxist
revolutionaries by the way, she's been like, yeah, whatever you want,
I will rush everything through. I will deny every single request Donald Trump has
for any type of due process in this situation. I will rush, rush,
rush, rush rush. So she denied everything by December first, Donald
Trump appealed it in the DC Circuit and Jack Smith made news for immediately also
asking the Supreme Court to review. But he's at the same time asking the
d C Circuit to review. So it's like basically the case is going through
in two different courts. It's kind of something you can do in this situation.
He also asks the d C Circuit to expedite. So the d C
Circuit has all these rules for like what you'd normally grant defendants in terms of
time to process a complaint, time to deal with an appeal, time to
make their case, time to respond to an argument. And Jack Smith was
like, what if we didn't give Donald Trump that time? And Donald Trump's
attorneys are like, well, we refer you to your own handbook what would
be an appropriate amount of time? So if Jack Smith is saying three days,
and they're saying, well, your handbook says forty, so let's go
with forty. Well, this three judge panel, including Florence pan the wife
of crazed Max Steyer who falsely accused Brett Kavanaugh of rape, she gives Jack
Smith every single thing he wants. She grants this like expedited schedule. Even
other defendants on other J six related things get like a year and a half
or two years. And Jack Smith is like Donald Trump in one of the
most complicated cases of our history, in a case that will involve whether every
single living former president will suddenly be hauled before courts for what they did while
they were president. He's like, for this one, we need to rush
it through, and Florence Pan, this crazy lefty, is like, sure,
why not, let's do it. Okay. I just want to say
another thing that's kind of related to this situation, which is when Jack Smith
asked the Supreme Court to expedite a review of this and also asked the DC
Circuit to do it, he announced that he was entering in a new attorney
to help him out. This guy is named Michael Drebin. And Michael Drebin.
The reason why I kind of noticed this was like of interest was that
everyone on the left who was a Russia collusion hoaxer was extremely excited that Michael
Drebin had been added to the Jack Smith legal team. And do you remember
the Molar probe was supposedly led by Robert Mohler And for years you were not
allowed to criticize the Molar probe because Robert Moehler is a Republican, so you're
not allowed to criticize. Well, two problems with this one. Every single
last person Robert Mohler quote unquote Robert Mohler put on his team was like a
rabid Democrat. The best example of this is Andrew Weissman currently losing his mind
over at MSNBC being a crazy leftist. The second issue is that Robert Moehler
is senile. He left it to the Democrats. Oh when he testified for
the situation. When he testified in front of Congress, everyone was like,
oh, my gosh, he's not mentally there. Well, he wasn't mentally
there for the whole time. He let these rabid democrats run things. And
while Andrew Weisman got a lot of the conservative press like all up in arms
for being such a dogged prosecutor in this the real legal strategy was done by
Michael Drebin. Michael Dreban, who had been in the Solicitor General's office.
He is an extremely experienced advocate before the Supreme Court. He's argued more than
like one hundred criminal cases for the federal government before the Supreme Court, and
also is a crazy lefty. And we know this not just because he was
part of the Molar probe, which yes, spent tens of millions of dollars.
Knew from the outset. Oh here, Actually he's the guy who kind
of was like, oh, we set this up in the name of fighting
Russia collusion or investigating it, We're not actually going to do that, because
one, we know that Trump had nothing to do with Russia colllusion. They
knew that at the beginning. They also knew that if they were to actually
investigate Russia collusion and actually investigate how this Russia collusion idea got into the US
government, they'd be investigating their own party. They'd be investigating Hillary Clinton,
the Democratic National Committee, their own like Russian sources. And so they just
stayed completely the heck away from the one example of Russia collusion in the election,
which was the Steele dossier and how it came about. So they stayed
away from it. And they were like, but obviously this is all being
done simply so we can get Trump. So we're going to come up with
a new thing. Instead of investigating Russia and the Steele dossier, We're going
to say that Donald Trump complaining that Hillary Clinton made up a fake story about
him, or that Democrats made up a fake story about him, that that
itself is obstruction of justice. We're going to spend a year and a half
trying to destroy his presidency, putting anyone we can who helped him in prison,
and we are going to come up with an impeachment strategy built around obstruction
of justice. That was Michael Dribin. Michael Drebin left at the end of
the Molar probe to help out with impeachment. He and Normuizen go and help
Democrats and then as soon as they realize like, oh, it can't be
Russia will come up with this other thing Ukraine, but they applied the same
impeachment strategy. Michael Drebin went and helped side Vance at the New York Manhattan
Attorney General go to the Supreme Court to get Donald Trump's tax records like crazed
partisan and he gets brought on to help Jack Smith with this get Trump operation.
