Speaker 1: Whiskey coming, fake me, pay the money all right?
Speaker 2: Why think alone when you can drink it all in
Speaker 2: with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward,
Speaker 2: John U and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia.
Speaker 1: Where the laptapping live.
Speaker 3: It ain't you easy on the should taps, gotta give
Speaker 3: me and let that whiskey clone. Welcome everybody to a
Speaker 3: special Thanksgiving Day episode of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour,
Speaker 3: where we have decided to interrupt your viewing of the
Speaker 3: Detroit Lions and the Dallas Cloud Cowbs losing their usual
Speaker 3: Thanksgiving Day games, and we're gonna get straight to it
Speaker 3: and find out what Our co hosts, Steve Hayward, Hey,
Speaker 3: Steve Hi, and the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Lucretia who has a real kid, who has a real
Speaker 2: name up in the panel, but maybe she'll fix well
Speaker 2: they've got unfixed.
Speaker 3: Wait by the way, John Krisha fixes her name. We
Speaker 3: are going to find out what they're doing for Thanksgiving
Speaker 3: because I know when everybody right now when you listen
Speaker 3: to this is having Thanksgiving dinner, you're going to be
Speaker 3: comparing the meal before you to what are too glamorous
Speaker 3: philosopher slash cooks. And that's where Plato went wrong. He
Speaker 3: should not have said philosopher king should run the world.
Speaker 3: He should have said philosopher cooks should run. Well, what
Speaker 3: are two resident philosopher kirks cooks are going to do
Speaker 3: for Thanksgiving? Steve? What do you got going on that
Speaker 3: immense barbecue of your sitting over the California Yeah cliffs
Speaker 3: and the Pacific Ocean.
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 2: Well, actually I'm going over the hill to pass the
Speaker 2: robles where I'm fighting with one of my best friends,
Speaker 2: and we're gonna row tistrie a large turkey outdoors on
Speaker 2: a grill. Uh, because it's warm weather. Yes, yes, a
Speaker 2: rotiss turkey. The only thing is better than you've never
Speaker 2: if you've never thought of such a thing, John, it's
Speaker 2: a uh yeah, it's a great way to do it.
Speaker 2: The only better way maybe is to deep fry a turkey,
Speaker 2: which I have done a couple of times. But we're
Speaker 2: gonna rotissriy uh.
Speaker 4: And uh.
Speaker 3: Then I'm also because.
Speaker 2: The oven in the kitchen inside the house is going
Speaker 2: to be busy with all the other vegetables and stuff
Speaker 2: I'm gonna make, uh, I'm gonna attempt to make for
Speaker 2: the first time popovers on a gas grill outside because
Speaker 2: we you know, my friend has two grills, uh, and
Speaker 2: we're gonna wash it all down with.
Speaker 3: What Joslaughlin with his TV show Steve raw please save
Speaker 3: us for these monstrosities Thanksgiving.
Speaker 4: Over?
Speaker 1: What are you going to do?
Speaker 4: He sends me pictures, and they always burned. I bet
Speaker 4: when they're not burned, they're good. Though. I'll give you that.
Speaker 2: You're not burned.
Speaker 4: I have a picture of it still in my photos, Steve,
Speaker 4: don't you ever say that? Today? I am cooking, of course,
Speaker 4: pumpkin pies from scratch, without any like nasty old evaporated
Speaker 4: adulterated milk as they would say in uh caroline products
Speaker 4: with real cream. But here's the big thing and that
Speaker 4: and we're wiped cream, of course, is I make my
Speaker 4: crust with vodka, and I don't you know, all of
Speaker 4: that obviously cooks so you don't get any taste. But
Speaker 4: it makes butter pie crust made with vodka. It's the flakiest.
Speaker 4: I don't even eat crust. And I'll eat this and
Speaker 4: then people fight over it and stab each other with
Speaker 4: forks to try to get more of the crust so
Speaker 4: pumpkin pie. And then for mister Lucretia and you know
Speaker 4: his ongoing autoimmune issues with food, I am making a
Speaker 4: honey cinnamon cheesecake so that he can actually have something
Speaker 4: like dessert. But when Steve mentioned that thing about vegetables,
Speaker 4: who on earth actually eats sorry, who on Earth eats vegetables?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know, man, maybe sweet potatoes.
Speaker 1: I don't know what they're I.
Speaker 2: Don't charge that part.
Speaker 4: But the last reason that you're wrong, yes, exactly so wrong,
Speaker 4: is because if you put a turkey on the grill,
Speaker 4: how do you make gravy? How do you make ky bravy?
Speaker 4: And what are you going to put on top of
Speaker 4: your mass potatoes? And what are you going to put
Speaker 4: on top of the star at the Lucasia household? Is
Speaker 4: my stuffing made from my home sour dough, sausage, apples, cranberries,
Speaker 4: et cetera, et cetera, that you can eat. The gravy
Speaker 4: just makes it better. And if you don't have bravy, you.
Speaker 3: Your efforts and culture have failed. Again, you have no imaginations.
Speaker 3: A good American tradition, look is the best part of
Speaker 3: the best.
Speaker 2: Person of all, you get better stuffing in things because
Speaker 2: you bank the coals and you put a pan below
Speaker 2: the turkey as it wrote, as it based as it
Speaker 2: rotates self basting that way, and you get the most
Speaker 2: wonderful juices out of it with a smoky barbecue flavor.
Speaker 2: Then you have lots of juice for use on your
Speaker 2: stuffing and other side dishes.
Speaker 3: So there, so can I say to resolve this, we
Speaker 3: will be having a regular episode this weekend, and so
Speaker 3: both Steve and Lucretia are invited to post pictures episode
Speaker 3: of the final product. And Steve, no photoshopping, Steve, no
Speaker 3: Ai Jen, no consulting AI to have it up, shoot up,
Speaker 3: no bloat.
Speaker 1: Your pictures has got to be a real picture.
Speaker 2: Okay, But you know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna
Speaker 2: fly my drone over it, over the mess.
Speaker 1: Yes that's right.
Speaker 2: Well, now, any are you interview using any Campbell's soup
Speaker 2: products to go along with you?
Speaker 3: No, this is an outrage and outrage another attacker. What
Speaker 3: are they gonna do next? Go after the inventor of
Speaker 3: the McRib This is an outrage. I don't know if
Speaker 3: any of you saw this, but Campbell's soup a great
Speaker 3: American institution was attacked by a whistleblower lawsuit someone who
Speaker 3: worked at Campbell's assuing his boss, saying that the boss
Speaker 3: said that the food was not fit except for poor
Speaker 3: people and used genetically modified meat for the chicken.
Speaker 1: This isn't now.
Speaker 3: I consume massive quantities of campbell soups with my mcribs,
Speaker 3: and this is just another blatant lie by the enemies
Speaker 3: of the republic.
Speaker 4: Ingredient. Sometime, I can't even imagine actually putting something made
Speaker 4: by Campbell's soup into my body. To be honest with you,
Speaker 4: last night, I'll but not campbell soup last night. For years,
Speaker 4: since I was a kid, I've made a beef strogan
Speaker 4: off with you know, usually New York strip but and
Speaker 4: the base of it was always Campbell's mushroom soup. Anyway,
Speaker 4: I made it last night with entirely clean ingredients from scratch,
Speaker 4: and it was wonderful. You don't need campbell soup. You
Speaker 4: don't need Cambell soup in your green bean kass role. So,
Speaker 4: just just in case anybody had any questions out there,
Speaker 4: it's possible to do all of those things without buying
Speaker 4: a can of poison.
