Well, whiskey coming, take my pain. Dory's the brain whiskey, don't
let me Go. From Powerline blog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot Com.
This is the three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John
You and Powerlines International Woman of Mystery Lucresha's gotta give in and let that whiskey
blow when you're being in love down and low. Well, well, hello
everyone, and welcome to the three Whiskey Happy Hour. Uh it is I
Lucresha, the International Woman of Mystery. I will be your host today and
with me as always and thankfully back together again. We've got we've got the
band back together again we have with us joined recently from area, South Korea.
That is, he didn't decide to have some sort of mind and walk
across they That wasn't me running across the DMZ, right, Yeah, no
it was not. And of course, as always Steve Hayward, welcome gentlemen.
Yeah, yeah, good to have you back. John. By the
way, McDonald stocking them all time high. So it still you know,
did well while you were away. I was worried, but you know the
eight McDonald's actually yeah, yeah, I went there and had the Korean beef
barbecue burger, which was I wish they sold in the United States. It
would be as strong competitor to the mcribb. But I hope that Steve will
post this on Powerline on the website. I made the most fantastic culinary discovery
fusing the brilliance of Korea with the resources of America. I refer, of
course, two single slice servings of spam oh Man packaged serving. Yes,
that's right, yeah, each one in its own So that means when you
want that piece of spam, I was about to say, slam, but
you don't want to open up the whole can. Now the answer has become
apparent. I had to go all the way to Korea to find this.
It's so quick and easy, it says across the top, So quick and
easy. It looks a little bit like you might get maybe ramen in packages
or something. It looks a little weird to me. I'm sorry, I
don't know what you don't. I understand Koreans love spam, so you can
actually go and get us spam, sushi, of course, spam ramen.
They'll put spam in anything and just fry it up. Spam, kimschi fried
rice, which is the height of Korean culinary art. I told you,
John, you really need to get yourself down to New Orleans and go to
the World War Two Museum and see the whole, the whole exhibit about spam
and how it was such a game changer in the World War Two. You
need to do that. And there are the good things there too. Yeah,
okay, well all right. It was the most wonderful surprise. I
was in New Orleans and I had no idea it was even there, and
I saw something and we spent the whole day and drank in the bar for
three hours afterwards. I was wonderful, speaking drinking. How are you guys
ending the week? I know we're recording a little earlier than usual, but
I'm having some bush Mills Irish whiskey, just to be different, just like
me. Oh, is that what you're doing? Remember that's my that's my
afternoon drink of choices, bush mills and espresso and uh huh, yeah,
okay, started yet. I have not started yet. But I didn't buy
a special version of wild turkey. Oh it's special. Yeah, I don't
know why it's special. It costs three times more than normal wild turkey and
a smaller, weirder bottle. You buy this here a duty free in Korea.
Oh no, here here it's not well think it's it's called wild turkey,
something like old breed or something like that. There is a wild turkey
liqueur. I don't think that's just the wild turkey world. Okay, it's
just whiskey. All right, I'm right if you say so, John will
believe you. So today goes great with spam, whispam, anything to washpam
down would go great to me. Gasoline even anyway. Sorry, So first
we're going to start off today. It's been a pretty eventful week for the
duldrums of summer, don't you think all the things happening here. Even though
John wasn't here to catalog them carefully like he should have been, John is
still going to tell us all about the latest and maybe if you could do
a quick summary of the others as well. The latest indictment of former President
Donald J. Trump. I gotta say, he's sure is getting good at
getting indicted. I mean, this is a this is a talent that few
have. Well, the Democrat are just determined to run as pull numbers up
as high as they can see. That's exactly it's good. So this is
so the course, this hasn't happened yet, but it's likely to happen.
Some people thought it was going to happen today even but I would say if
it doesn't happen today, most likely next Tuesday or Thursday. The reason we
know about this is President Trump, which received what's called a target letter from
the Justice Department. So you could be basically like three kinds of things when
you the grand jury wants to see you. One, you could be like
a witness. You saw a crime. They want to talk to you hear
what happened. You could be what Justice calls a subject, where you're someone
who's involved but they're not really interested in prosecuting you. And then you're the
target. That's what you don't want to be. You don't want to be
the target. That means the grand jury, the prosecutors are really focusing on
you, and when you get a letter like that, they're likely going to
bring charges. And the idea of it is they're inviting you win. You
don't have to, but they're inviting you into testify to the grand jury,
maybe say you got it all wrong. You know, you got it all
wrong. I never this Eastman fell. I don't know how we got in
the White House. I told the guards to remove him. Somehow he got
into my office. But you get this last chance, as it were,
to peer before the grand jury and the prosecutor try to persuade them not to
indubt you. I really have never heard of that actually working. The smart
thing would be not to show up because anything you say would be under oath
and can be used against you later. So it doesn't make sense, it
seems to me to actually take your target letter and show up at the grand
jury at its next meeting. But the target letter John John can ask a
quick question. Is everyone who justifies before the grand jury under oath? Yes,
it's under oath and they're under secrecy, right, Yeah, So the
grand jury is one of the I mean, it's not well understood. It's
a powerful thing because not only is it under oath, but you don't have
the right to bring your lawyer with you, and so is and the proceedings
are secret. So a grand jury is one of the most one sided,
really one side, because all it is is the prosecutions are giving its side
of things to a grand jury, there's no defense, there's no defense case,
there's no defensive lawyers. So it's really and to produce the indictment the
charges, to recommend the charges go forward. A grand jury's not operating like
a criminal jury, which is a trial jury which has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt. We can just have to say, oh, you think there's probable
cause something happened. Well, I mean, you know the old saying that
any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. So there
was in the middle of the week the strange scene that the MSNBC people made
a big deal about Jack Smith, the special prosecutor went down to a subway
and bought a sandwich, And I thought, are they making a pun?
It was Jack Smith actually suggesting Trump your a ham sandwich about to get them
I did? Or was it a subtle thing like don't dare you shouldn't?
I don't know. I just thought that was a strange little scene. And
nobody's saying to connect those two old things, right, Okay, five dollars
sandwich and subway, And I thought, clearly MSNBC isn't keeping up with inflation.
But that's another story. Yeah, what what can you get for five
bucks a subway even anymore? Not? No, I go to subway all
the time too when there's no McDonald's. So well, i'll just say this
current indictment. So it hasn't been issued yet, but Trump got the letter,
and of course he told everybody in the world he got this letter.