So the problem here for a lot of people, I think is that
they just don't know what to do or how to fight back against something like
this. These aren't elected officials you can get rid of, you know,
And I don't know. It must be frustrating for them. For me,
it's frustrating to hear that this is going on, because at some point Republicans
have to retaliate by doing similar kinds of things, and there's no other real
way around it. And that's why I was complaining about how it makes me
feel uneasy for sure to hear that we're going to throw people off ballots,
that we're going to now go after you know, presidential candidates or any kind
of candidate. I think that that just creates an environment where you're not going
to have a very free country and there's going to be a lot of corruption.
But what can you do. One thing you could do is just elect
Donald Trump. Like electing Donald Trump is a big way to say, like
none of this can stand. We're not going to let you know, you
can just like politically take care of it. They have to accept another presidency.
I was thinking today how the great like irony is that what they should
have done was not do what they did to the twenty twenty election, to
like pull out every single stop imaginable to get their guy over the finish line.
They should have just let Donald Trump have in another four years and right
now they'd be getting ready to be done with him, like it would all
be over. But instead they do the twenty twenty shenanigans, and now he's
like on track to be the next president. It is their worst nightmare scenario,
and they really only have themselves to blame for what their situation is.
Here's how I view it, too, is that Trump is a force onto
himself for whatever you think of him. He'll be gone one day. But
the things that Democrats are now doing to our siss is going to stay with
us forever. They are creating norms that will not be can't be fixed.
And that's that's the real that's the real tragedy of this whole situation. You
know, let's say, everything you say about Donald Trump is right in the
twenty twentyter post twenty twenty. Once he leaves, that's over. But what
you're doing now, what you did before then, what you did with the
Russia collusion hoax, that's those are new norms that you've set, and not
even that, just what you're doing to the Supreme Court, the norms of
how you talk about and smear people as authoritarians is as Nazis constantly, it's
just this constant drumbeat. I was going back and thinking about other instances that
are long forgotten, where the hyperbole or the like, the things that people
did have harmed us forever, Like think about net neutrality. They called everyone
no one even thinks about that now, but they called. They said the
internet would never be the same. That these people learn nazis that they can
tell you what you can say, and the internet now is better than it's
ever been in the sense of strength and availability to people. So there were
like thousands of these instances, and each one, like I said before,
compounds the other into creating a really dangerous situation for the country. So do
you think what do you think so the Supreme Court is going to overturn this,
do you think there are other states that are going to try to do
something like this? Or like, is there are there other waste I don't
know enough about this, but there are other ways to get Donald Trump off
ballots? Or do you think that's just sort of like a virtue signal type
of thing. This does I don't know. I believe I know that some
of the places where they've been trying to keep them off the ballot, their
court decisions have not gone their way. You would have said the same about
Colorado until yesterday's Supreme Court decision. So I think that the idea and the
court decision from Colorado immediately stayed itself. They said, well, this doesn't
go into effect until January fourth or it, and also like it won't go
in effect if Donald Trump's legal team appeals this ruling, which they will,
so it was kind of like a very toothless order from the Supreme Court.
I think the idea is maybe that other states also do this, that the
Supreme Court take its normal amount of time to listen to something about this,
and in the meantime it just causes like chaos, which is part of the
legal strategy. Now, I can just say, as a practical political position,
even though the court pretends it's not, it's the stupidest thing to do.
Colorado's not going to be won by Donald Trump anyway. So all you've
done now is just created this firestorm for no real practical reason. You probably
are going to You've probably seen Trump's pull numbers go up because the victimhood thing
is a big part of his campaign against the establishment. So I don't even
understand what the point of this is. That people are his enemies, are
the dumbest people who were constantly shooting themselves in the foot, constant doing things
that are terrible for the country doesn't make any sense. I don't know.
I think they're trying to win political power, and there aren't a lot of
brave, courageous people in our country to punch back at what they're doing.
And so if you crave power more than anything, you are willing to put
the country in a constitutional crisis and cheat. Basically, I mean, I'm
sorry, but taking your opponent off the ballot is cheating. I do think
it needs to be pointed out this hurts our country Internationally. We have this
moral weight to what we say. We frequently sanction countries for removing credible political
oponents from the ballot from their ballots. One of the reasons why we say
we are good and Russia is bad is because Vladimir Putin and his party US
courts to claim that people who disagree with them are insurrectionists. They put them
in prison, they you know, trump up charges, they engage in this
kind of like election interference. It's one of the reasons why we say we're
better than them. And I think Vladimir Putin last week was kind of pointing
out, you don't get to lecture us on democracy when you're doing stuff like
this. Everybody knows that's true, like everyone that's true that we don't get
to lecture people. When we're jailing our political opponents. We are behaving like
the worst third world dictatorship, and we know it, like nobody can pretend
otherwise. And like I love when people are like, no, when when
Vladimir Putin says that Alexander Navalni did a protest and therefore he has to go
to prison, this is election interference. But when we say that Donald Trump
did a protest and therefore he asked to go to prison, we're not doing
election interference. I mean, they're the same thing, people, and you
don't do it when you're wanting to be like a legit country and it affects
our ability to encourage other people to not behave in authoritarian fashion. I saw
two movies. Did you see anything? I did you want to go for?
It's okay? I watched The Verdict. Oh I love that. David
Mammott, Yeah, yes, it was really good. I thought maybe you
had recommended it, but I can't remember. H maybe a long time ago,
but I mean I don't remember. It was a really well done movie
about this guy Paul Newman, who was a good attorney but then he kind
of like had a bad situation happened that, through no fault of his own,
ends up losing his practice. He's an alcoholic, and he's a bad
alcoholic. I don't like seeing people be alcoholics. It's like too painful.
But he plays the part well. And then he has a case that involves
trying to get going after a hospital that had poorly treated a woman during labor
and delivery and turned her into like a coma coma. She's in a coma
and she or something, you know, she's in a very bad situation and
going up against the insurance company. It's like really riveting and well done and
great acting by every single person in the movie, and great character development and
great plot. Yeah, I'm a big fan. Sidney Lumett, David Mammett,
everybody had to have that and their and their last name and et.
I guess it's good. I love that movie. I haven't seen it in
a while. Jack Warden was that the guy's name he's in it. He's
really good. He was like a character actor in the set. Yeah,
Yeah, he's fantastic. Yeah. Oh and Charlotte Ramping, Yeah, it
was beautiful. She is she was in a star. I can't remember the
movie. Woody Allen movie Star the Light Memories or Stars Something Memories. It
was really good. Stardust Memories. Stardust Memories. Ah man, I'm such
a big fan. I can't believe I forgot it. I actually like that
movie, which is he's not considered one of his best. I saw or
do you want to just do all your movies? Dockham, I'm done?
Are you busy? I'm busy. I saw two movies. One is called
Leave the World Behind, which I think a lot of people are talking about.
It's a Netflix movie, which yeah, yeah, I'm watching it in
like half hour increments while i'm rowing. So I'm only through the first hour.
Okay, I'm not gonna there'll be no spoilers. Then, okay,
thank you. But yeah, it has Julia Roberts and Ethan Hawker, this
couple, Kevin Bacon's in it, and I'm going to murder this guy's names.
But Maharashala Ali, oh yeah, he's really good. He's great.
Yeah. Well, if I can't spoil it for you, I think I
can really talk about it. But like next week, Yeah, this is
one of those movies that it has like a slow boil. I'd say,
right, A lot of mystery, and I have to say I liked it.
And it's produced by the Obamas, so I thought I would hate it
and it would be annoying, But it was actually something I enjoyed. I
didn't think it was like great. But is it just like a metaphor for
being online? I don't know I thought about it that way. I just
it just seems like I'm like everything. I'm like, oh, this is
like about the problems of being online too much. But go on, Well,
I just took it literally, you'll see at the end. So I
just took it literally. I didn't read any you know, subtext or anything
into it. I thought it was fine. The stylistically, I like how
it's direct did and I thought the acting was good. Then I saw a
movie called The Personal History of David Copperfield. So it's based on the Dickens
novel. It's directed by another name I'm gonna totally kill, but Armando Anucci.
I think it is. He's the guy who did the Death of Stalin
and he did Veep and The Thick of It. The Thick of It's one
of my favorite shows of all times. Yeah, it has deaf Pateell in
it, and the guy who was in the thick of it, Peter Capaldi,
and just a bunch of English actors Tilda Swinton. Swinton is that I
say it anyway. I enjoyed it very much. I thought it was very
well done. I'm not really a Dickens person in general, It's not something
I enjoy that much, but this one I did. It was great,
and that is about it. I did watch a little bit of this,
so you know how I enjoy home improvement shows and stuff and like flipping houses
shows, and I was watching this one called home what's it called hometown?
Hometown? I think where this couple Basically it's in Mississippi there they live in
and they just like help the town so they'll like renovate the whole town.
And they're really nice people, it seems to me. And I don't know,
sometimes I need something like a palette cleanser after seeing all the horrible things
that go on in our politics and all the horrible things that movies are about.
And it's a nice show. I don't know what channel it's on,
so don't send me an email, not HGTV. Oh do you watch the
show? No? I just know because some of the ladies at Fox were
talking about it, So you're not alone in liking Really me and the ladies
is a Fox a bunch of the same stuff. That's great. I do
like I do, like myself a good like house, flip and show.
So are you I know that you don't mark Christmas personally, but do members
of your family do it? And are you doing anything to prepare for that?
Or no? Can I say something the other day? In my neighborhood,
this is on topic the everyone in my new neighborhood where I live,
relatively new, everyone almost everyone goes out and does they call them I've been
corrected, but this is what we call them here, luminaries. So you
take like brownmarias, all right, so luminarias, and the whole neighborhood does
the I'm just telling you, what are you in a Hispanic neighborhood if I'm
no, not at all. We did these growing up in No, not
growing up in California. Everybody did luminari Are you like you put like the
light in the bag? Yeah? Yeah, yeah. It was so cool,
beautiful, Oh everyone just all the kids were out, just the whole
neighborhood. It was just such a pleasure and growing up, I didn't have
anything like that, so it's nice to to participate in something like that.
Frankly, it was more it's a bigger deal here than Halloween, which I'm
not that crazy about. So it's just nice, you know, to see
everyone participate in something that has something at least to do with something positive.
So anyway, that was nice. Now you know, I stayed at home.
Yeah, I mean, my family celebrates Christmas and Hanukah's just over my
favorite Jush holiday. But thanks for saying thanks for bringing that up, But
no family in our family we celebrate. So in Lutheranism, we follow a
liturgical calendar, so we just started the church year at the end of November
and that puts us in the season of Advent, where you spend four Sundays
prior to Christmas where you prepare for the coming of your Savior. And then
Christmas is a twelve day sea in that begins on Christmas Day and ends with
Epiphany or then the next season is Epiphany. So you've heard like the twelve
day of Christmas, like that's a cool song. It's a real season.
So we celebrate all twelve days and since the kids were babies, we have
gotten them each a gift for each day, which just gets like much more
difficult as they're older. And I feel very good about this year's collection of
gifts, and I'm so excited for the kids to open them, and I
hope that they are really really excited by it as well. So doesn't everyone
every All Christians have or most Christians have Advent? So I know that Roman,
Catholic and Lutheran and like Anglican do, but I don't know how much
they celebrate it in my art market, I should say so it's kind of
a solemn season or penitential season, akin to Lent before Easter. And in
our church we do special services and special projects and things like that, and
a lot of people, I think, start celebrating Christmas itself around Thanksgiving and
then they stop on Christmas. And I don't know if that's just the secular
world or those Christians who don't follow the liturgical calendar, but it's kind of
weird because I don't do a lot of partying and stuff like that prior to
Christmas, but then we're supposed to do it in Christmas. So do you
do You stip a question, but do you go to so do you do
like, well, that's Easter, the midnight Mass, but do you do
like a Christmas Eve Mass and then you go the next day as well.
Yeah, so this coming Sunday is Christmas Eve, but Christmas Eve doesn't start
till nighttime. So we have Advent four, which is the fourth Sunday of
Advent, at ten am. Then we have lessons and carols at like five
pm, which is the early service that the kids can go to. Then
we have the midnight Mass. Then the next day, Christmas Day, we
have ten am, and I will I call it hitting for the cycle.
If you every service, I will be hitting for the cycle ten am,
five midnight, or we do ours at eleven. It kind of ends at
midnight and then the next morning at ten. So four services in twenty four
hours. It's good twenty five hours. God will be proud of you.
No, that's not how it works. But I also liked it. This
is kind of silly, but I also like it. I keep it.
It's insane to go to all of these. Probably it's not totally they're totally
different services. I don't even know why I said it, but a lot
of people don't go to all the services. But I like to keep track
of who has gone to all the services, and then I like to be
like in that cool club of people who have hit this hit for the cycle.
People who don't go are on the naughty list. No, it's not
that at all. And there are a lot of people who can't go because
they're they have children, or they're old, or they're you know, like
or they just have other things. So it's not I'm not like judging who
hasn't. I just like the people who do it. I feel like keeping
lists comes with judgment. I think those two things are attached. But okay,
now I'm just kidding. That sounds nice. It sounds very like a
very religious Christmas, which is not what most people seem to. So yeah,
it's we're very religious. And then we're also German, and I think
Germans really prioritize Christmas. I think Switzans where like a lot of American traditions
come from the German immigrants and stuff like the Christmas tree, for instance,
is that true Christmas tree is a German tradition? Yeah, it seems like
an evergreen, so it would be something Northern European. It is a widely
held belief. I don't know if it's true, but it's a widely held
belief that not only are Christmas trees German, but that they originated with Martin
Luther himself. So interesting. That is interesting. Now I am once I
get off here with you, I'm going right to the Wikipedia page to learn
about Christmas trees because I'm like, it seems like a big gap in my
knowledge. We have one. Yeah, we used to go and buy,
boring everyone to death. We used to go buy them at the you know,
like a fresh one at the lot. But now I just got a
plastic one. Oh so, I love the smell of the Christmas tree,
and I just also love real things. And I think that one of the
most confounding things is that my brother has a plastic one, and I just
don't get it, Like, how can you be a member of our family
and have a not real Christmas tree? For me, it gets all over
the place, the cat goes in there, she starts eating it. It's
just the pain. The smell is great, but I just I like just
having a ready made tree. Do you guys have any kind of special ornament
thing that you do does everyone like or is it just do you just throw
up some lights. The kids did all the decoration of the entire house,
which I was very pleased with, and so they I would say, we
tend have religious ornaments also dealing with smiths, and then a few other things
too. My only thing I have from my dad's mom, who died when
he was young, is this ornament that he always called Sholy. Her name
was Shirley. I don't know why it's called scholy, and so like that
always means something to me. I like just remembering arth and home, family,
you know, all that stuff while we do it. But I throw
a I throw a Jews star thing a majig in there to represent okay for
the tribe. But other than that, yeah, we have it like all
kinds of family. I mean. The entire story of Bethlehem is a story
of the tribe, which is interesting considering that I'm often told online that Jews
have no real connection to that place, the cities they built and named in
the in the years before Jesus. I got to go to Bethlehem this summer,
although I'm glad that i'd been there before, because we had like a
horrible tour guide and we couldn't actually go to the site you know. So
there's a church of the Nativity that is built on top of the site where
Jesus was born, and they wouldn't let us like down into the actual location,
which kind of bothered me. I love that church. One of the
things that is interesting about that church is it's one of the oldest in Christendom,
in part because they had this big they had art on the wall of
the magi, and when the Persians came to destroy all the Christian churches,
they kept that one because they thought it was like a temple to them because
they were dressed like Persians. But yeah, Bethlehem was great, and they
were there because they had to be counted for the census, so they all
had to go to like their city of their family, and that's the city
of David. And Jesus was born in the family of David. And so
the whole tree, the whole holiday really represents the tribe. I would say,
the fulfillment of the whole story. I don't think that we should go
again into a theological argument. It's really not my place anyway, but I
would say that I think there's probably some great disagreement over that last part.
But I do enjoy the season, and I hope you and your family have
a nice and pleasant and religious Christmas. And we will be back next week.
I'll tell them be lovers of freedom and anxious for the pray