Speaker 1: It's honestly a little unfair of power talk to make
Speaker 1: me do a radio show the day after the Notre
Speaker 1: Dame Fighting Irish win their college football semi final playoff
Speaker 1: game and are going to the national Championship, going to
Speaker 1: be facing off in the National Championship game on January twentieth.
Speaker 1: So excited, so amped, I'm not even sure that I'll
Speaker 1: be able to talk about anything else. But there is
Speaker 1: other news happening, the California wildfire, President Trump's sentencing, So
Speaker 1: we're going to get to all these things, but just
Speaker 1: know that ninety nine percent of my brain capacity is
Speaker 1: overwhelmed with Notre Dame football at the moment, So you'll
Speaker 1: just have to bear with me in that regard. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about Trump's sentencing. Trump was sentenced today by Judge
Speaker 1: Murchon for his guilt for his having been found guilty
Speaker 1: in Manhattan for the case, as every media outlet is
Speaker 1: incorrectly saying, for his hush money case. No, Trump wasn't
Speaker 1: found guilty for hush money, whatever that means. It is
Speaker 1: legal to pay someone money in exchange for a non
Speaker 1: disclosure agreement. The actual thing that he was found guilty
Speaker 1: of was allegedly, I would say, I don't think it's clear,
Speaker 1: and I frankly just disagree with the jury on this
Speaker 1: falsifying business records in furtherance of another felony. What that
Speaker 1: other felony is, you know, it was a name your own,
Speaker 1: decide your own adventure question. Now I want to talk
Speaker 1: about the sentencing and what the significance of it is
Speaker 1: and why for the left it matters so dramatically. So
Speaker 1: here's a thing about being a convicted felon. Quote. Ever
Speaker 1: since Trump was found guilty by the jury in this
Speaker 1: Manhattan case, which I believe was in May, the left
Speaker 1: has been referring to him as a convicted felon. A
Speaker 1: lot of people on the left have been referring to
Speaker 1: him as a convicted felon. But that is not, strictly
Speaker 1: speaking true. Trump had not up to this point been
Speaker 1: a convicted felon. You are only convicted after the judge
Speaker 1: has entered a sentence against you. The jury has found
Speaker 1: you guilty. They said, okay, these were the charges, we've
Speaker 1: had the trial, we have found you guilty. But you're
Speaker 1: not actually a convicted felon. You are not actually convicted
Speaker 1: of whatever the charges your felon or your misdemeanor, whatever
Speaker 1: it is, until the judge enters a sentence against you,
Speaker 1: and that rhetoric, that wording, that rhetorical point of being
Speaker 1: able legitimately in the media to refer to Donald Trump
Speaker 1: as a convicted felon. That is the point of this.
Speaker 1: Here you have Judge murch On an actual, honest to God,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden donor, I'm not exaggerating there, and honest to God,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden donor in Judge Juan Merchon, who is the
Speaker 1: New York State judge who has overseen this trial, whose
Speaker 1: daughter was a major fundraiser bundler working on behalf of
Speaker 1: a number of Democratic campaigns, including Kamala Harris's, who never
Speaker 1: accused himself from the case in spite of those obvious
Speaker 1: appearance of conflicts, and has ruled against Trump consistently every
Speaker 1: single step of the way, ruled in favor of everything
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg wanted to do, every single step of the way,
Speaker 1: and even in this sentencing has seemingly been more aggressively
Speaker 1: anti Trump, even than Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney of Manhattan,
Speaker 1: has been, who's actually the one prosecuting the case, he
Speaker 1: has been dismissive at every step of the way of
Speaker 1: legal claim of arguments. Trump has advanced arguments. Trump's lawyers
Speaker 1: have made that, hey, this evidence should didn't come in.
Speaker 1: It's irrelevant, it inflames the jury. It's not and has does.
Speaker 1: Every single significant moment of this trial has cited against
Speaker 1: Trump and in favor of Alvin Braggett, every single critical juncture.