This is about January sixth. So this is actually the only one I think
is important compared to the other ones, because Lucretia said we should go the
other ones too. This one, there's three charges being brought and they're all
they're also you have to admit, if you're a prosecutor, you're stretching the
law on all three of these. This is an unprecedented case. One are
allegedly going to charge President Trump with defrauding the United States. That's the crime,
defrauding the United States. This is usually what you charge like hospital accountants
for for over building Medica to Medicare, or like a defense contractor, you
know, selling the proverbial one thousand dollars hammer to the Defense Department. What
is the fraud here? So that's one thing to talk about, but I
can't think of in case we're like a sitting cabinet member, a president or
the candidate for the presidency is being charged with defrauding the United States government,
of which at this time President Trump is the head. Actually, the second
charge, I mean at the time, let me just happen. Let me
summarize the other, let me summarize eying. The second one is called,
um well, it's obstructing a process of government. But the as it's been
used against the January sixth riders, it's the charges obstructing a Congress. Again,
this is a crime that's usually about like tampering with witnesses, destroying documents,
obstructing Congress in the sense of trying to stop its normal operations. I
could see that for the January six rioters. How did Trump try to obstruct
Congress? That's interesting. Then the third one, and I think this is
the one we would most interesting, also the biggest stretch. And I've showed
a little desperation actually by on the Special Counsel's part, because if you're going
to charge Trump with this, you think it shows you really wonder about your
other grounds for charging him, which is he's being charged theoretic probably under the
ku Klux Klan Act of eighteen seventy one, which makes it a crime to
deprive someone of their constitutional rights. That now the one that's missing. This
is the other one, number four, which should the one that everyone talked
about was the focus of January six hearings, or focus of all the come
to chrism, is missing. And I think that's why the special prosors trying
to stretch all these other crimes to fit the one that should be there is
sedition. I remember, conspiracy to commit sedition is not in there. That's
really telling. The absence is telling anyway, So that piles on the other
two. So the other two indictments, you might remember, there's one by
the same special counsel, Jack Smith, for Trump' smishandling of classified documents.
And then the other one is brought by Alvin Bragg and Manhattan. He's the
Manhattan DA And I remember that doesn't go to anything Trump actually was doing as
president, but it was a claim that he Trump had basically misrepresented his business
in basically mortgage applications and things like that. There's several other investigations going on.
There's one in Georgia. There's a grand jury apparently meaning Georgia, about
where it claimed Trump's find me ten thousand votes is somehow criminal. I think
there's another one going on in Michigan. You just saw that some of these
alternate electors were just charged with forgery, and there might be I think maybe
another one going in Nevada. I'm not sure. But so this indictment is
the most important one because it involves January six. I think the other two
are not that important. But it may not be the last one either,
yeah, yea, the last one from anywhere or the last one from Jack
Smith. Oh. I think this would be the last one from Jack Smith.
But you could still see indictments coming Michigan and Georgia for Yeah. So
I mean, I mean a couple of observations. What is the first one?
Defrauding the government of the United States. Jack Smith, I believe,
was the person who brought the case against Governor what's his name McDonald, Jim
Donald on the Honest Services Statute that the Supreme Court actually that was a void
for vagueness thing, wasn't that? I mean, they said, no,
sorry, this just doesn't work. So defrauding the government sounds like another stretch
of something that used to be more tangible, like yes, show me where
he's getting money out of this. I mean, it's normally the frauding statute,
obstructing Congress, that would be a cause for rewarding Trump if you ask
me. Okay, but then but then the k K K Act of depriving
someone of their constitutional rights. I don't know, that's a statute I could
see being revived against the government a lot. What about the administrator state does
what's that? Sorry about the Espionage Act that he's being accused of violating.
Oh, that's the separate case on the documents, isn't it right? Yeah,
that's the best class, you know. I know, But but I
mean the Espionage Act, that's that's ridiculous, isn't it. I mean,
on its face, it's it's even more ridiculous in defrauding Congress or any of
those other things you mentioned. If you ask me, well, well,
the Espionage Act case is I think a stronger case because the Act is called
the Espionage Act. But the actual crimes, you know, the provisions are
much broader than espionage, like mishandling classified information. You don't have to even
be committing espionage to light that criminal law, whereas this one, I mean,
the KU Klux Klan Act is really it really describes what that law was
about, which was right either Southern state and local government maybe or maybe not
in coots with you private individuals that are at that time preventing the freed slaves
from enjoying their constitutional liberties and protections under federal law. And so how did
that happen here? So the Krukshank case didn't that overturn that law or was
that a different law that the Kukshank case overturned Us versus Krukshank. Well,
so there are all these cases in this time period. Right, the Krukshank
Slaughterhouse is one of these cases where the Supreme Court actually cut back on how
far these laws could go towards capturing private action. Basically, right, it
kind of required state action. And they also gave a narrow definition of what
the rights were. So that's why I think it's hard and this would definitely
be an issue be if Trump is acting as a private person, right as
a candidate, then how does he violate the constitutional rights of someone? Right,
you and I can't violate each other's constitution rights because only the government,
right government, the government. The Constitution is a limit on government. Not
a limit on private citizens. So there's an actually really interesting constitutional problem with
charging Trump in this way if you're going to say he violated right the people's
constituate when he was acting as candidate Trump, which is what the special counsel
has been or at least I think the special constant to argue that is not
charging a president president Trump for what he did as president, but what he
was doing as a private citizen. Before I let either one of you continue
anymore, can I just state for the record that the fact that we are
taking any of these charges in any way seriously other than as a sort of
academic or educational little journey is appalling to me. The idea that any of
these indictments have gone forward is just it's you know, it's so trite now,
but it's banana Republic stuff and everybody knows it. Everybody knows it,
Espionage Act whatever. How many times do we have to repeat the fact that
that Trump was a classification authority. He can't miss He cannot by definition mishandle
classified documents. I don't care what kind of this or that you try to
put on it, it cannot happen. Sorry. And the fact that we're
discussing any of these things that these corrupt third rate want to be prosecutors,
including Jack Smith, want to go ahead and make a name for themselves by
doing all this ridiculous stuff. Somebody should just walk up and say enough is
enough, you idiot. Sorry, okay, go ahead, Steve, you
had something to say somewhere. Well, noyad not wanted the espionage thing.
I mean, there is that somewhat embarrassing tape. I still wonder who took
that tape and it got out of Trump saying this documents Now never mind,
that's that's sort of a so. So yesterday, just so you know,
yesterday my son played for me. You will appreciate this a AI musical where
SpongeBob was singing with the voice of meat Loaf. He said, listen,
mom, who is this? I said, that's meat Loaf and then he
showed it to me and it was all AI driven. If anybody takes seriously
any kind of tape anymore, it's ridiculous, I'm sorry. And you know
what if he said it, he said it, so what yeah, Well,
I mean that's I didn't want to get off on that check because the
more serious question for John is why isn't there a conspiracy charge that's usually the
go to charge and things like this, isn't it there is in Georgia?
Oh no, there? Okay. I think all these in the end are
going to have to be conspiracy charges of some kind because I don't see how
I think And this is what I was left. I don't know. I
thought you guys thought this too. After the congressional hearings, it was surprising
how there was no link between Trump and the attacks on the Capitol. So
if that's the case, then what they've maybe Smith has all this evidence and
all these witnesses and we don't know about and haven't seen in public yet.
