Speaker 1: Well whiskey coming fame, my pain, the holidays all ray,
Speaker 1: oh whiskey.
Speaker 2: Why think alone when you can drink it all In with.
Speaker 3: Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy.
Speaker 2: Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and the
Speaker 2: International Woman of Mystery Lucretia, where.
Speaker 4: They slapping up and David, ain't you easy on the
Speaker 4: should happy?
Speaker 1: Got to give in and.
Speaker 2: Let that whiskey.
Speaker 1: Welcome everybody to a holiday episode of the Three Whiskey
Speaker 1: Happy Hour. We're counting that a days to Christmas, although
Speaker 1: we will have a special Christmas episode for everyone, but
Speaker 1: before we do. This is going to be one of
Speaker 1: the last episodes of through Whiskey Happy Hour for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, and we are joined by our holiday themed
Speaker 1: co We have the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia, who
Speaker 1: has an advent calendar that evolves skyscrapers, explosions and many guns.
Speaker 1: What is that, Lucretia?
Speaker 3: What do you have there?
Speaker 4: It is the die Hard Christmas Official Christmas die Hard
Speaker 4: Advent Calendar. It's nacotomy tower, explosion, helicopter and Hans Kruber
Speaker 4: is almost splat at the bottom because it is the
Speaker 4: eighteenth of December.
Speaker 1: And what are you drinking to go along with the
Speaker 1: Advent calendar? What is the die hard appropriate liquor of choice?
Speaker 4: You're gonna laugh, You're gonna laugh really hard. Not only
Speaker 4: am I not drinking liquor, I am drinking Mexican water
Speaker 4: that I paid.
Speaker 1: For Mexican waterbo Chico.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I think it's don't you think it's kind
Speaker 4: of funny to actually pay actual money for Mexican water
Speaker 4: in a bottle.
Speaker 1: It's so funny. I never do it. I really like,
Speaker 1: what are where you? What are you drinking? And what's
Speaker 1: your concession to the holiday spirit?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: So this is really bad to me. I've been traveling
Speaker 2: all week and I'm I'm still a little dehydrated.
Speaker 3: So I just finished a Gin and Tonic because I
Speaker 3: need the tonic, you know. So I know that's bad.
Speaker 1: But do you have any Yeah, that's so lame. Do
Speaker 1: you have any Christmas activities or clothing or anything that
Speaker 1: rivals Lucretia's no die hard Advent calendar.
Speaker 2: That's well, there's that, And she's also for viewer, the
Speaker 2: few viewers, so that people can watch us they want
Speaker 2: later because I'll post the video. She's all tricked out
Speaker 2: and you know, tricked out, dressed up and you know,
Speaker 2: splashy Christmas looking clothing. No, I am what I did
Speaker 2: acquire my roast beast for Christmas Day? You know, a
Speaker 2: giant rib roast that I'm gonna, you know, figure out.
Speaker 1: Oh so, I don't know. I would have thought Steve,
Speaker 1: you were more of a goose man given your you know,
Speaker 1: resemblance to Ebenezer Scrooge.
Speaker 4: No, no, And I will tell you if you ever
Speaker 4: roast a duck on your on your grill and you
Speaker 4: your dripping span put potatoes.
Speaker 2: In the drink.
Speaker 3: Oh maybe that's a great idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I'm you know, because you guys were fighting
Speaker 1: earlier today, I feel.
Speaker 4: Done. We have known each other for so long. Do
Speaker 4: you think a little tiff like that is going to
Speaker 4: break a friendship.
Speaker 1: I was like they're getting divorced or something. It was
Speaker 1: like I was the child of divorce again. Here, you guys,
Speaker 1: I'm so glad the listeners never read your texts of
Speaker 1: each other. So, because you guys are so mean to
Speaker 1: each other, I'm going to break out the willet in
Speaker 1: the gigantic in the giant bottle.
Speaker 4: Here you're making me want to go get some Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now I always offered out because I have to.
Speaker 4: Be at four in the morning, your guys' time, but maybe.
Speaker 2: I was really will damn you John? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Man, Well, like I said, you're you're you're guys bickering
Speaker 1: and fighting is and me to drink. We're not really
Speaker 1: to drive you guys to drink.
Speaker 4: We're talking past each other as usual.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, Yes, okay, much more.
Speaker 4: We did this not on text. We could actually probably
Speaker 4: come to an understanding. But yeah, that's that's then. This
Speaker 4: has happened for years, John.
Speaker 1: Oh good god, how can you take it for that long? Anyway,
Speaker 1: So the first topic I think we're going to discuss
Speaker 1: is the shooting at Brown. As we are taping the show,
Speaker 1: there's breaking news that the police have finally found the shooter.
Speaker 1: They were all kinds of conspiracy theories circling around this
Speaker 1: because the Brown, I mean the Providence police at first
Speaker 1: caught somebody, then they released us person of interest that
Speaker 1: they were cleared. That's been Let's see, the shooting was
Speaker 1: on Saturday, so up until today there didn't seem to
Speaker 1: be any progress made. There was talk that it might
Speaker 1: be related to the shooting of an Am I tea
Speaker 1: professor also in the last week. I'm not sure whether
Speaker 1: that's true now that it turns out that the brown shooter,
Speaker 1: according to results reports we're just getting has died at
Speaker 1: a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire, which was surrounded
Speaker 1: by armed police. And we'll get more details. But despite
Speaker 1: the details, what do you all make of the brown shooting?
Speaker 1: I mean, this has followed a number of shootings that
Speaker 1: have been taking place on college campuses. Remember Charlie Kirk
Speaker 1: was assassinated on a college campus as well. Does this
Speaker 1: mean we need to harden and wepping up, wepping up
Speaker 1: on campuses? Is there something we can do about this?
Speaker 1: Is there at a political angle to any of this?
Speaker 1: Is it the case that it's left wing nuts who
Speaker 1: are taking advantage of the openness of college campuses to
Speaker 1: shoot at people?
Speaker 4: Lucretia your tape, Well, let me just say that my
Speaker 4: whole university has been completely dismantled and riled and we
Speaker 4: have now a horrible administration. Hope they're listening because of
Speaker 4: a shooting that took place. A Muslim graduate student who
Speaker 4: was unhappy about I don't know what with an engineering
Speaker 4: professor walked into the classroom and shot him dead. And
Speaker 4: he had been on like all these other things, on
Speaker 4: the radar for some time. But the police they didn't
Speaker 4: do anything about it, and so everybody from the president,
Speaker 4: the provost down ultimately the police chief, all of those
Speaker 4: people just felt like Domino's because of that shooting was gosh,
Speaker 4: it's probably been three years now, but I don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean campus, If you want to be a shooter,
Speaker 4: campus is a great place to do it, because, as
Speaker 4: you probably know, John, the only person who's ever on
Speaker 4: armed on campus, and then only in her car is me.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, the arsenal that she drives around with
Speaker 1: in that tesla, Oh I was. I felt bad for
Speaker 1: any police officer who was going to pull her over
Speaker 1: for speeding, that's for sure.
Speaker 4: Before I concede to Steve the time, I just there.
Speaker 4: I do have a serious comment about what you said,
Speaker 4: and I do think that in so far as some
Speaker 4: of these college university based shootings are actually, you know,
Speaker 4: confined to universities, it's because universities are the hotbeds of
Speaker 4: what I would consider probably the two most controversial issues
Speaker 4: in American politics today, and that would be the whole
Speaker 4: transgender debate. And then of course the Gaza Israel Zionist debate.
Speaker 4: I mean on campuses. You guys are on campuses too,
Speaker 4: both of you. Do you see anything more oh, what
Speaker 4: shall we say? More salient on university campuses? And every
Speaker 4: shooting that I can think of has its relationship to
Speaker 4: one or the other. But you know, I'm not probably
Speaker 4: thinking good Steve.
Speaker 1: Before Steve responds and answers, another detailed just came in.
Speaker 1: The name of the shooter was Claudia Claudia Manuel Nevez Valente,
Speaker 1: forty eight year old former Brown graduate student and Portuguese national,
Speaker 1: last residence was on Miami, found with two firearms on him. Steve,
Speaker 1: what do you think? Well, okay, so this is.