Speaker 1: Letting in evidence that was not relevant, I think maybe
Speaker 1: one of the most egregious examples of this. So this
Speaker 1: is one of the things a judge has to do.
Speaker 1: The sort of gatekeeping that a judge has to do
Speaker 1: over the course of the trial is determining what evidence
Speaker 1: is relevant to the charges at hand, versus what kind
Speaker 1: of evidence is maybe not all that relevant and could
Speaker 1: actually be overly prejudicial and influenced the jury for something
Speaker 1: that isn't relevant. I think the best example of this
Speaker 1: was merch On allowing Stormy Daniels to testify the case
Speaker 1: wasn't about whether or not Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels
Speaker 1: had an affair that actually wasn't really the case the trial,
Speaker 1: The actual allegations against Trump were that he falsified business
Speaker 1: records in finalizing the payments that ultimately went to Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels in exchange for her non disclosure agreement that he
Speaker 1: characterized those payments that went to his lawyer, Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1: So basically, it was Stormy Daniels signs a non disclosure
Speaker 1: agreement saying she will not talk about this story about
Speaker 1: her affair that she allegedly had with Donald Trump. She
Speaker 1: agrees to this before the twenty sixteen election. After the
Speaker 1: she then gets paid for signing this non disclosure agreement.
Speaker 1: She gets paid directly by Michael Cohen, donald Trump's lawyer.
Speaker 1: Trump then reimburses Michael Cohen the Trump organization. In paying
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen characterized these payments, which was a set of
Speaker 1: it was, I think it was seventeen individual payments that
Speaker 1: were made over the course of about a year to
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen, and characterized each of those payments as paying quote,
Speaker 1: legal fees rather than loan repayment. That's the crime Trump
Speaker 1: is accused of calling in his business records those payments
Speaker 1: legal fees rather than loan repayment. Now, actually, it's not
Speaker 1: like anyone was harmed by this transaction. If I mean,
Speaker 1: the taxpayers of New York and federal taxpayers certainly weren't
Speaker 1: harmed by it. Because basically, if you pay someone, if
Speaker 1: I repay you a loan, the money you get as
Speaker 1: repayment for the loan, that does not count as income
Speaker 1: to you. But if you're my lawyer and I pay
Speaker 1: you something that's called attorney's fees, you have to pay
Speaker 1: taxes on it. So actually what Trump wound up doing
Speaker 1: was paying Cohen more than what Cohen had paid Stormy Daniels,
Speaker 1: because Cohen was saying to Trump, Hey, like, I paid
Speaker 1: Stormy all these money. If you're giving me this as
Speaker 1: attorney's fees, you know you have to give me more
Speaker 1: than what I gave Stormy Daniels because I got to
Speaker 1: pay taxes on this. So Trump gave him actually more
Speaker 1: than that, so that Cohen would, you know, not lose
Speaker 1: money in the deal. So actually, the taxpayers of New York,
Speaker 1: slash the federal government, the state of New York, and
Speaker 1: the federal government actually got more tax revenue out of
Speaker 1: the deal based on how this was set up. And
Speaker 1: I think, frankly, there's a decent argument to be made
Speaker 1: that this isn't really fraudulent or a falsification of business
Speaker 1: records to call this payment attorney's fees rather than loan repayment.
Speaker 1: Cohen was Trump's lawyer. He was doing this work on
Speaker 1: behalf of Trump getting this NBA situation sorted out with
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels. Now regardless, that was the charge. Having Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels come in to testify that she had an affair
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump and all of a sudden to change
Speaker 1: her story. The whole narrative of her discussion about her
Speaker 1: affair with Donald Trump had been that it was consensual,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden in the middle of the
Speaker 1: trial to try to allege that maybe it wasn't consensual.
Speaker 1: Dropping that bit of knowledge on the jury, of course,
Speaker 1: is hugely prejudicial against Trump, but is also completely irrelevant
Speaker 1: to the charge. Whether Trump had an affair with Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels or not makes no difference to the charge, which
Speaker 1: is did you appropriately label these payments to Michael Cohen?
Speaker 1: Are they attorney's fees or are they loan repayment? That's
Speaker 1: the trial. Is it attorney's fees or loan repayment. It's
Speaker 1: not about whether or not Stormy Daniels had an affair
Speaker 1: with Trump. That's actually irrelevant. Bringing her in having her testify,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden in the trial, changing
Speaker 1: her testimony to say that her relationship with Trump may
Speaker 1: not have been consensual, that Trump may have kind of
Speaker 1: forced himself on her, was wildly prejudicial to Trump, and
Speaker 1: merchan just lets it in. And at every step of
Speaker 1: the process, Bragg was trying to in introduce more and
Speaker 1: more evidence that didn't really advance his actual allegations of
Speaker 1: you know, were these business records falsified that were hugely
Speaker 1: prejudicial to the jury. He also advanced this novel legal
Speaker 1: theory that he didn't have to specifically define what the
Speaker 1: felony was. So in New York law, if you just
Speaker 1: falsify business records, usually it's a misdemeanor, but it can
Speaker 1: be a felony if the falsification of business records is
Speaker 1: done in furtherance of another felony. What was the other
Speaker 1: felony Bragg didn't say. He said it could have been
Speaker 1: in furtherance of violating federal election law, could have been
Speaker 1: in furtherance of violating New York election law, could have
Speaker 1: been in furtherance of it. He never defined it in
Speaker 1: the indictment, and merch On allowed this to go on.
Speaker 1: So let's just be clear. Merchon, a Biden donor, a
Speaker 1: small dollar Biden donor whose daughter worked for the worked
Speaker 1: as a fundraiser for a bunch of Democrats, including Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: who at every step of the trial ruled against Donald
Speaker 1: Trump in every relevant way, at every critical moment, ruled
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump, who refused to delay the sentencing in
Speaker 1: light of a Supreme Court decision directly on point, directly
Speaker 1: relating to this case, which we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: in the next segment, is giving Donald Trump. Gives Donald
Speaker 1: Trump a sentence today? Why, Because, as I said at
Speaker 1: the start of the segment, you're not actually a convicted
Speaker 1: felon until the judge gives you the sentence. Merchon could
Speaker 1: very easily have said, listen, this guy is assuming the
Speaker 1: office of presidents of the United States. I know that
Speaker 1: I'm not giving him any jail time. It's not urgent. Therefore,
Speaker 1: he's not some clear and present physical danger to society.
Speaker 1: The sense I'm not going to give him the sentence
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give him that will not include any incarceration.
Speaker 1: It's whatever it is. It'll be like a fine, it'll
Speaker 1: be whatever it's gonna be. There are also serious legal
Speaker 1: challenges because of a recent Supreme Court decision that Trump's
Speaker 1: side has raised and will certainly raise on appeal. So
Speaker 1: do I need to sentence him right now? Or maybe
Speaker 1: I can just wait four years until this man is
Speaker 1: done being the president of the United States. There are
Speaker 1: real national interests at play here. That would have been
Speaker 1: a totally reasonable thing for merch On to do, to say, listen, like,
Speaker 1: let's delay this sentence until after he's done being president.
Speaker 1: But no merch On, in this petty little hashtag resistance way,
Speaker 1: because this is the one little thing, this one little
Speaker 1: man can do to harm Donald Trump is saying no,
Speaker 1: you can appeal me, which is an attitude from judges
Speaker 1: that I just despise. They know they're wrong. Sometimes judges
Speaker 1: will do this. Judges will know they're wrong, but they'll
Speaker 1: feel so secure in their job they'll just say, ah,
Speaker 1: you can just appeal me if you don't like my decision.