Speaker 2: I have actually been in a Campbell soup factory. You know,
Speaker 2: there was one John maybe it's still there in Oakland.
Speaker 1: What lucky meat they didn't give me.
Speaker 3: They didn't give me.
Speaker 4: And if you had my chicken soup, you'd never eat
Speaker 4: another chicken soup again.
Speaker 1: Mmm. Yeah, I make a pretty good chicky.
Speaker 3: Was every house having chicken soup laced with vodka crust,
Speaker 3: I would powerfully die of poison, for sure.
Speaker 4: I never thought of that. Vibe could get crust to
Speaker 4: make a chicken pop pie. There you go.
Speaker 2: And by the way, while we're on the subject of cuisine,
Speaker 2: before we get off of the something maybe more serious.
Speaker 2: I think comment of the week Jon is from I
Speaker 2: forget who was now, but somebody who said, why isn't
Speaker 2: the McRib called the pig mac? Which I think it's
Speaker 2: a we should agitate for that. I think the pig mac,
Speaker 2: it should be the pig mac.
Speaker 4: But maybe they could just have a different pig product
Speaker 4: and call it the pig mac because the McRib is
Speaker 4: kind of iconic, you know, so they could maybe make
Speaker 4: a pork well, they could call the the the breakfast sandwich.
Speaker 4: What's is called mc riddled egg McMuffin. That's it. They
Speaker 4: could make the egg McMuffin a pig McMuffin.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, it's not bad. The sausage and the egg
Speaker 1: McMuffin is really good.
Speaker 2: Hey, I got something to show. Sorry, John, you have
Speaker 2: an itinerary, itinerary, an agenda for us. But but go
Speaker 2: ahead and you have something to show if I can
Speaker 2: find it here?
Speaker 1: What did I do?
Speaker 4: Well, you're looking. I want to point out to all
Speaker 4: of our listeners that some of us take seriously the
Speaker 4: fact that this is a three whiskey happy hour and
Speaker 4: are actually in the middle of the afternoon when we're
Speaker 4: actually taping this drinking whiskey in the form of an
Speaker 4: Irish whiskey.
Speaker 1: So yeah, okay, apprecia.
Speaker 2: So you know we're going to talk more about them. Well,
Speaker 2: this is I'll ascribe it for listeners, and I think
Speaker 2: I think our livestream viewers.
Speaker 1: Can see this.
Speaker 2: You know I talked about I think I mentioned briefly
Speaker 2: in passing in our discussion of the you know a
Speaker 2: few days ago, if Gordon would the declaration all the
Speaker 2: rest of that that in nineteen seventy six you had
Speaker 2: the People's Bicentennial Commission, which is this left wing effort
Speaker 2: to attack the bi centennial.
Speaker 1: Of the Declaration.
Speaker 2: And you know back then, Lo and behold, I discovered
Speaker 2: this morning trolling around looking for something that is Senate
Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee, and that's what you see on the screen
Speaker 2: here held hearings. Actually was there subcommittee on Internal Security,
Speaker 2: which I love. It was later abolished under President Carter.
Speaker 2: So this hearings from nineth teen seventy six in March,
Speaker 2: and I've just skimmed through it, but it looks delicious
Speaker 2: because it's a sustained attack by the committee on this
Speaker 2: left wing group, and it talks about all the propaganda
Speaker 2: they're putting out, all the distortions that they're making of
Speaker 2: the Declaration in the American Founding. And the point is,
Speaker 2: and I think I will write this up and maybe
Speaker 2: more than once, the point is is that almost everything
Speaker 2: that they say in this hearing, this is a Democratic Senate.
Speaker 2: Right Democrats ran the Senate in that year. All the
Speaker 2: things they're saying now are artificial policy of America's public
Speaker 2: schools and the theme of the New York Times sixteen
Speaker 2: nineteen project, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So the point is, at least.
Speaker 2: Back in nineteen seventy six, even Democrats still have their
Speaker 2: heads on straight about left winging attacks on the founding
Speaker 2: of the country. And now we're going to sit back
Speaker 2: and listen to all the Democrats spout the stuff that
Speaker 2: once upon it to Okay, you get the point. I
Speaker 2: think this is going to be fun. Maybe after I
Speaker 2: find some excerpts, we can bring it up in the
Speaker 2: future episodes. But that's my discovery of the day.
Speaker 4: So Johnson, since we're now jolly co authors, we should
Speaker 4: actually write a paper on the history of that subcommittee,
Speaker 4: because there's this long, sort of tumultuous back and forth
Speaker 4: between the Executive and the Congress about the kinds of
Speaker 4: about money that was appropriated for the executive branch to
Speaker 4: carry out internal security operations, including about the Pinkertons, and
Speaker 4: it's just crazy how they go back and forth. And
Speaker 4: it is true that Carter finally abolished it, and now
Speaker 4: of course nobody watches over any of our internal security apparatus.
Speaker 4: But anyway, sorry, I know that's a topic near and
Speaker 4: dear to.
Speaker 3: Your heart, internal security or committee. But Lucretian I did
Speaker 3: do a piece together that was up on the Civitas
Speaker 3: website on Monday where we tried to in the course
Speaker 3: of answering a article by Richard Epstein tried to draw
Speaker 3: distinction between conservative and role or leftist brands of populism.
Speaker 3: And I hope everybody had a chance to read it,
Speaker 3: and we can.
Speaker 1: I think we can.
Speaker 3: Discuss it further if people wish to. But why don't
Speaker 3: we turn to the first topic at him? The news
Speaker 3: just broke this afternoon that the prosecutor, a prosecutor in Georgia,
Speaker 3: decided to dismiss the case. That it seems like so
Speaker 3: long ago, but it was just really a year ago,
Speaker 3: just a little bit over a year ago. Last summer,
Speaker 3: we were riveted by the trial testimony involving Fanny Willis,
Speaker 3: Lucretia's favorite prosecutor, into her into a claim that that
Speaker 3: President Trump and his advisors, including one John Eastman, a
Speaker 3: friend of ours, had tried to steal the twenty twenty
Speaker 3: election and violation of Georgia law. And you might remember
Speaker 3: that it turned out that this special prosecutor, who was
Speaker 3: brought in by Fanny Willis, who is the district attorney
Speaker 3: in the Atlanta area, had had or was having some
Speaker 3: kind of personal relationship with the DA. This was used
Speaker 3: as grounds to try to disqualify the whole investigation. The
Speaker 3: case was taken away from Fanny Willis by a Georgia
Speaker 3: body that oversees prosecutions and reassigned to this prosecutor, who
Speaker 3: issued today the declaration that the case should be dismissed.
Speaker 1: He gave two.
Speaker 3: Reasons, One that reasonable minds could differ over the infamous
Speaker 3: phone call between candidate Trump and Georgia Secretary of State
Speaker 3: Brad Raefisberger that said something along the lines of if
Speaker 3: you've got to find me one hundred and ten thousand votes,
Speaker 3: and then second that President Trump won the election in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four, is now the president and any prosper
Speaker 3: acution would be unsuccessful. One step in there, I wonder,
Speaker 3: why don't you begin?
Speaker 4: No, I just have a question for you, John. One
Speaker 4: step in there that you didn't mention, and I wonder
Speaker 4: if it's significant. So that guy whose name I cannot remember.
Speaker 4: Of course, the current prosecutor dismiss the case, ended up
Speaker 4: with the case and was actually tasked with finding another
Speaker 4: prosecutor to take on the case, and when he couldn't
Speaker 4: buy the deadline, he said, Okay, I'll take it, and
Speaker 4: then decided that was about a week ago. If I'm
Speaker 4: not mistaken, he said, Look, I tried, I asked everybody
Speaker 4: I knew, and nobody wanted to take it on, and
Speaker 4: so I'll take it on. And then about a week
Speaker 4: later he decided there was nothing, he was not going
Speaker 4: to go forward with it.
Speaker 3: Which the prosecutor's name is Peter Scandalacus, Yes, with.
Speaker 4: A great name, Scandalacus.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah.
Speaker 3: But it also seems to be, at least in my mind,
Speaker 3: a humiliation for your favorite prosecutor, Lucretia, because she sort
Speaker 3: of staked her whole career on this.
Speaker 1: Thing, it seemed to me.
Speaker 3: And there's I would think that even though the court,
Speaker 3: the court or the prosecutor has to say anything about this,
Speaker 3: it seems that this personal relationship completely tubed the case.
Speaker 3: It was remarkable if you remember last summer's trial proceedings where,
Speaker 3: for example, President Trump's lawyer said something along the lines of, well,
Speaker 3: we have the locational data from your cell phone showing
Speaker 3: you outside her house at two a m.
Speaker 1: And he said something along the line what were you doing?
Speaker 3: And he says, I don't remember what you might have
Speaker 3: been doing. I like to drive around at night, so.
Speaker 4: Let me just one off kind of topic that we've
Speaker 4: discussed once or twice before. At the risk, at the
Speaker 4: risk of sounding i'll be honest with you racist, I'm
Speaker 4: going to say this anyway, that there seems to be
Speaker 4: among a very small subset of blacks in public service
Speaker 4: this this attitude of entitlement that and we've just seen
Speaker 4: about four or five different examples of it in the
Speaker 4: last week or so. You know, the congresswoman who accepted
Speaker 4: five million dollars and the stuff going on in Minnesota,
Speaker 4: and there's just this sense and I blame I blame
Speaker 4: Black Lives Matters, who's also the leaders of which are
Speaker 4: also accused of quite a bit of wrongdoing and fraud
Speaker 4: and so forth, that the pendulum swung so far in
Speaker 4: the direction of we're not going to be racist, We're
Speaker 4: not going to look twice at somebody who's you know,
Speaker 4: who's black and and in a position of power, that
Speaker 4: there was a sense of entitlement. You see it in
Speaker 4: Jasmine Crockett all the time. What's the reason that X happened?
Speaker 4: It's racism, you know, And she can just be an
Speaker 4: idiot day after day after day, but if you say
Speaker 4: anything about it's racism. So I actually think that the
Speaker 4: best thing that could happen would be for some of
Speaker 4: these people who carried on in ways that were fraudulent
Speaker 4: or betrayed the public trust really to get the book
Speaker 4: thrown at them, so that the good people out there,
Speaker 4: of any race or color will understand that the laws
Speaker 4: apply equally, and they won't be you know, they won't
Speaker 4: be Fanny Willis thinking she can sleep with her chief prosecutor,
Speaker 4: go on vacation, spend, you know, do all the things
Speaker 4: that she's accused of doing, and still get away with
Speaker 4: it and still be a you know, a public Official's
Speaker 4: that's my takeaway from that. To believe it or not,
Speaker 4: she went after Trump, I get it, and that makes
Speaker 4: it important. But she's one of a kind out there
Speaker 4: that just seems to be popping up everywhere. I don't know,
Speaker 4: am I going to get us kicked off the the Yeah?
Speaker 3: I mean, because I don't know whether the rate of
Speaker 3: dumb corrupt politicians is higher among blacks than whites. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's plenty of dumb white corrupt politicians too great.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's anything.
Speaker 3: Now you could say which I would, I would say
Speaker 3: about Asian politicians as I would hold people from my
Speaker 3: own culture to a higher standard than dumb white politicians.
Speaker 3: I want them to be better, not worse or the same.
Speaker 3: And I would every ethnic I would, I would.
Speaker 1: I would think.
Speaker 3: Black voters want the black officials to hold themselves to
Speaker 3: a higher ethical standard than what they see.
Speaker 4: And but I think the opposite has been true.
Speaker 3: I just don't know if it's factually true. You have
Speaker 3: a different rate.
Speaker 2: Well, well, so, first of all, I mean I always
Speaker 2: thought the Willis prosecution, even if you even if you
Speaker 2: knew there wasn't succeed if it kept Donald Trump from
Speaker 2: running again and re being re elected to the presidency,
Speaker 2: Wills could reasonably assume that she'd be rewarded by Biden
Speaker 2: or a successor Kambala Harris with a judge ship or something,
Speaker 2: a federal judge ship or some federal job. So I think,
Speaker 2: you know, just being part of a political machine can
Speaker 2: explain why she went about it. Now, Lucretia's point, I mean,
Speaker 2: we have heard over the years a parallel argument that
Speaker 2: you know, when during some of the Black Lives Matter riot,
Speaker 2: it's only riots before that you've heard. Well, actually, Maxine
Speaker 2: Waters in LA in nineteen ninety two, saying this is
Speaker 2: an insurrection against the oppressive regime and be you know,
Speaker 2: any looting, Well, that's just reparations, you know, defact of reparations.
Speaker 2: So you can find that mentality out there. And by
Speaker 2: the way, Maxine Waters implicated many times in you know
Speaker 2: sweetheart deals for certain kinds of bank treatment for her husband.
Speaker 2: I forget the exact details, but the question you don't
Speaker 2: want to ask. I think lucretia is I would want
Speaker 2: to have some. And I'm surprised somebody like Steve Saylor
Speaker 2: hasn't done this, is find some actual statistic so we know.
Speaker 2: For example, John mentions why politicians Lyndon Johnson got a
Speaker 2: lot of sweetheart radio licenses he ended up with very
Speaker 2: rich man having only been in elected office his whole life.
Speaker 2: How did that happen? Well, the usual kinds of favoritism
Speaker 2: and you know, petty corruption that goes on in politics
Speaker 2: on a wide scale. Is the proportion higher among black politicians?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean, you know, I could think
Speaker 2: of all kinds of examples long before Black Lives Matter
Speaker 2: comes along five years ago. Like I just spad a
Speaker 2: long review of a biography of why he goes Charles Diggs,
Speaker 2: wasn't he the congressman from Detroit, well regarded for having
Speaker 2: actually being a real legislator. You know, he actually worked
Speaker 2: on passing laws, unlike a lot of grand standing politicians do.
Speaker 2: And yet he ended up going to prisident because he
Speaker 2: was exacting kickbacks from his office staff. Right, he'd spend
Speaker 2: his whole budget on you know, hiring staff and then
Speaker 2: require them all to kick back a portion of their
Speaker 2: salaries to him personally. Right, So you know, I don't know.
Speaker 2: It does seem that there are among some people who
Speaker 2: were in resentful ideologies who think that the political process
Speaker 2: is something to be exploited. Does that make it worse
Speaker 2: than the mafia?
Speaker 3: Or at least defend myself for a second, I'm just
Speaker 3: saying throwing let's throw in hispanics too. Let's listen to
Speaker 3: forget Sener to mean Mendez. Oh my god, yes, let's
Speaker 3: get the Hispanics.
Speaker 4: I am actually not making a fame of numbers.
Speaker 3: Do they violate the Declaration of Independence? Promise that all
Speaker 3: men are created equal and all politicians are equally corrupt
Speaker 3: without regard to their that I would.
Speaker 4: Be very willing to say, but it does all I'm
Speaker 4: saying is since the Black Liudge Matters movement, I'm not
Speaker 4: looking past away because you can find corruption now and
Speaker 4: everywhere in the past. What I'm saying is in the
Speaker 4: last call it six months, Lisa Cook, Fanny Willis, Letitia James,
Speaker 4: the again the Black Lives Matters, a woman who I
Speaker 4: can't be bothered to remember her name, the congresswoman who
Speaker 4: took you know, got five million dollars instead of fifty
Speaker 4: thousand dollars and and spent and hit it all. And
Speaker 4: you know there's there's actually but they've all been recent,
Speaker 4: like in the last few months. Is it because Trump is?
Speaker 4: This is why I was thinking about it. There was
Speaker 4: an article about how Trump is going after black women,
Speaker 4: but every single one of the black women that this
Speaker 4: you know, sympathetic to them article pulled up was actually,
Speaker 4: you know, pretty much clearly guilty, just like you know,
Speaker 4: Letitia James seems to be because I know we're going
Speaker 4: to get to her, clearly guilty of committing mortgage fraud.
Speaker 4: Yet it's all being they're they're hoping that the entire
Speaker 4: thing can be overlooked and that all the case is
Speaker 4: ultimately dismissed by the left. Because you can't go after
Speaker 4: women like that. You can't go after people who are
Speaker 4: persecuted by Donald Trump, you know, And so that that
Speaker 4: was my point. I'm really not accusing blacks or black
Speaker 4: women or anybody else of being more corrupt simply speaking
Speaker 4: than anybody else. Like you say, John, we should hold
Speaker 4: them all to a higher standard, not just your Asian buddies.
Speaker 4: It's not a comment about some genetic makeup. It's a
Speaker 4: comment about the environment that has allowed a certain licentiousness
Speaker 4: to happen among certain politicians who think that they will
Speaker 4: not be held to account. Right, that's what and that
Speaker 4: includes Menendez. Of course he never think the argument anybody
Speaker 4: get in the argument you could make is that.
Speaker 3: Because of the way the Voting Rights Act has been
Speaker 3: used to create, right the black safe seats, that you
Speaker 3: have a situation where several many of these congressmen and
Speaker 3: are not in competitive districts, and they seem to have
Speaker 3: their seats for decades, and then they abuse their power
Speaker 3: because they don't have to run competitive elections. And maybe
Speaker 3: that's going to end after the Supreme Court term in
Speaker 3: the Calilite case, when the Court starts to say you
Speaker 3: can't use racial trying to districts. Maybe that's really I
Speaker 3: think that's going rather than anything about race per se.
Speaker 2: Actually, go ahead, Steve so got to say, there actually
Speaker 2: is pretty good data that shows that one party rule
Speaker 2: or you know, safe seats like you put in John,
Speaker 2: you can't have a statistically higher rate of corruption. Precisely
Speaker 2: for the way you put it, it doesn't matter where
Speaker 2: Chicago or wats or wherever, right, and that.
Speaker 3: The Voting Rights Act has been used by both parties
Speaker 3: to try to create a lot of safe seats for
Speaker 3: black politicians. It could have been white politicians who are
Speaker 3: at the advantage of the v r A two and
Speaker 3: that would have had the same effect.
Speaker 1: But it's the misuse of civil rights law that produces this.
Speaker 4: It sometimes does actually white politicians, because in order to
Speaker 4: draw safe black seats, you end up drawing safe white
Speaker 4: seats and whatever whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 3: Well, what I thought you were going to say, Lucretia,
Speaker 3: was that this case shows the final failure of the
Speaker 3: law fair campaign against President Trump, because I believe this
Speaker 3: is the latter, this was the last ongoing case against
Speaker 3: President Trump. All it just shows their complete failure.
Speaker 1: And I have to say.
Speaker 4: I'm thinking about the New York case is not really over.
Speaker 3: I think the New York case was ended by the judge.
Speaker 3: There's still I think there was still this lingering question
Speaker 3: whether it could be restarted after he left office.
Speaker 1: But we're talking about the prosecution by Alvin Bragg.
Speaker 4: The felonies.
Speaker 1: Ye, yeah, it has been was dismissed.
Speaker 3: The civil cases are still going on, the defamation cases
Speaker 3: and the civil judgments.
Speaker 1: There's still the case about the.
Speaker 3: Alleged mortgage civil mortgage fraud that Leticia James brought that's
Speaker 3: still going on at the damages stage on appeal.
Speaker 1: That's not over.
Speaker 3: But the appeals Court made it seem quite strongly that
Speaker 3: they are going to reduce, if not reverse the damages
Speaker 3: award entirely. But the one point is going to make
Speaker 3: was that this really showed that these criminal cases were
Speaker 3: deeply flawed and everybody knew it at the time. And still,
Speaker 3: as Steve was saying, they were used to try to
Speaker 3: drive Trump out of the election, try to drive them out.
Speaker 3: And so now people are complaining about Trump's use of
Speaker 3: prosecution to strike back at these people. I agree several
Speaker 3: of these cases have a lot of problems. We're going
Speaker 3: to talk about a second. But again, how do you
Speaker 3: get lawfare to stop if you're not willing to retaliate
Speaker 3: against its originators?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: The Republicans did not start this, The Democrats started in
Speaker 3: cases what exactly like this case, like Fanny Willis's case,
Speaker 3: And so how do you get them to stop the
Speaker 3: next Fanny Willis could come along? What are we going
Speaker 3: to do to stop her from ever bringing a case like.
Speaker 4: If the next Fanny Willis came along and didn't didn't
Speaker 4: commit all of those you know, outside ethical problems, how
Speaker 4: would this turned out? That's I mean, based on the
Speaker 4: way you described the judge's ruling, it seems as if
Speaker 4: just based on the facts, the facts themselves are somewhat ambiguous,
Speaker 4: shall we say, But still, what if it had been
Speaker 4: a really good, solid prosecutor who didn't fool around and
Speaker 4: didn't do any of those other things, didn't make comments
Speaker 4: about I'm going to get Trump no matter, you know,
Speaker 4: all of those things. And like the way that presumably
Speaker 4: the Justice Department is having to go after Trump's enemies,
Speaker 4: they're having to be a little bit less open about
Speaker 4: how much they're going after Trump's enemies, I would think
Speaker 4: because anyway that's my question. Do you think it would
Speaker 4: have gone forward or is his explanation controlling here about
Speaker 4: why he didn't push it.
Speaker 3: I mean, ultimately, I thought that the case should have
Speaker 3: been preempted because it's an obvious effort to interfere with
Speaker 3: a federal election. But they never got to that stage
Speaker 3: because of the disqualification.
Speaker 1: Of Fenny Well.
Speaker 3: There as a series of other issues that would have
Speaker 3: come up, and one of them would have been, can
Speaker 3: you use state prosecution basically try to affect a federal
Speaker 3: election with the outcome of the federal election?
Speaker 4: Remember how many of those.
Speaker 1: Biggership it would just din't get to it.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, I'm just going to say. I was thinking
Speaker 4: about Colorado and how many attempts there were at the
Speaker 4: state level, and we did get a ruling from the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court overturning the Colorado case, which might have been
Speaker 4: somewhat applicable to sign a.
Speaker 1: Sign of what the Supreme Court might have defended in
Speaker 1: this case.
Speaker 4: Okay, So, Steve, did you want to make a.
Speaker 3: Still thinking about the popovers you're going to stuff into
Speaker 3: your god for saken Turkey.
Speaker 2: Presidents. I had to put up with you cretins and
Speaker 2: Philistines about everything donut.
Speaker 3: So let's turn to Steve. I mean for your thoughts
Speaker 3: on the other prosecution and indictments that were dismissed, which
Speaker 3: was we just had news of the Komy prosecution and
Speaker 3: the prosecution of lets James being dismissed. In this case,
Speaker 3: the court never reached them bar Remember Jim Comy is
Speaker 3: being prosecuted for lying to Congress about whether he authorized
Speaker 3: the leak of the whole investigation into Hillary Clinton. This
Speaker 3: said involves back obviously in the twenty sixteen election. The
Speaker 3: same prosecutor also brought the mortgage fraud my mortgage fraud.
Speaker 1: Case against Letitia James.
Speaker 3: The reason they're connected is that's the same US attorney,
Speaker 3: Lindsay Halligan, who was one of President Trump's personal attorneys,
Speaker 3: was appointed to be the US attorney, that's the top
Speaker 3: federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia to bring these cases, which
Speaker 3: she did. She went to the grand jury, got them
Speaker 3: only after the previous US attorney who have been appointed
Speaker 3: by Trump had refused.
Speaker 1: And there's this statue. I'm sorry if it's complicated, because
Speaker 1: it is complicated.
Speaker 3: But the statute says that someone can be put into
Speaker 3: the job temporarily for one hundred and twenty days, and
Speaker 3: then after that time lapses, the district court.
Speaker 1: Just gets to appoint the US attorney.
Speaker 3: So the person Halligan replaced went through that process, had
Speaker 3: been temporarily appointed, did the hundred twenty days appointed? And
Speaker 3: so so the question really was could Halligan be appointed
Speaker 3: for a new one hundred and twenty days? And the
Speaker 3: court here said no, you can't, and so anything. Now,
Speaker 3: the thing is that this isn't, weirdly a creative problem
Speaker 3: of Halligan's creation, because she chose herself to bring the charges.
Speaker 3: She's the one who signed the indictment. There's no other
Speaker 3: prosecutors who sign the dictment. So her legality, you know,
Speaker 3: whether rises or falls, the prosecution follows. And then second,
Speaker 3: she did it on I think the day before the
Speaker 3: statute of limitations had run on Comey's conduct, which means
Speaker 3: that you're gambling if her, if there was some flaw
Speaker 3: in what she did, he might get off completely, because
Speaker 3: now recharging him at this point might be outside the
Speaker 3: statute of limitations. Steve, let me ask you, does this
Speaker 3: sound like the adults are running are in the room here?
Speaker 3: This sounds like some kind of Keystone Coppish running of
Speaker 3: prosecutions against some pretty serious major figures. And does this
Speaker 3: harm Donald Trump by seeing these two efforts to get
Speaker 3: two of his pursuers.
Speaker 1: Fail this way.
Speaker 2: Well, see, now I get to use the line lucretia
Speaker 2: usually uses, John John, you're reading too much from the
Speaker 2: Washington Post and National Review, which I did a National
Speaker 2: Review in an article saying, you know, the gang couldn't
Speaker 2: indict straight our pal Anie McCarthy.
Speaker 1: I think, right.
Speaker 2: I love Andy, but you know he's too conventional for
Speaker 2: my take, wrong on everything.
Speaker 1: So no, I won't say that.
Speaker 2: Let's leave that as well. Now, now let's stay on
Speaker 2: point here. I shouldn't have said that I knew. I
Speaker 2: knew that was lucretie of bait. Look, I mean, yeah,
Speaker 2: it would be better if they had gotten her properly confirmed.
Speaker 2: It sounds like this is a technicality. Really that doesn't.
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 2: So I want to show you one more thing that
Speaker 2: I'll explain to listeners. I think the broader story here
Speaker 2: is democratic obstructionism is succeeding, and that is why this
Speaker 2: has happened. So here's a chart that'll describe it for listeners.
Speaker 2: This is a chart of confirmation delays going back to
Speaker 2: Reagan for the first two hundred days. We're beyond twohundred
Speaker 2: days now. But the point is is that, uh, the
Speaker 2: obstruction of a prompt executive branch nomination executive branch nominations, right,
Speaker 2: and you know, you see a few delays from Reagan
Speaker 2: through Obama and Trump one it starts to take off.
Speaker 2: The Republicans did it some to Biden, but Trump too.
Speaker 2: Democrats are blocking and slowing down everything as much as
Speaker 2: they possibly can, and that means confirmations.
Speaker 1: For all kinds of jobs.
Speaker 2: I'll bet the Justice Department is high on that list,
Speaker 2: by the way. You know, on the Ricochet podcast a
Speaker 2: week ago, we had Harme Dilon on who said two
Speaker 2: thirds of the career lawyers and the Civil Rights Division
Speaker 2: have quit. I say, congratulations, When are you gonna get
Speaker 2: the other third to quit? But then she said, but
Speaker 2: we're shorthanded throughout the entire Justice Department, right, And so
Speaker 2: I think that's the story that's not being reported.
Speaker 4: People. Sorry, Steve, Do all those people have to be
Speaker 4: confirmed at the lower levels that she's talking about?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so, well, not the career people. No,
Speaker 2: that's true, ye defin, but you know a lot of
Speaker 2: throughout the the schedule see appointees, which you know, John,
Speaker 2: you were right, and when you're a legal counsel, right,
Speaker 2: that's all Senate confirmation and you need those people too
Speaker 2: because you don't just hire lawyers off the street and
Speaker 2: so forth. Anyway, So anyway, I think that is the
Speaker 2: subtext here is that this is all part of a
Speaker 2: plan of Democrats that is joined considerable success. And the
Speaker 2: way the meeting he's going to report it as well, Gosh,
Speaker 2: I just can't think do things right. I think you
Speaker 2: mentioned a key point, John, I think, which is there's
Speaker 2: a statute of limitations running on these things, so they
Speaker 2: need to get these cases filed. And so that's another
Speaker 2: reason why maybe you cut corners if you think that's
Speaker 2: what's happening.
Speaker 4: So plus the I mean Trump made a mistake. I'll
Speaker 4: accuse him of Keystone coppery with the appointing of the
Speaker 4: Eric guy to begin with, because that guy is just
Speaker 4: you know, deep in the swamp. And it turns out
Speaker 4: I'm going to forget what it is, but it's like
Speaker 4: his father in law is or mother whoever it was,
Speaker 4: he's related to the judge that decided that the prosecutor
Speaker 4: was not duly appointed. I have a deeper question for you.
Speaker 4: It goes back to something we keep talking about, John.
Speaker 4: How is it that it's not a violation of the
Speaker 4: separation of powers to have a statute whereby the judge's
Speaker 4: name the prosecutor.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you would think it was, But there's this. It
Speaker 3: is in the appointments clause. Strangely really, Yeah, if you
Speaker 3: go look, if you look at an article two, look
Speaker 3: at the appointment's clause. It allows for the appointment of
Speaker 3: inferior The listeners can't see this, but Steve and are
Speaker 3: early looking for their costal test.
Speaker 4: Well, it's not that I don't believe you. I just
Speaker 4: wanted to see exactly how said he.
Speaker 3: Was shuffling with various popover recipes and can't find his
Speaker 3: But it says it's an article too, and I'm and listeners,
Speaker 3: I'm just quoting from memory.
Speaker 1: So this is the most impressive.
Speaker 3: But I believe it says that inferior officers can be
Speaker 3: appointed by the heads of departments, by the President, heads
Speaker 3: of departments, or by the courts, as.
Speaker 1: Directed by law. And this came up.
Speaker 3: And the reason I remember this is because it came
Speaker 3: up in Morrison versus Olsen, because recall that the Special
Speaker 3: Council of the Old Days who prosecuted ted Olsen and
Speaker 3: who investigated reg and investigative Bush, was appointed by a
Speaker 3: special court, and the Supreme Court upheld that in Morrison
Speaker 3: versus Olsen. So it's a weird. Otherwise, you're quite right, Lucreti.
Speaker 3: Your instinct was, or how can the courts be involved
Speaker 3: at all with appointing a prosecutor?
Speaker 1: Seems wrong?
Speaker 3: But actually the Constitution would allow Congress to vest the
Speaker 3: appointment of lots of inferior officers into the courts, which
Speaker 3: actually the nice thing I always say about this, It
Speaker 3: really shows how the Framers did not expect there to
Speaker 3: be large federal bureaucracies.
Speaker 4: Because is that an element Let me put you on
Speaker 4: the spot, John, can you give me a check and
Speaker 4: balance element to why they would have done that? In
Speaker 4: other words, you know, thinking about why would they do that?
Speaker 4: But Hamilton says that this is a changerous branch.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean this is discussed just a little bit
Speaker 3: in this Morrison versus also in case which I think
Speaker 3: was generally wrong because it upheld the DC Circuit appointing
Speaker 3: the special prosecutor but I think the idea was with
Speaker 3: the transportation and communications back then being so slow that
Speaker 3: you would need to have the federal prosecutor appointed, and
Speaker 3: suppose someone died or resigned, you couldn't have like a
Speaker 3: month while the news went to Washington and then the
Speaker 3: president reappointed and then another month back. So it was
Speaker 3: a provision to allow the district courts to keep the
Speaker 3: criminal justice system at work.
Speaker 1: That's the I think that's the reason.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that makes sense, but I don't think it takes
Speaker 3: away from your basic point, Lucretia, was that the problem
Speaker 3: was all the appointment of the predecessor to Halligan, and
Speaker 3: that was a big mess. And then this guy Siebert
Speaker 3: is his name, refused to indict who the President ordered
Speaker 3: him to.
Speaker 1: Indict, and he was removed from office.
Speaker 3: I don't know if Halligan was the best choice. She
Speaker 3: She's never done criminal law, never done indictment, never done
Speaker 3: a criminal trial. As far as I I mean, I
Speaker 3: think the last time I heard he of her was
Speaker 3: when she screwed up the search of mar A Lago
Speaker 3: and was the personal Trump's personal lawyer on the scene
Speaker 3: for that. So it's not a distinguished career. And I
Speaker 3: do think It's an example of incompetence by the Trump
Speaker 3: Justice Department to have had this time.
Speaker 1: It's embarrassing. Well, let me just let me all kinds
Speaker 1: of other problems.
Speaker 3: Even beyond this, Remember, I mean there you could go on.
Speaker 3: There's apparently the grand jury didn't sign the final docum,
Speaker 3: the grand jury didn't actually see the final indictment, which
Speaker 3: is also what it could result in being thrown now
Speaker 3: and then. I don't think you can win the case
Speaker 3: against Komy. It's just too hard. You're not supposed to
Speaker 3: indict people where you can't. You don't, you don't believe
Speaker 3: you're gonna win the case.
Speaker 4: But all I'll say in Trump's defense for just a moment,
Speaker 4: is that he the first term, he surrounded himself with
Speaker 4: very well respected establishment types who knew the ropes and
Speaker 4: did all of those things, and they turned out to
Speaker 4: be massively disloyal to him. And I guess, if you know,
Speaker 4: I'm not really making excuses so much as maybe just
Speaker 4: an explanation. If I'm Trump, maybe I'd just rather put
Speaker 4: people in the office that I know are going to
Speaker 4: be loyal to me, rather than that are you know,
Speaker 4: the as you put it, I would hire Miguel Estrata
Speaker 4: or Abby Lowell to be my attorney because but but
Speaker 4: if you're Trump, maybe you just want people who will
Speaker 4: who will be loyal And I'm just throwing it out there.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Well, I think, well, it's not it's not so
Speaker 2: much like Steve well It. Loyalty is one thing, and
Speaker 2: that's important. I mean, you know, Nixon said that was
Speaker 2: his big mistake in the point loyalists. But I think
Speaker 2: there's another reason, which is the people Lucretian mentions were
Speaker 2: in the first term were very conventional Republican, and so
Speaker 2: many the people he appointed where people you'd expect any
Speaker 2: Republican presidency. So I'm thinking when Churchill became Prime Minister
Speaker 2: in you know, May nineteen forty, he was pretty disgusted
Speaker 2: with the government establishment that had been sluggish about prosecuting
Speaker 2: the war that had been going on for what eight
Speaker 2: months to no effect, and then plus getting him to
Speaker 2: that point, and you know, building supplies very slowly, and
Speaker 2: so he said he put on a memo saying, I
Speaker 2: want unconventional people appointed as senior positions, people who would
Speaker 2: normally not be part of the British establishment. I want
Speaker 2: odd balls. And he got some odd balls too. They
Speaker 2: weren't all successful appointees. But the point is if you
Speaker 2: want to shake if you really want to shake things up,
Speaker 2: which Trump clearly wants to do more so than ever,
Speaker 2: you can't use the conventional people. You're going to have
Speaker 2: to appoint a lot. That's why you have hag Seth
Speaker 2: at the Defense Department instead of the people he had
Speaker 2: the first term, exapt Kennedy instead of what Price and
Speaker 2: and alex As are at HHS. So you know, he's
Speaker 2: doing that model, and I think that makes some sense
Speaker 2: as a general matter, even though in our government it's
Speaker 2: going to lead to a lot of i'll say disasters,
Speaker 2: like we see this not a disaster, but it is
Speaker 2: embarrassing and it is a problem.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well it's I think you're of course, the president
Speaker 3: has the right to appoint loyalists, but at some point
Speaker 3: loyalty bumps up against what can be done, like we'll
Speaker 3: connect and when a prosecutor tells Trump, look, we can't
Speaker 3: indict them, we can't.
Speaker 1: Win the case. Yes, but it's not just I would
Speaker 1: think it would go on with.
Speaker 3: Science or mediciner engineering. They're just the presidence, of course
Speaker 3: wants some political outcome, but some of them are not possible. Right,
Speaker 3: Like you met John officials Deember.
Speaker 1: You're going to lose the case. You cannot win a prosecution.
Speaker 2: Well, hold on a minute, John, and I'm going to
Speaker 2: be the cynical bare knuckle Paul here and say that
Speaker 2: may be true, uh is considered in the abstract. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, what's the old saying about how the
Speaker 2: process is the punishment? And if you're an advocate of
Speaker 2: game theory, as you are in these matters, then you're
Speaker 2: gonna want to die anyway because you want him have
Speaker 2: to spend a million dollars on legal feasts to get
Speaker 2: back at him for his bad behavior, which is.
Speaker 4: Why the judge's decision was such a victory for him,
Speaker 4: because he didn't have to do any of that by
Speaker 4: dismissing the case. One last question, because I know you
Speaker 4: want to move on, but I do want to ask
Speaker 4: my resident expert. I listened to Jonathan Turley on this
Speaker 4: subject and really was probably more confused after it than
Speaker 4: I was before.
Speaker 3: So this makes you the average response.
Speaker 1: Because I only.
Speaker 4: Listened to Jonathan truly when I don't have access direct
Speaker 4: access to you, John Sue. But his argument was this
Speaker 4: doesn't mean the end of the case. But he didn't provide,
Speaker 4: in my opinion, the really solid explanation.
Speaker 2: There is a maybe I didn't get it.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, he should have mentioned there's a
Speaker 3: statute which says that if you if indictment is dismissed
Speaker 3: essentially for procedural faults, not because of the substance of
Speaker 3: the charges for proceding regions, that the test Department I
Speaker 3: think has sixty days or maybe it's six months. I
Speaker 3: think it's six months to seek a new indictment, even
Speaker 3: if the statute of limitations would have otherwise run. So
Speaker 3: there's a statute that Congress has passed to take care
Speaker 3: of examples exactly like this.
Speaker 1: So they can reindict.
Speaker 3: They have to go back to a grand jury, get
Speaker 3: a grand jury to agree, but it's still going to
Speaker 3: be tough to get any prosecutor to do it. And
Speaker 3: just having looked at it closely, I don't think the case.
Speaker 3: I don't think the department can win, and so they
Speaker 3: normally as a matter of policy, wouldn't bring the case.
Speaker 4: And then we go back to you can beat the
Speaker 4: rap that you can't beat the ride, right, Steve, Yeah,
Speaker 4: something like that. Yeah, So I have one quick question.
Speaker 4: It's not on the agenda, but it came up since
Speaker 4: and I have to ask about it. Really is, It's
Speaker 4: all along the same line. So another judge, yet another judge.
Speaker 4: At the local level. In Minneapolis, a jury unanimously convicted
Speaker 4: a Somali man of stealing seven point two million dollars
Speaker 4: worth of taxpayer money. The jury deliberated, et cetera, and
Speaker 4: the judge overturned their verdict.
Speaker 3: Really, yeah, and almost impossible.
Speaker 4: That's what that's that's what I thought. She said something
Speaker 4: I was looking for. Sorry, I was looking forward. I
Speaker 4: won't waste any more time with it, but I wanted
Speaker 4: to hear that because jurors are furious.
Speaker 1: No, So a judge is only that I don't know
Speaker 1: this case.
Speaker 3: I've heard about your broader issue of fraud, fraud in
Speaker 3: the Somali immigrant community of welfare programs that are taking
Speaker 3: place in Minnesota, and I imagine I assumed that Department
Speaker 3: of Justice and h is launching investigation.
Speaker 1: But a judge is.
Speaker 3: Only allowed to override the verdict of a jury if
Speaker 3: the judge finds that no reasonable juror could have concluded
Speaker 3: guilt based on all the evidence.
Speaker 1: That is such.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't even I can't remember recently ever
Speaker 3: reading of a judge reaching out to find because it means,
Speaker 3: like the finding is every single juror had to be
Speaker 3: irration totally irrational to find that this person was guilty.
Speaker 3: It is very, very It happens a lot more on
Speaker 3: TV in the movies than ever in real life. Now
Speaker 3: you see more often judges changing, you know, giving narrow
Speaker 3: sentences things like that if they really disagreed with the
Speaker 3: jury's verdict, but to actually override the verdict is almost
Speaker 3: unheard of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that's amazing.
Speaker 3: But anyway, we'll figure out more about that and report
Speaker 3: back on the next episode where don't want to tax
Speaker 3: our listeners too much. On Thanksgiving Day, I hope all
Speaker 3: of you have been listening to this while you've been
Speaker 3: cooking your turkey, which means that if you're following Steve's example,
Speaker 3: you've got another four or five hours ahead of you,
Speaker 3: so you're listening to other podcasts. But if you're finding
Speaker 3: the Lucretia example, you're probably just about finished. And so
Speaker 3: let's go to our final Thanksgiving question, which is, uh, Steve.
Speaker 1: What do you have to be thankful for?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: I have two things I'm thankful for. First of all, John,
Speaker 2: I am thankful for the Clean Air Act because.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, oh my god, you have ruined Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: America has been ruined.
Speaker 2: Well, this is why. This is why I am thankful for.
Speaker 2: It gives me an easy way to annoy you unfailingly
Speaker 2: every time works every time. And we do have a
Speaker 2: couple of listeners who every week say they want more
Speaker 2: Cleaner Act content.
Speaker 1: So now I am obliged.
Speaker 4: But he doesn't understand sarcasm.
Speaker 3: We now know, because of the the Twitter locational feature
Speaker 3: that both of these people who ask for this information
Speaker 3: are from Russia but run Indonesia.
Speaker 2: I said, I am too. The serious thing. This is
Speaker 2: a serious point that we don't need to spend time
Speaker 2: getting into. But I am thankful that the United States
Speaker 2: still has trial by jury. I've just been reading the
Speaker 2: news the last few days that Britain wants to get
Speaker 2: rid of trial by jury for a clubs of the
Speaker 2: lower level of crimes. They say, but you can see
Speaker 2: where this is going, and you know, jury's get things
Speaker 2: wrong in this country, especially a DC jury is going
Speaker 2: to rule against the Republican and rule in favor of
Speaker 2: a Democrat. Every time.
Speaker 1: It seems like.
Speaker 2: But I think it's not a bad thing that prosecutors
Speaker 2: have to say, you know, well the jury by this
Speaker 2: or that argument. It is I've kind of forgotten now
Speaker 2: about you know, how juris arose but doesn't go back
Speaker 2: seven eight hundred years and more, John to check, you're
Speaker 2: right to you know, it's against the arbitrary power of
Speaker 2: the nobles.
Speaker 1: In the crown.
Speaker 2: It was, you know, one of the long chain of
Speaker 2: things that lead us to democracy. And so when you
Speaker 2: have things like the International Criminal Court that has no
Speaker 2: trial by jury, or lots of these international bodies, to
Speaker 2: hear that Britain is thinking of getting rid of jury
Speaker 2: trials for any class of crime as anything, a very
Speaker 2: bad sign of many bad signs coming out of England.
Speaker 2: And thank goodness that we are not following that bad idea.
Speaker 4: And thank goodness that we decided not to continue to
Speaker 4: do that in seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, well it was one of the bill and
Speaker 2: it was one of the bill of particulars against the
Speaker 2: King in the enumeration. The declaration was denying us to
Speaker 2: mine a trial by jury. It's obviously very important to uh,
Speaker 2: the you know that was in that document that that
Speaker 2: particular right was enshrined and included.
Speaker 3: So so for the listeners like me who still wonder
Speaker 3: how Steeves's brain works. The two things he's thankful for
Speaker 3: are trial by jury and the Clean Air Act. Explained
Speaker 3: to me how those two things in one brain at
Speaker 3: the same time. Macritia, what are you thankful for this?
Speaker 4: I'm gonna be serious for a moment, to try not
Speaker 4: to choke or anything. I you know, I'm Catholic. I
Speaker 4: have a wonderful senior pastor at my parish who gives
Speaker 4: an a case this homily occasionally about how if you
Speaker 4: live where I live in Coaches County, he said, you
Speaker 4: have so much to be thankful for. And the way
Speaker 4: he would describe it in the Humley as he would say,
Speaker 4: imagine that you put every person in the world and
Speaker 4: all the blessings that they enjoyed in a big, long line.
Speaker 4: If you are from America, you are in the top
Speaker 4: quarter of a percentile of the whole world in terms
Speaker 4: of blessings material and otherwise. You know the fact that
Speaker 4: you have freedom of religion. I for one, I'm not
Speaker 4: really happy with my pope these days. I haven't been
Speaker 4: for some time. But you know what, I haven't been
Speaker 4: killed once for being Catholic, nor have I seen any
Speaker 4: you know, in my classrooms where kids are kidnapped. So
Speaker 4: freedom of religion is an amazing thing and we still
Speaker 4: have it in the United States. I'm thankful for that.
Speaker 1: But I'm just.
Speaker 4: I'm thankful for all the blessings that we as Americans enjoy,
Speaker 4: and I'm very fortunate. I'm thankful for my family. I'm
Speaker 4: thankful I'm not a Muslim because I sure love my dog,
Speaker 4: So you don't.
Speaker 3: Know, that's all.
Speaker 4: I don't eat my dog. No dogs are considered how
Speaker 4: do you say it, harum something awful. And so this
Speaker 4: has been all over social media lately, all of these ugly,
Speaker 4: stupid barbarian and mom saying you need to get rid
Speaker 4: of your dog, you need to beat your wife to death,
Speaker 4: you know that sort of thing. Anyway, So I'm thankful
Speaker 4: that I'm not a Muslim because I love Kaiser and
Speaker 4: my cat too. Sorry, John, I'm just And I'm thankful
Speaker 4: for the three whiskey Happy Hour because I look forward
Speaker 4: to it and seeing you guys every week. So there
Speaker 4: you have it, and I'm thankful that I'm a better
Speaker 4: cook than Steve.
Speaker 3: The Lucretia household is no doubt thankful for that as
Speaker 3: a family, and we send our thoughts and good wishes
Speaker 3: out to Alison Hayward, who has.
Speaker 1: To eat this god awful meal that Steve has it.
Speaker 3: I don't pop over its stuffing in flying turkeys rotating.
Speaker 1: God knows what else is going on there. So I thought.
Speaker 3: That I would for Thanksgiving read a small part of
Speaker 3: President Washington's oh First Thanksgiving Proclamation of seventeen eighty nine,
Speaker 3: and he said that we should join together in our
Speaker 3: and to let's see, we should unite in giving thanks
Speaker 3: to God for his care and kind care and protection
Speaker 3: of the people of this country previous to their becoming
Speaker 3: a nation, for this signal and manifold mercies, and the
Speaker 3: favorable interpositions of His providence, which primes has really just
Speaker 3: cost benefit analysis, which we experienced in the course and
Speaker 3: conclusion of the late War, for the great degree of tranquility, union,
Speaker 3: and plenty which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable
Speaker 3: and rational, rational manner in which we have been enabled
Speaker 3: to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness,
Speaker 3: and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the
Speaker 3: civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and
Speaker 3: the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge,
Speaker 3: and in general, for all the great and various favors
Speaker 3: which he have been pleased to confer upon us.
Speaker 2: Amen, not bad.
Speaker 3: I'm not bad for a guy who didn't write all
Speaker 3: that much.
Speaker 4: So I do have a few. I hate to change
Speaker 4: the mood because that was very nice. A few Babylon
Speaker 4: bees though, that are just absolutely perfect.
Speaker 2: One.
Speaker 4: Back to an earlier topic, This one's for you John
Speaker 4: Trump's strategy of hiring lawyers based on bus sides not
Speaker 4: working as well as anticipated.
Speaker 2: I wasn't going to say that about what's your name,
Speaker 2: but yes.
Speaker 4: Hmm, sorry, family holding it. This one's for you, Steve,
Speaker 4: family holding out hope. This will finally be Thanksgiving where
Speaker 4: turkey explodes in epic fireball. By the way, we didn't
Speaker 4: even mention. I got a good laugh out of it,
Speaker 4: the whole joke that Trump made about he wasn't sure
Speaker 4: that the the Biden's turkeys were truly pardoned because of
Speaker 4: the autopan right. Yeah, however that went. That was so great.
Speaker 4: Heaven confirms people who prefer ham at Thanksgiving will not
Speaker 4: enter the kingdom.
Speaker 3: Sometimes, you know, I do like a good Virginia hand,
Speaker 3: Yeah too.
Speaker 4: But Virginia ham, the salty one, Yeah, oh so good.
Speaker 4: And then as I go off to my kitchen to
Speaker 4: make my pumpkin pike, et cetera, and my my from
Speaker 4: scratch cranberry sauce, Mom continues long stay tradition of making
Speaker 4: cranberry sauce.
Speaker 2: For no one.
Speaker 1: That's true. I don't like to stop gap.
Speaker 3: Oh I love cranberry sauce, so only the kind of
Speaker 3: comes out of the can into that weird cylindrical shape.
Speaker 4: I'll send you the meme I have on that one. John,
Speaker 4: It's pretty good.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 4: Listen everyone, I hope you have an absolutely lovely before
Speaker 4: he gets to it, lovely blessed Thanksgiving and that you're
Speaker 4: grateful for all of the wonderful things that you have,
Speaker 4: and we hope to see you maybe even this weekend.
Speaker 3: Yeah right, Well, always drink your whiskey meat, buy more books,
Speaker 3: and Steve, what latest AI concoction do you have for us?
Speaker 2: I asked chat GPT to do a episode fitting with
Speaker 2: today's themes about how the podcast would treat cooking Thanksgiving. Dinner.
Speaker 2: I'll just give you the opening banter quite long, actually
Speaker 2: the opening banner. Host one, Look, cooking a turkey.
Speaker 1: Is not complicated. People act like it's a geopolitical crisis.
Speaker 2: It's a bird, not a treaty negotiation. Host two, Well,
Speaker 2: some people manage to turn it into a crisis, mostly
Speaker 2: by refusing to use a thermometer, which is culinary malpractice
Speaker 2: and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Speaker 1: Post three.
Speaker 2: I would just like to note before we begin that
Speaker 2: all this goes more smoothly if you pour yourself a
Speaker 2: whiskey and listeners can decide which host studio should be
Speaker 2: assigned to which person because Chap GPT didn't do it
Speaker 2: for us, but I can.
Speaker 1: I have my suggestions.
Speaker 2: So that's it for this episode. We'll be back over
Speaker 2: the weekend. I think listeners with a regular episode all
Speaker 2: the other podcasts on Ricochet, and that's where they take
Speaker 2: this holiday weekend off, So we want to make sure
Speaker 2: you are not without your current podcast fair So we'll.
Speaker 4: Be back this moaning when out both us it.
Speaker 1: I'm grateful for my tones great book Cality here I'm
Speaker 1: reading and out of my nose this morning when I
Speaker 1: set up said I'm grateful for my back, for full
Speaker 1: and another nine without a heart attack. Was grateful for
Speaker 1: my baby lying next to me, for the speaceful minning.
Speaker 2: Nowhere else to be.
Speaker 1: So grateful for the sausage.
Speaker 4: I'm grateful for the stone, for the coffee, for the cup.
Speaker 4: The slimmers and the road by the
Speaker 2: Ricochet joined the conversation.