Speaker 2: Real information that maybe changes things a little. And three
Speaker 2: or four things. First, most people don't pay any attention
Speaker 2: to Rhode Island because why would you. It's the size
Speaker 2: of a postage stamp. But it's an incredibly corrupt state.
Speaker 2: And if you watched any of the press conferences of
Speaker 2: the law enforcement, you saw a total clown show. What
Speaker 2: if the babel and be said, she wighams put in
Speaker 2: the investigation? You know, the big bumbling police chief from
Speaker 2: single student who is I'm coming to all that. I
Speaker 2: mean that the list of particulars on you know, they
Speaker 2: picked up a lot of cats and dogs who've fired
Speaker 2: for their jobs for incompetence, and so it's a very
Speaker 2: corrupt state for the public employee union, such that Gina
Speaker 2: Raymundo when she was governor was a reformer, you know,
Speaker 2: she was later became you know, Biden secretary of Commerce,
Speaker 2: uh and then at Brown. So big question marks here.
Speaker 2: There are reports that apparently have some credibility. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure about confirmation yet, that Brown removed lots of security
Speaker 2: cameras after pressure from people who said, well, we don't
Speaker 2: want to help ice and or we don't want to
Speaker 2: help the police identify Gaza protesters, and that the administration
Speaker 2: gave into that. That's not confirmed yet, but you're you're
Speaker 2: hearing that charged And when some reporters good for them,
Speaker 2: asked about this at one of the press conferences, got
Speaker 2: a very heated response. That was a non response from officials.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: The third thing was is the university is something very strange.
Speaker 3: They have a guy I was a student, he's LGBTQ
Speaker 3: plus xyz.
Speaker 2: Omega whatever, all the letters, who's a you know, pro
Speaker 2: Palestinian activist, pretty radical, and they scrubbed his information from.
Speaker 3: The university's website.
Speaker 2: By the way, he looks a lot like the physique
Speaker 2: of the person you saw in the videos that were
Speaker 2: put out. So a lot of people online said, hey,
Speaker 2: I wonder if this is the guy. Now, maybe it's not.
Speaker 2: It sounds like it's not from the information that you've
Speaker 2: just when they do it is John. But you know,
Speaker 2: and the university is saying, oh, we don't want people
Speaker 2: to be docs. We were concerned for the students safety.
Speaker 2: All you did by scrubbing him from the website was
Speaker 2: called more attention to this person.
Speaker 3: That was I mean, again, maybe this is stupidity.
Speaker 2: The old Mike Yeoman rule never chuck up to malice
Speaker 2: what could be explained by epidity, But boy, it certainly
Speaker 2: raises suspicions that they're covering for someone that they may
Speaker 2: have admitted who's a crazy person who might have been
Speaker 2: So maybe it's not him, but still that was a
Speaker 2: dumb move by the university. Then finally, last point, the
Speaker 2: fact that they are investigating and by the way, it's
Speaker 2: been set in the Wall Street Journal this evening, which
Speaker 2: means now mainstream press that they're investigating a connection between
Speaker 2: this shooting and the one of the Jewish mit professor
Speaker 2: who's doing work on fusion energy. They might be connected.
Speaker 2: That starts to look that this is not a typical
Speaker 2: campus shooting or any other kind of mass shooting incident,
Speaker 2: that this was targeted, deliberate planned out. The classroom at
Speaker 2: Brown was on what the fourth floor of the building
Speaker 2: or something. This was not a you know, I want
Speaker 2: to go shoot some people because I'm mad or crazy
Speaker 2: or angry. It's they wanted to go to that classroom
Speaker 2: which had a Jewish professor, and one of the persons,
Speaker 2: care Old was one of the leaders apparently very well
Speaker 2: known and controversial on the campus of the College Republicans. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, we'll see if we learn more about this,
Speaker 2: but all these things make us looks different and very suspicious.
Speaker 1: What do you think about Lucretia's point, Steve, that the
Speaker 1: reason these are taking place on college campuses is because
Speaker 1: we've seen heighten level of violence on campus because of
Speaker 1: the reaction to the Gods of War, which has been
Speaker 1: far to the left on campus, I think then in
Speaker 1: the rest of the country, and then also the ideology.
Speaker 1: She said LGBTQ, or you could say woke, or you
Speaker 1: could say a variety of things, but the extreme I
Speaker 1: would say Marxist ideology that has infected our campuses. Do
Speaker 1: you think that this makes universities a fertile ground for
Speaker 1: political violence of this kind?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I do, I mean I do think there may be
Speaker 2: an aspect of the what do we say, social contagion
Speaker 2: taking place.
Speaker 3: Let's remember, you know mass shootings thirty years ago.
Speaker 2: What's the phrase we used to use is somebody going postal?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's because you had youngsters are like postal?
Speaker 4: What's that that welling? Right? Well?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well there wasn't that many, but it doesn't take
Speaker 2: that many. You had three or four.
Speaker 3: It was only three or four.
Speaker 2: It's a very minor number. But because they were so
Speaker 2: unusual and spectacular, you had three or four disgruntled fired
Speaker 2: postal workers went into their postal offices usually it was
Speaker 2: what they call the mmpc's the mail processing centers uh,
Speaker 2: and shot up twenty people and so it was postal workers.
Speaker 2: So the phrase going postal caught on and that died out.
Speaker 2: But why did it happen more than once? Well, because
Speaker 2: you had copycats, right, the copycat phenomenon is real. I'm
Speaker 2: not an expert on the social science of this, but
Speaker 2: I do think that once she starts, people say, oh,
Speaker 2: I can shoot Charlie Kirk on a college campus. I can,
Speaker 2: I can. I think these things vary. I mean, you
Speaker 2: had a what an Asian student was a VM or
Speaker 2: Virginia Tech.
Speaker 1: Yes, there was a Korean kid, you know, a troubled
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 3: Know what that's about.
Speaker 2: That was that wasn't ideological and I don't think he
Speaker 2: was nuts, that's what he was. Yeah, But the fact
Speaker 2: that you start seeing it at college campuses, Oh, Brown
Speaker 2: University is a gun free zone?
Speaker 3: How could this happen there?
Speaker 2: Right? I do think that people see this harket of opportunity,
Speaker 2: and for whatever reason, I don't discount the creatious reason,
Speaker 2: but for whatever reason, I think we should fear more
Speaker 2: of this.
Speaker 4: What would you do to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what would you do to let's look going forward?
Speaker 1: What would you do should this other other than other
Speaker 1: than give out more advent calendars with about a movie
Speaker 1: about I got a police a police officer who shoots
Speaker 1: up with our in Los Angeles? What would you do
Speaker 1: if we do expect to see more of this and
Speaker 1: of course you know, you know, the three of us
Speaker 1: are college professors. I mean, we know that the parents
Speaker 1: of these families and trust these children to our care,
Speaker 1: and our university is failing in the job of maintaining
Speaker 1: basic security on campus. Is what would you do to
Speaker 1: stop stem this tide of violence?
Speaker 4: So remember when you were when you were coming to
Speaker 4: your wonderful visit to my campus. And I met a
Speaker 4: couple of times with the campus police department, and especially
Speaker 4: with their OSN'T people, their open source intelligence people who
Speaker 4: actually explained to me, and then we talked about how
Speaker 4: we might work together with our own academic program that
Speaker 4: does that. That was part of the reason why I
Speaker 4: got a deeper dive into it. But I think you
Speaker 4: would be surprised how much they actually do look into,
Speaker 4: at least the more obvious ways in which disgruntled students
Speaker 4: former students who might put anything out there on the Internet,
Speaker 4: on Reddit, on TikTok, on those sorts of things, and
Speaker 4: are prepared for them. Those things are much more likely
Speaker 4: to be you know, something like a famous law professor
Speaker 4: from Berkeley comes and gives a public talk, and so
Speaker 4: they're ready for it, and they're watching and they know
Speaker 4: who's been who's been writing about it on social media,
Speaker 4: posting about it. But they also sometimes can see evidence
Speaker 4: of you know, but they're never going to pick up
Speaker 4: these loaners that are are just out there stewing and
Speaker 4: there's not much they can do. And and and everybody
Speaker 4: on a campus in many ways I think is a
Speaker 4: sitting dock, because no campus that I know of allows
Speaker 4: firearms of any kind on it as far as I know,
Speaker 4: you guys, Texas.
Speaker 1: University of Texas at Austin does well, but state law,
Speaker 1: state law requires it. They're not allowed to stop the operations.
Speaker 2: There's been a there's been a big push on many
Speaker 2: campuses to have the campus police force.
Speaker 3: Not have weapons.
Speaker 4: Mine doesn't really really. Yeah, actually, so you remember that
Speaker 4: I'm on a little really quickly. I'm on a little
Speaker 4: branch campus of the university, and we are next door
Speaker 4: to a community college very close to within one hundred yards,
Speaker 4: and we contract out from them our security. They're security guards.
Speaker 4: If our security guard calls them and they have to
Speaker 4: come over because something's happening, they have to go put
Speaker 4: their guns in the locked locker whatever it's called before
Speaker 4: they can come onto our campus. That's the policy. That's
Speaker 4: how serious they take the idea that you're not allowed
Speaker 4: to have a gun on campus stupid.
Speaker 1: I mean it might be a test of that theory
Speaker 1: whether more guns means less crime. If these people might
Speaker 1: be attacking, just like I think they attack K through
Speaker 1: twelve schools because they know they're soft targets, right, And
Speaker 1: if they thought there might be people around with guns
Speaker 1: who I don't know whether it would interfere with the
Speaker 1: culture of openness and learning on that we're supposed to
Speaker 1: try to foster on college campuses if I have more
Speaker 1: armed guards, but I'd rather not be shot either, Steve,
Speaker 1: I mean, well, not.
Speaker 2: To be label at this point, but I go back
Speaker 2: to the nostalgia of pictures of high schools that had
Speaker 2: shooting classes, and you used you can find pictures of
Speaker 2: people who drove to their high school campuses and their
Speaker 2: pickup trucks with their shotguns on the rack in the back.
Speaker 2: That was America at sixty seventy years ago. And Okay,
Speaker 2: I'll just stop there. You get the point.
Speaker 1: Let's turn to our second topic, which is Lucretia was
Speaker 1: right Donald Trump can be president for a third term.
Speaker 3: Who knew?
Speaker 1: According to according to a offbed written by Alan Drschwitz
Speaker 1: and apparently personally discussed by Dershwitz. Apparently Dershwuss has some
Speaker 1: book that he is mentioned to Trump at the White
Speaker 1: House Hanukkah party that argues that Trump could become president
Speaker 1: for a third term, although hasn't he already been elected
Speaker 1: three times by his count anyway he could or bad.
Speaker 1: Apparently Miriam Addelson, the wife of Sheldon Adelson, was told
Speaker 1: about this and during the Hanukkah Christmas party, said this
Speaker 1: would be a great idea that we should do it,
Speaker 1: and Trump apparently said something like you're going to give
Speaker 1: another two hundred and fifty million dollars for that, which
Speaker 1: apparently was evoked laughs. But let me, if I think
Speaker 1: I can test this out on you lay out Dershwitz's theory. So,
Speaker 1: if you look at the twenty second Amendment, which was
Speaker 1: of course added to the Constitution after FDR broke the
Speaker 1: two term tradition, it says no person shall be elected
Speaker 1: to the office of President more than twice. And so
Speaker 1: what he says, I assume is that what if Trump
Speaker 1: became president in some of the ways you can become
Speaker 1: president without being elected. Suppose, for example, you are the president,
Speaker 1: you're running, you're the vice president. And the person running
Speaker 1: as president wins and then steps down. Does a vice
Speaker 1: president who becomes president? Was he actually elected to the presidency.
Speaker 1: So that's case number one. Case number two could be
Speaker 1: suppose this is a little more complicated, the electoral College
Speaker 1: doesn't come to a majority, and the case gets thrown
Speaker 1: into the House, where each state votes by delegation. If
Speaker 1: the House picks you, have you been elected to the presidency.
Speaker 1: Maybe you haven't been, Maybe you've been chosen or selected
Speaker 1: by the House. And there's some talk, well, well, the
Speaker 1: Republicans could run a slate and then tell their delegates
Speaker 1: to just not vote. That would deprive the winner of
Speaker 1: a majority and then would get thrown into the House.
Speaker 1: The third possibility, which actually seems the most realistic of
Speaker 1: these all these very low probabilit events, is suppose the
Speaker 1: president and the vice president win and then they resign.
Speaker 1: That means, under the law of secession, the Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House becomes the president, and the Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House is not required under the constitution to be a
Speaker 1: member of Congress, so the House could essentially pick anyone
Speaker 1: in the country to be the Speaker of the House,
Speaker 1: and that person would become president. They would never have
Speaker 1: been elected to be president, they would just be president
Speaker 1: through the secession law. So I assume der Schwitz is
Speaker 1: arguing that any of these or all of these possibilities
Speaker 1: are ways that President Trump could be president for a
Speaker 1: third term. Lucretia, what do you think? What do you
Speaker 1: think about this? Would you want Trump to be president
Speaker 1: ford term? If he were, would you want him to
Speaker 1: resort to these you know, tricks, or maybe maybe this
Speaker 1: is uh, you know, a legitimate way to interpret the
Speaker 1: twenty second Amendment.
Speaker 3: What do you think?
Speaker 1: I mean?
Speaker 4: I think that that what I the only really interesting
Speaker 4: thing I took from dershowitz article, And I don't I'm
Speaker 4: not really trying to diss him in any way, but
Speaker 4: I didn't think it was very compelling. What you just
Speaker 4: said was a lot more compelling than what Dershowitz had
Speaker 4: to say. But he came up with this wild sort
Speaker 4: of scenario that it would take in order for say,
Speaker 4: the president to have been appointed secretary of State, you know,
Speaker 4: and after what was it?
Speaker 1: The Yeah, that was a stupid way to do it.
Speaker 1: The other three I just.
Speaker 4: More style armageddon event where you know, practically all of Washington,
Speaker 4: d C Is blown up, but not anyway. I hope
Speaker 4: if I was Trump, I would entertain the idea of
Speaker 4: a third a third term only to alleviate some of
Speaker 4: his lame duckness, if that makes sense, right, and that otherwise, God,
Speaker 4: I hope that's why he's doing it, and that makes
Speaker 4: a lot of sense to me. I think waiting a
Speaker 4: little bit longer and then starting to I can't use
Speaker 4: the word that we used to use for this. It's
Speaker 4: starting to work on getting his vice president or probably
Speaker 4: or perhaps his secretary of State is a viable candidate.
Speaker 4: All of those things make sense to me. But he's
Speaker 4: not going to do that yet. It's too early. No,
Speaker 4: I don't want Trump for another term, and I don't
Speaker 4: know that I want anybody. However, I think the twenty
Speaker 4: second Amendment was a stupid idea in the first place.
Speaker 4: It really was. I mean, it goes against the founder's
Speaker 4: intentions for indefinite electability re electability for a lot of reasons,
Speaker 4: and one of them is that we discuss lame duckness. Right,
Speaker 4: you are a lame duck in your second term, no
Speaker 4: matter what. Yes, do you remember when Obama was president,
Speaker 4: they started floating some of these ideas that Clinton could
Speaker 4: make him her vice president, or Clinton could make him
Speaker 4: that you know something, and uh, when she won, which
Speaker 4: we were all certain she was going to of course,
Speaker 4: that way Clinton could become and then he let her
Speaker 4: stay for a while and then he would kick her
Speaker 4: out and become president again. That was a big anyway.
Speaker 4: I don't know, Steve, Look.
Speaker 1: I am Steve.
Speaker 3: What do you think?
Speaker 1: I am? Well, say two questions. One is it is
Speaker 1: it possible that someone could be president three terms? And then,
Speaker 1: even if it is, is this a good idea?
Speaker 3: With twelve?
Speaker 2: Let me go in reverse order. I am for Trump
Speaker 2: having a third term, if only to maximize the pain
Speaker 2: of the left in this country and the media right
Speaker 2: that that that alone is worth. I don't know.
Speaker 1: The first two terms weren't enough for you, Steve. You
Speaker 1: want to tumble down.
Speaker 2: I want more, you Know's as someone said to me
Speaker 2: when Clinton was president. You know, Ronald Reagan with Alzheimer's
Speaker 2: is better than this guy. And that's that's what I
Speaker 2: feel about Trump, right he's just now having said that.
Speaker 2: I think there's several things going on here. I think
Speaker 2: this is Dershowitz wanting to stay in the live light
Speaker 2: like Dershowitz.
Speaker 3: Does, okay.
Speaker 4: In stories today because of his picture with the Epstein releases,
Speaker 4: maybe he just wanted.
Speaker 2: To well, I don't know. I mean, he's been pretty
Speaker 2: even aggressive on that stuff too. The other thing is,
Speaker 2: I can't see this working in practice.
Speaker 3: I mean game this out.
Speaker 2: I mean, suppose there's a sort of one that was
Speaker 2: left out, which was the vice president resigns, who wins
Speaker 2: the election, and then then you'll appoint Trump to be
Speaker 2: vice president and that's confirmed by Congress, and then the
Speaker 2: president steps down and then becomes president. He's not elected.
Speaker 2: But that's another way, it seems. Maybe it's in the
Speaker 2: book that way ame out right. That seems equally plausible
Speaker 2: to me, better than the Speaker of the House. I
Speaker 2: gather that the speaker doesn't have to be a member
Speaker 2: of the House is a contested question.
Speaker 1: No, well, okay, let's leave that aside. The constition just
Speaker 1: doesn't address it at all.
Speaker 2: Okay, I've heard arguments that has to be never mind,
Speaker 2: let's leave that for some other day. My point is,
Speaker 2: how does this work out in the twenty twenty eight
Speaker 2: election campaign? Is Trump out campaigning, are you having three
Speaker 2: candidates or And how plausible is it that the Republican
Speaker 2: nominee say, it's JD.
Speaker 3: Vance, he's out campaigning.
Speaker 2: Vote for me, but everyone knows that he's going to
Speaker 2: step aside in favor of Trump. I just don't see
Speaker 2: how that works very well with voters. I think a
Speaker 2: lot of people would say, even a lot of people
Speaker 2: who independence inclined to vote for Trump as they've done
Speaker 2: for three elections, say no, I don't that's just too gimmicky, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, the mechanics may be plausible, I don't think
Speaker 2: the real world politics of it would work in practice,
Speaker 2: and I think it would probably backfire.
Speaker 3: So that's my speculation.
Speaker 1: The cretia there are.
Speaker 4: I mean I think that that the vice presidency thing
Speaker 4: was the thing with Obama.
Speaker 3: I forget, but well, this has been around forever.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I'll give Douschwitz a little bit of credit.
Speaker 4: What he said was it's not going to make any
Speaker 4: difference for Trump. This kind of catastrophic event that would
Speaker 4: lead to this isn't going to happen. But we ought
Speaker 4: to be debating about what was really intended by the
Speaker 4: twenty second Amendment and whether it's a good idea at all.
Speaker 4: That was his kind of closing argument to the whole thing.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, go ahead, Steve. My second Amendment been problematic
Speaker 4: in any way yet other than that I was passed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 2: It's not quite a trivia question, John, But I wish
Speaker 2: i'd thought this earlier and I checked it out. But
Speaker 2: wasn't John Tyler who took office when somebody died as president.
Speaker 2: By the way, his great his grand Tyler, Harrison, Tyler's
Speaker 2: grandson just died last week, which is one of those
Speaker 2: amazing things which shows how young the country is.
Speaker 1: Is that amazing, amazing, that's amazing.
Speaker 2: Guy was president what the eighteen forties, I believe.
Speaker 1: I believe Tyler also was alive at the time of
Speaker 1: the Civil War with the Confederacy.
Speaker 3: Could be.
Speaker 2: But my recollection was when Harrison died, they can't prefer it.
Speaker 2: There was some question about whether he was president or
Speaker 2: acting as president, and so you know, I mean, there's
Speaker 2: you know, this was again the ambiguity of the twenty
Speaker 2: second Amendment leaves the door open to being an acting president.
Speaker 2: The twenty second Amendment was in part past to solve
Speaker 2: the Tyler problem. I think but anyway, that all point
Speaker 2: that kind of fun.
Speaker 1: That's a really interesting point because when I did my
Speaker 1: book on the presidency, I came across this that today
Speaker 1: we just accept you ascend to the presidency if the
Speaker 1: president dies and you're just the president. But there was
Speaker 1: actually a strong effort when Tyler became president to relegate
Speaker 1: him to acting president and never have the full power
Speaker 1: of the office. Right, and this is considered Tyler's major
Speaker 1: contribution to the presidency. He says said, nope, I am
Speaker 1: the president, and I get I am going to exercise
Speaker 1: all the powers.
Speaker 4: Well, you guys will remember to bring this up. But
Speaker 4: it's kind of funny. The controversy in California with Oh
Speaker 4: Steve remind me his name, Curb, Mike Curb, who when
Speaker 4: Jerry Brown would leave the state right right then, because
Speaker 4: he was independently elected, et cetera, et cetera, he would
Speaker 4: not only take over the powers of the governor governor,
Speaker 4: but would have all the powers of the governor, signing
Speaker 4: our vetoing legislation.
Speaker 1: And the apporting judges.
Speaker 3: It was fabulous.
Speaker 1: Jerry Brown couldn't travel.
Speaker 3: It was hysterically funny.
Speaker 4: Right, Okay, I'm done.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay, So the third topic we have on deck
Speaker 1: is now Steve is making us talk about this because
Speaker 1: Steve cares so deeply about the feelings of young generation
Speaker 1: whatever's XYZ leftists who feels so put upon by having
Speaker 1: to live under the policies they promote on society. This
Speaker 1: is an article by a fellow named Savage who appears
Speaker 1: to be a screenwriter of some kind in Hollywood. I've
Speaker 1: never heard of him, but then I never know the name.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't know the names of any screenwriters I mean,
Speaker 1: But anyway, so he's written this article which complains about
Speaker 1: the effects of DEI policies on white males in three
Speaker 1: industries right in journalism, Hollywood, and the Academy. And the
Speaker 1: statistics are very striking. But Steve says that this article
Speaker 1: has gone viral, even more viral than the Helen Andrews
Speaker 1: article about the feminization of society that we discussed a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago, which also.
Speaker 3: Peered in compact.
Speaker 1: Anyway, so they're both in this journal. Have I, Steve,
Speaker 1: have I I mean, I've read the article. Have you
Speaker 1: have I fairly described it? And why are you so
Speaker 1: enraptured by the suffering of white male liberals who have
Speaker 1: to live on the policies and the theories that they
Speaker 1: forced on the rest of us. I'm like, whaah wah
Speaker 1: wah oh. I feel so bad for these people who
Speaker 1: probably voted for the policy. I'm sure they all voted
Speaker 1: for Obama and they voted for these policies, and they
Speaker 1: just don't like the use of race when it's done
Speaker 1: to them, but they love the use of race when
Speaker 1: it's done to other people. I guess, So, Steve, why
Speaker 1: are you so raptured by this complaining generation extramillennial?
Speaker 2: Well, so, first of all, hats often Compact is a
Speaker 2: fairly new online journal that's very nicely laid out. They
Speaker 2: publish a lot of great people across the spectrum, mostly
Speaker 2: center right though, I think, and they now had the
Speaker 2: second sort of viral article in a few months, Helen Andrews.
Speaker 3: We talked about and now this article is going viral.
Speaker 3: That's the question. Why has this article caught fire in
Speaker 3: the space of a week. Because it's not a new argument.
Speaker 2: The statistics are not entirely new, And in fact, if
Speaker 2: you look at a sort of social media comment, you
Speaker 2: see a lot of I'll say I'll call them old
Speaker 2: timers who were saying, hey, wait a minute, like my
Speaker 2: friend Fred Lynch at Claremont McKenna, he's been writing about
Speaker 2: this since nineteen ninety and he's raising his hands saying, hey,
Speaker 2: wait a minute. You can go back to that. You
Speaker 2: could go to the Counting by Race book by William
Speaker 2: Bennett and Terry Eastland in the mid eighties. So you know,
Speaker 2: our team has been complaining about where this was going
Speaker 2: for a very long time. I'm not sure, by the way,
Speaker 2: this guy's necessarily a leftist. You just say, Hollywood screenwriter.
Speaker 2: Do you assume that's true? But the point is is,
Speaker 2: I think the statistics are not limited to just the
Speaker 2: Let me stop that. Let me set this up by saying,
Speaker 2: people on the left are taking notice of this article.
Speaker 2: It's not just you know, a conservative fanboys. I just
Speaker 2: a brief survey. Some of the lefty blogs are talking
Speaker 2: about it. Some of the lefty podcasts, the smarter ones
Speaker 2: which is the relative term, are talking about it and
Speaker 2: taking it seriously.
Speaker 3: And they're trying to put by saying.
Speaker 2: Well, this is limited to Hollywood and universities and the media,
Speaker 2: except it's not. So I will mention it actually wrote
Speaker 2: about this five six years ago. Here's a headline from
Speaker 2: twenty July twenty twenty, so it's two three months after
Speaker 2: George Floyd headline Chevron diversity ratio to improve as layoffs progress.
Speaker 2: Let that sink in. This is Chevron, you know. And
Speaker 2: they're saying, oh, we're doing petbacks like I do from
Speaker 2: time to time of their management ranks because they have
Speaker 2: too many. And they said, you know, we want to
Speaker 2: up the share of senior level jobs held by women
Speaker 2: and ethnic minorities to up to forty five percent from
Speaker 2: thirty five percent in the last couple of years. So
Speaker 2: we're going to make senior executives reapply for their job.
Speaker 2: If you think about what they're saying is they were
Speaker 2: going to target white male managers for layoffs more so
Speaker 2: than anyone else. They confessed to the country publicly they
Speaker 2: were going to violate the Civil Rights Act. The New
Speaker 2: York Times did a story just a couple of years ago.
Speaker 2: I wonder if I can find it.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure. I can't here it is. I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: Washington Posts.
Speaker 2: This is from I don't have the date, but it's
Speaker 2: in the last couple of years, Corporate America pledged to
Speaker 2: hire more people of color, it actually did. And the
Speaker 2: change in employment from February twenty twenty two, I think
Speaker 2: this is twenty twenty four, all the minorities went up
Speaker 2: substantially four million in total of underrepresented minorities whites, and
Speaker 2: corporate executive positions went down by nine hundred thousand. This
Speaker 2: wasn't just the creative classes and the places that liberals takeover.
Speaker 2: It's spilled over in the boardroom.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: The corporate have been retreating for quite a while now
Speaker 2: from DEI and.
Speaker 3: They shrunckle that.
Speaker 2: And that's an interesting story, but I'll skip all over
Speaker 2: all that. I think the reason this is caught on
Speaker 2: is because put it this way, I think for all
Speaker 2: those years from the eighties on, we had an i'll
Speaker 2: call it an unstable equilibrium, but at least an equilibrium
Speaker 2: which was we knew there were things wrong with this.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court would get cases like ad Ran.
Speaker 3: And words Cove and all the others.
Speaker 2: Grutterer, and they temporize and they make compromises, and it
Speaker 2: got worse and worse, and then it accelerated under Obama.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting story that needs to be played out
Speaker 2: at longer length, I think. But and then I think
Speaker 2: things went crazy really before George Floyd, but it started
Speaker 2: going crazy around twenty eighteen or so, plus or minus
Speaker 2: a year or two, and it got so out of
Speaker 2: hand that now it's a crisis proportions. And as you say, John,
Speaker 2: it did start affecting articulate younger liberals. This is not
Speaker 2: the first guy. I mean one person I know as
Speaker 2: a liberal. This guy I don't know him at all,
Speaker 2: but was on Twitter as against David Austin Walsh. He's
Speaker 2: a very left wing person, went to graduate school, published
Speaker 2: in all the right things. Can't get a job and
Speaker 2: said he got older, he get crap for this. He
Speaker 2: said on Twitter, I can't get a job anywhere in academia,
Speaker 2: and I think it's because I'm a white male and
Speaker 2: boy to the left go after him for that, but
Speaker 2: he was a lefty saying that. So I think things
Speaker 2: got so out of hand like they did. Sorry, I'm
Speaker 2: going on long, And here's the last point. It's like
Speaker 2: the immigration question. You had National Review as early as
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety ninety two saying immigration is a problem, the
Speaker 2: national question is a problem. We need to think about this,
Speaker 2: and everyone said, oh, you're a bunch of racists, and
Speaker 2: then Joe Biden comes along and blows the lid off,
Speaker 2: and suddenly public opinion flips. So for all these years
Speaker 2: you've had people like Fred Lynch saying this is terrible,
Speaker 2: it's unprinciple, it's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and most people shrugged
Speaker 2: their shoulders. And now this article hits. It's timing like
Speaker 2: Helen Andrew's article. Her article is not her argument was
Speaker 2: not brand new either, but it quite the moment, and
Speaker 2: it signals to me that on this and many things
Speaker 2: I could go on, there's a vibe shift going on.
Speaker 2: That's the phrase of twenty twenty five, right, is vibe shift.
Speaker 2: This is another sign of the vibe shift is shifting.
Speaker 2: And I'm done, sorry for the long speech.
Speaker 1: Yeah, whatever.
Speaker 3: I say.
Speaker 1: Here's so like he's like one hundred things in there, Steve.
Speaker 4: It's okay. I'm going to simplify it, and I don't
Speaker 4: you called it a vibe shift. I'm going to use
Speaker 4: an even more cringe term. But I think it actually
Speaker 4: is appropriate here. And I think that the Overton window
Speaker 4: is shifted, and it's not as Steve said, because he's
Speaker 4: right in many ways that you know, the things just
Speaker 4: hit a crisis point and you know, over the top
Speaker 4: and everything else. This is the example I'm gonna give,
Speaker 4: and then I'll tell you what I mean. Two years ago,
Speaker 4: the Arizona legislature had already started pushing back on on
Speaker 4: things like hiring for you know what do they call them?
Speaker 4: Diversity statements and hiring and all of that kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: They started pushing back on it from the Arizona legislature level.
Speaker 4: So what would happen is I would be in these
Speaker 4: meetings with provosts and vice provosts and deans and so forth,
Speaker 4: and they would be talking about how they could continue
Speaker 4: to do this and get away with it and hide
Speaker 4: it behind you know, university net id walls and things
Speaker 4: like that. It was never even It wouldn't have matter
Speaker 4: what I said, because I tried. I lived in a
Speaker 4: different universe entirely from these people, because you know, I
Speaker 4: would argue that this was wrong and so on. It's
Speaker 4: not that way anymore. It's not that way because what's
Speaker 4: happened with first of all, with the Supreme Courts changing
Speaker 4: Harvard case and so on, and Trump. I mean, the
Speaker 4: idea that Trump made DEI illegal essentially actually has changed
Speaker 4: the way people view it. The people who always saw
Speaker 4: that it was unjust and racist of a different kind
Speaker 4: now speak about it openly in a way that they
Speaker 4: couldn't do so before. And so this these two articles
Speaker 4: come along, and they're, you know, they're kind of the
Speaker 4: usual kind of les John puts it a little bit
Speaker 4: whiny millennials, but you know, they're they're they're speaking for
Speaker 4: a generation that that really did get kind of screwed over.
Speaker 4: John's probably right, they probably mostly voted for it, but
Speaker 4: they in many cases. But the other thing is is
Speaker 4: that what we're seeing with the stupid nick Flintes and
Speaker 4: Graperers and so on, is the resentment that is the
Speaker 4: result of all of those years of being told, you know,
Speaker 4: you have your only reason for existing, John Rawls style
Speaker 4: is to make sure that your gifts are used in
Speaker 4: the service of the marginalized and less fortunate than you,
Speaker 4: and that that fell very hard on white men, and
Speaker 4: that's why young white men are turning more and more
Speaker 4: to these awful right wing sorts of viewpoints and perspectives.
Speaker 4: So I don't disagree with anything Steve said. I just
Speaker 4: think it's a little bit more than just reaching a
Speaker 4: crisis point or you know, a mass, critical mass. I
Speaker 4: think it's what Trump was able to do to convince
Speaker 4: people that DEI is a bad thing. I mean even
Speaker 4: Harvard didn't. It was after the Harvard case too, that
Speaker 4: we were told we had to stop stop doing things,
Speaker 4: stop admitting students on the basis of the race, And
Speaker 4: they just figured out ways to do it and just
Speaker 4: not get caught. Now I think they're still doing that,
Speaker 4: but they're not going to say it openly in a meeting.
Speaker 2: Well that's a that's a legal question for you, John,
Speaker 2: except I want to defer full consideration to another time.
Speaker 2: But the exit question here is, is there now suddenly
Speaker 2: you talk about the Overton window moving lucretia, Is there
Speaker 2: now suddenly a gaping legal potential, legal liability? You know,
Speaker 2: the government can do Justice Department EEOC actually has said
Speaker 2: they're interested in this. I think this week Standards and
Speaker 2: practices investigations where you investigate deliberate discrimination against white males
Speaker 2: and therefore big, big liability settlements from universities and corporations
Speaker 2: and elsewhere. You have a short answer to that, because
Speaker 2: I think that's a longer question.
Speaker 1: But yeah, no, I think there is a lot and
Speaker 1: you know, the I mean that's what Harmeat Dylan is
Speaker 1: up to, right, Yes, that's trying to go to court.
Speaker 1: I mean there are hard cases to prove because these
Speaker 1: universities are really good at cheating. Well yeah, with lots
Speaker 1: of words, and so are corporations now too.
Speaker 2: But you know what, I bet there's email chains, and
Speaker 2: I'll bet there's all kinds of bad documentary evidence.
Speaker 3: A lot of it maybe get being destroyed right now.
Speaker 3: It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Speaker 2: But I'll bet there's lots of documentary evidence that can
Speaker 2: be found, and oh boy.
Speaker 3: Would that be fun.
Speaker 4: Okay, so you guys are sorry. This is my second
Speaker 4: foray into nonsensicalness. But and I don't even know if
Speaker 4: it's still a law that I think it was called
Speaker 4: the uner a law, and it allowed you, if i'll oversimplify,
Speaker 4: if a bar had lady's only night, Oh, you could
Speaker 4: go and sue and you could get personal damages. You
Speaker 4: didn't have to be harmed by it. You just had
Speaker 4: to point it out. You could go there, and they
Speaker 4: had to pay you like two thousand or six thousand dollars.
Speaker 4: If and so they stopped doing those kinds of ladies'
Speaker 4: nights and if you could prove that somebody was discriminating
Speaker 4: a business, was discriminating on the basis of sex or race,
Speaker 4: even against whites, as I recall, But I wasn't even
Speaker 4: living in California at the time, So I'm going to
Speaker 4: defer to you guys.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, Lucretia would never show up at
Speaker 1: a lady's night in the night anyway. How why do
Speaker 1: you even know what happened there? I mean, come on,
Speaker 1: I know that's what I'm saying. How do you even
Speaker 1: know this ever went on? Unless it was lady only
Speaker 1: nights with guns? Maybe then I mean.
Speaker 4: Kind of girl. I'd go with amim a girl, but
Speaker 4: that's about it. But we'd want men there. Nobody wants
Speaker 4: to a bar that there aren't any men exactly.
Speaker 1: So why would you even want to go exactly? Okay, So, okay,
Speaker 1: we're I think we've fully exhausted Steve's sympathies for winding millennials.
Speaker 1: So you know, readers, listeners, the fourth topic we were discussed,
Speaker 1: we were going to discuss. That's what triggered the fight
Speaker 1: I was referring to earlier between Lucretia and Steve. We
Speaker 1: were fighting over what should be the fourth topic to
Speaker 1: close out this show, but before we turn to one,
Speaker 1: I want to give Lucretia the chance to respond to her.
Speaker 1: You may not realize this, but she finally is at
Speaker 1: the center of a conspiracy theory herself. This has been
Speaker 1: It's about damn time. This is not this is real news.
Speaker 1: Can I set this out? Because I did not know
Speaker 1: this myself, but apparently one of the highest Yes.
Speaker 4: Yes, three people have already texted me about it.
Speaker 1: Oh really, okay, Well we're we're gonna address this and
Speaker 1: hopefully maybe Lucretia herself will click this out and put
Speaker 1: this on X and other various places where these conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories are stewed and spawn around because she's at the
Speaker 1: center of them. Ladies and gentlemen, how funny.
Speaker 2: Do you want to?
Speaker 3: Go ahead?
Speaker 1: Go ahead?
Speaker 4: You can give the the generic conversation.
Speaker 1: Well, because for once, I'm a believer, I believe everything
Speaker 1: that she's saying.
Speaker 2: I want to know.
Speaker 1: So. Candace Owens, who seems to just exist and specialize
Speaker 1: in conspiracy theories, claims that the US military has an
Speaker 1: intelligence group that is learning how to infiltrate Christian groups
Speaker 1: and it is based at Lucretiau's house. Basically at Lucretia's
Speaker 1: house is the center. This is I was reading the
Speaker 1: tree a tweet that she put up, and it said
Speaker 1: that the military intelligence group that is investigating and infiltrating
Speaker 1: Christian groups is located at this fort at the military
Speaker 1: in Challenges School where Lucretia is based. Right is this?
Speaker 4: This is?
Speaker 1: This is too exquisite, This is too exquisite. I just
Speaker 1: I just want to sit there and admire Candace Owens
Speaker 1: for finally putting all the pieces of the puzzle together.
Speaker 1: And Lucretius act. I think, I think Steve and I
Speaker 1: have been in filt traded by this very clever intelligence
Speaker 1: scheme by the military. So Lucretia tell us what this
Speaker 1: is all about? And how are we supposed to disprove
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories?
Speaker 4: This one, I think is a little bit easier. Let
Speaker 4: me give you the just one sentence that someone who
Speaker 4: is a big fan of Candace Owans, I can't watch her,
Speaker 4: so I had to go by what they said. But
Speaker 4: there's all of this ratioing back and forth. Anyway. She
Speaker 4: Candace Owans reported that Fort Watchuka in Arizona could potentially
Speaker 4: be an intelligence base providing military courses to soldiers. I
Speaker 4: am reading it verbatim, folks, with the objective of teaching
Speaker 4: them how to infiltrate Christian groups and organizations through covert
Speaker 4: psychological operations to deceive and potentially overthrow them. There is
Speaker 4: something very sinister taking place, and we can all feel it. Okay, guys,
Speaker 4: So what I put back after a few insults and
Speaker 4: that sort of thing for what. Chuka is in fact
Speaker 4: home to something known as Yuseko US Army Intelligence Center
Speaker 4: of Excellence. Every military intelligence soldier and officer goes through
Speaker 4: training at this base at least twice, usually many many
Speaker 4: more times. All of the big brass short of what's
Speaker 4: in the Pentagon in military intelligence are located at Fort Wachuka. Well, okay,
Speaker 4: it is the military intelligence base. It's not a secret,
Speaker 4: it's not dark and sinister. Yes, they they do. In fact,
Speaker 4: they teach counterintelligence, they teach psyops. Guess what so does
Speaker 4: Lucretia's academic program. We teach.
Speaker 1: See as Donald Trump would say, I knew it. See
Speaker 1: I knew it.
Speaker 2: I knew it.
Speaker 4: Half a dozen of the senior commanders at Yosekah go
Speaker 4: to church with me. They're not infiltrating.
Speaker 1: We know they're not practicing, you know that just CANDUs
Speaker 1: will just say that's.
Speaker 4: Oh my god, it's just well. And the only reason
Speaker 4: I came upon this. I'd never follow Candace Owens, but
Speaker 4: I'm I turn on X just to check and zekind
Speaker 4: of what's going on trending Fort Wachuka. Oh my god,
Speaker 4: what's happening at Fort Wachuka. You know sometimes we have,
Speaker 4: you know, disasters of different kinds and so on, and
Speaker 4: so I click on it and it's just like thousands
Speaker 4: of posts about how Erica Trump, Erica Trump Ica, Yeah right,
Speaker 4: I'm looking at Trump on my screen. And what was
Speaker 4: his name? The chief of security for Charlie Kirk, some
Speaker 4: guy who goes by Mitch because he had to change
Speaker 4: his name because the government's been trying to kill him
Speaker 4: for thirty five years, swear to God, Swear to God.
Speaker 4: Thinks he saw her ponytail. And that other guy meeting
Speaker 4: with some Arizona something on Fort woo Chuka the night
Speaker 4: before Charlie Kirk was killed. And this has become I mean,
Speaker 4: you cannot believe how many thousands of people are buying
Speaker 4: into this nonsense. And so I am now embarrassed. I
Speaker 4: do not want a conspiracy theory hat.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, Steve, we finally don't see what I told you.
Speaker 4: However, that being said, I do want to point out
Speaker 4: what what because we were going to talk about we
Speaker 4: didn't get to it. The Susie Wilds interview where in
Speaker 4: one of the things she's allegedly said was that JD.
Speaker 4: Vance was a conspiracy theorist. His answer brilliant. It was
Speaker 4: absolutely brilliant. And that's the kind of conspiracy answer. His
Speaker 4: answer was, yeah, I'm a conspiracy theorist. When those conspiracy
Speaker 4: theories right now in six months turn out true, true,
Speaker 4: and the media just doesn't cover them, That's that's what
Speaker 4: a conspiracy theorist. I will wear that hat, but I
Speaker 4: will never wear the Candice Owan's hat. She's just vile.
Speaker 4: I don't get it. What is the deal? Maybe you
Speaker 4: guys understand I.
Speaker 1: Don't Steve your thoughts. Come on, Steve, you must appreciate
Speaker 1: the deliciousness oh conspiracy. And I gotta say I listened
Speaker 1: to her explanation and I'm not convinced one second.
Speaker 2: No, Now you see, John, I'm gonna talk solo. Bocha
Speaker 2: here in the stage, whisper that candass Owners has gotten
Speaker 2: the drop on Lucretia. You know, well a couple of
Speaker 2: By the way, just one sentence comments on the Susie
Speaker 2: Wiles thing we talked about.
Speaker 1: I was actually going to turn to that next want it, Well, okay,
Speaker 1: I don't. Lucretia has given Lucretia's the point of Lucrete dressing.
Speaker 1: This is to issue the official denial of these crazy people.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to this seriousness. Well, let me just
Speaker 1: say it was interview in vanity fair. Well, I'll just
Speaker 1: say this.
Speaker 2: Well, let me do it in reverse order. Then. Look,
Speaker 2: I have a field theory of Canda so Owans that
Speaker 2: also applies to Tucker Carlson. I think they're extreme narcissists
Speaker 2: who want the attention, and they've figured out how to
Speaker 2: keep the attention on them.
Speaker 3: I think it's that simple. I think it's too bad.
Speaker 1: I always thought. By the way, Lucretia has just posted
Speaker 1: a picture I think of her receiving an award of
Speaker 1: the head Christian infiltrator.
Speaker 4: Exactly. I have received the Medal of right something whatever
Speaker 4: it was, but that is the commanding General of Fort Chuka. Well,
Speaker 4: I'm gonna post from my public service right.
Speaker 2: Anyway, For the record, John, I've always thought Candace Owens
Speaker 2: was overrated. Ten years ago, I was telling people, I
Speaker 2: think you guys are making mistake promoting her.
Speaker 3: I don't think she's that good.
Speaker 2: Uh, Susie Wilds thing, I can open it this way
Speaker 2: one of the.
Speaker 1: Things I can I by the way, I should have
Speaker 1: set the stage just to briefly mentioned Susie Wilds. The
Speaker 1: chief of staff to the President gave it sounds like
Speaker 1: one hundred ill advised interviews. Was eleven I think so questions? Yeah,
Speaker 1: eleven interviews. I'm sorry, maybe one hundred hours could be
Speaker 1: interviews to a Vanity Fair which also released I thought
Speaker 1: some really unflattering photos of not the cabinet of the
Speaker 1: White House staff. And Susie Wilde said a number of
Speaker 1: things which I don't think she's actually denied saying, just
Speaker 1: says they're all taken out of context, things like as
Speaker 1: Lucretius said, Yeah, that JD. Vance is a conspiracy theorist,
Speaker 1: I think, said Pam BONDI has whiffed on the Epstein
Speaker 1: matter and done generally a bad job. Said President Trump
Speaker 1: has the personality of an alcoholic, and on and on.
Speaker 1: Steve what is your take on this is roiling roiling Washington,
Speaker 1: DC right now.
Speaker 3: No, it's not.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Here's why I say no, it's not. Lucretia put her
Speaker 2: finger on it. Not maybe not this way I am.
Speaker 2: It is curious to me that the White House seems
Speaker 2: to be very well prepared and quite sure would it,
Speaker 2: and their response to us like they knew it was coming, right.
Speaker 2: I mean you mentioned JD. Van saying yeah, I believe
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories that are true. That that was his opening line,
Speaker 2: which is a great opening line. The mistake here, and
Speaker 2: by the way, there seems to be no, you know,
Speaker 2: she's not being taken to the woodshed like David Stockman
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty one. I'll come back to that in
Speaker 2: a second. And maybe a couple of those comments are
Speaker 2: in fact meant to set up.
Speaker 3: Some shuffling that maybe needs to happen. I'll leave that
Speaker 3: aside too.
Speaker 2: The mistake, if there is one, is thinking that you
Speaker 2: can trust the media.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've given a speech before. Their greatest skill
Speaker 2: is ventriloquist journalism. I'll tell you a brief story. I
Speaker 2: once was taken lunch by Jason de Parley of the
Speaker 2: New York Times. It is twenty years ago now, and he.
Speaker 1: Was friendly and interesting.
Speaker 3: It gets me talking.
Speaker 2: These guys are geniuses at getting you relaxed. That's why
Speaker 2: sixty minutes works. By the way, that's always their genius.
Speaker 2: Mike Wallace would make you think he's your best buddy,
Speaker 2: and you relax and you'd say something damaging and they'd
Speaker 2: pull that out and make you look terrible. I know
Speaker 2: a couple of funny stories of people who brought their
Speaker 2: own cameras and turn the tables on him once. I'd
Speaker 2: always bring your own camera to a TV interview, I say, well,
Speaker 2: if you think it's going to be hostile anyway.
Speaker 3: The point is that their they're.
Speaker 2: Highest skill of these elite media people is making you
Speaker 2: relaxed and say things that you probably shouldn't say or
Speaker 2: they're ill considered. Because I remember going back after lunch
Speaker 2: with Jason de Parley and going in to see Chris
Speaker 2: de Muth, my very wise bosses. Oh, I had this
Speaker 2: great lunch with Jason de Parley, and you know, it
Speaker 2: seemed really interested and you know my thoughts on this
Speaker 2: and that, and Chris, you know Chris, you know, gentle
Speaker 2: even tempered guy, says oh no, he was out to
Speaker 2: get you. That's his special superpower. All these guys have
Speaker 2: that special superpower. So I mentioned David Stockman and I'll
Speaker 2: end here. You know, in nineteen eighty one, David Stockman,
Speaker 2: the great budget whiz kid for Reagan, agrees to sit
Speaker 2: down with William Grider of the Atlantic Monthly, a far
Speaker 2: left wing advocate journalist not a reporter, and Stockman, who
Speaker 2: was only what thirty five years old? Really smart, but
Speaker 2: I think intellectually unstable a lot of ways, which I
Speaker 2: explained in my Reagan book. He thought, oh, I can
Speaker 2: explain it all to Grider. I can convert him, I
Speaker 2: can bring him around. Instead. The article that came out
Speaker 2: the education of David Stockman was very damaging because Stockman
Speaker 2: got relaxed and blurted out a lot of stupid things.
Speaker 3: And did Susie Wils do that?
Speaker 2: Maybe she seems wildier than that, haha, but maybe not.
Speaker 2: I you know, one straw on the Wind I said,
Speaker 2: I was done, but I'm not. One straw on the
Speaker 2: Wind is about three weeks ago, a very harsh article
Speaker 2: in The New York Post about Cash Betel by Carol Markowitz.
Speaker 2: Carol Markowitz is a very pro Trump columnist at the
Speaker 2: New York Post, and I thought, Ah, that's interesting. Is
Speaker 2: this really Carol Markowitz doing her own original reporting? Maybe?
Speaker 2: But I wonder if it's a planted story. You know,
Speaker 2: that's one way you start turning to tables on somebody.
Speaker 2: You know this, John, This is the way you turn
Speaker 2: the tables on Washington is you plant stories about people
Speaker 2: that you want to remove or pressure.
Speaker 1: Well, other week, it sounded like I didn't know about
Speaker 1: such things. N I would never participate in such.
Speaker 3: Ahead.
Speaker 4: Not a different take, another take, I guess is a
Speaker 4: better way to put it in. I think that. Let
Speaker 4: me give you my my anecdote. Many years ago, I
Speaker 4: in California. I was interviewed by a reporter about the
Speaker 4: term limits that were being discussed at the time, and
Speaker 4: I said, you know, I think term limits are a
Speaker 4: bad idea. And I went through all of the reasons
Speaker 4: why I thought term limits were a bad idea. And
Speaker 4: you know, by the way, every reason I gave has
Speaker 4: turned out to be true in California, just so you know.
Speaker 4: But we won't go into that now. But but I said,
Speaker 4: I understand why it is that voters are clamoring for
Speaker 4: term limits. In many ways, their legislators don't listen to them.
Speaker 4: They deserve, you know, they deserve to discuss that the
Speaker 4: voter show form sometimes headline front pay legis slaters deserve disgust. Yeah,
Speaker 4: you know that that was such a tiny thing I
Speaker 4: said out of so many other things. Very okay that
Speaker 4: everybody knows how that works. But I guess what I'm
Speaker 4: saying is I was careful and I still let myself
Speaker 4: say something dumb like that. The worst part about the
Speaker 4: story on Susie Wilds wasn't just taking things out of context.
Speaker 4: It was the tone of the whole thing. It was
Speaker 4: the you know, look at the title of it, Power
Speaker 4: and Peril. You know, immediately, immediately, you know this is
Speaker 4: going to be something nasty, And all the way through
Speaker 4: there's all this innuendo and insinuation, none of it having
Speaker 4: any kind of back you know, evidence to back it up.
Speaker 4: And the worst thing of all this is and and
Speaker 4: it makes me so angry that students will fail a
Speaker 4: paper if they try to do this to me. A
Speaker 4: lot of people say that. Many people say that, critics
Speaker 4: say that, you know these kind of Many people believe
Speaker 4: that those drive me crazy because they are Weasley straw
Speaker 4: Men arguments, you don't have any proof that anybody ever
Speaker 4: said that, and if you do, I want to see it.
Speaker 4: I don't even care about footnotes, but I want to
Speaker 4: see proof if you put that. Stupid reporters do it
Speaker 4: all the time.
Speaker 3: Critics argue that, oh right, yeah, you know ye.
Speaker 4: So anyway, that's not that I disagreed with anything either
Speaker 4: of you said, but it's it's worse in some ways
Speaker 4: because it's not just taking things out of context or
Speaker 4: tricking somebody into saying something that they shouldn't, but it's
Speaker 4: the framing of it too. I sorry for the phrase
Speaker 4: force the narrative that is so insidious in my opinion. Yeah,
Speaker 4: I guess I have to do Babylon then, is what
Speaker 4: you're telling me? Yes, Babylon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that wraps up the show and Babylon B headlines Lucretia.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'll make it quick ground. Oh we never talked
Speaker 4: about and I didn't even remember to tell you guys.
Speaker 4: This was really my big, my big thing this week,
Speaker 4: which is that I don't think what happened in Australia
Speaker 4: should be considered just a result of anti Semitism. I
Speaker 4: want to make the point, over and over and over.
Speaker 4: They don't shut down Christmas markets because of anti Semitism
Speaker 4: is Islam. It is the evil of Islam. But okay,
Speaker 4: next time I won't. That's not fair. But groundbreaking news
Speaker 4: study finds Islamophobia may be partially caused by Muslims killing
Speaker 4: people all the time. And then this one's not funny
Speaker 4: because I read a story in the New York Post
Speaker 4: this morning about a man who who shot somebody who
Speaker 4: attacked him, you know, the peaceful guy, and they they
Speaker 4: couldn't get him for it because of self defense, but
Speaker 4: they got him for not having guns that he did license.
Speaker 4: And he's going to go to jail. Some old guy,
Speaker 4: Australian man who wrestled gun away from terrorists charged with
Speaker 4: unlawful firearm possession.
Speaker 3: That's so funny.
Speaker 4: Would I heard them say that that the announcement originally
Speaker 4: was these these This man, when he comes out of
Speaker 4: his call, will be criminally charged.
Speaker 1: Really, I actually don't understand. I saw the video and
Speaker 1: he was quite heroic, but then he didn't shoot the
Speaker 1: guy yeah pointed at him, and yeah, I don't understand
Speaker 1: why he didn't shoot the two killers.
Speaker 3: Well he might, I mean, there are several reasons for that.
Speaker 2: He might not have known how to use a gun,
Speaker 2: in which case you don't want to improvise on the moment.
Speaker 2: But but there's also possible that he knew that he
Speaker 2: would be legally vulnerable if he did.
Speaker 3: I raises they're insane down there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's insane.
Speaker 4: You probably heard today that the House, without the help
Speaker 4: of for slimer Republicans, passed the ban on mutilating children.
Speaker 4: Democrats blast Republicans for trying to put hard working genital
Speaker 4: mutilators out of work. Tragic Mandanni's aunt he slightly uncomfortable
Speaker 4: at supermarket after Australian terror attack. Yeah, to halt violence
Speaker 4: against Jews Australia bands hanukkah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's also not inaccurate, not funny this one.
Speaker 4: Media reports mass shooting in Australia. Fake news. Media reports
Speaker 4: mass shooting in Australia. But that's impossible because guns are
Speaker 4: illegal there. And finally, for you, Steve, because we almost
Speaker 4: made it through without this, So just for you, struggling
Speaker 4: chiefs trades Taylor Swift for new it Girl Sidney Sweeney
Speaker 4: in a big to.
Speaker 1: Say this season, oh, you saved the show because Steve
Speaker 1: mentioned her name on episode. We almost got their whole episode.
Speaker 1: We already weaned him off the Clean Air Act and
Speaker 1: almost wiened them off Sydney.
Speaker 2: But you mentioned.
Speaker 1: Never, So let's close out. Always drink your whiskey, meat,
Speaker 1: buy more books, and Steve, what is the latest AI outrage.
Speaker 3: You have for us?
Speaker 2: I don't have an AI. I have a brief, one
Speaker 2: sentence paraphrase of Henry Adams that's very topical and it
Speaker 2: speaks for itself, and it runs as follows. Uh. You
Speaker 2: may know the original Henry Adams quote when I say it, Uh,
Speaker 2: the progression of Minnesota Democrats from Hubert Humphrey and Walter
Speaker 2: Mondale to Ilhan Omar and Tim Waltz single handedly refused
Speaker 2: the theory of evolution. He said that about Henry Adams,
Speaker 2: said that about the progression of presidents from Washington to Grant,
Speaker 2: which was wrong about Grant.
Speaker 3: But still it's funny.
Speaker 4: But you get the point.
Speaker 1: People we have since said that about the Adams family.
Speaker 4: I know, well, yeah, that's right, we can someday maybe
Speaker 4: AOC becomes president.
Speaker 3: No, it's not happening.
Speaker 1: Well with that, everybody, Yeah, but great to be with
Speaker 1: you and we'll see you next week when our in
Speaker 1: our next special Christmas special episode of the Three Whiskey
Speaker 1: Happy Hour. Bye everybody.
Speaker 4: A hub for that'st Restaurant, because it is my favorite holiday.
Speaker 5: But all this year has been a busy. I don't
Speaker 5: think I have the energy riding my already man roster's
Speaker 5: consents the seasons. The perfect gift for me would be
Speaker 5: completions and connections left from last year, tea shopping counter,
Speaker 5: most interesting Adams number, but never the time most of anyone.
Speaker 4: Has along those lines of Jack.
Speaker 5: Those halls, term those trees, praise.
Speaker 4: I've come on Christmas.
Speaker 5: Here I snay the cat's my brothers by myself.
Speaker 3: This year, Ricochet joined the conversation