Speaker 1: Appeal it, which for someone who's not you know, for
Speaker 1: a defendant who's not Donald Trump. You know, Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: got a lot of money. You know, a lot of
Speaker 1: defendants can't afford appellate attorneys. That's really expensive. Eh. If
Speaker 1: you don't like it, just appeal me. Judge murch On
Speaker 1: is basically, I want the media to be able to
Speaker 1: call Donald Trump on inauguration Day, the first convicted felon
Speaker 1: to ever be sworn in as president. It's that little petty,
Speaker 1: little rhetorical thing that the media wants to be able
Speaker 1: to do, that the Left wants to be able to say,
Speaker 1: and Merchon's giving that to them. That's all. This is
Speaker 1: when we return the massive Supreme Court decision about presidential immunity,
Speaker 1: which is the reason why Murchon should not be sentencing
Speaker 1: Trump today. That's next on the John Gurwardy Show. I
Speaker 1: think the main reason why it's so wrong for Judge
Speaker 1: Murchon to have entered this criminal sentence against Donald Trump today,
Speaker 1: this no jail time sentence which is being done, I
Speaker 1: think purely for the rhetorical effect that the media is
Speaker 1: now going to be allowed to call Donald Trump on
Speaker 1: inauguration Day, the first convicted felon in history to be
Speaker 1: elected president, to be sworn in as president. I think
Speaker 1: maybe the chief reason why it's ridiculous is the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court's decision on immunity. Now in between the jury in
Speaker 1: the Manhattan Trump case, which again is not a hush
Speaker 1: money case. The charge was that Trump falsified business records,
Speaker 1: characterized the money he paid back to Michael Cohen. Colin
Speaker 1: paid Stormy Daniel's money in exchange for a non disclosure agreement.
Speaker 1: Not illegal, not illegal.
Speaker 2: To do.
Speaker 1: Might be CD not a thing I do, but not illegal.
Speaker 1: Trump characterized his payments to Michael Cohen as attorney's fees.
Speaker 1: The contention is that, no, these are loan repayment, and
Speaker 1: you characterizing them as attorney's fees is a basically a
Speaker 1: mischaracterization of this business transaction. Falsification of business records. All right.
Speaker 1: The reason why that maybe the most significant reason why
Speaker 1: Merchon's sentencing of Trump should not happen today is because
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court's immunity decision, which came down in
Speaker 1: between the jury in Manhattan finding Trump guilty and this
Speaker 1: sentencing today. So about a month after Trump was found guilty,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court issued this decision about presidential immunity. So
Speaker 1: the idea is basically as a function of separation of powers,
Speaker 1: allowing the president, as the executive of the federal government,
Speaker 1: the head of the executive branch to allow the president
Speaker 1: to function in that role, to perform the critical duties
Speaker 1: of his role. He needs. Sorry, he's going through you know,
Speaker 1: I was yelling so much last night during the Notre
Speaker 1: Dame game. I'm completely horse on the radio. Here we go.
Speaker 1: The president needs to have the ability to do the
Speaker 1: work of the presidency without the constant fear that he
Speaker 1: is going to be subject to prosecution later on for
Speaker 1: his official acts. Okay, Congress has that kind of protection.
Speaker 1: It's sort of explicitly built into the Constitution that you
Speaker 1: can't hold a member of Congress liable for something they're
Speaker 1: saying on the floor of the House of Representatives as
Speaker 1: part of their job. Okay, you're not going to hold
Speaker 1: members of Congress liable because they passed a law that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court later struck down as unconstitutional that might
Speaker 1: have harmed you. Members of Congress have the sort of
Speaker 1: immunity knowing they're not going to be subject to criminal
Speaker 1: trials or civil trials as a result of doing their jobs.
Speaker 1: What the Supreme Court basically determined this was in the
Speaker 1: context of various other Trump trials, specifically arising out of
Speaker 1: the January sixth litigation, but applying now to this Manhattan
Speaker 1: case is that the president is immune from criminal prosecution
Speaker 1: for anything involving his official acts as president. Now, what
Speaker 1: are a president's official acts. Well, the court didn't one
Speaker 1: hundred percent define it, but clearly there are some things
Speaker 1: that are core to being president. Having conversations with your
Speaker 1: attorney general, about having conversations with your attorney general, working
Speaker 1: on policy things, discussions with other members of your cabinet.
Speaker 1: Of these things are part and parcel of your core
Speaker 1: presidential responsibilities. Now, doing a campaign thing maybe not necessarily
Speaker 1: part of your official duties. There's a difference between a
Speaker 1: president who's, you know, campaigning for reelection, who's talking with
Speaker 1: his campaign staff, versus the president talking with the attorney
Speaker 1: general about DJ matters. So the Supreme Court said the
Speaker 1: president is immune from prosecution for his official acts, and furthermore,
Speaker 1: is insulated from having evidence of his official acts used
Speaker 1: against him in criminal trials. Clearly, this prosecution by Merchon
Speaker 1: relied upon a whole bunch of evidence of what was
Speaker 1: clearly Trump's official acts. Alvin Bragg's attorneys entered into evidence
Speaker 1: during Trump's trial conversations he was having with the Attorney
Speaker 1: general conversations he was having with members of his cabinet,
Speaker 1: and he called some of that evidence quote devastating. His
Speaker 1: lawyers called some of that evidence devastating. Brad can't turn
Speaker 1: around reasonably and say, oh, well, it wasn't actually that devastating.
Speaker 1: A lot of that evidence was entered against Trump during
Speaker 1: this Manhattan trial, and the Supreme Court said, no, you
Speaker 1: can't use that kind of evidence against a president of
Speaker 1: the United States. And furthermore, when we talk about immunity,
Speaker 1: there are various kinds of legal immunity that exists. There's
Speaker 1: qualified immunity, for qualified immunity for government officials for certain
Speaker 1: kinds of conduct. There's the immunity that members of Congress have,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. What immunity means is not immunity
Speaker 1: from getting convicted, from getting sentenced. It's way beyond that.
Speaker 1: Immunity means immunity from being indicted in the first place,
Speaker 1: from having to go through a trial at all, from
Speaker 1: having to be subject to any kind of legal process whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Immunity is something you raised. As soon as someone sues you,
Speaker 1: you immediately move to dismiss it on the grounds of immunity.
Speaker 1: If you've got some kind of immunity defense for someone
Speaker 1: who's being sued at, like a public officials being sued,
Speaker 1: and you're able to raise qualified immunity as a defense.
Speaker 1: You raise that as a threshold issue that No, I
Speaker 1: shouldn't be subject to any part of this litigation. I
Speaker 1: don't want to have to go through discovery. I don't
Speaker 1: want to have to go through a trial. I don't
Speaker 1: want to have to go through a sentencing argument. No,
Speaker 1: I'm immune. And for merch On to have so little
Speaker 1: humility to say, hey, like I let in a lot
Speaker 1: of evidence that is very arguably presidential official acts, he's
Speaker 1: gonna raise this on appeal, Maybe I need to delay
Speaker 1: my sense, I maybe need to delay the sentencing here,
Speaker 1: and maybe I should just let the appeals process play out.
Speaker 1: If merch On, I think, had a shred of humility
Speaker 1: and a shred of non political hackery in him, that's
Speaker 1: what he would have done. Because Trump shouldn't be subject.
Speaker 1: If Trump has a real immunity defense, he shouldn't be
Speaker 1: subject to the real harm that there's a real reputational
Speaker 1: harm to being labeled a convicted felon, even though he's
Speaker 1: not going to go to jail. He's not going to
Speaker 1: go to jail, but having that label convicted felon is
Speaker 1: a thing that is going to be harmful to him
Speaker 1: as far as interacting with world leaders. It's going to
Speaker 1: interfere with his doing his official duties as president. I
Speaker 1: think I think it's very relevant. It's why the media
Speaker 1: wants it so bad. It's why the Democrats want it
Speaker 1: so bad. It's why merch On wants it so bad
Speaker 1: because he's a hack. So, in short, I think this
Speaker 1: sentencing of Trump is ridiculous. When we return, we'll talk
Speaker 1: about California wildfire stuff. Such a terrible story. We'll dig
Speaker 1: into it next. This is the John Jirbardi Show. I'm
Speaker 1: sure if you've listened to talk radio today you've probably
Speaker 1: wound up hearing this clip, but I'm gonna play it anyway.
Speaker 1: This is a clip from Los Angeles Fire Department Assistant
Speaker 1: Chief Christine Larson. It's a little twenty five second clip.
Speaker 1: So this is a guess and not You know, I
Speaker 1: was felt bad about assuming that someone was a lesbian
Speaker 1: or gay, but then as I grew up, I was like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: people who are gay and lesbian like kind of don't
Speaker 1: mind letting people know that they're gay and lesbian very often,
Speaker 1: and they kind of make distinctive choices about how they
Speaker 1: present themselves specifically to message that. So this is clearly
Speaker 1: a lesbian woman who is the Los Angeles Fire Department
Speaker 1: assistant chief. The actual fire chief is also a lesbian woman.
Speaker 1: And here's what she has to say about the idea
Speaker 1: of having a female firefighter who maybe might not be
Speaker 1: as strong as a male firefighter coming to save you.
Speaker 1: And I think it's really illustrative of the problem that
Speaker 1: the left is going to face following the disastrous collapse
Speaker 1: of government resources here in California, that maybe such a
Speaker 1: disastrous collapse it could reshape the whole political dynamic here
Speaker 1: in California. Let's listen to what she has to say.
Speaker 3: You want to see somebody that responds to your house,
Speaker 3: your emergency, whether it's a medical call or a fire call,
Speaker 3: that looks like you. It gives that person a little
Speaker 3: bit more ease knowing that somebody might understand their situation better.
Speaker 3: Is she strong enough to do this? Or you couldn't
Speaker 3: carry my husband out of a fire, which my response
Speaker 3: is he got himself in the wrong place. If I
Speaker 3: have to carryhim out of a fire.
Speaker 1: So this is a fire fighter who is responding to
Speaker 1: the quite legitimate fear, Hey, are you, as a woman
Speaker 1: physically strong enough to carry my husband out of a fire.
Speaker 1: And her response is basically sucks for you get wrecked. Sorry,
Speaker 1: you're gonna burn in a fiery inferno. I can't lift you. Oh, yes,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't have been in that situation to begin with. Yeah,
Speaker 1: no kidding. That's the whole point of firefighters to get
Speaker 1: people out of situations they shouldn't be in, i e.
Speaker 1: A fire. It's why we have have always had for
Speaker 1: firefighters certain baseline levels of physical preparedness. If you're a firefighter,
Speaker 1: you should probably be big and tough and strong. You
Speaker 1: should probably be able to do a bunch of push
Speaker 1: ups and pull ups and sit ups and lift a
Speaker 1: bunch of heavy weights. We should probably have a little
Speaker 1: weight room in fire stations. This is, by the way,
Speaker 1: this is a constant pet peeve of mine with now,
Speaker 1: the nature of a firefighter's job is that you need
Speaker 1: them desperately when you do need them, and I do
Speaker 1: sort of wonder sometimes if firefighters have a lot of
Speaker 1: downtime though, when emergencies aren't happening. It always makes me laugh.
Speaker 1: Clovis Fire Department. If you guys want to come on
Speaker 1: the show and tell me I'm a moron, you have
Speaker 1: every right to come on. It sort of drives me
Speaker 1: crazy when I see a whole fire truck going to
Speaker 1: like a grocery store like say Marty Vaughan's or whatever
Speaker 1: to get I guess groceries for the fire station, which
Speaker 1: I see all the time, And I'm like, why are
Speaker 1: you driving a whole fire truck to save Mart? This
Speaker 1: is clearly not an emergency. You're driving the whole fire
Speaker 1: truck to a grocery store to get grocery. Really that
Speaker 1: there's no other like you don't have like an F
Speaker 1: one fifty or something at the station that you could
Speaker 1: drive to do this. But why are you doing this? Why?
Speaker 1: Why am I spending the taxpayer money for the gas
Speaker 1: for a fire truck for you guys to make a
Speaker 1: run to save Mart. It drives me insane regardless, I
Speaker 1: got completely off task here. Thank God we have all
Speaker 1: the firefighters we have who are doing heroic work fighting
Speaker 1: these fires. And then a lot of the stories have
Speaker 1: read about the stuff they've been doing has been incredible
Speaker 1: and the problem has not been with firefighters at all.
Speaker 1: So anyway, if any of you firefighters want to come
Speaker 1: on the show and tell me I'm a jerk for
Speaker 1: you know, making fun of you guys, for you know,
Speaker 1: driving your whole truck to save Mark, feel free, all right.
Speaker 1: The problem is the firefighters don't have enough resources, or
Speaker 1: I guess because the leadership of these various fire departments
Speaker 1: is run by lunatics like this. Yes, the idea of
Speaker 1: the left that people engaged in public services need to
Speaker 1: look like the people they serve. And this is part
Speaker 1: of the whole equity insanity. If the outcomes, whether it's
Speaker 1: of criminal law enforcement, the makeup of hiring in a
Speaker 1: certain industry, if the outcomes don't reflect the demographics of
Speaker 1: a given region, the assumption on the part of the
Speaker 1: left is always bigotry against some Historically, under is bigotry
Speaker 1: against some group. It's always the assumption. If African Americans
Speaker 1: are being arrested, prosecuted, convicted, jailed at a higher rate
Speaker 1: than their share of the population in a given region, jurisdiction, state, whatever,
Speaker 1: the automatic assumption on the left is, it's because of
Speaker 1: racism in the system. If say, a fire department hires
Speaker 1: way more men than women for some reason. The default
Speaker 1: assumption is that it's because of sexism, and that people
Speaker 1: human beings view themselves as sports fans. They view all
Speaker 1: of human life as rooting for teams, that women root
Speaker 1: for the women team and men root for the men team,
Speaker 1: and that for some reason, a woman stuck in a
Speaker 1: burning house would feel more comforted to have someone quote
Speaker 1: who looks like her coming into the building to save her.
Speaker 1: Let me ask all the women listening, what would make
Speaker 1: you feel better having this dumpy lesbian come to save you?
Speaker 1: And yeah, I'm using those words deliberately. She does look dumpy,
Speaker 1: she looks kind of overweight. Having a dumpy lesbian come
Speaker 1: into your house to take you out of a fire,
Speaker 1: or having a big, tall, strong dude come into your
Speaker 1: house to rescue you from a burning fire. I think
Speaker 1: ninety nine percent of women are going to feel better
Speaker 1: about having someone who's big and tall and strong and
Speaker 1: frankly like it's because when you're in a burning when
Speaker 1: you're in an emergency situation, you don't give a crap
Speaker 1: about this kind of race, ethnicity, gender demography, bs. You
Speaker 1: don't care about that stuff. It's an emergency, you need
Speaker 1: someone who is the most physically able to do the job.
Speaker 1: And this is the this is where the left in
Speaker 1: California maybe, I mean, God knows are God knows that
Speaker 1: there are probably enough twenty five year old women voting
Speaker 1: in California who maybe will still refuse to accept this
Speaker 1: answer and will still continue to think in terms of
Speaker 1: like girl power and think that they're just being good
Speaker 1: people by embracing left wing viewpoints when it comes to
Speaker 1: every issue under the sun, whether it's equity and the
Speaker 1: whole panoply of LGBT issues. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: women in their twenties will will continue to think that
Speaker 1: no matter what, they'll look at this wildfire situation, and
Speaker 1: even then they'll say, well, the obvious competence gaps on
Speaker 1: the part of liberals who have governed this state, who
Speaker 1: valued dei more than like competence, who valued the plight
Speaker 1: of the Delta smelt over having abundant water resources available,
Speaker 1: who prioritized the right of liberal nonprofit groups to sue
Speaker 1: for sequel lawsuits rather than building the reservoirs that the
Speaker 1: people of California wanted to have built. Going all the
Speaker 1: way back to Proposition one, in twenty fourteen. I don't
Speaker 1: know that female twenty something voters, which constitute a big
Speaker 1: bulk of the voting population of California, I don't know
Speaker 1: that they're going to change. I think it's going to
Speaker 1: be up to millennials and Gen xers who have homes
Speaker 1: who were affected by this are going to have to
Speaker 1: really shift their minds because basically, what the left has
Speaker 1: told us is, we would rather have you die with
Speaker 1: a weak female unable to drag your husband out of
Speaker 1: a fire. We would rather let your let your husband eat,
Speaker 1: eat crap and die in a Literally, would rather have
Speaker 1: your husband eat crap and die with a lesbian firefighter
Speaker 1: unable to drag him out than to just prioritize big
Speaker 1: and strong guys, because because apparently the equity ratios have
Speaker 1: to be met, and people feel better about a firefighter
Speaker 1: who looks like them. Allegedly, apparently having firefighters with o
Speaker 1: is gonna make you feel better in the middle of
Speaker 1: a conflagration. Look, if you've got a female firefighter who
Speaker 1: can meet whatever the physical standards are that you set
Speaker 1: for men, and you're not changing the physical standards, God
Speaker 1: bless her, go for it. That's great. If there are
Speaker 1: roles that women can serve at a lower standard of
Speaker 1: physical preparedness. Maybe it's responding to, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: ambulance esque medical calls or something like that. Okay, God
Speaker 1: bless them flying helicopters, great, go for it. But I
Speaker 1: think this is honestly like this one clip of this
Speaker 1: female firefighter saying, if I can't lift your husband out
Speaker 1: of a fire, he shouldn't have been there in the
Speaker 1: first place. Well, obviously he shouldn't be there in the
Speaker 1: first place. It's a fire. The whole point of fires
Speaker 1: is that they're not supposed to happen. Your job is
Speaker 1: to get people out of situations that aren't supposed to happen,
Speaker 1: even if the situation was entirely that man's fault. Maybe
Speaker 1: this man lit a candle and forgot to put it
Speaker 1: out and fell asleep on the couch. Now his house
Speaker 1: is on fire. He shouldn't be in that situation. You're
Speaker 1: supposed to drag his ass out anyway. And I wonder
Speaker 1: if this is gonna be the wake up call for
Speaker 1: liberals in California, who for decades now have just reflexively
Speaker 1: pulled the lever for Democrats time and time again. To
Speaker 1: see that. They would rather see you die and still
Speaker 1: be woke then see this state run competently. That is
Speaker 1: what they want. They will not fix the wildfire problems
Speaker 1: because it upsets environmentalists. They will not have a competent
Speaker 1: law enforcement because it upsets George Soros. That's genuinely what's
Speaker 1: going on in this state. When we return, Marcus Streeman
Speaker 1: doesn't take the race bait. Next on The John Girardi Show,
Speaker 1: what sports media fails time and again to recognize is
Speaker 1: that football players and football coaches, even black football players
Speaker 1: and football coaches, are far more conservative than I don't know,
Speaker 1: the general population. After Marcus Freeman, who is half African
Speaker 1: American and half Korean American, won the college football semi
Speaker 1: final last night, the ESPN reporter asked him this question,
Speaker 1: and Freeman as an awesome answer.
Speaker 4: You because you are the first black head coach to
Speaker 4: go to a national championship game in college football. Just
Speaker 4: hearing that response alone, how much does this mean to you?
Speaker 1: You know I've said this before.
Speaker 2: I don't ever want to take attention away from the team.
Speaker 2: It is an honor and I hope all coaches, minorities, black, Asian,
Speaker 2: white matter great people continue to get opportunities to lead
Speaker 2: young men like this.
Speaker 1: Marcus Streaman is awesome. Equality of opportunity that'll do it.
Speaker 1: John Girardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk