Speaker 1: So it seems quite clear that the new year kicked
Speaker 1: off with two terrorist attacks. The destruction of the detonation
Speaker 1: of a Tesla cyber truck right outside of a Trump
Speaker 1: hotel in Las Vegas and the truck attack along with
Speaker 1: an attempt at detonating several IED's in New Orleans. At
Speaker 1: the same time, a massive pro Palestinian rally was happening
Speaker 1: in New York, where people were chanting such lovely phrases
Speaker 1: as globalize the Intifado.
Speaker 2: Now, I want.
Speaker 1: To talk about something I read on Twitter that Title
Speaker 1: eight of the US Code US Code Title eight, Section
Speaker 1: one two two seven in certain places identify certain kinds
Speaker 1: of aliens who can be deported, And this Twitter account
Speaker 1: was sort of trying to argue people who support terrorism
Speaker 1: who are not citizens can be deported in one of
Speaker 1: these sub sections gives a kind of definition of the
Speaker 1: sorts of people who could be deported if they're not
Speaker 1: citizens and they're in the country. If they're they're in
Speaker 1: the country perhaps legally, but they are not American citizens.
Speaker 1: Any alien who quote endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or
Speaker 1: persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support
Speaker 1: a terrorist organization now I've been a little more ambivalent
Speaker 1: about the Israel Palestine conflict than a lot of other conservatives. Certainly,
Speaker 1: I think Hamas is completely disgusting and horrible and bad,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I think that their
Speaker 1: attack in October of last year was completely unjustified, unjustifiable, unprovoked.
Speaker 1: I think their conduct throughout the war has been completely
Speaker 1: insane and evil. The fact that they can't give Israel
Speaker 1: back the hostages they took in all likelihood because most
Speaker 1: of those hostages, I'm guessing are dead. They have high
Speaker 1: civilian casualties, no small part, because that's their strategy. They
Speaker 1: deliberately put their civilians in harm's way because their whole concept,
Speaker 1: the whole concept of these sort of radical Islamic thinkers,
Speaker 1: they don't think of war in Western terms. They don't
Speaker 1: think of just war and just conduct in war in
Speaker 1: Western terms. But they know that we do. They know
Speaker 1: that we make distinctions between civilians and combatants. They don't
Speaker 1: care about that distinction other than to use the distinction
Speaker 1: to their pr advantage. So they're totally fine with civilians
Speaker 1: dying for the sake of jihad. They make no distinction,
Speaker 1: and so they'll deliberately place their military assets under hospitals,
Speaker 1: under schools, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, so that
Speaker 1: they have high civilian casualties when Israel tries to take
Speaker 1: out those military targets, and then they will run to
Speaker 1: the press with a wildly overinflated count of how many
Speaker 1: civilians have died? Well, I should say how many people
Speaker 1: have died. They make no distinction between who is a
Speaker 1: civilian versus who is a combatant, and the line between
Speaker 1: civilian and combatant is very flimsy. You know, are you
Speaker 1: a eighteen year old high school kid or are you
Speaker 1: an eighteen year old you know who someone puts an
Speaker 1: AK forty seven in your hands and you're helping people
Speaker 1: fire rockets they don't have. You know, they'll engage in
Speaker 1: all kinds of violations of international law when it comes to,
Speaker 1: you know, being identifiable as soldiers versus not identifiable as soldiers,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 2: So totally, you know, totally get all that.
Speaker 1: I've just been leery of the idea that the United
Speaker 1: States needs to pay for this war. Nonetheless, the United States,
Speaker 1: I've been leary that the United States needs to pay
Speaker 1: for this war. I've been leary of the idea that
Speaker 1: we need to be involved in it at all, that
Speaker 1: we need to give Israel ten billion dollars, that we
Speaker 1: need to have any say whatsoever over what's going on here,
Speaker 1: or that our that we need to have involvement at all.
Speaker 1: I've been very frustrated at the idea of America fighting
Speaker 1: proxy wars all over the world, which is what's happening
Speaker 1: right now. A proxy wars where someone stands in for
Speaker 1: you as your proxy, and that's what America's basically done.
