Speaker 1: Welcome back, everone, to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. First
of all, I'd like to apologize for the less than
reliable audio. I'm without a microphone. It will be back
to normal next week. So Molly, we're back on basically
the same story, which I think is one of the
big story, really huge stories of the last few years,
the Biden presidential cover up of now not just his
mental and physical well, not just his mental decline, but cancer.
So he announced this week, Joe Biden did that he
had an aggressive stage. You know, he's for prostate cancer.
I don't think the prognosis is great on something like that,
especially at his age, but I'm not a doctor. It's
just what I read. But I think the implications of
this are is even bigger in many ways. The question,
of course is how long has he had this? Did
he know he had a lot of doctors say that
this sort of cancer at the stage it's at would
have had to have been years old, maybe a decade old.
What are your first impressions when you heard?
Speaker 2: Oh, I mean everything about this is so interesting to me,
including the way that we found out that Joe Biden
has advanced stage four cancer that where the prognosis is
not great. It came out when on Sunday Night or
something like that, in the midst of Jake Tapper hawking
a book about Biden's mental decline and the cover up
by him, and I didn't really admit that he covered
it up, but that's the stories about Joe Biden's mental
decline and how the media were complicit in covering it up.
And a lot of people assumed that Biden released this
information as a way to make the conversations about Biden
be less angry, which I don't think that really worked
in that people were now had an additional reason to
be angry. You saw some Democrat operatives saying, with this news,
we must be very careful on how we talk about Biden.
A bunch of people were like, no, it seems like
this news makes it even worse the level of cover up.
So then more recently they had an anonymous person with
no name come out and say, oh, actually, this was
not diagnosed ten years ago. The first we heard of
it was last Friday, and that's why we released it
at the time. And people are like having a very
hard time believing this because of all the other lies
that the bidenministration topic said about all sorts of things,
and also because this type of cancer does not just
spring up on you. It was the other night on
Special Report, this doctor was on and he was explaining,
you know, for prostate cancer, it starts in the prostate,
it spreads to the area around the prostate, and then
like much later, it goes into the bones, which is
where the Biden team says the cancer is now. And
he's just saying, kind of hard to imagine that this
wasn't years in the making, and also hard for people
to imagine that someone with the best healthcare in the
world that would be the president, that they would not
have flagged this screen for this, found this, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's to be fair, it's plausible to some extent
that he might not have known, because after seventy sometimes
doctors stopped checking for various reasons, because you know, it's
more harmful to do things than not for people but
I already I've seen some media stories, establishment media stories
framing people who are questioned about who ask questions about this,
as conspiracy theorists. You would have to be a journalist,
would have to be incredibly irresponsible or completely lacking not
to wonder and to ask questions. Everything we have been
told that was a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden has
come true in the past five or so years. The
laptop story was real. The contention that he knew what
his family is influenced about, his family's influenced peddling business
was true. He's probably participated and maybe let it. That
was true. And his physical and mental decline was true.
So why would we believe that he You know, why
wouldn't we wonder if he knew about this? We know
that the cancer has been around a long time. We
don't know what his doctor checked in for because we
don't get medical reports from presence. We get summaries and
they bring in their own doctors and people will be trusted.
And I think that is fine. You know, you want
to have your own doctor. But it would be very
easy to cover up something like this, and there's no
reason for us to believe that it wasn't.
Speaker 2: No, that's the exactly, there's no benefit of the doubt
they're given. One of the consequences of all the lies
that they've told that we know of and that we
also suspect, is that them saying that he was not
diagnosed until Friday. Like you said, it could be true.
I guess I have a hard time believing that, very
hard time, And there's nothing about their track record that
would make me reflexively accept an anonymously sourced claim like that.
Like one thing that would help would be to have
his doctor come out and say that, for instance, because
there would be you know, someone who actually has some
say on your own. And also if he could explain
why he wasn't screening for this for a man whose
family has a serious history of cancer, who's a press
in the United States, when he himself is an oncologist, Like,
those are all tough questions, like he might be scared,
but that's the type of person we need to have
come out and say stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, liked did Biden tell him not to give him
the test? Did Biden? You know if he hadn't had
he had one, it's just you know, you can do
it with the blood tests you know it works, and
also you have a this is not just some person
is the president, but not just the president. He's obviously
on the decline, and he's going to run for president
again for another four years. Shouldn't the doctor say, let's
see if you know you have any cancer. I think
it's fair to say, I guess that Biden wasn't making
decisions as president. We don't know now, you know, if
he was the one, and I think this is a
fair thing to talk about. If he was the one
who signed the unprecedented ten year blanket retro you know,
retroactive pardons for his family and for political allies. What
if it's his political allies who came up with that idea?
And I think at least this is one of the
biggest scandals in American presidential history, and the idea that
we had a president who was incapable of making decisions
on foreign policy and domestic policy that affected people in
really serious ways. I don't think. I guess we could
go back to Wilson, who's wife who had a stroke,
and I guess nineteen nineteen and whose wife ran the
country for fifteen months without him is a scandal. But
you know it was a different time than it was
easier to hide things. There's no reason this should have happened.
The press is responsible. So let me ask you this.
You know, Jake Tapper was out there this week and
said the whole media needs to do soul searching about this,
not the cancer in general, and that even he needs
to do soul searching, and the conservative media was correct. You.
I don't know if do you buy it.
Speaker 2: So I was on a radio show last week where
they were complimenting me on the Federalists coverage of Biden's
mental decline, And maybe I mentioned this to you already,
but I was saying that I'm very proud of our
coverage of the Kavanaugh rape hoax and the Russia collusion hoax,
how we responded to COVID hysteria. I'm not particularly proud
of how we responded to Biden's obvious mental decline because
we really didn't do anything that one hundred million casual
observers didn't see, Like we weren't digging deep to reveal
some hidden thing. We were just commenting on what we
all saw, and we would just be there to say,
you're not crazy for thinking that Biden's had declined, and
that serves a function. But it wasn't like explosive reporting.
It was just we were using our eyes. So for
for Jake Tapper to say, oh, there needs to be
soul search or he keeps on saying I have tremendous humility,
No he doesn't. He's trying to make a lot of
money selling a book. Like if he had humility or
if he were taking responsibility, he of course would quit journalism.
Of course, like there's no other option. You miss a
story like that, you don't miss it. By the way,
we're not stupid. Nobody missed it. He saw what we saw.
We all saw the same thing. He lied. He lied.
He's a liar. He lies about a lot of stuff,
and this is just one of the many examples of
him lying. There's no humility, there's no accountability. He's you know.
And then if you put the very possible best construction
on what he's saying, what he's saying is someone with
my observational skills should not be in the business of journalism, right,
So that would be an appropriate response, not selling a
book to kind of cover it up further. And that's
what it is. This book is all about saying, Oh,
so it turns out you're gonna be surprised to learn
that Joe Biden had some mental decline. And the reason
why none of us knew. Again, we all knew, we
all knew. But the reason why none of us knew
is that there was this small cabal of people close
to Joe Biden and they conspired to hide it from us.
It's like again, no, no, Like yes, politicians lie one
hundred percent of them or something very close to that.
That's their job. It's the job of the media to
not regurgitate those lies. That's all Jake Tapper has done
his entire career. He regurgitates lies that he knows or lies.
That's not journalism. Sorry for going off on that.
Speaker 1: No, No, I think that's right. I think we will know.
We will understand and accept that he has changed and
others have changed when they actually put themselves out there
on a story in the future that isn't easy.
Speaker 2: Wait, like a story that would actually hurt their political party, yeah, or.
Speaker 1: Put them up against the democratic machine in the last Like, no,
Joe Byen is useless to Democrats now, it's easy to punch.
For him to be a punching bag for them. It
was easy today that the first presidential debate against Donald
Trump happened in twenty twenty four and everyone turned on him.
They did it to save the Democratic Party. They didn't
do it for journalism. So the entire idea that he's
done something brave or so searching, you know, or is
doing some so searching, I don't buy it. He's making
a lot of money. It's almost like and I'm not
comparing being a soldier to being a journalist, but it's like,
in a journalistic way, stolen valor, you know. He's like,
you know, we were writing about I was writing and
you were writing about this a long time ago, and
now we don't or at least I don't have any
kind of access. So they do. They're in the White House.
He has access. He's a powerful journalist with a perch,
you know, on a big network as far as news goes.
And yet he did nothing. So once he does something,
once he comes out against a Democrat when it matters,
when it can hurt them in an election, then I'll
believe him. And I can pretty sure that that is never.
Speaker 2: Going to happen, going to exactly, So listen, it's not.
Speaker 1: You know, we're bashing him because he's kind of cashing
in on it, But it wasn't just him. It was
everyone every and I'm not this is not an exaggeration.
It's not virtually every it's every major publication on the
left or establishment media gaslight us over and over again,
called us conspiracy theorists when we pointed out that Joe
Biden was not running the country probably not running the country.
And again, for the historical record, we should know what happened.
We should know if he had cancer and if he
knew it, but we should also know who was making decisions.
And I think we talked about you know before, but
no names, no names so far in what we've seen
from original Sin his book, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, my favorite example of this is that they were
releasing this like explosive detail about how the Wall Street Journal,
four years after everybody else noticed, wrote a piece saying, yeah,
Biden's got some decline issues and it's like a serious thing.
And it was one of these pieces that it's like, yeah, no,
no joke, We've all noticed, We've noticed it for a
very very long period of time. But they were vilified
for their coverage of this. Jake Tapper mocked them, derided
them as being puppets of Rupert Murdoch and because he
owns the Wall Street Journal and he would bring on
Democrats to discount the story. So then he writes with
Alex Thompson that a different media outlet was going to
write a similar story, but then someone close to Joe
Biden yelled at them, and so they decided not to
do it. And they don't name who the other outlet is.
They don't name who the other reporters are. There's nothing
new about realizing that the Biden camp was telling reporters
not to write stuff. We all know that that's not news,
and that's also, by the way, not news for any politician.
They just usually follow what the Democrats say, and they
don't follow what Republicans say. But tell and unless they
named the media outlet and the reporters involved, it's not
worth even talking about.
Speaker 1: You know. I took a quick, quick dip into the
book which came out this week, and I haven't read
the whole thing or anything, but there are no names,
like all the stories themselves are in a way, as
you alluded to a cover up operation protecting people who
were involved, we don't know who was involved, but maybe
in the White aff again one day. Shouldn't we know
that they did this? This is a this is a
were their laws broken? Right? Were their laws broken? But
also I noticed something that was interesting and there was
a outtake somewhere about this. But there is an incident
they can I say this. They try to kind of
take Democrats and show that show that they had acted well.
So like one of them's Josh Shapiro. He's in the book,
and there's an incident where he tried this is after
the first debate, so like everyone knew it was over anyway,
so that they make shapirat to be this hero that
he really isn't. But whatever. Joe Biden asks him, how
do you think things are going? And he tries to
tell Joe Biden things are going very poorly, right, he
goes and they're not going that well, and he wants
to tell him more, and Jill Biden whisks stops the
meeting and whisks Joe away. Remember, by the end of
the campaign list, I'm not one of those people who
knows or thinks for sure that Jill Biden was running
the doctor Jill Biden was running the country anything. Remember
she sent out pictures of herself prepping for the G
seven and then she was at a cabinet meeting and
PolitiFact told us that she's not running the US quote.
I'm like, are you sure about that? But it was
obvious that he was. You know that Jill was kind
of controlling the things that he would hear and see,
which is is problematic. She's not elected official now. Obviously
if she was doing it for good reasons, like to
protect him because things were going you know, his health
was declined, and that'd be one thing, but then he
wouldn't have been running in the first place. She would
have stopped him from running. Last thing I quickly want
to say on Joe Biden here is that I have
seen this kind of effort I guess, and I actually
see it among Republicans now to rationalize and justify Biden's
role completely in this that he is not blameless. He
has always been reckless, always been corrupt in a sense.
He's you know, just a liar, his key, A person
who can't acknowledge his granddaughter's existence for years is the
kind of person who would lie about his health to
be president. I just don't think he is. We should
whitewash his role in what happened here. Are conscientious, patriotic
person does not run for president at his age with
what was going on.
Speaker 2: Har mean. I think part of what you're seeing happen there, though,
is that people are trying to say, well, Biden's got
stage four cancer and mental decline, so don't beat up
on him. And so I think what other people are saying,
I'm not really focused on Biden. I'm focused on all
the people around him who were breaking laws. They're trying
to say, don't use Biden's illness mental and physical as
an excuse to not hold people accountable for the greatest
presidential scandal we've ever seen in this country.
Speaker 3: Are you one of the seven and ten Americans reporting
peak financial stress? The watched Out on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski every day, Chris helps unpack the connection
between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
Seventy percent of Americans are financially stressed, but forty percent
of those people are taking multiple days off work to
cope with it. If that's your plan, you're doing it wrong.
Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you finding Italy be informed. Check out the
Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1: Let's talk now, though, about Jeffrey Epstein. Cash Retel came
out this week and said another FBI officials came out
and said that actually, yeah, Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. That
created a lot of blowback because there's an expectation, I
guess among people mostly online, so I assume there in
the real world as well, that this had to be
some kind of cover up. I've seen, you know, certain
types talking about Mosa did it, and other types you
know this or that, And obviously Epstein was connected to
a lot of powerful people. I never really thought any differently,
And to me, this is just kind of welcome in
a way. Because the JFK files came out, there was
nothing there soul like we knew forever. Sole Gunman, a
communist killed jfkrkid Junior Palestinian killed him. Those Epstein files
that were that embarrassing incident where all the influencers showed
up with the white asse and got empty Epstein files.
I mean it was clear to me then that there's
not going to be anything interesting here. I don't know.
I never I don't think we've ever talked about Epstein.
What do you make of all this?
Speaker 2: Oh man? I have many thoughts and they're all convoluted,
so bear with me. So first off, I laughed when
people were angry at Dan Bongino and Cash Ptel for
saying that they looked at the files and looked like
he had killed himself, because I said something similar like
I looked at the files, but I just said something
similar to that after his death on Fox News, back
when Tucker Carlson was on air, And I have never
come close to getting the amount of hate mail I
got for when I said this. I said something like
I'd see no evidence that he had not killed himself,
and people were like, Molly Hemingway, I thought you were smart,
you are stupid.
Speaker 1: Really your own research, do your own research.
Speaker 2: No, No, they just were like, this is this is
ridiculous of you. Now, I do think that there are
fishy things surrounding his death. I just think he still
might have killed himself, meaning yes, it is very weird
that the cameras at his cell block just happened to
be out the night that he killed himself, or that
the guards happened to fall asleep the night that he
killed himself. That's all weird. And do I think that
maybe everybody was paid money to have these things happen,
and that Jeffrey Epstein was induced to kill himself by
powerful people to protect other people involved in the corruption.
Very possibly. I just still think he killed himself, or
I still think there's no evidence that he did not
kill himself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was just gonna say, I think people watch
too many movies, you know, and they think that it's
just so easy to pull together some kind of conspiracy. Listen,
what you're saying is somewhat plausible. Obviously was connected to
a lot of powerful people. But I just don't know
why people can't accept the fact that sometimes people kill
themselves who are in trouble.
Speaker 2: You get those? Do you get those emails from people
who are like in prison and they're like, I've figured
out the conspiracy. Do you ever get those?
Speaker 1: Or no? Yes? Better in the old days, I used
to get the mail. Have you ever gotten those where
people write so I get like fifty page letters, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yes, like on yellow legal pad.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, exactly.
Speaker 2: I've unraveled how my wife framed me for the you
know whatever, so I have I just kind of file
all that stuff away into a conspiracy theory folder. And
I am embarrassed at how many people were alerting me
to the Epstein situation years before he was arrested, and
they would just say, there's this dramatic criminal conspiracy involving
some of the most high level people in the world
and child sex trafficking, and I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah,
and I feel very embarrassed about it. It was hard
to separate out the real ones from the fake ones,
and if you don't have time to dig into it,
you just kind of have to put them all away.
And there are so many fake ones, but the Epstein
one was real, and he really was engaged in child
sex trafficking with powerful people from around the world. And
I don't think we have come close to understanding exactly
what was going on there, how he was able to
get away with so much, And in fact, it bothers me.
I just want to say, it bothers me that people
get mad that when he was charged in Florida for
a few things he did, and they're like, why did
the federal government not charge him with the full panopoly
of what he did. But people forget that that was
the only successful prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, and he clearly
was difficult to prosecute and had powerful people and enough
money for excellent legal representation. But that was the only
time he was ever held accountable before his day now
burning in hell.
Speaker 1: So I assume and know he was a bad guy
and did some bad stuff, right, but you know, you
have to we still believe you need to be prosecuted
and found guilty. I don't know that he did every
single thing that everyone says about him, like automatically. I
don't believe that every single person who ever met him
or knew him or was friendly with him was involved
in this stuff. Donald Trump was friends with him, so
now he must have done it, and this one was
friends with him, and Woody Allen was friend you know whatever, whoever.
I mean, he knew everyone, like in New York circles
he was. He was a powerful, successful guy, and he
probably met a lot of people who didn't participate in
the kind of illegality. I just think it's we've gone,
We've gotten to the place with him, because we'll never
we may never know exactly the extent of what he
did that we just assume anyone who ever met him
is sort of guilty. I've just noticed this thing, so
I don't know the full extent of I never have
taken a deep dive. I find stuff like that creepy.
I wish it wasn't there. Child. I want to close
my eyes and just not think about it. But that's
all I'm saying. I mean, I feel like sometimes I
see online people get mad at me because I'm like
aggressively anti conspiratorial, that they buy everything with each of
these people so on that. I also want to mention that,
you know, I wrote a book about conspiracy theories, and
I've heard lately many people say, you know, everything we
were told was a conspiracy, we turned out conspiracy theory,
it turned out to be true, And I just don't
think that's the case. I think we're seeing now that
most of the things that you thought were conspiracy theories
were not JFK RFK, Junior, I've seen probably, I don't know.
I feel now a lot more secure in my anti
conspiratorial position.
Speaker 2: So I don't know if at this point in time,
I know that you're a contrarian, but this might not
be the greatest era to feel confirmed against conspiracy theories
turning out to be true, because we've had some real
doozies recently of things that we were told were a
criminal conspiracy theory that you weren't allowed to even talk
about that turned out to be true, most notably that
COVID was not of natural origin in all likelihood, and
that in all likelihood it escaped from the Wuhan Institute
of Virology where they were doing gain of function research
on how to supercharge viruses. And if you said anything
about that, you were kicked off social media. You were
kicked out of the marketplace of ideas, off Twitter, off
of Facebook. It was totally true, and it was not
allowed to say it. Or if you thought that Democrats
and a few people at the FBI conspired to frame
Donald Trump as a Russian age, you were derided as
a conspiracy theorist, when in fact they there was a conspiracy.
You were theorizing about it, and you were right. There
was a cabal of people who were lying in order
to have political gain. There are so many different examples
of people being told that things are conspiracy theories and
then finding out that they are in fact true, and
this loss of trust in institutions is not great, but
it's entirely well deserved. Right, Like, the people don't trust
the powers that be to report news accurately or to
say things with any kind of like whether it's public
health or journalists or whatever. It's not great that we've
lost this trust in institutions, but they earned that loss
of trust.
Speaker 1: I think that we have a confusing usage of the
term conspiracy theory, and it's frustrating for me too. I
wrote a book about it, and a lot of times
that we're talking about aren't really conspiracy theories. They're just
be belying to us. In my view, the Russia collusion
hopes people who believed that that was the conspiracy theory.
The conspiracy theory is that Donald Trump was a stooge
or a Manchurian candidate for Putin. That's the conspiracy theory.
You diult, Yeah, you debunked that conspiracy theory. The COVID
thing was just an effort, probably were Chinese money to
deflect from the truth and shut people down. I'm not
sure that's a conspiracy theory. I totally agree with you.
We don't trust the institutions because they lie to us.
They weaponized the term conspiracy theory to try to make
to gas slightly or try to make you sound like
your nuts. That's not to say everything they're talking about
is conspiracy theory. The JFK assassination, what people believe happened,
that's a conspiracy between powerful people, a lot of people,
just like the Russia collusion hopes. But I think you did,
you and others debunk that rather quickly in historic terms.
Some people still out there probably believe it's true. But
I think with the Internet you get a lot of
conspiracy theorists, a lot of it, it's all over, But
you also have an easier time getting the word out
to debunk certain things as well. So it's kind of
you know, goes both ways. But I don't know. I
guess I was just talking about the big ones. I
think like forty or fifty percent of people. I'm making
that up, but it's some big number. Believe that you
know that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone. That's a
big one, I think, because when it happened, we didn't
have the kind of access that we do now to
people and events, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: So yeah, but even that is like to me, Wow,
I'm not a JFK person, JFK killing person. I'm not
read well on it. But I've talked with a lot
of people. I think I've mentioned that I love to
ask people i'm interviewing what would be the one conspiracy
theory they believe in, like the one they most likely
to believe in far and away. The politicians always say
something about JFK that they feel like that was not
fully explained as it was. And I've talked to them
about it, and usually what they're saying is not the
Lee Harvey Oswald. Didn't you know that he wasn't the
person who killed him. But it's usually about who Lee
Harvey Oswald was, what his background was, whether he was
kind of an agent of some people, whether we were
using him to try to infiltrate him into Russia, and
whether like how things went with that. They have always
these interesting stories about, you know, tape recordings of him
being in the Mexican embassy. You know, I don't know,
I'm not into it, but they're not there. I think
we need to make sure that we understand that when
they talk about it being a conspiracy theory, it's not
necessarily as dramatic as it sounds of like a couple
of powerful people all engaged in an attempt. It could
be just like a handful of people engaged in an attempt
to use this person to take someone out.
Speaker 1: I mean, I would just recommend jern Ol Posner's Bookcase Closed.
He goes through each of these claims and talks about them.
There's other good books on it. I got into it
for a while, but you know, it's a real time side.
You're like, why am I doing this? But I find
it interesting. I don't. I don't. It reminds me of
nine to eleven conspiracies. I don't understand why people been
on al Qaeda said they wanted to do this. They
try others tried to do it before, to take down
the towers. They did it, they took responsibility for it.
We know the people who were involved all of that,
and yet people are still like, nah, it's got to
be something else. Le Lee Harvey Oswald was a comedy
He went he lived in the Soviet Union. He tried
to go to Cuba. He went to Mexico to try
to get to Cuba.
Speaker 2: He had a lot of connections with the CIA, there's
no need to deny that, right, I am denying that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was an idiot. He was an idiot, and
the FBI knew he was an idiot. Anyway, Listen, we don't.
Speaker 2: Have to take a deep I think, and that doesn't
that doesn't contradict that you know, when they're when they're
working with people. I think they're frequently working with idiots
or easily controllable people.
Speaker 1: I think because of recent events, I want to say this, uh,
with intelligence agencies CIA, starting even with Iraq, but before
then even maybe WAKO, with with kind of internal policing
and stuff. People think that these groups are more powerful
and more corrupt than they probably probably are, or more
competent than they probably are to pull off things historically
in this way. But who knows. Anyway, Well, maybe we'll
have a conspiracy theory episode. We'll take a little deeper dive.
My let's talk about Christie Known for a moment she
was in front of Congress the other day. It's a
Democrat was kind of drilling her on the old Haitian thing,
including the Venezuela and gang members and so on, and
asked her to define habeas corpus and she just bungled
it like it seems to me like she probably didn't
really understand what it was, which is not good. I've
never been a real fan of hers to begin with.
She was kind of if I remember correctly, wasn't like
she wasn't she like a total coward on like keeping
boys out of girls sports or something like that when
she was governor. She's just I just think she's in
over her head and this is the sort of person
I don't want in the government. I don't know, what
do you think of her?
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm not sure what I think of her. I'm
not the biggest fan, mostly dating back to how she Yeah,
she did not handle the effort to put boys in
girls sports, and you know she did not handle that
well or the effort to stop that from happening. She
has a lot of ties to powerful corporate interests in
South Dakota that I think affected her in ways that
were not great. But when she was asked about habeas
corpus and she said that it was the means by
which you can detain to deport people, I was just surprised, Like,
that's not it's not a total trick question here. I mean,
that's what we're debating right now is how much due
process is afforded to people who are in the country illegally.
It's a really important question, and the Supreme Court has
already said that due process is afforded to these people,
but they haven't really clarified in any way the amount
of due process that should be there. And most Americans
I think, range from Okay, they're here illegally, so we
just need to make sure we have the right person
and then get them out to On the other hand,
people say we need to run through twelve, fifteen, eighteen
years of court processes before we decide to keep these
people here anyway. And the spread between these two things
is massive. But most people think, like, you need to
at least make sure you got the right person and
you didn't like pick up an American citizen or something.
Speaker 1: I hate when people say that illegal aliens don't have
constitutional rights. I hear that every day all the time.
They do have constitutional rights. Everyone has a right to
some level of due process. The question is what level
of due process do illegal immigrants have or not have.
That's always been the case, right with the Supreme Court.
The idea that everyone gets to have the same court
process that a citizen has, you know, and all of
that is just simply not true. We actually have courts
and a process set up for people who are illegally
to deport them or to let them stay for some reason.
We do that now. We can change that anytime we
want through legislation, right, I mean, if it becomes too
owners for this country or whatever, because people have created.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, if it becomes too onerous. We have
a system where we've had ten million people come in
in just the last few years illegally or staying here illegally,
and it's impossible to deport them. It's not an if situation.
It's actually a crisis. And that's why you're seeing fewer
and fewer people support even any due process for these
criminal illegal aliens who are being deported. It's I mean,
I don't know how the country survives this where when
Joe Biden and the people who handle Joe Biden just
open the gates wide open and say come on in,
and then the courts, through this like judicial coup, say oh,
by the way, there's nothing you can really do to
stop it or take care of the problem. I mean
that you cease to be a country when that's the
general system in play.
Speaker 1: But none of that excuses a highlight level official, cabinet
official not understanding how it works. I think if you're
going to do things like this, you want to have
people who are confident and can explain why and how
we're doing things right.
Speaker 2: So, well, it's like what we just talked about, it's
important to explain. Okay, yes, of course there's some you know,
we want to make sure that they have a right
to say that we've got the wrong person. But that's it,
you know, that's that's the only thing we're going to allow.
Before they're deported, they can just make the case that
they aren't who we think they are. Yeah, if you
don't even understand the particulars, you're not going to make
that case very well.
Speaker 1: I mean, if she believes you can just start going
around imprisoning people without you know that the president can
just remove habeas corpus just for I don't even think
she understands it on a high school civic level, So
I think that's problematic.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's worth noting there have been times in
our country's history where we have suspended habeas corpus and
war times constitutional Yeah, well, sure, I mean, that's it's
a worthy.
Speaker 1: Twice right twice so Adams and then link in. But
I believe that was also done through legislation, whatever it is.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm not I'm not disputing at all that
the Supreme Court has long held that people in the
country illegally do get some due process. I'm not sure
if I agree with the idea that people who are
not citizens of this country are protected by the Constitution,
which is like separate than saying that they shouldn't get
some due process rights. But I'm just saying the Constitution
is for the citizens of the country, I think, and
not for non citizens or people in other countries.
Speaker 1: I guess that's up for I've always found it confusing
in the sense that, Okay, the people tell me that
illegals have constitutional rights, that's fine, they have due process rights. Well,
do they have Second Amendment rights? I mean, if they
have First Amendment rights, do they have Second Amendment rights?
Do they have you know, the other individual rights or
in the Constitution or just some of them. I'm fine
with acting humanly towards people, and part of acting humanly
towards people, even those who break the laws that they
do get some sort of due process. So I'm fine
with that. Like, I don't want to send a person
who came in here seasonally to deal with crops into
an l Salvadory in prison or whatever. Like, I want
to make sure we send people back to the right place,
whatever it is, but I do want to send them out.
It's become very difficult to do that, as you say.
So anyway, I just wanted to talk about her. You
think she kind of is a grand standard, the way
she dresses for the part and goes to like Dantel Salvador.
It's just be a professional, get the job done. It's
not a photo shoot. You know.
Speaker 2: I saw someone refer to her as Ice Barbie. But
it is also clear that President Trump picked for his
cabinet secretaries people who are good on TV or who
look good on TV, who can make the case in
a compelling way publicly. That's why what she said was
such a failure, because her role is to basically communicate
the strategy in a congressional hearing or on television, and
her deputy should be the one actually implementing all the
policies in a competent, careful way.
Speaker 1: Rubio was on the other day with Van Holland. He
did a fantastic job pushing back again on this very
issue I believe, and he just always does a good job.
And I think, you know, he has experience he as
a senator and he's just I don't love everything you
know about him as a senator, but I do think
he's perfect for that position in the sense. I mean,
you might not disagree on his policy views sometimes, but you.
Speaker 2: Know, I just have to say, of all the cabinet secretaries,
he has to be the most impressive in terms of
what he's been dealing with and how he's put things forward.
His performance, I hate that word. It sounds like I'm diminishing.
What he did against the Democrat senators was amazing. A
lot of people paid attention to his interactions with Chris
van Holland, who disparaged him, and then when Rubio responded,
he talked about how Van Hallen is working to protect
these criminal people, like he's like the one you had
a margarita with, which I don't think technically was margarita,
but I thought an even more important exchange between Rubio
and I can't remember which senator it was, and forgive
me was about oh, it was Tim Kaine, my senator.
It was about bringing in the fifty nine africaners, and
my senator was extremely upset about this. He just was
appalled that these people were brought in, and it sounded
like he was saying he was appalled because they were white.
He kept on bringing up race and talking about like
black people coming in and why aren't you know? It
was such such a weird thing because it's only fifty
nine people. And Rubio had such excellent responses. I highly
encourage people to go and listen to the clips where
he was explaining that our entire immigration policy, including refugee policy,
should be built around what is in our country's interest.
He's like, there are millions of deserving refugees each year,
we cannot possibly bring them all in, and so we
have to think about who is right to bring in.
He's like these fifty nine farmers who are checking every
box for persecution in South Africa. There's a horrific land
seizing and persecution of white farmers in South Africa. Unfortunately,
he said, you know, these are a really good match.
They will assimilate very easily. And it was so funny,
like I don't know if you used the word assimilate,
but do you remember how we used to understand that
assimilation was an important part of immigration, and now it's
just never talked about or almost viewed as something wrong
if you want people in fact, I remember in college
at the University of Colorado, they would always get very
angry at the melting pot symbolism that we used to
use to talk about when you come to America. You
might have your own flavor, but you want to make
a particularly flavorful soup, so you have to think about
like what ingredients go in and then have them work
together in a way that's conducive to the eventual meal.
And people are so upset about that, and so they
would say, like, less bad is an analogy of a
chopped salad, where you don't lose yourself in the salad,
you don't melt down. But now it's like we're not
even talking salads. We're talking about just everybody, come in
with your own culture. It doesn't matter what your views are,
what your norms are, what anything is. Just come on in,
doesn't matter if you're illegally or illegally, and we're never
going to talk about assimilation. And I just loved that
Marco Rubio was talking about it and talking about what
serves our country instead of just acting like we're supposed
to let everybody in regardless of how it affects us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's right, of course. I mean it is racism
against these Africanners who are being thrown out of their
farms and being persecuted in ways that are just as
bad as a lot of people come here. I've seen
people saying the these are the people, you know, these people,
these refugees, were the ones who like inflicted the terror
of apartheid on everyone. Well, we're really going to do
that kind of collective guilt. I don't know what these
people thought, and they weren't. There hasn't been apartheid in
a long time. They did not participate in that. We
can't allow people from places that have some kind of
fascistic government, for instance. We should diversify or immigration a
lot so that we don't get big chunks of the
same kind of people here, because then they're going to
have a harder time assimilating. So why can't we bring
in fifty people from South Africa? And why do why
does it have to be I think that during the
Obama and by the years, like the most people came
here were from Islamic countries. Well, I'm sorry if this
offends people. They have a lot of Islamic people with
a lot harder time assimilating and integrating into free societies.
We see that happen in Europe and that's bad for
them and it's bad for us. So if we can
bring people who have a tradition, a Western, traditional understanding
of the world, they're going to assimilate easier. And that's
just how it is. We should bring in more people
like that. I don't know, I find it really ridiculous
how you can be racist. I'm not saying white people
are persecuted, he or anything, but it is you can
freely be racist against white people in this country. I mean,
you see it all the time, and you know, it's
just accepting.
Speaker 2: Like my senator Tim Kaine, who was just livid that
white people would be considered refugees, it was really shocking
to watch it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they become so identitarian, they think that a white
person can't be oppressed in this world. It's ridiculous. It's
my senator to Unfortunately, all right, you want to talk
about culture, all right, do you want to go first?
You want me to go first?
Speaker 2: You go?
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, I did a lot of traveling this weekend
and I drove out to Indiana, and it's a very
boring drive, though I will say I love love West Virginia.
It is so beautiful. It's my favorite state. I decided
this time that I would stop in every time I
could and go to the local record store. So I
did that and it was like a funny little adventure
on this kind of you know, twelve hour drive, which
I split up into two days. So I went to
record stores. One in the Shenando Valley Stoughton is at
like where Widrow Wilson was born, was went there. Then
I stopped in Charleston, West Virginia, had a very nice
record store there. Then I went up to Columbus, Ohio,
and I have to mention this record store. It's called
Used Kids. I don't know enough about Columbus to tell
you what neighborhood it is it's in. It was one
of the best record stores I've ever been in. Cool.
It had all kinds of weird stuff that I liked,
but it also had mainstream stuff, had a whole jazz
section had a whole like, so you know record store
is going to be good when there's like metal rock, indie,
post honk, jazz, blues like it had it all in
all well stocked. So I showed up there. It open
it ten thirty and so I showed up there ten
thirty in the morning and the place was already packed.
Just fantastic place if you're ever in Columbus. Then I
went to Indianapolis and then I went Yeah, I went
to Indianapolis. So I bought like twenty records. I shouldn't
have bought vinyl. New vinyl is so expensive. I just
don't even understand how like a young person can get
into it, Like thirty five forty bucks a record. Have
you noticed that I have? It's insane. And yes, I
spent a lot of my disposable cash on records. I
feel like I should grow up. But anyway, so that's
what I did. Do you want to know some of
the records I got? I do? Or is this going
to board people? I found this cool old Jethrotel record.
Look at that.
Speaker 2: Oh that's awesome.
Speaker 1: We'll stand up. Yeah, A soft machine. Have you ever
listened to them? Kind of like a seventies jazz. This
is a weird like prog band from the seventies. Oh yeah,
isn't it kind of funky? Yeah? Kerub Have you ever
heard of them? They're amazing. They were like, uh, not
the Hoople, I.
Speaker 2: Like not the hoopel and one song in particular, but
I can't remember what that is right now, so sorry.
Speaker 1: And then I got John mcgaughlan, who was kind of
like a jet. He was in Maha Vishnu Orchestra. Have
you ever heard of that?
Speaker 2: I have a lot of their albums.
Speaker 1: Then I got two or three more I think Guided
by Voices done this for five dollars?
Speaker 2: Cool? I have that album Red.
Speaker 1: Cross New Rotica. Have you ever heard of this album?
Speaker 2: That at all?
Speaker 1: You would love this album? I who suggests you? You
listen to it?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: And then last but not at least, I got the
first Meat Puppets album, which I've been searching for forever.
Speaker 2: That's so exciting for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, super exciting, So thank you. How about you?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't remember what it was, but I remember
where I was that we recently got an album for
you for next time we see you. Like, I was like, oh,
we have to get that for David, but I can't
remember what it was.
Speaker 1: I told Mark that I have a bunch of albums
for you, and guess why, because I have not ever
listed the albums I have and I buy doubles all
the time. So I have XDC albums for you. If
you don't have them, I have a bunch of albums coming.
Speaker 2: So so yeah, So we got that in Frederick, which
is a very good town for records.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they have a great record store there anything.
Speaker 2: Or is it Fredericksburg? I get the two confirmed.
Speaker 1: Frederick has a real Maryland has a really good store.
Speaker 2: Okay, it was Fredericksburg, which has a ton of really
good good records. And while I was in so our
kid was playing softball down there, and so we we
went and we went to the record stories while we
were waiting for the game to start, and I got
a couple of nine inch Nails records, which you cannot
play around the kids.
Speaker 1: You know. It is weird how much of the music
you can't play around the kids that we listened to,
you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And then Mark had been somewhere I don't remember
where he was, maybe it was in Portland, and he
got smashing Pumpkins Siamese stream. Funny thing was this is like, oh, Henry,
you know. I was in New York and I went
into a record store and was with one of my kids,
and I was like, oh, we should get this for dad.
And then when we both came home from our shared trips,
he had already gotten the Siamese stream. Okay. So for
other culture stuff, last night I went to a Five
for Fighting concert at the Birchmere, which is a great
venue right by our like our neighborhood basically, and a
bunch of acts come through there that are just great.
And so Five for Fighting is John Andre Sick and
he does this tour with like four stringed instruments and
he's just such a great songwriter and it was a
really great thing. Also, of interest, Senator Jonie Ernst did
a guest appearance singing on one of the songs. And
also John Roberts, my colleague at Fox News, guested on
two songs and he is a really great guitar player
and did a great job and he closed out the
show and people were losing their minds, so that was great,
and there were a lot of people like sorry, there
were a lot of people like DC people at the
show like former National Security Advisor and nominated UN Ambassador
Mike Waltz and Jennifer Griffin from Fox News and Hugh
Hewitt and Larry O'Connor, who I love. I mean not
to single him out, because there were many good people there,
but so it's just kind of funny to see all
sorts of people there that we knew too.
Speaker 1: That's nice. I don't know anything about that band, and
I know five for Fighting is it that hockey?
Speaker 2: But other than that, yeah, so John Andresik just he
has like a couple like super super hits, including Superman.
But he's just also a really great songwriter and performer,
so it's always a good show. This is I think
the third time I've seen him, and he's really good. Okay,
So my other cultural thing is that we saw Gaslight
at the request of one of our kids who really
wanted to see it. Have you seen this movie? No,
Holy schmolly. It is really great movie that I highly
recommend people watch. You used the term earlier in the
show of Gaslighting, right, and so that's where it comes from.
Is this movie, which is Ingrid Bergmann plays a wife
of a man who kind of slowly makes her think
she's crazy, and she gives such an amazing performance, Like
I cannot stop thinking about it. And it's set in
Victorian England and Italy, and the performances are just great.
And it's like a not a super quick movie. It's
kind of a slow, deliberate movie. But and I also,
I'm gonna say, I think it might be more of
a female movie than a male movie, which is not
to say that it isn't an Oscar winning movie for reason,
but it really gets into that way that men have
some you know, they have authority in marriages, and how
that can be abused. And I think that's going to
be a message that might be more terrifying to women
than to men. But I really enjoyed it, Like, I
will definitely watch that again.
Speaker 1: Now I've heard of it. I thought you were talking
about some new movies, so it kind of like escaped me.
But yeah, I've never seen it. I will watch it
on your recommendation. Anything else I problem?
Speaker 2: Oh yes, sorry. There was also this great thing which
my church puts on a spring concert series, and we
had that this Saturday and it was just magnificent. So
we so it's my church my church is choir, and
then our like elite choir, which is the back collegium.
And then we also bring in a ton of ringers,
you know, like professional singers who were magnificent. And then
we have people in our church with tremendous musical gifts,
including a harpist and a violinist, and and they're both great.
The violinist is like a young lady and the feeling
she has already is just tremendous. But they did selections
from Arvox Part and Talis and Schubert, and oh, it's
so great.
Speaker 1: He's like from some Baltic bodies Estonian I always forgot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't, Oh you know what. Actually it was
a it was a listener to our podcast who wrote
the program notes for this, and they were hilarious and
I wish I had them right now. They're really well done.
But I felt silly that I didn't realize Arvo Part
is still alive.
Speaker 1: Yea, he's old, but he is. I'm such a fan, Yeah,
such a fan that I have a bunch of his records.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Deers Cry and Morning Star were what they performed,
and then from Tallis it was a New Commandment and
if he loved me, and then the Schubert. Oh there's
another Arvo part was the Spiegel m Spiegel, which was
the harp and violinist doing that, and then saw him
twenty three from Schubert and the mass in g Major.
It was truly magnificent. Like I'm just I love that
my church does this once a year and you go
to some churches and the choir, you know, it's great,
but it's like there are people like me, you know,
amateurs who cannot sing that great. But our choir, under
the direction of our canter Stephanie mcconan, is just like
it's amazing, it's so well done.
Speaker 1: I just want to say thank you. You know, we
can probably hear you. You're a little under the weather,
and you did a fantastic job. I just want to
say that. And I also want to mention that this
was believe it or not, our one hundred and fiftieth
episode of Your Wrong Wow. Yeah, not counting you know
the stuff we did before them.
Speaker 2: We used to do a podcast under a different name. Yeah,
so wait, this reminds me too. We got an email
like this week or last week that was like, why
are you guys always asking for emails. We love our emails.
That's how we that's the only way we can communicate with.
Speaker 1: I don't think you should speak for me. I don't
really love all of that. He still love.
Speaker 2: Maybe you'll get a ton of nice email too.
Speaker 1: I know I love those well. Anyway, if you want
to email us, if you email us is Radio at
Federalist dot com. We actually read and sometimes talk about them. Obviously,
Molly is too overwhelmed with work all the time. She
can answer all your emails, and I choose not to
answer your emails even though I have the time.
Speaker 2: Can I One thing we got from a listener, this
amazing coffee, which, by the way, it was supposed to
be for you and for me, but I think I'm
just going to be using all of it because it's
too hard to get it to you.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to off the coffee.
Speaker 2: Oh this is so good. So I just wanted to
mention it because it was just a listener. And remember
when we talked about drinking coffee and how Mark Hemingway
doesn't drink coffee and stuff like that. So he sent
something in and it's great, and it's Whacker Coffee Company
and it's so yummy, and it's just like really great blend.
And I got it in Bean for him and it
was just great. And they have like very sort of
coated names for the coffee blends, Red Tape e Pluribus Unim,
some per Vegelunds, and then Wright Country, which was something
done for a podcast by Brian Dean.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Anyway, it was all really good and I just wanted
to mention it because that was so nice of him
to send it to us. And I'm sorry if I
don't get.
Speaker 1: It to you, maybe I'll just order Ferguson for myself.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, okay, great, that's it.
Speaker 1: All right, thank you, nice seeing you, Molly, and we'll
see everyone next week. Until then, be lovers of freedom
and anxious for the friend