Otherwise I think the problem is and I thought, this is what you're getting
at, Steve with your comment McDonald about the McDonald case. Is there really
stretching the law to try to criminalize politics? Right? So what Trump's defense
is going to be, Well, there's nothing that says I can't make please
to the right authorities in Congress or at the state legislative level saying change the
electoral vote. That's not illegal. That's my first amendment, right, I
was only acting, you know, within the outlines. What the constitution sets
up or put a different way. There's always how I test whether a legal
argument makes senses apply this theory that Jack Smith must have to other actors.
So suppose does this mean that the senators like Holly and Crews who voted under
the Electoral count Act to question the electoral votes coming out of these states?
Are they also guilty of conspiring to take away the constitutional rights of the voters
who voted, Because that's a theory, right that when Trump tried to get
state legislators to change the electoral votes or had alternate slates of electors appointed in
places like Michigan, that he was guilty under the Clan Act of taking Arizona
he violated Lucretia's constitutional rights. Right, because that's a theory, he was
violating the constitution rights So all the people in that state and how they voted.
If that's true, then didn't everybody who supported Trump's theory about the election
being stolen? Are they all part of this grand conspiracy the contraction of the
voters? That's my answer to that is in their opinion, yes, absolutely.
And the whole point of this being a ridiculous set of indictments in these
ridiculous persecutions are not going to call them prosecutions. Is to make sure nobody
ever, ever, ever, in the history of the world, challenges the
Democratic Party win again never. It doesn't matter how bad it is, It
doesn't matter how much it's obvious that they've cheated at every turn. It will
not matter you. If you even so much as I think out loud about
the fact that there might have been some election irregularities, they'll come and find
you, and they'll put you in jail, and they'll charge you with all
sorts of stupid things. That's well. I wonder if the two things I
wonder about it that are related. The first is I wonder if this lawfare
is simply intended to flood the zone and have so much, so many damaging
things against Trump, that it prevents him from He's just a criminal. We
don't even have to we don't even have to take any well, I don't
have to understand any of it, because it's just obvious. They couldn't bring
so many, right what two hundred and some different charges against him across these
different indictments, it can some of them have to be true. I mean,
that's the way a moderate all right. But this is what I'm coming
to, is it there? There may be some evidence that it's working.
I mean, he's although he's still the dominant front runner and Republican Party,
his head to head poles have slipped badly, some of them had in the
last ten days or so. So it may be having an effect with independent
voters and the swing voters that he has to get to win. We'll see
about that. The other one is this seems john to me the reverse of
a typical I say typical prosecution. You know, I was just reading the
Durham report. I finally caught up to it and some other accounts of what
he was doing. He was trying the old fashioned mob prosecution of flipping the
little guys who then flip on the big guys. Here, I wonder if
you're not doing it in reverse, which is you're going to throw some crazy
stuff at Trump that doesn't work very well. But maybe you're gonna get Eastman
and who else is on the chopping block for charges of some kind. Uh,
you know, the Rudy's got to be Rudy right right, and obviously
in your opinion, in your judgment, yeah, because he testified for so
many hours and that he probably probably meant he was cutting a deal. That
was you, John, who told me that's yeah, that's what it sounded
like to me. Actually, I was surprised. He yeah. I mean,
just suppose for a moment, Lucretia, that a couple of secretaries of
state like Raffensberger and Georgia or some other state had gone along with Trump and
tried to quote unquote fine votes. Never mind whether they're legitimate or not.
The point is is that you tried to find legitimate votes. Sorry, but
I do that that is a possibility. Yeah, but you see the place
I'm going is is that they want to intimidate. I'm ratifying your hypothesis at
a minute ago. Do you want to intimidate everybody down the food chain?
Is gonna be around for a while because Trump one or another four years from
not, Trump will be done. So he's either elected president again or he
doesn't. Okay, so let me say something. I know this will shock
you guys, but I want to seasoning truly outrageous for a moment. You
never this will be going to write the stay down when you when you sort
of see some of these accounts, keep your finger but you guys might appreciate
this, actually, but I'm sure, like like me, you read the
occasional other side of the aisles write ups of these different things, and you
know how they're so fully convinced that no matter what happened, it was absolutely
necessary to keep you know, that, that Trump from ever getting into office
again, and so on. Right, say, you know what I'm saying,
right, I don't have to spell it completely out. This this is
what I think is odd, and this is going to be shocking and crazy
and stupid, so just bear with me. It's not if they really wanted
to make sure that Trump doesn't run again, that Trump didn't win in twenty
twenty, if it was that important, they quite frankly could have taken Trump
out. I know the Secret Service is good, but they're not that good.
If this entire elite system of power really wanted to get rid of Trump,
that was always a possibility. It's much more important that they destroy him
and make sure nobody ever tries to Trump again. That's my opinion, and
that's that's that's really what you guys have been kind of saying all along,
except without the they could have assassinated Trump sideline. If Trump really is such
a threat to democracy, trademark to human life as we know it, wouldn't
that be the right thing to do. I mean, they took out seth
Riff. It was some rich that was no problem for them. I would
suppose you're I mean, someone acting a good faith on the other side,
say you're Justice Department career prosecutor, and I think what you think is that
Trump did try to violate the law, subvert the election, and that it's
important that he be punished in a fair and open trial. My sense,
this is what I don't see. I don't think any of those people exist,
not one of them. Look, this is so if I was trying
to think about this, like if I was in the Justice Department on the
other side, what would I try to do here? I think would stop
on the other side, on the other side, the other side of yes,
you're the prosecution the other side, No, No, If you're in
the Justice Department, you're neutral, You're you're protecting him, right, You're
not on the other side. So I'm sorry, go ahead, Okay,
So suppose you're a civil servant in the Justice Department and in your neutral,
unbiased caze you see, you think you think Trump tried to subvert the election,
right, you think, as I do, that there was and there
was not sufficient fraud to change the election outcome. And then you think that
Trump really did try to mount this conspiracy to uh put off you know,
to change the election result results. So what they want to do, I
think is not really punished Trump. I agree with you there the creation.
I think what they want to do is use the criminal trial to show that
there the system worked, that the there was electoral integrity, that Trump's claims
not just right a plausible argument, but we're just flat out wrong. And
so I agree with you. I think the criminal trial is important not just
about Trump, because they want to the Justice Partment wants to use it to
dispel the things that Trump was saying about the justice system, about our electoral
system, and about the way the way the twenty twenty elections were taken.
Okay, so boy are we going to get comments, Steve. But let's
say it's important to think about how Let's say I and concede that all of
that. I can't. I can't concede that any of it's true, by
the way, but let's say I could concede that you were even right about
some of it. What explains the horrendous treatment under Russia Russia Russia? What
explains the horrendous difference and treatment between Biden and Trump just on the documents business.
What explains the horrendous treatment of Trump compared to say Hunter Biden. And
I mean, if you if you could even imagine that there was one single
person in the Justice Department who was actually, you know, like the irs
was so Blowers, a decent human being, they would they would resign out
of protests for for the way that that Trump is being treated and the way
the bidens are being treated. That is my absolute belief. I take if
you take seriously the people who say seriously the Trump is a fascist in the
existential to go to American in the Constitution, it's not unlanghed to say that,
there would be some people who'd say, you know, at the worst
case, we'd have to take him out. This would fuel I mean,
RFK Jr. Would certainly agree with that hypothesis. I keep going back to,
you know, the I was writing about this recently. It's not well
known, but there's that famous exchange between the Lisa Page and the FBI and
Peter Struck to quote it again, Lisa Page says Trump's not going to become
president, right, and Struck says, no, no, he's not.
We'll stop it. Well, of course that meant by you know, law
fair and the phony Russian investigation all the rest of that. But I don't
think it's entirely outlanched speculative about that. On the other hand, you create
a martyr, you know, Trump is Obi wan Kenobi right, you strike
him down because Trump isn't becomes more power. I mean that would be a
rational calculation, even of an irrational quote unquote from our point of view person
on the left. I think. So that's why I think it's unlikely and
implausible, but completely outlandish. I mean, we nothing prises me right now.
I have to say I never ever thought I'd be cheering on Robert F.
Kennedy junior. Ever, you know I was, by the way,
I was twice offered the opportunity to debate him back around two thousand and five,
and I declined, oh, the environmental stuff, yeah, because he
was a wacko. I said, I'm you know, well, yeah,
in retrospect it would have. But you know, because now all of a
sudden, I'm watching him, you know, the hearings this week and other
things. Oh sorry, I'm straying here. But the clear sign to me
that he really actually wants to win, or is actually in it and not
just symbolically, is his backtracking and global warming. He says, we've been
using climate change to frighten people. This is long. It's authoritarian government in
action. The solution to climate change will be free markets and technological improvement.
Well that's a long way from saying what he did fifteen years ago that the
CEOs of Exxon and Chevron should be put in prison. So also changed on
vacs. Yes, you see. He also has now said I have all
my childhood vaccines. It's just the COVID vaccine I'm worried about. Yeah,
right, that's right now. That that kind of trimming shows some someone to
me who's wanting seriously to win. I don't think you will, but you
know that. So it's not just a lark. So you can respond to
Lucretia's point about the Justice Department and so on, because I actually I think
ties into other news we've got to talk about, like the whistleblowers, like
this incredible confidential informant report about barisma and the bribery that's going on is I
think you're totally right Lucretia about the difference in treatment. So so one I
would I'm not surprised. In fact, I would think the Justice Department's highest
priority would be right January six, This is an attack on the Capitol.
Even if Trump's not evolved, it should be the highest priority. This was
an effort to stop the peaceful transition of power from the losing party to the
winning party. So even if Trump has nothing to do with January six,
never appeared on the ellipse, never gave his speech, I still think that
would be the highest priority for the Justice Department. The thing that's disappointing is
the right being taken in by the Russia, Jim Hokombi being taken in by
the Russia, hooks and the FBI leadership, or the yeah, the poor,
poor investigation into Hunter Biden. So I don't think the fault is with
the January six investigation. The fault is what is going on with the other
parts of the Department that are clearly cutting Biden a break and all these investigations
because they're trying to you know, they're trying they're trying to give the current
sitting president fire lighted treatment, then they gave the last sitting president. Well
wait a minute, let's just stop at the January sixth prosecution. Why why
are January six protesters who did no more than walk in at the behest of
the capitol police receiving much worse treatment being you know, put in solitary confinement
and all of those other things. And the guy who murdered an unarmed woman
shot at her through a door with a violence, getting every possible He was
an idiot. Of course we know he left his service revolve around, but
I mean, it was just a total idiot, and he killed her.
He shot her. He should have at least been charged with manslaughter. I
think he should have been charged with murder. They hit him, they put
him away. They lied about the fact that five cops were killed. No
cops were killed on January six. Five Trump supporters were killed on January six,
many of them beaten. I mean, this whole thing is it's a
crock John. I don't know if you don't read about everything that happens or
what, but there's a lot of reason to believe people had legitimate not Sidney
Powell reasons, but legitimate reasons to believe that the election was stolen by maybe
even not stolen fair and Squares Steve likes to say by changes to election rules.
It shouldn't have been changed and so on. And you know that's frustrating
to people when they when somebody says Biden got eighty one million votes and he
couldn't even get ten people to show up at a rally. You know that
there was too much for people who saw what was going to happen and what
did happen when Biden came into office to just take it lightly. And the
idea that that in a democracy and a republican form of government should be criminal
is it's appalling to me. I guess I'm yeah, I think. I
mean, I saw the video what happened in January sixth, I mean,
you saw some of the video. You're right, there's some people who might
have just been along with the crowd. There were, but they were definitely
people who used force to try to prevent the counting of electoral votes under the
constitution should be prosecuted. Well, what kind of nobody had a weapon?
Nobody had a weapon, not a single weapon. They used physical force,
they had to evacuate the capital, and then there were people running around the
capital trying to find the Vice president and members of Congress to attack them,
maybe with their bare hands. Well, let me let me try and come
in the middle here and say you'd stipulated both of you. Are you know
you can reach you can reach independent conclusions and induce evidence for them. I
don't think that you can say that we there's hasn't been an asymmetry of criminal
enforcement here. And I'm just thinking all the years of you know, protests
that shut down federal buildings. What about all the protesters are trying to disrupt
the Brett Kavanaugh hearings in twenty eighteen. I don't think any of them faced
any criminal charges. I think they're all, you know, given the citation,
let go in case dismissed. And even this goes back to the anti
war protest years ago. I think that there is a political premium for the
January six protests, which, by the way, they were never going to
succeed. I mean, you know, Lucretia gave you her her outrageous statement.
Mine was suppose they supposed a group of them very angry. Maybe they
didn't have good Maybe they didn't have clubs. Maybe I don't know, sharp
object whatever. Suppose they actually broken into the room or Vice President Pence was
being kept. What was about to happen, Then you're going to have some
secret Well, now I'll leave that quie. What would have happened then,
I think we know would have happened. The Secret Service agents would have unloaded
a lot of hot lead on people and that would have been the end of
it. And that would have been a very ugly thing if that had happened.
But that didn't happen. And that's why I say that the bit of
this is why I you know, uh, all this loose talk of an
insurrection and you know the constitution was hanging by its really preposterous. It's hard
to take seriously. And even if they chased them out of the capitol,
okay, they resemble them next day somewhere, and to vote the electors in
um would have been your regular would have been upsetting. But the the hyperbole
by the left and the media on this, but I repeat myself, is
in commensurate to a the circumstances and be the enforcement aftermath. It seems to
me not to mention all the all the really sketchy things that that are we
don't have. What what the hell with Calamala Harris and those bombs and you
know, just what the hell with Ray Apps? What the hell with the
fact that we now know that there were multiple FBI undercover agents in the crowd.
What I mean, all of that goes on. Why did Lloyd Austin
pull the Lloyd Austin? Why did the Secretary of Defense he was all of
the UH planned for armed h troops that were going to help the Capitol police.
Why did the Capitol police say they didn't need him. Why was there
all of this conspiracy stuff going on, which is documented. I'm not making
this up. Why if I don't think a single January sixth person should have
ever been even so much as arrested, That is my belief. I don't
think extreme. I think the people who were Asian and the fighting with the
Capitol police, and the videos not even that from the beginning to the end,
they doesn't matter if you walk police, doesn't matter if they walked in
or not. But they were. I mean, they're peep video of people
physically attacking Capitol police who are not using any weapons against them. I mean,
I thought that was important. I'm glad this happened that there was no
except for that one case, and I agree there should have been more publicly
investigated about shooting of Ashley Babbitt. But aside from that, the Capitol police
did not fire on the protesters and instead engaged. You know, we're engaged
with hand to hand combat. Unfortunately. I think those people should be prosecuted
at a minimum, I mean, how can we How could you let them
go? Yeah, well, I don't know who started it, To be
honest with you, if you're not engaged in self they're not engaged in self
defense. From the videos you say, you say, lucreation, these certain
aspects of this that you mentioned are documented. That's true, although I don't
think we really actually know the whole story about particular decisions you mention. And
the other thing is that I'm surprised that we've not had a thorough investigation this.
The other thing I know, and actually I know this John from talking
to people in the administration after the Mileolenopolis riot at Berkeley, say, you
know, you had a whole bunch of policemen inside the building and they stayed
there, they didn't go out to confront the writers and try and contain it.
And I guess this is correct because I did some research later on about
this, that in fact, that the police have a calculus for riots and
mob action and they think they actually like a military force on the battlefield.
They think they need numerical superiority, and they did not have that. The
Capitol Police didn't have that on January sixth. Now, as Lucretia points out,
various calls including at one point apparently from President Trump to have National Guard
or more Capitol Police or more Washington DC police were turned away by who you
know and why and how and at what point did that happen and what was
the decision calculus that we still don't know, and that still bothers me an
awful lot. I'm all for, I'm like, I'm all for not treating
the January sixth protests is one group that all should be charged with the same
crime. There's got to be gradations based on the severity of what they did.
And say they were five hundred. I think we talked about I say
there's five hundred of them, and I think ultimately it was like around a
seven hundred maybe, Yeah, suppose a hundred of them are really former military,
former law enforcement people. You can see them moving in the crowds,
who actually want to kidnap Vice President pens who want to actually kidnap the leaders
of Congress. I think they should and like nap every single day, and
they are. It is an assaultment. It was an assault, an assault
on the persons of public officials government, more an assault than it is on
the little old lady walking down the street in Oh, that's not true.
We don't have a monarchy. We don't know we have people carrying out constitutional
functions of government who are assaulted in the middle of doing them. I don't
know that somebody was actually assaulted in the middle of doing them. I don't
think that to count. They were trying to count the electoral votes. They
were in the process of announcing and counting the electoral votes. These people tried
to break into write the room where they were doing them and stop them,
and brand Kavanaugh didn't matter. Why don't we mark you guys down as undecided?
Yeah, we don't need to keep arguing, and we've had this argument
before. Let's talk for a little bit about the bidens do we have to
we do because nobody is. And what I wanted to do was revisit our
conversation Steve eternal infernal optimism about Oh, the media is gonna come around as
soon as this story gets juicy enough, they're gonna take it up. It
doesn't matter how devoted they are to the left, leftist causing the Bidens,
are going to take it up. They haven't. The mainstream media has had
very little a few of them now it has not. It should be the
front page story on everything, every minute of the day. The level of
corruption that has been revealed this past week, there has been proven this last
week about the Biden crime family ought to be the biggest news story in the
world. So two points on that. One is there have been a couple
of stories in the last ten days in prominent places about gosh, Biden's health
and age is really looking bad, and I think that's part of the narrative
of we're trying to build a slow boil to force him out now. The
second about just coming out and saying it's a Biden crime family. Why in
Ukraine? Because Biden is corrupt and all. That was my next point,
which is, this is a strange thing about the media. They have a
well, there's two aspects of this problem. They have a not invented here
mentality and they hate Republicans. So who's driving a story, Well, it's
Republican congressional investigations, and they're not going to want to give them credit.
In other words, if there's been some reports, let's go back to twenty
fifteen, twenty sixteen, the New York Times did that big story on Clinton
cash. That's because Peter Schweitzer worked very hard to plant that story with the
mainstream media, not with congressional hearings. He didn't go about it that way.
He and by the way, Peter pretty John boy Amen I talked to
Peter about this. He said that, and you know, Peter's just done
this book on the Biden corruption in the last two three months. That's pretty
good. And because his investigative team is pretty solid. And he said the
same New York Times people told him a couple of years ago, off if
you find that kind of stuff on the Bidens will want to report it.
And he says, I've given it all two of them. They they haven't
wanted to. So that's a point for you, Lucretia. But but even
him, if you go back far enough, you know, you go back
to the famous Hiss hearings. Media didn't want to cover that, but Nixon
stayed after it and the Bunch eventually they had to cover it. And I
think that's going to happen here. Yeah, there's no evidence for it,
and John John said, and and don't let me put words in your mouth,
John, But as I recall, you said that, what it's it's
really going to take much more than a media attention to these stories. It's
going to take congressional hearings and congressional hearings that lead to action by by Congress
itself. I think was the way you put it. But but correct me
if I'm wrong. Yeah, And I think that's what you're seeing now.
I mean, that's how we're getting all the information today. It's not from
the media digging. It's from congressional investigators or just a determined senator. I
think it's incredible report that we all now have from the confidential source who was
talking to the CEO of Barisma, right, someone, some whistleblower just you
know, gave that to Grassley and he just put it immediately online. Didn't
come about from the media. You'd think the media would be trying to track
down this guy. Whoever, if he's alive, right, there's some guy
who want to be, you know, how to be a witness protection It
would be whoever this confidential sources. But you know, you can actually tell
if you read the report where that guy is on certain days and times,
because he's meeting with the sea. It says in their Boardi's meeting with the
Sea of Barisma in these days and times, in these places, enterprising journalists,
could you find out who this person probably is? So let me try
to synthesize something between the two of you here, which one of you gets
something to happen. I mean, what actually makes it so that the incredible
corruption, which I think is a serious national security issue if nothing else,
because we're in Ukraine and it's very very obvious that this nonsense that we're fighting
for in Ukraine has its origins in the corruption of the Biden family with the
Ukrainians. But anyway, that's my opinion. But if Congress is now actually
getting to the bottom of things, then what happens what needs to happen next,
so that we are in a watergate situation that where Biden recog noises that
he's been caught anyway. Yeah, he doesn't recognize his own name. But
right somebody on his behalf says it's done, We're done. Go out there,
say I resign, I turned it over to Gommela and goes off to
play with little girls in Delaware. That will make him a hero with giving
us our first woman of color president if he went and did that. I
mean, there's a well makes that way. Look, I mean again the
media cycle. Look, what you need is you need a couple of prestige
reporters who had enough, had enough of Biden, had enough with the conformity
of their own newsrooms. And we have seen that in the past, remember,
and they've they've they've crucified him. No, let's go back to Lisa
Myers of NBC News and the Clinton Ears, who broke the story of one
Nita brother Rick being raised current well clar I mean, well, all right,
uh, well, we don't know who they are the time. I
would have never thought Lisa Myers would break that story twenty thous long years ago.
She was very much the establishment reporter and by the way, her own
editors try to stop her from reporting that story. She had to lead it
to the Wall Street Journal to bring heat on NBC News to let her report
that story. Something like that's going to have to happen here. I don't
know who it will be or what it'll be. But by the way,
well, but of course he's left CBS. Same problem. But even the
Watergate story, you know, the mainstream reporters in Washington said, there's no
story here. Who are these two city reporters with the post flogginess that that
was again the not invented here thing. It wasn't until it took a long
time, until finally the rest of them joined the bandwagon. And I think
there's a chance that'll happen here. So do you, John, I think
Congress could do more. You could say this was just the first step into
hearing. It's actually quite a testament what you can do in controlling only one
house. They were able to get all this information out of the government.
There's probably more to get. They could conduct their own investigation instead of just
what they're doing so far I think is really just asking questions of the FBI.
They could put together their own investigatory staff and conduct their own investigation.
I've done one, and you know, if you think back to This is
kind of like Whitewater back in the early nineties where Clinton's president, but there's
a lot of things coming about about what Hillary was doing, what their friends
were doing back in Arkansas, and the Justice Department in the FBI were very
reluctant to investigate them because they were they were he was the president at the
time, he was the head of law enforcement officer. And so Congress put
its own committee together, hired its own former federal prosecutors, and did its
own real investigation, and that eventually led to the appointment of the Special Council,
you know, Ken Starr eventually became So I think you Congress could do
more. They could have real investigations. You could take a page out of
the Trump playbook, the anti Trump playbook. A lot of what I'm reading
so far is not necessarily just a federal crime. It'd be a state crime.
So yes, no US attorney is going to want to investigate I'm surprised
this hasn't happened yet. Actually, so maybe this is the you heard it
here first they were giving somebody an idea, But right, no US attorney
is really going to go full bore after Hunter and the brother and the other
family members who seemed to be receiving just you know, periodic payments for an
exchange for no work from foreign governments through various shell companies. A district attorney,
a state district attorney through which any of these transactions went through or had
some connection to, could investigate and bring charges to under state law, because
this would just be this would just be theft, bribery, and fraud under
state law. And Hunter Biden is not an officer of the federal government.
This is just a simple or this is just a simple criminal enterprise. So
so a DA in New Jersey could do it, a DA in Pennsylvania or
Delaware, you know, somewhere where it had a connection, a physical connection
to what happened here could right, in fact, some of could We could
find a red county out here in California because remember, right the i RS
investigators wanted to bring charges in La. Remember, and the federal attorney out
here in LA refused to do it because he's a Biden A point tee.
There's a lot of red counties out here in California. You know, one
of those das might do it. Well, I think that would be completely
legitimate under our federalism, right, Yeah, I think the real smoking gun
here is I think the chambers of the gun haven't even been loaded yet,
and it's all these shell companies. What over twenty shell companies? We do
you need that many shell companies for? Well, that's to move money around,
and every time you do it it gets harder to trace and forensic accounting.
I don't know how to do it myself, but I know people who've
done this in big cases like Enron twenty years ago and World Calm, and
also some criminal activities beyond corporate mouthfeasons. And it's painstaking work that takes months
to unravel. So where's all the cash gone? I mean, can't we
just look up somebody's bank account and find out how much is in it?
I don't know if it's that's simple or not. That would be that would
be the very first thing you would do in this kind of cases. You
see this confidential source saying that Brismas CEO said he paid this much money in
bribes to the Bidens on roughly these days. Then the first thing you would
do is you would look at the bank accounts of the Biden family members to
see if any cash came in with Yeah, he says that I'm sitting next
to my father right now and the payment came in a couple of days later.
Yeah, it's not hard, but as you say, Steve, it
takes time and it takes people, but it can't be done. And I
think a state DA could do it if they wanted to. There was a
brave one out there who wanted to. Yeah, I mean the real one
will be if you find that often when you're doing these things like this,
money to go to a shell company and it's transferred immediately, I mean literally
within the same hour. And so the thing that the chain you'd like to
see is, you know, from shell company A to Shell Company B to
Swiss bank account. That's when you'd have or now or you know, the
Grand Cayman Islands or both. You to me, I always want to oversimplify
these things, but I honestly I look at what I see. Just you
said there's probably more to it, Steve, I agree with you. But
what we what we know and what we suspect based upon evidence it's leaking out
this, I mean, Whitewater was nothing compared to this. That was just
a little local Arkansas corruption. Compared to what and as I say, this
involves genuine questions of national security China, Ukraine. It's not like, you
know, they were getting ten thousand dollars from the French ambassador to make sure
he got a better house on you know, in Washington, DC. This
is serious stuff. And I guess the fact that nobody wants except for partisans,
want to take it seriously. How is it a partisan issue anymore?
I'm I'm a bit flabbergasted by it. I guess we're just so corrupt and
so partisan in our way of looking at these things, and that bothers me.
I'd like to think if that was my president I had voted for,
I would be demanding he'd be tried for treason and executed. That's what I
would be doing. The thing that. You know, if you're just some
nonpartisan American looking out this, I think you have to wonder how could they
be so brazen about all this? And I have a simple theory. I
think when Biden was leaving the sorry, the Obama administration, uh, he
didn't think he was going to run for president in twenty twenty. I think
he thought he was done. Everybody thought he was done. He was old
and so he was already starting to line his pockets as vice president, and
then continued after leaving office, Suddenly he's got this big problem always going to
run for president after all, because he's always wanted to and he's always had
the ego, and now this is catching up to him. I think it's
going to catch up to him. I still have confidence it's going to catch
up to him. I'll just don't think you can. You can throttle me
later, Lucretia. But I think, or even if he gets I think
it's going to get away with it. I think he's going to get away
in the sense that he will run for a president. He'll be the Democratic
If he's not the Democratic nominee, it's not going to be this that takes
it down. Well, okay, let me take you to that, then,
John, let me take you and ask you what you think is this?
So I am actually a little bit amazed at how how very stridently the
left is making sure that JFK RFK Junior Cornell West, Joe Mansion, no
labels Joe Mansion. I actually I went to look something up, and I
looked up the Democratic Party nominees just to see what I got. And there
were about fifteen articles saying how corrupt No Labels were by all these Oh yeah,
isn't that interesting, right? So what's what's that all about? What
why not give someone else a chance? Yeah? Well, they're terrified and
no Labels, even though I think Joe Mansion will be a terrible nominee for
No Labels. The Democrats hate um for blocking Biden's agenda, and I think
any Republicans paying attention hate him too for capitulating the Biden on the Inflation Reduction
Act. I think he's the worst nominee they could pick, but he's got
a big ego and would like to do it because he'll otherwise get crushed running
for Senate again. And by the way, he's seventy five, seventy six
season. It will spring chicken. Either got to pick some younger person that
they're going to do it. There is a poll out showing something like forty
seven percent of Americans say they'd consider a third party candidate this cycle, which
means the person might get twenty percent. I don't know. I don't think
that's going anywhere, but you can tell that the left is really afraid of
it because they're absolutely Oh they're going crazy over it, which surprises me.
But that's because the Poles allegedly show this throws the election to Trump. Right,
it would be like the reverse of Ross Perro running, which through the
election to Clinton. Right. You guys are a political scientist, isn't there
there's like some mathematical theory right that says if you have first passed the post
elections, that it's like just impossible for there to be a permanent third party.
That just you can't really have results other than a two party system with
that kind of voting with geographic diservice. Yeah, yeah, as long as
you don't have proportional representation. Yeah, yeah, it's impossible for Yeah,
so it's just it's sort futile to do this third party thing, then,
isn't it. Yeah, Well, of course the leaders of it say that
if they look like they were going to be a spoiler instead of a real
contender and throw the race to one person or the other, they would drop
out. Now I don't sure I believe them, because well I don't know
to see what, because their egos are driving them in the first place.
Yes, well, they supposedly you're going to have a convention in March and
pick a person in March. If they's then filed to be on ballots that
they've qualified for, I'm not sure how they can pull out and drop out.
The other thing is maybe my updated version of Russia Limbaugh's old Operation Chaos
is to say, maybe we have to look at that interstate compact or electoral
college compact idea again that the lefty reformer has been pushing. You know how
that goes right is that every state would agree that they would cast their electoral
votes for whoever got won the popular vote. Not It's a terrible idea.
I think it may be unconstitutional. But the mischief here is on the just
the row calculation is that would favor candidates like Michael Bloomberg, who can spend
billions, or Howard Schultz, remember he was going to run as a Democrat
for a while. A billionaire who can fund their own campaign might conceivably get
thirty two percent of the vote or something like that, or in this case,
would throw the just like no labels would throw the popular vote majority not
a majority, but the largest polarity to Trump. Would California's Democratic electors want
to be forced to cast their electoral votes for Trump. That would be the
end of that very bad idea, which is why I sit here sitting back
while watching all this with the mischievous designs in my heart. So why not
embraced Cornell West if you're the left? Oh, but you know he's always
been, you know he remember well remember what he called Obama? They called
him? He called Obama Nelson Rockefeller in blackface. That was his phrase.
No, really, yes, And I never heard that before. West is
the strange guy. I mean, you know, as we know, he
team teaches a class on great books with Rob George. He likes Plato and
Aristotle. He used to show up once in a while for Claremont Institute panels
at the APSA where he would usually ask a serious question. It would be
from the left, but it wasn't some clown question, right, and they
loved talking to people afterwards. And I was kind of marveled at that.
And the point is that he's you know, he loves Castro, and he's
a socialist and a deep leftist, but he's actually takes his religion seriously and
he descends him the left on all those censorious, uh you know, anti
free speech, anti free expression stances, And so I think the deep left
these days, or you know, the woke left. They don't like him,
and they haven't for quite a while. So that's one reason they don't
rally it. And they're terrified to him because what if he got what if
he peeled off from the black mode, right, think that would also screw
the Democrats. But maybe yes, he guys not why doesn't Democrat vote for
Cornell West? But how has the Biden camp successfully suppressed any competent person from
running? Like you could just put it, you could mount to you know,
challenge through you know, the normal Democratic Party primary system. Some governor,
some senator, they'd immediately get thirty to forty percent of the vote,
right, and they could and and you know, I don't see my gosh.
I think it's a it's silly for the Democratic Party to say, oh,
the only reason we have to go with Biden is because we know he
could beat Trump because he did it in twenty twenty. That's the only reason
to put the guy up for the presidency, given how old and has reduced
competency, and Kamala Harris is the vice pres I mean, there's so many
reasons not to have Biden be or not. You know I actually had somebody.
They've suppressed every single person, That's what I mean. They've suppressed every
single can't. I mean that I find that incredible that there's that amount of
party disapoint with what is why I made my assassination claim that if they really
wanted to, they could do it. They've got They did it in the
in twenty twenty with Biden and it was incredible. You mean, I see
ye dropped him up and they got I mean they got everybody to drop out.
Yeah, you know, did all of that. I honestly think though
it's because here, but you know when, but in twenty twenty you actually
had some popular rivals. I mean I think if they hadn't rallied around and
Bernie Sanders was going to win the nomination and he was a sure loser.
I still think have I said this before, I've said this on other podcasts
with other people, I'm still convinced that Gavin Newsom is looking at it real
hard and I'll bet my hunch about it is. And there has been some
chatter about this that round about October November, which is about as late as
you can wait, he's going to have it. I bet there's a decision
day on his calendar as to whether to jump in or not. And I
think that would depend on what the polls say how Biden is looking, which
is not very good. Democratic Party polls show at least half the Democrats would
refer it to not be Biden. And finally, I think he's got a
great campaign line, John, it would be you know, I'm doing this
more in sorrow than an anger. He's been great, but we need a
new generation of leadership. And so I'm going to throw my hat in the
ring because I think it's time for you know, younger jeneration. He's going
to take on these old guys, and you know, I would cause a
ruckless in the party, but I know his ambition knows no bounds. And
and he's the one guy. He's been running a shadow campaign, let's face
it, and he's been careful not to get on the bad side of Biden.
And he hates Harris. We know that, right. They're they're not
even frenemies from way back, their rivals from the Bay Area. And Lucretia
is thinking, I'm telling you see, if we need no, no,
no, no, I don't disagree with anything you're saying I'm saying that we
need to take us quick break my sponsors. Okay, so I do want
to ask you, guys, if you saw anything about the fact that the
post DABS or the ramifications of the DOBS decision have resulted in something interesting.
I'm going to leave aside for today because we've already been at this for a
little while. The whole thing about the military, which is just a nightmare.
I actually got invited. I got invited to go to another state to
a conference on include US and transgenderism in the military by the military. Sorry,
okay, sorry, sorry, I'll be quiet now. But I do
want to mention about the thirteen Republican state governors who have sent letters to some
of the major and the CEOs of some of the major corporations in America reminding
them that it is no longer legal for them to uh, you know,
have quota systems, to start counting their people, hiring their people, et
cetera, et cetera, on the basis of race. And then you had
I forget how many Democratic governors sent counter letters saying, oh, don't you
worry that, you know, it's still perfectly legal for you to uh to
celebrate diversity and inclusion and this and that. I just want to let you
guys think about that. Is it gonna go to the corporate world? It
is it a ruling that applies to the corporate world. John, This is
an interesting aspect of the Harvard case that really didn't get focused on at the
time, which is, if you remember this, there are two different causes
of action. One was under the fourteenth Amendment, right that unc Chapel Hill
state actor can't discriminate on the basis of race. Harvard, however, is
not a state actor. So the plaintiffs there went under the nineteen sixty four
Civil Rights Act and said, you're receiving federal funds, you can't discriminate on
the basis of race. Most employers don't fall under either these two categories.
Right. The most private point, you know, if if you're a GM
or you're a private employer and you have a racial quota system, you're not
prevented from doing that by the fourteenth Amendment. You know, you're not a
state, and you're not prevented by Title six. I'm not finished, but
no, okay, this but this is no no. But this is where
it comes. What's important is Title seven of the Civil Rights Act, which
says that private employers cannot discriminate on the basis of race either. So there's
been this gap though, but caused by case called Webber that was a Brennan
class skill which said that, yeah, where the Title seven's requirements need not
necessarily be the same as the Fourteenth Amendments requirement that you not use race.
The decision makes no sense right there, you read decision, It just makes
no sense. It goes quite contrary to the legislative history of the Civil Rights
Act, where you have Hubert Humphrey, the you know, the great supporter
of the Civil Rights Act, saying you can't discriminate on race an appointment.
So it was just my sort of long way of saying the next case,
I think a one of the next big cases after Harvard case, is going
to be Weber must be overruled. And Title seven means the same thing as
Title six. They're both part of the same law, the sixty four Act,
and those two both mean the same thing as the Fourteenth Amendment, that
you cannot use race as a preference to give out benefits either, just as
well as all this as well as you can't use it to punish people.
But that's last step hasn't happened yet. There's still that gap that's created by
this this I think utterly mistaken precedent that says, oh Title seven, even
though it says you can't discriminate on the basis of race, it still allows
you to if you're trying to have affirmative action programs and employment to make up
for right, what bad things happened but in society in the past. But
my question for you would be, and this is probably just is going to
show my ignorance on the subject. But remember during COVID, one of the
reasons why we had to mandate mandate vaccines at the university was because if we
didn't, we would lose our government contracts. There isn't a major corporation out
there that doesn't have a government contract. Can you not six of the Civil
Rights Act to corporations through that same legal reasoning? Or am I just stretching
it too far to oh so? Like, I think it applies to government
contractors too. But right, the main point of Title seven is that it
basically covers everybody. Right, So that's right. I think that's the important
thing is to use Title seven, you know, bring Title seven into harmony
with the fourteenth Amendment so that you have no businesses involved in interstate commerce.
You know, this is where conservatives might have some angst because we also don't
think the commerce clause does cover everybody, but you know, it covers I
think it covers all businesses larger than twenty five employees. I think. I
don't know if the Congress has lifted that number up or reduced it, but
still that's how these businesses get away with having racial preferences and hiring and promotion
because they claim Weber lets them because of this old Brennan opinion from the seventies.
Yeah, so the Internet that's happening outside the narrowly legal sphere is a
great, great story in the Walter Journal on this Friday. But I've been
tracking us for a while. Is the shrinkage of d EI offices in business
corporations, and so more people are leaving. They're not feeling a lot of
jobs, they're laying off a lot of people in these various d EI offices
that they added really just year twenty twenty in response to the Saint George Floyd
as he's called now and this makes perfect sense to me, because this was
all virtues signaling by big companies, and what all these people do, well,
they're glorified hr people who are suddenly extending their remit to products that are
being made and all the rest of that. Now, it's one thing for
universities to ignore their principles of meritocracy to some extent, but actually businesses can't
really do that. Big businesses can absorb a lot of waste, but they
still have to be meritocracies. They've got to have engineers and know how to
build bridges, crop properly and so forth. And they can't put this up.
They can't put up with this for very long. And I'm not surprised
by the way. You can find several articles I've clipped in the last year
from the Chronicle of Higher Education. Let's say, DI administrators on university campuses
are demoralized, depressed, high turnover in their jobs. Why is that because
no one really pays any attention to them. I mean, everyone will genuflect
and say, oh, we're absolutely committed to the EI. But then when
the d EI offices, can we look at your syllabus to see if it's
inclusive of you? Know, your readings and stuff. All the faculty,
even left wing faculty, say hell no, we're not gonna lie. And
so you know, you hear these people quoting the Chronicle of High Reed saying
we're depressed, and I moralized that we don't get more engagement from faculty and
said, no, they hate you, even the liberals hate tell right,
Can I tell a little story about this about you know, this is just
very illustrates what you're talking about. Is. I hate to say it,
but years ago I proposed a reading list and it was pointed out to me
by one of these people who had the right to review it, that there
were no women authors on my syllabus. And I said, really, I
had I not noticed one way or the other and says, so can you
add some women authors? And I said no? And then nothing happened.
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, but that's a demonstration of the kind of
crap we have to crawl through. It's like I was hold to add women
authors by one of these officers. And but you know, if you if
you actually push back against them, there they can't actually write right, take
away your academic freedom, I think, I think, I hope, But
they gave up this. I think they know they can't, right, Yeah,
they'll they'll have a whisper campaign about you behind your back. But who
cares? Right? So the other lefty professors that you don't like anyway don't
like you even less or more. However that works? All right? I
was wondering, must be so stressful then to figure out which authors to include
that you didn't even think of as being a leading voice in that field.
Origin how stupid that is? Yeah? Oh well, so, um,
do you have the communism for us today? Since we're gonna do? Although
it's probably it's not. I have to say it's actually more disturbing than funny.
But here's uh so this is very recent. Our vice president was at
Coppin State Universe in Baltimore and she said this about global warming. When we
invested in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce the population, more of our
children can breathe clean air and drink clean water. Elicited an applause from the
audience. Apparently right, yes, and she meant to say pollution. Am
I to understand that was what the script said? Yeah, they edited it
afterwards. We don't know about the script, but they edited the transcript afterwards
to say pollution. But you know, Steve knows this kind of enthusianism really
is the you know, she was just being honest, right, This is
the kind of enthusiasm beyond behind the environmental movement. They call that a fruitian
slip maybe yeah, same quiet part out loud right, yeah yeah. Okay,
So I have again a tough time on my part to try to pick
the best Babylon be The one I'll picked for today is because it's pertinent to
what we talked about. Hero. I think this is what you said,
actually, John, Hero Biden announces he will donate the rest of his bribe
money to charity. You want to send us out, Well, my favorite
one is the Babylon Bee just in the last twenty four hours had LA billion
dollars lottery and are happy he's finally be able to foard departments. Yeah I
know this is crappy little apartment behind it. That was good, right,
yeah? Okay, So well, okay, sorry, I have to one
more Miss Universe pageant adds best hair chest hair competition. Oh okay, John,
take us out, Okay, always drink your whiskey, Knat, let's
go, let's go, Brandon and Steve, what's the one about the sod
save the Queen man? Oh, I supposed to that. I was for
at one of them. But we'll do your pig book next week, John,
when I'll back this because I've got I've got all kinds of little piggy
things to say about it, so awesome. Alright, bake care everyone,
have a great week. Ricochet join the conversation.