Speaker 1: We've had these votes in Congress on military funding for Ukraine,
Speaker 1: for Israel, and we treat it as a vote on
Speaker 1: military funding when that's not what it is. It's a
Speaker 1: declaration of proxy war. We are at proxy war with Russia,
Speaker 1: We are at proxy war with Hamas, and that has
Speaker 1: real ramifications and consequences to it, you know, very similar.
Speaker 1: I mean the idea of oh, we couldn't go to
Speaker 1: war with normal war with Russia, that would inflame tensions, Well,
Speaker 1: what's the difference. I feel like there should be way
Speaker 1: more focused, way more attention, way more scrutiny paid on
Speaker 1: members of Congress when they're voting for military funding because
Speaker 1: the negative foreign policy consequences of funding someone in a
Speaker 1: war can come back to bite you in the rear end.
Speaker 1: Now I've disliked all that, but again I'm fairly morally
Speaker 1: clear about the Israel Palestine conflict. I do have questions
Speaker 1: about is all of Israel's conduct in the course of
Speaker 1: the war. Just I read stuff and see stuff from
Speaker 1: Christian sources in the Middle East who aren't exactly thrilled
Speaker 1: with Israel's conduct over the course of the war and
Speaker 1: think some of their conduct is excessive. So again, it's
Speaker 1: not me saying it's Christians in the Holy Land saying that. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: Hamas is a terrorist organization. It is designated by our
Speaker 1: I believe, by the State Department as a terrorist organization.
Speaker 2: Their whole.
Speaker 1: Sort of founding documents for when Hamas first came into being,
Speaker 1: it's premised around the idea of killing all the Jews,
Speaker 1: Like it's like, find every Jew under every rock and
Speaker 1: behind every bush and kill them all. That's genuinely what
Speaker 1: they believe. They're a terrorist organization. They are an Iranian
Speaker 1: funded proc see, they're a proxy themselves of the Iranians,
Speaker 1: and they're a terrorist organization, they want to kill people
Speaker 1: in terroristic ways.
Speaker 2: So I guess that's.
Speaker 1: I guess one of the things that a new Trump
Speaker 1: administration should ask about and maybe get some questions about,
Speaker 1: is how many of the student protesters who were in
Speaker 1: the who were on college campuses in the United States
Speaker 1: last spring, especially, who were setting up camps and engaged
Speaker 1: in protests, and not just any kinds of protests, by
Speaker 1: the way, some on some college campuses, really nasty protests
Speaker 1: where they were threatening and intimidating Jewish students, where Jewish
Speaker 1: students felt like they couldn't even walk around on certain
Speaker 1: parts of their own campus, where Jewish students were basically
Speaker 1: being advised to stay away, really nasty stuff.
Speaker 2: That those Jewish students.
Speaker 1: Could have really solid grounds for civil rights lawsuits against
Speaker 1: their own colleges for not stopping this kind of this
Speaker 1: kind of thing. I mean that there's plenty of civil
Speaker 1: rights law around this that would allow these Jewish students,
Speaker 1: I think, to take their universities to the cleaners. Now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about these individual protesters on these college campuses
Speaker 1: as well as the protests that are happening in New York,
Speaker 1: and I would say, if there are non citizens at
Speaker 1: these events who are explicitly supporting Hamad. Yes, that could
Speaker 1: be a deportable person. Now, the problem is you run
Speaker 1: up against the First Amendment or the I guess maybe
Speaker 1: more so, the problem is you're running up against precisely
Speaker 1: what are these protesters protesting. Are they protesting one in
Speaker 1: explicit favor of Hamas. Are they protesting two against what
Speaker 1: they perceive to be excesses in Israel's war on Hamas?
Speaker 2: Three?
Speaker 1: Are they protesting against the project of Zionism, i e.
Speaker 1: The establishment of the Jewish state of a Jewish state
Speaker 1: of Israel, which was effect in nineteen forty eight, and
Speaker 1: which was accomplished through the expulsion of a certain number
Speaker 1: of Transjordainians, Palestinians, Muslims, Arab Muslim people of some sort
Speaker 1: from their homes their residences in that region in nineteen
Speaker 1: forty eight. What exactly are they protesting for? I think
Speaker 1: that would be the difficult thing. I think there's some
Speaker 1: conservatives who just sort of think, you know, just a
Speaker 1: snap of the fingers and a waggle of your nose
Speaker 1: and you can deport thousands and thousands of people. And
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to accomplish,
Speaker 1: because again, I think for any one of these people
Speaker 1: who were engaged in these somewhat revolting protests that we
Speaker 1: saw on college campuses last year, whether it was people.
Speaker 2: You know, marching in the streets of New.
Speaker 1: York City, if you can show that someone is if
Speaker 1: you can show for any non citizen involved in it,
Speaker 1: that what they were doing was supporting Hamas or supporting
Speaker 1: Hamas's terrorist conduct, if you could show that, then yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe they're deportable. But I think that's going to be very,
Speaker 1: very hard to prove because and of course there's going
Speaker 1: to be just an army of ACLU type lawyers coming
Speaker 1: to the defense of these people if Trump tries to
Speaker 1: initiate proceedings against them. But if you've got someone who's
Speaker 1: I don't know, holding a Hamas flag, chanting Hamas slogans, whatever,
Speaker 1: maybe that's something different. I think there has for a
Speaker 1: long time been gross unsavory connections between the Islamic Brotherhood
Speaker 1: and care. The Council on American Islamic Relations American Islamic
Speaker 1: Relations has sort of inserted itself within the panoply of
Speaker 1: sort of left wing, left wing nonprofity kind of causes,
Speaker 1: and it's had different kinds of ties with unsavory characters
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. One of the founders of CARE,
Speaker 1: Nihad Awad, who founded the organization in nineteen ninety four
Speaker 1: with Omar Ahmad and Rafik Jabet. Nihad Awad had been
Speaker 1: the public relations director for the Islamic Association for Palestine,
Speaker 1: which the FBI described as quote a front organization for
Speaker 1: Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. He's also
Speaker 1: he also had been the head of CARE, the founding
Speaker 1: member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. So I think
Speaker 1: they're I guess I'm not sure that the odds of
Speaker 1: being able to deport a bunch of people for supporting Hamas.
Speaker 1: And I think the sad thing to remember is that
Speaker 1: this guy who drove this truck into this big crowd
Speaker 1: of people in New Orleans, the guy they well, they
Speaker 1: didn't catch him. I guess they killed him. This guy
Speaker 1: was an American citizen and an Army veteran. And it
Speaker 1: makes you wonder, you know, the guy's been described as
Speaker 1: sort of trouble gone through de he was becoming more
Speaker 1: and more disillusioned somehow isis was something that was attractive
Speaker 1: to him and came to sort of inspire him and
Speaker 1: seems like inspired him to do this particular act. So
Speaker 1: I guess I'm we're not sure at this point. I mean,
Speaker 1: we know it's terrorism. I'm not going to be like
Speaker 1: the FBI head in New Orleans is like, oh, it's
Speaker 1: unclear if this is a terrorist attack. Well, it's clearly terroristic.
Speaker 1: Well what are you talking about. You're not planting bombs around,
Speaker 1: you know, the French Quarter and driving a truck into
Speaker 1: a big crowd of people without it being terroristic. I
Speaker 1: guess the question is is this connected to organized networks
Speaker 1: of State Department designated terrorist organizations, international terrorist organizations? That's
Speaker 1: the question. It's obviously a terrorist act. The question is
Speaker 1: is this guy more or less working alone? Was there
Speaker 1: any coordination between this guy in New Orleans versus and
Speaker 1: the guy in Las Vegas who blew up a Tesla
Speaker 1: cyber truck right outside of Trump Hotel? Was there any coordination?
Speaker 1: There was there any coordination with international terrorist groups? That's
Speaker 1: the kind of stuff we're not one hundred percent sure of.
Speaker 2: I guess, I.
Speaker 1: You know, I guess I'm waiting to see that. But
Speaker 1: I don't know that the United States is going to
Speaker 1: have the ability to deport basically all of these people
Speaker 1: who are in the country who support who.
Speaker 2: Maybe they do support Humas, but.
Speaker 1: It's going to be really hard to be able to
Speaker 1: convict someone to vindicate that in a court proceeding when
Speaker 1: these people are it, when the United States may try
Speaker 1: to deport these people.
Speaker 2: When we return.
Speaker 1: Just a quick thought on Hamas. That is next on
Speaker 1: the John Roardy Show. Just a thought on hamas As.
Speaker 1: There was this big rally in New York yesterday for Palestine.
Speaker 1: One of the things that has annoyed me about the
Speaker 1: kind of Biden Establishment Democrat reaction to the Israel Palestine
Speaker 1: war is the repetition of this mantra, we need to
Speaker 1: pursue the two state solution. We need to pursue the
Speaker 1: two state solution. Pursue the two state solution. The two
Speaker 1: state solution, the two state solution the only way forward.
Speaker 1: It's like this, It's like this comforting mantra that Biden
Speaker 1: has to cling to. It's the only thing he can
Speaker 1: say when he when he talks about the topic. Uh,
Speaker 1: there needs to be a peaceful two state solution.
Speaker 2: Two state solution going forward.
Speaker 1: And I think it's because Bill Clinton got so freaking
Speaker 1: close to actually accomplishing a two state solution when he
Speaker 1: was president, until Yasir Arafat scuttled the whole thing. He
Speaker 1: gave the Palestinians everything they wanted. Here's your place, you
Speaker 1: get this, you get that, you get but but but bah,
Speaker 1: here you go, you get your own state. You get Israel.
Speaker 1: Get out of this the everything you want, Yes, Sir Arafat.
Speaker 1: And at the last minute, Yes, Airfat pulled the rug
Speaker 1: out from under Clinton and said, Nah, don't want to
Speaker 1: and then the Palestinians proceeded to initiate a bunch of
Speaker 1: terrorist attacks against Israel. And I think it it is
Speaker 1: the one thing, the one thing thing that I think
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton wishes he could have. It's probably the greatest
Speaker 1: regret of Clinton's presidency, you know, was not being able
Speaker 1: to get that accomplished. I mean, to this day, that's
Speaker 1: the one thing about Jimmy Carter that people talk oh
Speaker 1: the Camp David Accords. And although there's actually some evidence
Speaker 1: now that Carter's role in the Camp David Accords was
Speaker 1: far less, far less important, that actually was anwar Sadat
Speaker 1: and the Prime Minister of Israel Bagan, I guess his
Speaker 1: name was them sort of getting together themselves, whereas Carter
Speaker 1: was like trying to get the Soviet Union in on
Speaker 1: the peace steel and like all these other players, and
Speaker 1: it was it was sort of a silly thing. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter to this day can talk about, oh see,
Speaker 1: I broke her peace between Israel and Egypt, and that's
Speaker 1: like the one thing Carter's got on his legacy. Clinton
Speaker 1: really wanted it and he never got it. Here's the
Speaker 1: problem with continuing to say to state solution. It made
Speaker 1: some sense in the Arafat era because Arafat wasn't Hamas Yasir.
Speaker 1: Arafat was actually more moderate in spite of the fact
Speaker 1: that he was, you know, a terrorist, et cetera. Arafat
Speaker 1: was part of a different political party from Hamas. There
Speaker 1: was Hamas and then there was Fatah. He was the
Speaker 1: head of Fatah, and Fatah was more secular, less religious
Speaker 1: extremists than Hamas. Now he kind of wound up being
Speaker 1: the kingpin among the Palestinians and was able to sort
Speaker 1: of utilize the total Islamic loon crazies for his own ends.
Speaker 1: But Arafat, I mean in the Arafat era. With him
Speaker 1: in charge, maybe you could have attained a two state solution.
Speaker 1: Maybe someone like him, who isn't inspired by total fundamentalist
Speaker 1: Sharia lunacy, he maybe could have broke her to two
Speaker 1: state solution. You're not getting a two state solution from Hamas.
Speaker 1: Their whole reason for existence, like in their founding documents,
Speaker 1: is it's to.
Speaker 2: Kill every single Jew.
Speaker 1: That's what they when they say from the river to
Speaker 1: the sea, Palestine will be free, they mean no more
Speaker 1: state of Israel. The whole state of Israel is contained.
Speaker 1: For those who are deficient in geography, let me remind
Speaker 1: you what the river and what the sea is.
Speaker 2: The river is the Jordan River. The sea is the
Speaker 2: Mediterranean Sea.
Speaker 1: All of the modern, the modern day nation state of
Speaker 1: Israel is entirely contained in between the river and the sea.
Speaker 1: So if you've got someone saying from the river to
Speaker 1: the sea, Palestine will be free, what they mean is
Speaker 1: no more state of Israel.
Speaker 2: They don't want a two state solution. And that's the thing.
Speaker 1: It will be refreshing for a new state department to
Speaker 1: come into existence that at least whatever deficiencies. It may happen.
Speaker 1: It may have many deficiencies, God knows. At the very
Speaker 1: least one deficiency they won't have is this continual reliance
Speaker 1: on the crutch of a two state solution. You can't
Speaker 1: have a two state solution if one of the parties
Speaker 1: doesn't want the other party to exist. The guys in
Speaker 1: the hamask, guys in Gaza don't want Israel to exist.
Speaker 1: Seemingly large centers of the Palestinians who supported what Hamas
Speaker 1: did on October sent seventh, not just in Gaza but
Speaker 1: also in the West Bank, they.
Speaker 2: Don't really want Israel to exist either.
Speaker 1: So I guess, I ask, why do we keep repeating this, Oh,
Speaker 1: you need the two state solution, as if, as if
Speaker 1: Israel's had fault Israel who is offered a two state
Speaker 1: solution and had it rejected by Yaser, Era, Fat, et cetera.
Speaker 1: All right, when we return, I want to talk about
Speaker 1: having a senile, feeble president in the midst of terrorist attacks.
Speaker 2: Next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: A lot of the commentary around President Biden's aging was insufficient.
Speaker 2: Obviously, over the course of the last four years.
Speaker 1: Everyone on the left effectively covered it up. Everyone in
Speaker 1: the media who obviously could have known about it, didn't
Speaker 1: pursue the story, didn't report down it because they didn't
Speaker 1: want to.
Speaker 2: They all knew.
Speaker 1: Biden has the best shot of beating Donald Trump in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, so let's just shut up about his
Speaker 1: And it was also this undercurrent of Kamala Harris would
Speaker 1: get her ass kicked by Donald Trump, which did in
Speaker 1: fact happen, and so everyone's like, all right, we'll just
Speaker 1: not talk about Biden being obviously senile. And so they
Speaker 1: didn't talk about Biden being obviously senile for four years,
Speaker 1: and then finally in the June twenty twenty four debate,
Speaker 1: it became so painfully obvious that they had to do something.
Speaker 1: And I at the time was sort of baffled how
Speaker 1: this wasn't a bigger narrative, even from people on the right.
Speaker 1: How is Biden not abel not able either physically or mentally,
Speaker 1: which was what all these Democrats conceded, He's either not
Speaker 1: physically mentally whatever able to run for president, but he
Speaker 1: is physically mentally whatever able to be president. Undoubtedly, being
Speaker 1: president is or ought to be a harder job than
Speaker 1: running for president, and it's a far more important, critical job.
Speaker 1: You're the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. You
Speaker 1: are in charge of the entire executive branch of government.
Speaker 1: You're overseeing law enforcement and enforcement of criminal laws and
Speaker 1: civil laws and environmental regulation than this and that, about
Speaker 1: one hundred billion, overseeing how a multi trillion dollar budget
Speaker 1: is spent every year. You're the singular hinge on which
Speaker 1: the whole system swings of executive authority. All executive officials
Speaker 1: are exercising your delegated authority. They need to do so
Speaker 1: in accordance with what you decide. He's the essential man.
Speaker 1: Whoever is president is the essential man. How can we
Speaker 1: allow someone who's not physically or mentally ready to go
Speaker 1: be in that seat? And I've heard people say, you know,
Speaker 1: it's such a it's this horrible thing that the media
Speaker 1: and Vice President Harris did that left the United States
Speaker 1: at risk.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's enough screaming right now.
Speaker 1: It didn't leave us at risk in the past tense.
Speaker 2: It it's not like it left us at risk.
Speaker 1: It is currently leaving us at risk for another eighteen days.
Speaker 1: That's the plan is for us to have an executive
Speaker 1: ahead of the Armed Forces Commander in chief of the
Speaker 1: Armed Forces, who may very well be in the throes
Speaker 1: of dementia. Right. Jim Garrity has a good little piece
Speaker 1: in National Review talking about this, where he writes he
Speaker 1: had this too. Around mid afternoon yesterday, when it became
Speaker 1: clear that the country had suffered two simultaneous terrorist attacks,
Speaker 1: people started to notice that the only response from President
Speaker 1: Joe Biden had been a two paragraph release statement that
Speaker 1: he was being quote continually briefed. Finally, in the early
Speaker 1: evening hours, our squinty, mumbling president read off a teleprompter
Speaker 1: for four minutes, and after pledging we will keep you
Speaker 1: fully contemporaneously informed, immediately just turned around and walked away
Speaker 1: without answering a single question, which is a classic Biden move.
Speaker 1: We'll keep you informed, say a shuffle shuffle, shuffle shuffle.
Speaker 1: We are still at risk. We are at imminent risk.
Speaker 1: Here it just drives me insane. Jeff Blaar writes for
Speaker 1: National Review. Had this was anyone reassured by that speech?
Speaker 1: Did it alleviate anyone's unease that the sitting president of
Speaker 1: the United States is a half functional, quasi vegetative person
Speaker 1: At this point, I'm also here to ask why we
Speaker 1: as Americans have become so cavalier about the fact that
Speaker 1: tolerating a president who is permanently mentally incapacitated invites crises
Speaker 1: like these nineteen days now today, eighteen days yet remain
Speaker 1: until the animate shell of Joe Biden formally departs from
Speaker 1: the presidency. Pray for peace and hold your breath until then.
Speaker 1: Perfectly well stated, I just don't understand. I don't understand
Speaker 1: how they got away with it. I don't understand how
Speaker 1: conservatives didn't yell and scream about this more than anything
Speaker 1: else starting in June. You should have had the Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House, the Senate. You should have had Donald
Speaker 1: Trump the speaker House Senate minority leader every single day saying, Kamala,
Speaker 1: if Joe Biden is not physically fit mentally fit to
Speaker 1: run for president, he shouldn't be president. Kamala Harris needs
Speaker 1: to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment and remove Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: and the president's cabinet need to invoke the twenty fifth
Speaker 1: Amendment and remove him from office. So the twenty fifth
Speaker 1: Amendment it allows for the president to be declared unable
Speaker 1: to serve in the office. It says in section four
Speaker 1: whenever the Vice president and a majority of either the
Speaker 1: principal officers of the executive departments, which means that the
Speaker 1: head cabinet officials, the secretaries of you know, State Defense,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, et cetera, transmit to the President pro
Speaker 1: Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives. They're written declaration that the president is unable
Speaker 1: to discharge the powers and duties of his office. The
Speaker 1: vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of
Speaker 1: the office's acting president.
Speaker 2: And that's the This is.
Speaker 1: Going to be the massive state you know, Biden's incapacity
Speaker 1: in doddering, old manness will be part of his legacy
Speaker 1: for the rest of history.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: I think it has to be part of Kamala Harris's
Speaker 1: legacy as vice president that she let this continue. She
Speaker 1: and the other members of the president's cabinet if they
Speaker 1: realized he can't do it, that he is not up
Speaker 1: for the job. And clearly they came to that realization,
Speaker 1: or at least major Democrats came to this realization. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was just Nancy Pelosi coming to this realization that
Speaker 1: Biden is too old, too dodding to run for president.
Speaker 1: If he's not capable of running for president, then clearly
Speaker 1: he's not capable of being president. Being president's much harder.
Speaker 1: The twenty fifth Amendment was there, and I never understood.
Speaker 1: I never thought that it ever made sense that they
Speaker 1: could remove Biden from office without that They sorry that
Speaker 1: they could remove him from the campaign without also removing
Speaker 1: him from office. It just never made sense. If he's
Speaker 1: too feeble minded to have a debate with Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: then by god, how the hell is he going to
Speaker 1: handle a terrorist attack? How the hell is he going
Speaker 1: to handle I don't know, a Russian strike on an
Speaker 1: American military base, an Iranian strike on an American military
Speaker 1: base in the Middle East, a North Korean nuclear attack,
Speaker 1: god forbid, China invading Taiwan, Russia invading Ukraine. We saw,
Speaker 1: you know that that happened. How is he going to
Speaker 1: be able to handle it? Clearly he can't. I mean,
Speaker 1: and now we've got all these news reports, all these
Speaker 1: journals are dumping out their notebooks of all these things
Speaker 1: that they collected over the course of four years.
Speaker 2: There was this huge story, I think it was two
Speaker 2: weeks ago in.
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal about oh yeah, Biden had to
Speaker 1: delay meetings all the time because he just was having
Speaker 1: a bad day and blah blah blah blah blah. Oh,
Speaker 1: President Biden has good days and bad days. Well, if
Speaker 1: he has good days and bad days, he can't be president. Sorry, No, unacceptable,
Speaker 1: And there's been more acceptance on the right of saying like,
Speaker 1: this is the most shameful scandal of the whole Biden presidency.
Speaker 2: Was a multi level scandal.
Speaker 1: It's a media scandal, it's a Biden himself scandal, it's
Speaker 1: a Biden's family scandal. It's a Vice President Harris scandal,
Speaker 1: it's a Biden cabinet scandal. It's everybody who should have
Speaker 1: known or who should have rang the alarm bell and didn't.
Speaker 1: People are more willing to admit that this was a
Speaker 1: horrible scannal and people are just kind of like, ah,
Speaker 1: Trump will be president in eighteen days. I don't think
Speaker 1: eighteen days is a long time. A lot of bad
Speaker 1: stuff could happen in eighteen days. I guess I've just
Speaker 1: never understood why Trump, why immediately, starting in June, why
Speaker 1: Republicans didn't just immediately say Biden needs to step down
Speaker 1: now for the sake of for the good of the country.
Speaker 1: We cannot have a senile person as the commander in chief.
Speaker 1: And I think the only reason why Harris didn't initiate
Speaker 1: the twenty fifth Amendment was because some deal was hatched.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about what that deal likely was.
Speaker 1: That's next done the John Girardi Show. Why didn't Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris in invoke the twenty fifth Amendment? Why didn't she
Speaker 1: get the ball rolling to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment
Speaker 1: to remove Joe Biden from office in June of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, when the mask came off and everyone in
Speaker 1: America saw that the president wasn't really fit for his job,
Speaker 1: the Democrats somehow pulled off without any further question. And
Speaker 1: I really think Republicans should have hammered this a lot
Speaker 1: more between Trump, If not Trump, then Mike Johnson as
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House and someone who's, you know, within
Speaker 1: the presidential chain of succession. There should have been more
Speaker 1: hammering on the idea of if President Biden can't run
Speaker 1: for president, if he's not physically, mentally whatever ready to
Speaker 1: run for president, he can't be the president and he
Speaker 1: needs to step down. And if he doesn't step down,
Speaker 1: the vice president and the cabinet need to remove him
Speaker 1: via the twenty fifth Amendment process.
Speaker 2: So why didn't that happen. Why didn't Harris do that.
Speaker 2: I think there was some deal struck.
Speaker 1: Biden only agreed to step down, I think under certain
Speaker 1: conditions or with certain threats slash bribes that were made
Speaker 1: to him via in the person of Nancy Pelosi as
Speaker 1: the representative of the donors. I think Pelosi basically said
Speaker 1: to him, listen, you're gonna step down. If you don't
Speaker 1: step down, none of the donors are gonna give a
Speaker 1: red cent to your presidential library. We're all going to
Speaker 1: absolutely trash you. You're gonna lose by thirty points. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be bad. If you just step down, we'll fund
Speaker 1: your presidential library. We'll do this, will be nice to you.
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. And he said, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not stepping down from presidency. I'll step out of
Speaker 1: the race, but you try to twenty fifth Amendment me,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna drag all of you down with me. I
Speaker 1: bet something like that happened. Maybe it wasn't explicitly said,
Speaker 1: but it was understood because Biden could have I mean
Speaker 1: Biden could have wrecked the whole Heck, you could argue
Speaker 1: Biden did wreck the whole thing for Harris with the
Speaker 1: whole garbage common the only garbage is all of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's supporters.
Speaker 2: Then Trump rides in the garbage truck, and then he
Speaker 2: wins Pennsylvania by you know, three points.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't I suspect the only reason the
Speaker 1: twenty fifth Amendment wasn't invoked against Biden was because some
Speaker 1: kind of political deal was hatched where the good of
Speaker 1: the country, the national security of the country, the ability
Speaker 1: of the commander in chief of the armed forces to
Speaker 1: be able to respond in a quick, clear headed manner,
Speaker 1: and not to have the commander in chief of the
Speaker 1: Armed forces be an old man in the throes of dementia.
Speaker 1: None of that was considered. And that's maybe the chief
Speaker 1: scandal of the whole Biden era. That'll do it, John
Speaker 1: Gerardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk