Speaker 1: Well, whiskey, come and take my pain, the moneys my brain.
Speaker 2: Oh whiskey, don't you let me.
Speaker 1: Here?
Speaker 3: From power Line blog dot com and produced by Ricochet
Speaker 3: dot com. This is the three Whiskey Happy Hour with
Speaker 3: your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and power Lines International
Speaker 3: Woman of Mystery Lucretia.
Speaker 2: Have you gotta giving? Let that whiskey blow where you're
Speaker 2: feeling in love? Down and load.
Speaker 4: Welcome everybody to the three Whiskey Happy Hour where we
Speaker 4: are going to begin as we are supposed to discussing
Speaker 4: whiskey during our happy hour, and it's actually happy hour
Speaker 4: for a change, so we can have whiskey and that
Speaker 4: coffee or something done like that. So we're starting with.
Speaker 4: This is the youngest whiskey I'm having today. This is
Speaker 4: the cask of a Monteata whiskey. Very excited about that.
Speaker 4: Then the next youngest is yeah, none of them are
Speaker 4: old enough to vote? Is this fourteen year old Glenn Fittach.
Speaker 4: And finally the one I'm actually drinking is I'll show you.
Speaker 4: This one is the fifteen year old Solera fifteen Warm
Speaker 4: and Spicy, fifteen years in bourbon, new oak and sherry
Speaker 4: casks so none of that nasty old cigarette ashtray scotch free.
Speaker 1: Welcome gentlemen, John Oh, I think have the best looking bottle.
Speaker 1: I've got this gigantic will It pot still, which I
Speaker 1: think I haven't even opening for the first time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I think when you smells really sweet
Speaker 2: when you pulled it off your shelf, it looks like,
Speaker 2: what is he getting a bomb?
Speaker 1: I mean it looks like only you refugees from the
Speaker 1: seventies would think that.
Speaker 4: Okay, Steve, tell us what you're drinking while I put
Speaker 4: my dogs outside.
Speaker 2: My first glass is a Lefroy quarter cask, and then
Speaker 2: my backup for later is a Balveny doublewood twelve. But
Speaker 2: I think Lucretia can hear us. I think she's got
Speaker 2: her earbuds on. This is this has been a week
Speaker 2: for drinking. I have to tell you because it's been
Speaker 2: so crazy. I dusted off Kingsley Amos's great book on
Speaker 2: every Day Drinking, which is all its best alcohol writing.
Speaker 2: But knowing that Lucretia likes Glenn MORAINGI I thought she's
Speaker 2: gonna want to hear this, I mean be able to
Speaker 2: respond to it. Uh. Here's here's what Amos says about
Speaker 2: Glenn Morange. He says, Glenn Maring, for example, a well
Speaker 2: liked brand has been called delicate and mild, even faintly sweet.
Speaker 2: Now that seems like the wrong whiskey for you, Lucretia,
Speaker 2: because no one would confuse you with delicate, mild and
Speaker 2: even faintly sweet, right, but.
Speaker 4: Not mild, definitely not faintly sweet.
Speaker 2: But he also says Glenn Fiddick brute and well balanced.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that fits you either.
Speaker 4: Well balanced, that's me.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, maybe the problem.
Speaker 4: Is you guys think I'm not because your squishes. As
Speaker 4: somebody said in the air in the chat, we.
Speaker 1: Sque are they living?
Speaker 2: Do they just need?
Speaker 1: Do they just only live in Montana? And don't leave
Speaker 1: this don't leave the state.
Speaker 2: John, you haven't figured this out, were It's lucretious universe.
Speaker 2: We're just living in it.
Speaker 4: So actually, the interesting thing was, Steve, last time the
Speaker 4: three of us got our all of us got our
Speaker 4: own share, all three of us of positive comments and
Speaker 4: negative comments. What was even me? My negative comments got
Speaker 4: down arrows and your guys just didn't. But you know,
Speaker 4: but yeah, women.
Speaker 2: Why did you become a social scientist? To start counting
Speaker 2: these things.
Speaker 4: I was just laughing about it. It was because there's
Speaker 4: a woman who finds me objectionable because I'm fun of
Speaker 4: other fat, ugly, stupid women when they.
Speaker 1: Are pass.
Speaker 4: I can't help myself, and I can do it because,
Speaker 4: you know what, I am a woman. That's why the
Speaker 4: one of the big things going across social media this
Speaker 4: past week has been this fight on the right. Where else,
Speaker 4: because that's the only place that they ever fight about anything.
Speaker 4: Whether we should concentrate on Pamela's really awful background policy
Speaker 4: failures to the extent she has any at all. Uh,
Speaker 4: you know, talk about a record, keep it on the
Speaker 4: up and up, keep it not personal. Don't talk about
Speaker 4: the fact that she slept with Willie Brown to get
Speaker 4: ahead in politics. Don't talk about the fact that, you know,
Speaker 4: on and on and on that she's dumb, that she's inarticulate,
Speaker 4: that she speaks in word salads. Talk about her policies,
Speaker 4: and of course, you know, then then the then the
Speaker 4: left turns around and says all sorts of uh, really
Speaker 4: horrible personal things about JD. Vance and about Donald Trump. Yeah,
Speaker 4: but we can't be like them. They don't follow the
Speaker 4: John you rule of fight fire with fire, though, I think.
Speaker 1: There's so much material to work with on how left
Speaker 1: wing she is that we don't even need to state
Speaker 1: the obvious about that. She's being picked for diversity reasons
Speaker 1: and has been her whole career. So, I mean, I
Speaker 1: was a piece looking at her criminal procedure record when
Speaker 1: she was DA and HGA California, and there's so much
Speaker 1: material to work with that. I mean, why would why
Speaker 1: would the rest of the country want to elect a
Speaker 1: California Marxist to the presidency given what they've done to
Speaker 1: the state. We don't need to do much more than that.
Speaker 4: I'm an anecdote. You hear, John, You didn't know that
Speaker 4: was a verb, did you.
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 4: When she was chosen for the VP slot, I walked
Speaker 4: into a colleague who was a retired brigadier general who said,
Speaker 4: isn't the most this is the most exciting thing you've
Speaker 4: ever heard. I had tears running down my face when
Speaker 4: I saw the fact that the United States of America
Speaker 4: had finally nominated as a nominee for a major party
Speaker 4: for president, a woman of color, a woman of an
Speaker 4: African American. I said, she's not African American. Well, but
Speaker 4: she's a woman of color, she's and I said, she's
Speaker 4: a DEI candidate, she's unqualified, and she's there to make
Speaker 4: the Biden ticket look better. And I swear his face
Speaker 4: turned the color of Steve shirt, which, for those of
Speaker 4: you who are listening to the recording, is white. I
Speaker 4: don't think he ever, I didn't know him very well.
Speaker 4: Ever expected somebody to push back and say, what a
Speaker 4: pussy you cried because some scum boh sorry, got nomine
Speaker 4: I think we should talk about it every single day.
Speaker 4: The fact that she's unqualified because she was chosen for
Speaker 4: reasons other than qualifications.
Speaker 2: Well, well, the obvious irony here is well, first of all,
Speaker 2: it ought to be pointed out relentlessly that once Biden
Speaker 2: settled on nominating a black woman to be vice president,
Speaker 2: a person of color, he has ruled out ninety percent
Speaker 2: of the American population from consideration. You know, nobody seems
Speaker 2: to think that this is outrageous and absurd and offensibly.
Speaker 4: Because of the populations had all the benefit in the past.
Speaker 2: Well, well, they'll I understand that. But then the other
Speaker 2: one is nowadays, I thought DEI is supposed to be
Speaker 2: a good thing, but to point it out now is
Speaker 2: racist and sexist and horrible. So the contradictions are now
Speaker 2: impossible to paper over and deny, and so that's why
Speaker 2: they're not going to be able to escape it.
Speaker 1: Maybe this is why I am a squish. I don't
Speaker 1: have any problems if people, for political reasons want to
Speaker 1: put up candidates who are a certain race or gender,
Speaker 1: but then they can be criticized for it. You know,
Speaker 1: that's just part of politics, right. I'm sure when the
Speaker 1: when in Boston, when they first started putting the first
Speaker 1: Irish candidates on the ballot right to get the Irish
Speaker 1: immigrant vote, that's fine, it's just politics. But then you
Speaker 1: can criticize them for is maybe not being the most
Speaker 1: qualified people. So I don't think it's I don't think
Speaker 1: there's anything wrong with politicians saying, oh, we're going to
Speaker 1: have a black woman. Although I was thinking about that,
Speaker 1: Brigadier general, is he going to cry for every ethnic
Speaker 1: group when they first get numb and put on the ticket,
Speaker 1: because that's going to he might do a lot of
Speaker 1: crying every for that.
Speaker 4: I actually think it was just too much in one package,
Speaker 4: you know, toom you know, as we like to call
Speaker 4: it on the other when we're making fun of it,
Speaker 4: A two for three for whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 4: I think after Kamala, who cares?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 4: What can you do that's worse? I guess you're gonna
Speaker 4: have Pete booty juice.
Speaker 2: I'm hoping he's the running mate. That would be perfect.
Speaker 4: Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be great? Actually, I
Speaker 4: think the funniest thing. I don't want to spend anytime
Speaker 4: on this. It wasn't on my agenda, But I think
Speaker 4: the funniest thing is the whole simmering under the surface
Speaker 4: controversy about the fact that nobody thinks he's really gay.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, well really, I hadn't heard it.
Speaker 4: Yeah it was. I mean, Tucker Carlson said it, and
Speaker 4: of course he was lambastad for it. But it was
Speaker 4: on the American Mind podcast this morning from our friends
Speaker 4: from Claremont discussing it. Yes, because supposedly some.
Speaker 1: I oh no, I remember this now. Back in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: there were some writers at the New Republic who attacked
Speaker 1: him for not being gay enough. They called him like
Speaker 1: I'd never heard. I didn't even know what any of
Speaker 1: these things meant. They called him like the house gay.
Speaker 1: I swear and they had like some name for him
Speaker 1: that got the writer in a lot of trouble, but
Speaker 1: I can't remember what it was, but yeah, they attacked
Speaker 1: him for being too conservative, a gay person, or too conventional.
Speaker 4: I guess, okay, I have let it go off the rails.
Speaker 4: But I'm going to bring us back to reality here
Speaker 4: for a moment, because John, one of the complaints, not
Speaker 4: against any one of the three of us last time,
Speaker 4: was that we didn't actually talk about the Canon, the
Speaker 4: Judge canon decision of dismissing the case against Trump, and
Speaker 4: a lot of people wanted to hear your analysis of that.
Speaker 4: How you think, what you think about her decision, a
Speaker 4: bit of analysis of her decision, but also how you
Speaker 4: think it might affect the other persecution, I mean prosecutions
Speaker 4: of Trump that are still more or less ongoing.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, when I first heard of this argument,
Speaker 1: I thought it was kind of a hail Mary argument.
Speaker 1: But that's because the d C Circuit had already rejected it.
Speaker 1: It had been brought against Robert Mueller, and the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court had refused to grant certain hear the argument. But
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon's in Florida, which is a different circuit, When
Speaker 1: I say circuit, I'm referring to the federal appeals courts,
Speaker 1: so she's not bound by what the federal Appeals Court
Speaker 1: in DC thinks. I think she's written maybe the most
Speaker 1: thorough opinion that's ever been done about special councils. She
Speaker 1: goes through the long history of them, talks about the
Speaker 1: different ways they've been appointed. But the basic fact of
Speaker 1: the matter is that she says, there is no congressional
Speaker 1: statute that authorizes an employee to be special counsel. So
Speaker 1: it's just illegal to say, Jack Smith, you're from outside
Speaker 1: of the government and we're going to put you in
Speaker 1: the job of special council. Then her second argument, I think,
Speaker 1: actually that's pretty good. I mean, I don't see any
Speaker 1: I didn't see Jack Smith actually make a compelling argument
Speaker 1: against that. The second argument is tougher. I think she
Speaker 1: has the better the argument, but I could see both sides.
Speaker 1: And this is, even if he is an employee, he
Speaker 1: has so much power. He's almost equivalent to a cabinet
Speaker 1: officer because no one can tell him what to do.
Speaker 1: And usually when you have that kind of policy making authority,
Speaker 1: you are an officer of the United States who's considered
Speaker 1: a principal officer, and principal officers have to be appointed,
Speaker 1: usually by presidential nomination and Senate consent. Sometimes it can
Speaker 1: be people who are appointed directly by the president. Smith
Speaker 1: has so much authority he's not really under the control
Speaker 1: of the Attorney General Merrick Garland. Merck Garland keeps usefully
Speaker 1: saying that he's not telling telling Jack Smith what to do.
Speaker 1: So all those statements played into her hands, as she said,
Speaker 1: he's an unconstitutional officer. Now, the one thing about it
Speaker 1: is that it's actually pretty easy to cure, which is
Speaker 1: kick Jack Smith out of the job and appoint some
Speaker 1: US attorney is the special counsel. That's why David Weiss,
Speaker 1: who's investigating Hunter Biden, he doesn't raise any of these
Speaker 1: problems because ever before he became Special counsel, David Weiss
Speaker 1: was nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate to
Speaker 1: be the top federal prosecutor in Wilmington, Delaware. So Garland
Speaker 1: can eat Garland, and Biden can easily fix this by
Speaker 1: picking some other Justice Department person now who's already been
Speaker 1: confirmed for office and give them the job. In that case,
Speaker 1: then the word special council is in reality just window dressing, right.
Speaker 1: You don't even need the term. You could just say,
Speaker 1: David Weiss, I'm not going to call you special counsel,
Speaker 1: but I direct you to investigate Hunter Biden. It would
Speaker 1: be the same thing. So that's why I think her
Speaker 1: opinion is right. But in the end, it doesn't really
Speaker 1: stop Biden and Garland from continuing the Special Council of
Speaker 1: Investigation into Trump. Now, I think politically the wise thing
Speaker 1: for Biden and Garland to have done was this to
Speaker 1: declare defeat and move on and just say there's no
Speaker 1: way for us to complete this Special Council of vestigation
Speaker 1: because the Supreme Court has already struck down one of
Speaker 1: our main charges, which we discussed before, was this tampering
Speaker 1: with evidence, and the Supreme Court is granted President Trump
Speaker 1: immunity for all his official decisions with his constitutional powers.
Speaker 1: We disagree with these decisions, but we recognize we can't
Speaker 1: really continue now. And then this is the last stake
Speaker 1: in the heart of the Special Council, saying Jack Smith's unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: They should just say where it's over, Well, law fair,
Speaker 1: dawn work, and we're just gonna throw it over to
Speaker 1: the November elections. Let the American people decide.
Speaker 4: We're going to throw it to the battle box. Before
Speaker 4: I concede over to you, Steve, and maybe we're going
Speaker 4: to make the same point. When we discussed this last
Speaker 4: before this decision came out, I mentioned that I thought
Speaker 4: the problem with the Special Council was that it was
Speaker 4: in effect given unlimited resources to prosecute, and that one
Speaker 4: of the you know, one of the limitations on normal,
Speaker 4: everyday prosecutors is that they have to use their limited
Speaker 4: resources wisely. Those decisions can often be political, and often
Speaker 4: are political, but nevertheless, year you know, and we see
Speaker 4: that with Alvin Bragg and all the soils prosecutors. But otherwise,
Speaker 4: if you're a prosecutor and you have limited resources, you
Speaker 4: pick the worst crimes, the crimes that maybe are the
Speaker 4: things that people are most upset about, because if you
Speaker 4: prosecute them, you'll get reelected. However that works. You guys
Speaker 4: all get it. But in this case I argued that
Speaker 4: the resources given to Smith were essentially unlimited, and you
Speaker 4: said no. But that was an argument that Cannon made
Speaker 4: and said, I'm not going to reach it because I
Speaker 4: don't have to. But he had and I don't remember
Speaker 4: the term you probably do. John. Basically, he had money
Speaker 4: that was never allocated by Congress that he could spend
Speaker 4: as much as he wanted. Of am I wrong, No.
Speaker 1: I think no. I think You've got part of this right.
Speaker 1: And this shows the contradiction that the Biden Garland Justice
Speaker 1: Department put it. They put themselves into it. So if
Speaker 1: you say, the more they were saying, oh, Jack Smith's
Speaker 1: independent and we're gonna let him spend just as much
Speaker 1: money as he wants and hire as many people as
Speaker 1: he needs, then that falls into Cannon's argument he's really
Speaker 1: just on a part with the Attorney General himself. The
Speaker 1: more they say no, actually, he has to obey Justice
Speaker 1: Department guidelines. The director, he's directed by the Attorney General.
Speaker 1: He's really just an employee, then they get no political
Speaker 1: benefit because then it's obvious as it is that he's
Speaker 1: just doing the bidding of Biden and Garland and that
Speaker 1: it really is a political prosecution. And so you're quite
Speaker 1: right that one thing Canon said is that because there's
Speaker 1: no law that creates his position, you know, you just
Speaker 1: can't bring an outsider in and say he's special counsel.
Speaker 1: She also said, and there's no money appropriated for such
Speaker 1: a position, and since there's no money appropriated, it's illegal
Speaker 1: for him to spend federal dollars. That's how she worked
Speaker 1: it in I mean, I think that part of its quirt.
Speaker 1: And in that way she didn't address this bigger constitutional issue.
Speaker 1: She could just say there's no statute that creates his
Speaker 1: office or funds his office. Therefore she doesn't reach a
Speaker 1: bigger issue, which is and he would be unconstitutional because
Speaker 1: he's got too much power.
Speaker 2: So you know, John, I I was. I still haven't
Speaker 2: read through the whole ninety pages, but I did look
Speaker 2: at the excerpts about what violated the appointments clause in
Speaker 2: the Constitution, and I started having flashbacks to oh, come on,
Speaker 2: you know the Independent Council case from the eighties. Thanks, right,
Speaker 2: and there I'm having flash and of course, right now,
Speaker 2: how that turned out. It was what eight to one,
Speaker 2: with only Scalia dissenting, and people later saying, ah, even
Speaker 2: Linda Greenhouse New York Times says, gosh, you know, really
Speaker 2: Scleia might have been right after all, right, But of
Speaker 2: course that dissent rested upon Larry Silberman's fabulous Appellate Court opinion.
Speaker 2: When that case first came up. So my question is
Speaker 2: a simple one long setup, sorry, on the Silberman scale
Speaker 2: of one to ten, ten being full Silberman, where do
Speaker 2: you rake this opinion?
Speaker 1: The reason is he's asking me this because I clerk
Speaker 1: for Silberman or in the Lower Court, and I think
Speaker 1: this is not as good as the Silberman opinion itself
Speaker 1: in the Morrison versus Olsen case. And people should realize
Speaker 1: the Olson in that case is Ted Olsen, who later
Speaker 1: became Solicitor General and you know, very famous, one of
Speaker 1: the founders of the Supreme Court bar in a way,
Speaker 1: so I would say this was an eight out of ten.
Speaker 1: This is pretty damn good, not quite as good as
Speaker 1: I've always said. I always like I always to tease
Speaker 1: Scalia because I always told him the very the most
Speaker 1: important line in his Morrison descent. It was the second
Speaker 1: sentence where he said something like I can't do justice
Speaker 1: to all the great reasons that were provided by the
Speaker 1: lower Court as to why this is unconstitutional. That's great,
Speaker 1: which Silberman loved that line. But look, you actually one
Speaker 1: other question, which is what does this make of the
Speaker 1: investigation going forward? So I take it Smith is appealing
Speaker 1: the decision in Eleventh Circuit, but I think other than that,
Speaker 1: he should pretty much shut down his operations. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's been a federal judge has found him unconstitutional, and
Speaker 1: I think, is you know, she's dismissed the indictment. I
Speaker 1: guess that's not going to happen in Washington. But if
Speaker 1: he were acting in good faith, he should cease all
Speaker 1: all of his activities other than pursuing the appeals. Question
Speaker 1: about whether he's allowed to exist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, a quick follow up question which actually someone
Speaker 2: in the chat suggested, I've lost track of who it
Speaker 2: is though. To what extent do you think that the
Speaker 2: judge was reinforced by hints from Clarence Thomas and what
Speaker 2: the community case? Maybe I forget which one it was,
Speaker 2: the Trump versus Unis versus right And should we expect
Speaker 2: or hope for more hints from Thomas to the lower
Speaker 2: side judges. I think yeah.
Speaker 1: So, you know, if you look at the timing, it
Speaker 1: does work out very nicely. I think Justice Thomas's concurrence
Speaker 1: comes out two weeks before this opinion, and he laid
Speaker 1: out and very brief formed the logic of finding Jack
Speaker 1: Smith unconstitutional. And I think there was talking about before.
Speaker 1: You can see that when Thomas spends his concurrence on
Speaker 1: an issue that's sort of tangentially related to the case,
Speaker 1: and they're sending a signal this law fair business is over.
Speaker 1: As we discussed, I think the Supreme Court went farther
Speaker 1: than it needed to in the immunity case, but it
Speaker 1: makes sense to me. They're sick of this guy, Jack Smith.
Speaker 1: They won his investigation shut down, and they're sick of
Speaker 1: people going to Supreme sick of Smith trying to get
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court fast to accelerate a partisan prosecution
Speaker 1: before the election. He was the worst guy if you
Speaker 1: really wanted to have a really decent Special Council investigation.
Speaker 1: Garland and Biden picked the exact wrong guy.
Speaker 4: I agree, but they're dumb. As successful as leftists can be,
Speaker 4: they always end up being dumb in the end. So,
Speaker 4: speaking of.
Speaker 1: Dumb that you're gonna ask Steve a question now.
Speaker 4: I'm going to ask my two favorite co hosts from California.
Speaker 4: They're my only co hosts, but they're still my two
Speaker 4: favorite co hosts from California to give us their impressions
Speaker 4: of our newest, most impressive politician that's ever walked the
Speaker 4: face of the earth, who is, of course, if you
Speaker 4: believe I have to do it. Steve, the media gasm
Speaker 4: about her.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, she is.
Speaker 4: In fact the most impressive person ever to run for
Speaker 4: any office since before the beginning of time. So tell
Speaker 4: me what you think about her, gentlemen, Steve, you go first?
Speaker 2: Oh heck, I was hoping you're make John go first.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, John go first. Why haven't you been writing
Speaker 1: a piece about her record as attorney general and district attorney?
Speaker 1: And I think it's gonna be like du Kaka after
Speaker 1: the Bush and of Bush was done with him, when
Speaker 1: you go back and look at her actual record, I
Speaker 1: think people will turn away from her because despite the
Speaker 1: you know, the makeover, you know, the extreme makeover we're
Speaker 1: seeing right now, which would outdo any of these home
Speaker 1: TV makeovers that are on every cable channel every night
Speaker 1: for hours, They're going to see the real Kamal Harrison,
Speaker 1: see what she really believes in because she had to
Speaker 1: make hundreds and hundreds of decisions when she was in
Speaker 1: those jobs, and her preferences came through two cases that
Speaker 1: really I think, well, I expect a Trump campaign will
Speaker 1: make a lot of use of these A certainly shocked me.
Speaker 1: Was she was despite California law. She was an opponent
Speaker 1: of the death penalty. And there's a famous case where
Speaker 1: a gang member killed a San Francisco police officer and
Speaker 1: seriously wounded his partner, and she refused to seek the
Speaker 1: death penalty, in fact delay the case for years and
Speaker 1: years and years so that it actually wouldn't forward until
Speaker 1: she left office. I think that when you put up
Speaker 1: I think it's a totally fair ad to say that
Speaker 1: she caddled cop killers. I can't it's I think that's
Speaker 1: worse than Willy Horton. Yeah, I think that's the Willie
Speaker 1: Horton commercials from nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 2: Diane, Fine, Well, she has another Willy Horton to come.
Speaker 2: We'll come to in a minute. Maybe she got attacked
Speaker 2: publicly for that stance by Dianne Feinstein, which I think
Speaker 2: they could just roll Feinstein's tape in an ad. I think, right. Yeah,
Speaker 2: So that's that's just I mean, that's just one case.
Speaker 1: There's another, I mean, really well known case where another
Speaker 1: gang member, lucretiall will be interested in this because who
Speaker 1: was an illegal alien and a member of the MS
Speaker 1: thirteen gang, and he also he had been convicted including
Speaker 1: attacking pregnant a pregnant woman, He committed murder of a
Speaker 1: grocery story manager and their two children and his two children.
Speaker 1: And again Kamala Harris would not see the debt penalty.
Speaker 1: Again sat on the case for years. I think this
Speaker 1: is just devastating. Right, she's going to say, oh, I
Speaker 1: was never in favor of to fund the police. I've
Speaker 1: always you know, she's going to turn her back and
Speaker 1: all the things she did in the Black Lives Matter's case,
Speaker 1: But she has a record here of being light handed
Speaker 1: on some of the worst murderers in our system.
Speaker 4: Before I turned to Steve Can, I add to that
Speaker 4: by saying, the thing that actually has become sort of
Speaker 4: it's so prominent to me, is this whole abortion issue.
Speaker 4: Now we know that as Attorney General, she did not
Speaker 4: prosecute people who were you know, abortion doctors who were
Speaker 4: selling baby parts. Instead, she prosecuted the journalists who did
Speaker 4: a sting operation to discover that that. You know, she's
Speaker 4: when you ask Elizabeth Warren, what has she done, she
Speaker 4: visited an abortion clinic. But one of the other things
Speaker 4: she did, and I really do have a point to this,
Speaker 4: when for the or when when she was Attorney General.
Speaker 4: She also call it hassled without going into all the details,
Speaker 4: pregnancy clinics. I've started putting most of my charitable contributions
Speaker 4: towards the Life center here in my little town that
Speaker 4: takes care of pregnant women and so on. But this
Speaker 4: is the thing that I still can't quite quite wrap
Speaker 4: my head around. The left is so rabidly radical, rabid
Speaker 4: being the operative word there, that they cannot even allow
Speaker 4: anyone a to oppose abortion, to pray outside of an
Speaker 4: abortion clinic, or to provide options for women. Because to
Speaker 4: options for women so that you know, maybe they don't
Speaker 4: want to have an abortion, but that seems like the
Speaker 4: only opportunity. But there's all these good hearted, wonderful people
Speaker 4: out there volunteering their time and their money and their
Speaker 4: resources to give them those opportunities, and the left wants
Speaker 4: to shut them down. Can anybody explain that to me
Speaker 4: other than abortion itself has become a sacrament for the left.
Speaker 4: That's a question, Steve, Why are you looking at me
Speaker 4: like a pass I.
Speaker 1: Think Steve's trying to find ammo against you and the
Speaker 1: reader questions, but there is none. It's all ammo against Steve.
Speaker 1: From what I can tell, No.
Speaker 2: There's actually I want to bring up our pal, the
Speaker 2: Goora from Sydney has a good question here, but that
Speaker 2: takes us working with Maybe.
Speaker 1: Let me try to answer. Can I throw out a
Speaker 1: response to Lucretia, which is I think one thing about
Speaker 1: this abortion thing, to show how radical she really is,
Speaker 1: is not only that she's radically pro choice in California.
Speaker 1: There I don't blame her because that's what Californians wanted.
Speaker 1: I mean, we live in one of the most right
Speaker 1: pro abortion states in the country. But I think she
Speaker 1: just said that she would sign national legislation to impose
Speaker 1: a uniform pro choice ro versus wade rule across the
Speaker 1: whole country, which one won't be unconstitutional, I think, I
Speaker 1: think Dobbs, I think makes clear that this is a
Speaker 1: question for the states, and all of us can participate
Speaker 1: in a democratic process to create the you know, create
Speaker 1: the abortion rules for the states where we live. But second,
Speaker 1: I think she wants to take the California abortion regime,
Speaker 1: which I think is a real political outlier, and oppose
Speaker 1: it on the whole country.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm reminded of you know, when I was
Speaker 2: going to college in Oregon in the seventies, and they
Speaker 2: were worried that too many Californians were coming up there,
Speaker 2: and the popular bumper sticker was don't California Kate, Oregon.
Speaker 2: I kind of like it, sort of like Lucretius, I'll
Speaker 2: see your media gasm and raise you a California Kate.
Speaker 2: I think a nice attack would be Kambla wants to
Speaker 2: do for the whole country what she and Gavin Newsom
Speaker 2: have done for California. I think there's some On the
Speaker 2: abortion question. We've said a lot in previous episodes about
Speaker 2: how Republicans and pro lifers have fumbled this issue. There's
Speaker 2: no reason to revisit those arguments right now. But from
Speaker 2: a purely analytical point of view, when the issue is
Speaker 2: a referendum in Ohio or even other red states it's
Speaker 2: only about abortion, then right now the pro life side
Speaker 2: is losing. However, a presidential election, people make their choices
Speaker 2: on a more a broader spectrum of things they care
Speaker 2: right now, more about immigration, the economy, crime. Abortion is
Speaker 2: lucky to be fourth or fifth on the list, and
Speaker 2: it's way down. So, in other words, it's not what
Speaker 2: we call in the polling or political science business a
Speaker 2: high salience issue. So I think the more they talk
Speaker 2: about it, the more they're going to actually turn a
Speaker 2: lot of people off who say, yeah, I agree with her,
Speaker 2: but I'm more concerned about their record on crime and
Speaker 2: the economy and so forth. Well, that's why I think
Speaker 2: it's not going to work for them.
Speaker 4: Steve the Gore's question is very much related to that,
Speaker 4: and that's the fact that by training her fire on JD. Vance,
Speaker 4: it's a little more difficult. You have to lie about
Speaker 4: Trump in order to make it sound as if Trump
Speaker 4: is some you know, rabid anti abortion activist that wants
Speaker 4: to you know, execute mothers who seek abortions. They try,
Speaker 4: but I mean people know better than that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: But Vance, because they can tie together more of his
Speaker 4: pro family, let's call it that pro family policies that
Speaker 4: he's been very vocal about. They can play the handmaiden's
Speaker 4: tail game and make it sound as if, you know,
Speaker 4: if you elect JD. Vance, the next thing, you know,
Speaker 4: you will be unlike Kama barefoot in the kitchen having
Speaker 4: seventeen children, you know, And so the whole thing is
Speaker 4: tied together. But they tie it in of course to
Speaker 4: reproductive health. Wait one quick sorry tangent. Here, I attended
Speaker 4: a very small meeting of people affiliated with the military base,
Speaker 4: a community group that's committed to keeping missions on the
Speaker 4: military base I live next to. So you can imagine
Speaker 4: who the popular, who the members are of this committee
Speaker 4: and what their concerns are. And we we did a
Speaker 4: talk with the Democratic candidate for the congressional district where
Speaker 4: I live. She's a law professor from the U of
Speaker 4: A and the first so she's going to come in,
Speaker 4: she's going to talk about herself and then she's going
Speaker 4: to tell us what her priorities are. So to this
Speaker 4: group of people caring about what missions are kept on
Speaker 4: Fort Wachuka, she says, my most important issue is reproductive
Speaker 4: health and the fact that if Trump and Vance get elected,
Speaker 4: they will take away women's reproductive health. Is there anything more?
Speaker 5: There are no.
Speaker 4: Words for me to describe how asinine a statement like
Speaker 4: that is. It's not gaslighting, doesn't work, There's nothing. So really,
Speaker 4: I don't know, Steve. They believe it in their heart
Speaker 4: of heart set it's a winning issue.
Speaker 2: Well, I know, but I think that you know, Trump
Speaker 2: was very good on this issue. In his debate with Biden,
Speaker 2: he figured out that they're the extremists, and he was
Speaker 2: very effective that. I think maybe his most effective answer
Speaker 2: of the entire night was on that particular question. So
Speaker 2: I have confidence in him. What Gorera is saying is,
Speaker 2: look what the media and the Democrats are doing is
Speaker 2: they're trying to do to Jdvance what was done to
Speaker 2: Dan Quayle back in nineteen eighty eight. Nobody knows who
Speaker 2: Jade Vance is. Maybe some people saw the movie and
Speaker 2: heard of the book, but he's being defined, and he's
Speaker 2: being defined very in a very adverse way right now.
Speaker 2: And you're Dan Quayle. I mean, let's say something good
Speaker 2: about Quail. He was a very accomplished legislator by the
Speaker 2: time he was nominated to be vice president, and his
Speaker 2: reputation was ruined very quickly. He made a couple of
Speaker 2: little mistakes of his own, you know, in office, the
Speaker 2: miss spelling potato and the Murphy Brown speech. It don't work.
Speaker 2: But look, this is the same thing's happening in the Vance,
Speaker 2: and I think he needs to get out and do
Speaker 2: a sixteen minutes interview by himself, not with Trump and
Speaker 2: so forth, and and fight back on it very hard,
Speaker 2: which I think he's able to do, because I do
Speaker 2: think this is a problem for them.
Speaker 1: I just don't think Vance is gonna make a difference.
Speaker 1: I think people are going to vote about it's therefore
Speaker 1: against Trump. He's such a dominating figure, right, you know,
Speaker 1: everyone knows what he stands for. You know, maybe Vance
Speaker 1: might marginally help in the Midwest. Maybe Kamala Harris counters
Speaker 1: at by putting up a right, a VP nominee from
Speaker 1: the Midwest, you know, white male from the Midwest. And
Speaker 1: that's what all the that's what all the inside we're
Speaker 1: gonna people think.
Speaker 4: I was asking, we are going to at the end
Speaker 4: give our predictions. But I'm not going to take your
Speaker 4: guys as seriously because since we all know, I've been
Speaker 4: right about everything, I have predicted every single thing.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so who's your prediction, Lucretia.
Speaker 4: Oh, I don't have one yet. I'll think about it
Speaker 4: and I'll decide by the time we get it. But
Speaker 4: what I do want to do, you guys will love
Speaker 4: this because you would never buy me.
Speaker 1: For people listening this way.
Speaker 2: People listening unbelievable, Lucretia. Now, oh my gosh, a tinfoil
Speaker 2: cowboy hat, because I think that's what we're going next, right,
Speaker 2: and well, I.
Speaker 1: Think, Steve, I think we've been there for a few years.
Speaker 1: What are you talking about.
Speaker 4: God, I just want you everyone to know they've been
Speaker 4: promising me my own designer. The only person who designed
Speaker 4: this was me for a song for years, and they
Speaker 4: never will buy it for me to.
Speaker 1: People, people can't appreciate the fine Italian like handiwork that
Speaker 1: this to the point where not only is the top,
Speaker 1: but she's also done the underside of the hat and
Speaker 1: aluminum too. I saw that it goes on the inside
Speaker 1: of the hat as well to provide full full installation
Speaker 1: from the X rays by the government.
Speaker 4: None of those waves are getting into my brain. I
Speaker 4: promise you it's not so much. This is not necessarily
Speaker 4: a conspiracy. Yet. We kind of get to the conspiracy
Speaker 4: at the end of my examples here. But I do
Speaker 4: want to talk about the fact that the let's call
Speaker 4: it the regime media. I won't use the word against
Speaker 4: Steve right now, and.
Speaker 2: No, I agree with that phrase. Now go ahead, sorry.
Speaker 4: No, the regime media that the links to which the
Speaker 4: left is willing to go, which we expect, but that
Speaker 4: the media is willing to go to lie to erase history,
Speaker 4: to erase their own history. I'm certain everybody who's on
Speaker 4: this call or listening to it understands completely that what
Speaker 4: I'm talking about. You know, Axios, she's not a borders are,
Speaker 4: she never was a borders are when, of course, you know,
Speaker 4: you can pull up their story now that's been a raised,
Speaker 4: of course, but the internet's forever saying she was a
Speaker 4: borders are because of course the disaster at the border,
Speaker 4: about which she did nothing. We've been to the border. Well,
Speaker 4: I don't understand your question. We haven't been to Europe either.
Speaker 4: What's your point? You know, the dumbest interview ever by
Speaker 4: any person on the planet. So how do we get
Speaker 4: to this place where they just get away with these
Speaker 4: kinds of lies and altering the truth, altering their own record,
Speaker 4: their own publications. I don't even know. I don't know
Speaker 4: how to wrap my head around it, and people believe them. Well,
Speaker 4: I want to know what you guys think, honestly, Well.
Speaker 2: If there's any small consolation, it's that a public respect
Speaker 2: for the media is at an all time low. It's
Speaker 2: down around used car salesman, and this is going to
Speaker 2: make it worse. I don't think they realize how badly
Speaker 2: they're screwing this up. But I think Charlie Cook had
Speaker 2: a great comment a couple of days ago. He said, well,
Speaker 2: it was nice having somewhat honest and half way objected
Speaker 2: media for a month. We'll remember that month, you know,
Speaker 2: when they're after Biden actually reporting about his senility. Right
Speaker 2: now they're back.
Speaker 4: But no shame whatsoever about refusing to support it when
Speaker 4: it was obvious to everyone anyway.
Speaker 2: Yep, yep, no, that's right. Yeah, No, we have a
Speaker 2: you know, there's uh, well, you know there's the recent
Speaker 2: article which we've mentioned a couple times in casual chat,
Speaker 2: of Neil Ferguson saying we're the Soviet Union now and
Speaker 2: he's got a demographic but we really are become the
Speaker 2: Soviet Union. And this is positively stalinist the way we
Speaker 2: erase Kamala's record. You know, if you google Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: borders are, you'll get thirty one thousand hits returning the
Speaker 2: phrase no, no, she was never the borders are. Of
Speaker 2: course my joke. Maybe you read it was strictly speaking,
Speaker 2: maybe it's true. You can only be a czar if
Speaker 2: you're from the Tsarist region of Russia. Otherwise you're just
Speaker 2: sparkling Habsburg aristocracy. But look, you.
Speaker 1: Show off, you outrageous show off.
Speaker 2: But look, we've been using the.
Speaker 4: Phrase leagasm is better.
Speaker 2: Well look in British politics, the person who does the
Speaker 2: interagency process is called a supremo, and there's a whole
Speaker 2: episode of Yes, Minister, while you never want to be
Speaker 2: a supremo because it's a losing assignment. We have been
Speaker 2: calling people policies are I think since William Simon in
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy four, who was Nixon and forged Energies are
Speaker 2: and they've had him ever since. Right, will Bill Bennett
Speaker 2: was the rugs are right. People joked that Obama had
Speaker 2: more Czars than the Romanovs as he was trying to
Speaker 2: centralize as much policy as possible in the White House.
Speaker 2: And so suddenly to say, oh no, they're not trying
Speaker 2: to do is they're trying to give her an out
Speaker 2: from being responsible for the border. So final comment is
Speaker 2: I'm getting this ironic flashback to nineteen sixty You may remember,
Speaker 2: if you know the history, famous comment.
Speaker 4: We're born in nineteen fifty nine. I know, but I
Speaker 4: read you're not having a flashback.
Speaker 2: Well, I lost my reading. Oh well that was precocious.
Speaker 2: So a reporter asked, Eisenhower, can you tell us what
Speaker 2: the content rebutions a vice president Nixon were to the
Speaker 2: Eisenhower presidency, and Eisenhower and a flip moment, said well,
Speaker 2: if you give me three days, I might think of
Speaker 2: something which is thought to have been very damaging to
Speaker 2: Nixon and eyes and how later was sorry and regretted
Speaker 2: that he answered thoughtlessly. But now that seems to me
Speaker 2: the answer about Harris. Oh, Harris has nothing to do
Speaker 2: with the Biden record, So clean slate is all new.
Speaker 2: She had nothing. By the way, the next thing they're
Speaker 2: going to try and to race is all of her
Speaker 2: claims that she was part of the decision to get
Speaker 2: out of Afghanistan. She was in the room when the
Speaker 2: key decisions are made. It'll be interesting to see how
Speaker 2: they try to wiggle her out of.
Speaker 1: That was in this the problem all vice presidenting vice
Speaker 1: president's house when they got to create their own independence.
Speaker 1: But they're you know, you're just going to hang the
Speaker 1: current administration around them. The only one who survived it,
Speaker 1: right since you know, the founding period was George H. W.
Speaker 2: Bush.
Speaker 1: And that's because everyone wished they could have re elected
Speaker 1: Reagan to a third term. Right, but otherwise, right, she's
Speaker 1: gonna I mean, I don't see how she escapes it.
Speaker 2: I think, and you know, our mutual friend Jim Pearson
Speaker 2: had to beat me to it. The great article of
Speaker 2: the New Criterion this week saying, look, Ducaucus tried to
Speaker 2: say this election was about competence of that ideology, which
Speaker 2: meant he was trying to obscure his ideology. He came
Speaker 2: out of the convention seventeen points ahead of Bush, and
Speaker 2: Bush on election day beat him by a points, a
Speaker 2: twenty five point swing, and all took with some ads
Speaker 2: telling the truth about what Docaccus had actually done in office.
Speaker 2: I think the same thing will work. I think the
Speaker 2: electorate's now more rigid, and you know, we picked our teams,
Speaker 2: but I think the same dynamic is going to take place.
Speaker 1: Look, all they're going to do is play back issues
Speaker 1: of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour, because for a whole
Speaker 1: year we ended our podcast with our favorite cognalism. Now
Speaker 1: you just take all those fifty two of them and
Speaker 1: just run them inn ads.
Speaker 4: There's a couple of videos out there with exactly that.
Speaker 4: John you can watch the whole. There's one of them
Speaker 4: that's like four minutes and fifty two seconds. And it's
Speaker 4: not just the passage of time or unburdened by what
Speaker 4: has been. It's all of them, and some of them
Speaker 4: are I didn't put this in the agenda, Sorry, my
Speaker 4: two co hosts, but I have to say, are you
Speaker 4: guys up on the brat thing?
Speaker 2: Oh, I've caught up with it today, but go ahead
Speaker 2: and tell us how you are.
Speaker 4: I'm not fully caught up with it either, because I've
Speaker 4: never heard of the person who sings the song. I've
Speaker 4: certainly never listened to the song. Oh but some twit
Speaker 4: pop star from the UK has a song that is
Speaker 4: about women and they're called The name for them now
Speaker 4: is brats. And what they are are emotionally unstable women
Speaker 4: who are awkward and say dumb things some of the time,
Speaker 4: but they rally back and they're emotionally weak. And this
Speaker 4: is who Kamala Harris is saying. She is an appealing
Speaker 4: to gen z brats. She's the brat president dential candidate.
Speaker 2: Oh see, I heard a different account of it which
Speaker 2: was out of the opposite of that, which is a brat. Well,
Speaker 2: maybe that's fit a brat is someone who just does
Speaker 2: what they feel like without caring, which is what kind
Speaker 2: of closer to the old definition of a spoiled brat,
Speaker 2: which usually have to.
Speaker 1: Pay for all their stupid stuffs. Yeah, stupid, But can
Speaker 1: I just throw one thing? Just put the pitch for
Speaker 1: my home state of Pennsylvania. I can't see how my
Speaker 1: people in the home my home state Pennsylvania are going
Speaker 1: to go for any of this. Like, the only reason
Speaker 1: I think Biden won Pennsylvania by the whatever one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand votes is because he makes a claim from being
Speaker 1: from Scranton, and you know, maybe he spent a little
Speaker 1: bit of time scrant He's not really from Pennsylvania, but whatever,
Speaker 1: what people in Pennsylvania and Michigan and wiscons are not
Speaker 1: going to go for a California Marxist.
Speaker 2: They're just not. I can't about.
Speaker 4: How about the girl who is a little messy and
Speaker 4: likes to party and maybe says some dumb things sometimes,
Speaker 4: who feels herself but maybe also has a breakdown but
Speaker 4: kind of like parties through it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the definition of thet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, sorry, mine was closer than your Steve. Okay,
Speaker 2: good enough. I don't Yeah, I'm too old to figure
Speaker 2: this stuff out.
Speaker 4: I know. I had to look it up again, even
Speaker 4: though I've seen it a dozen times.
Speaker 1: I'm actually interested. How would you so, how would you
Speaker 1: make an ad that would appeal to these people, that
Speaker 1: would not that generation, that would not turn off the
Speaker 1: entire rest of the electorate who has to pay for it? Well,
Speaker 1: maybe play the song?
Speaker 2: Well, but do you most seriously you remember the Life
Speaker 2: of Julia video that the Obama campaign put out in
Speaker 2: twenty twelve. By the way, you cannot find that anywhere now.
Speaker 2: It has been scrubbed from YouTube. I can't find it
Speaker 2: online any place. I've tried several times. Because of course,
Speaker 2: that thing was cradle to grave socialism. Julie decided to
Speaker 2: have a child. There's no mention of a father or
Speaker 2: how she got pre you.
Speaker 4: Right, and then the government was the father.
Speaker 2: Exactly but apparently inseminated. And I think it's we're now
Speaker 2: to that point except on steroids, right, we can't. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's what they'll that's what they'll try it.
Speaker 4: Okay, I went off on that horrible tangent. Let's get
Speaker 4: back up. Maybe something a little bit more serious about
Speaker 4: the lies the most liberal senator in the Senate in
Speaker 4: twenty nineteen actually and twenty twenty. But what's the name
Speaker 4: of the site, Steve.
Speaker 2: You'll write, I don't know.
Speaker 4: It's something of supposedly nonpartisan rating senators zero to one hundred.
Speaker 4: Zero is far left, one hundred is far right, Kamala zero,
Speaker 4: Bernie Sanders is only ninety nine. Two weeks ago, two
Speaker 4: weeks ago, they discovered that their methodology may have not
Speaker 4: really been all that scientific because they were going year
Speaker 4: by year and you really have to look at the
Speaker 4: bigger picture of their legislative proposals and the things they
Speaker 4: co sponsor. So they decided to take the page down. Yeah,
Speaker 4: because what I want to know is, why is the
Speaker 4: left leftist if they don't think that the people want that?
Speaker 2: Well, they, I mean they who they are.
Speaker 4: I don't want to hide who I am.
Speaker 1: Well, because you know a pseudonym.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean, I think I think we've been through this.
Speaker 2: We've been through this many times before. The progressives understand
Speaker 2: that their views are not popular, so they must conceal them.
Speaker 2: I don't care about that, because their premise is they're
Speaker 2: smarter than the rest of us. And you know, this
Speaker 2: goes back to Woodrow Wilson. We need to anticipate where
Speaker 2: the people need to go and lead them there. That's
Speaker 2: their view, and they're othertheless, the slightest bit guilty or
Speaker 2: conflicted about ignoring the actual opinion. That's why you call
Speaker 2: people the deplorables. Right, It's okay, I don't think this
Speaker 2: is a real mystery at all.
Speaker 4: Okay, was Trump hit by a shravelel or a bullet?
Speaker 4: And why does it matter?
Speaker 1: Wait, they're people really seeing he wasn't saying he wasn't
Speaker 1: hit by a bullet.
Speaker 4: You're your good friend. Christopher Ray said it before Congress.
Speaker 4: When tested before Congress yesterday or the day before, my
Speaker 4: days get mixed up. He said, we have not determined
Speaker 4: that President Trump was hit by a bullet. He could
Speaker 4: have been hit by shrapnel.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I wonder if he's like trying to actually take
Speaker 2: his word for it. Actually, Oh, come on, lose so
Speaker 2: many listeners with that.
Speaker 1: No, I mean like he's just he's just saying, we
Speaker 1: haven't figured it out yet, that's all. He's probably got
Speaker 1: some kind of time.
Speaker 4: I've seen I've seen the video with the bullet piercing
Speaker 4: his ear. It's on the internet, and I'm sure the
Speaker 4: FBI has heard of the internet.
Speaker 1: I just assume he's just being cautious. He's got he
Speaker 1: can't he's a headed law enforcement he can't state things
Speaker 1: as fact until he absolutely sure.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he would have just said, from all appearances, it
Speaker 4: seems he has been hit by a bullet. That's what
Speaker 4: the doctor said, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, since we're
Speaker 4: talking about the FBI and I am trashing the FBI
Speaker 4: as usual, we are very very happy to welcome to
Speaker 4: our podcast, John Hinderaker, who's going to get us up
Speaker 4: to date on the investigation into the bombing firebarmbing. I
Speaker 4: guess is what you would call it of the Center
Speaker 4: for Experiment, John, That's happened months ago, and I've heard
Speaker 4: nothing since then.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, suspicious minds wonder if the FBI,
Speaker 2: as nice as they were to you and polite like
Speaker 2: they are, are slow walking this Is there any news?
Speaker 2: What's the update for us? I haven't heard about this.
Speaker 6: First of all, happened on January twenty eighth, so it's
Speaker 6: been as exactly six months. I was talking to the
Speaker 6: lead FBI agent on the case the day after the
Speaker 6: fire bombing was obviously an arson. No one ever questioned that,
Speaker 6: and so the investigation has been in the works now
Speaker 6: for about six months. And the FBI did the things,
Speaker 6: the routine things that you would always do, so they
Speaker 6: subpoenaed records from the cell phone towers in the vicinity.
Speaker 6: But these criminals were very disciplined. They were not dumb,
Speaker 6: dumb criminals. They didn't they left their cell phones at home.
Speaker 6: They checked the video from cameras on the frontage road
Speaker 6: that you have to drive on to get to that
Speaker 6: building that they that they set on fire. They they
Speaker 6: got footage of the car. They know the make and
Speaker 6: bottle of the car. At two o'clock in the morning,
Speaker 6: there's only one vehicle on that frontage road. They've got it,
Speaker 6: but you can't be the license plates. The license plates
Speaker 6: are obscured. And I gave the FBI suggestions as to
Speaker 6: types of people that they should check out on social media,
Speaker 6: the local ANTIFA chapter, eco terrorists, Projmas people. There has
Speaker 6: been zero social media chatter. A lot of criminals get
Speaker 6: caught because they can't keep their shut These criminals have
Speaker 6: been silent as the tomb. They're very disciplined. We have
Speaker 6: one hundred thousand dollars reward out there, and I think
Speaker 6: at this point the.
Speaker 7: Only okay, it's Steve, I confess it is partest Steve's
Speaker 7: grand scheme to take.
Speaker 1: Over power line. Give me the money.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, right, So the only way the crime is
Speaker 6: going to be solved at this but I talked to
Speaker 6: the FBI guy like day before yesterday. The only way
Speaker 6: the crime is going to get solved now is if
Speaker 6: at some point a disgruntled ex girlfriend or something like
Speaker 6: that who knows who did it, is motivated by the
Speaker 6: reward to go to the FBI tip line and suggest
Speaker 6: they check out a certain person.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know. I mean, I try to resist
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories and the know you do, the complete rottenness
Speaker 2: of our investigating agencies. But it seems to me that well, okay,
Speaker 2: what is what? What did they use? There's gasoline? I mean,
Speaker 2: there's something okay, because I mean, in the case of
Speaker 2: the unibomber, they knew, you know, all about what kind
Speaker 2: of bombs he was making and how he was hand
Speaker 2: fashioning the parts, and it still did take a break
Speaker 2: still to take an informant for them to figure out
Speaker 2: that it was Ted Kaczinski, Right, it's a fascinating story,
Speaker 2: but they learned a lot from the explosive resident.
Speaker 1: Okay, I don't not to drag John into the debate
Speaker 1: we were just having, But John, you don't think this
Speaker 1: is an FBI cover up, do you?
Speaker 6: It's absolutely not an FBI cover up. I was mildly
Speaker 6: chested friend, the FBI agent for what I said to
Speaker 6: the Daily you know, the the Go Show, what is it?
Speaker 6: You know, the Ben Shapiro outlaw Daily Wire. The people
Speaker 6: investigating this urs and I will simply say, are not
Speaker 6: libs and have no interest in and covering it up
Speaker 6: or failing to find the perpetrators. They absolutely want to
Speaker 6: find the perpetrators. Nationwide, only about forty percent of all
Speaker 6: arson cases are solved, and I'm just guessing that the
Speaker 6: majority of that forty percent are cases where the owner
Speaker 6: did it.
Speaker 2: Oh oh yeah, well yeah yeah.
Speaker 4: And John, to be fair to the FBI, for which
Speaker 4: I've never am so for just a moment, nobody was hurt. No,
Speaker 4: oh no, nobody was hurt.
Speaker 6: There was nobody in the building.
Speaker 4: They both And so back to I don't know, you
Speaker 4: probably didn't hear what we were talking about earlier. If
Speaker 4: they can't put the full resources of the FBI to
Speaker 4: that it's obviously more more than likely it's a political
Speaker 4: act and it should be investigated. But because nobody was hurt,
Speaker 4: I can give them a bit of a pass for
Speaker 4: not agreeing, you know, not putting every resource they have
Speaker 4: toward investigating it and turning over every stone. Our problem,
Speaker 4: I think, is that we see some very serious things
Speaker 4: happening with the FBI, and I'm one of those people
Speaker 4: that believe you and for you are far between. There
Speaker 4: are definitely good agents, I know them. It's it's just
Speaker 4: getting harder and harder for good Americans to look at
Speaker 4: the lies that come out of our government and believe
Speaker 4: the things that they say. Not in your case, I
Speaker 4: don't think. But you know, when when Ray says something
Speaker 4: stupid like that to Congress, there's so I get what
Speaker 4: Steve is saying. You don't necessarily give out facts that
Speaker 4: you can't absolutely prove. But there's lots of ways to
Speaker 4: answer that question where you don't say something that's obviously
Speaker 4: designed to make it look like what happened to Donald
Speaker 4: Trump was not an assassination attempt, so much so that
Speaker 4: the FBI had to come back out and say no.
Speaker 1: But Christa wasn't saying that it wasn't an assassination attempt.
Speaker 4: I mean, and then why did the FBI come out
Speaker 4: because it was.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was shrapnel versus a bullet. They got a
Speaker 1: conduct the investigation. Well, I'm going to speak against interest here.
Speaker 1: I think the reason why you could say John's agent
Speaker 1: is doing a fair job, and you could go through
Speaker 1: the litany of problems the FBI had that Linda's mentioned
Speaker 1: many times, like the Russia hoax and so on, is
Speaker 1: the problem when the headquarters gets involved and tries to
Speaker 1: conduct its own investigations. That's the problem. That was the
Speaker 1: defect because all those people were the head of the
Speaker 1: FBI are politicians that they're there inside the Beltway. So
Speaker 1: I actually am glad that Chris Ray wasn't trying to
Speaker 1: go out there and say the investigation found this, or
Speaker 1: that he should just depend on what the field agents find.
Speaker 1: And maybe that's why he's saying I'm not going to
Speaker 1: say right now what the investigation here, you.
Speaker 4: Don't get to speak on it. John.
Speaker 7: That would be a first for this show. And then
Speaker 7: when did that become the rule?
Speaker 4: Let me jump in and I, like a Democrat, make
Speaker 4: it up as they go.
Speaker 1: I yield to.
Speaker 6: No one in my in my contempt really for James
Speaker 6: call me and Andrew McCabe. They did a terrible disservice
Speaker 6: to the FBI and of the federal government. But you
Speaker 6: know that doesn't permeate all the way down. So a
Speaker 6: couple of days after our arson, the US Attorney for
Speaker 6: the District of Minnesota, who is a Democrat, called me
Speaker 6: on the telephone and expressed his dismay at the Arson.
Speaker 6: Said they were going to do everything they possibly could
Speaker 6: to solve the crime. He told me he's calling me
Speaker 6: on his personal cell and any time I have questions
Speaker 6: about the investigation or want to talk about it, please
Speaker 6: call him. They're going to do everything they can to
Speaker 6: solve the crime. And I've been collaborating with FBI agents
Speaker 6: ever since. They haven't been able to solve it. But
Speaker 6: I am absolutely supportive of the people who have been
Speaker 6: involved in this case, the people that I've worked with,
Speaker 6: if they could have solved the case, and unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Okay, Steve, so the answer, Steve, Well, step back.
Speaker 2: For a minute. I mean, aside from your particular case,
Speaker 2: the Butler Pennsylvania episode, or also think about the Paul
Speaker 2: Pelosi assault some months ago at his house there in
Speaker 2: Pacific Heights. We have this problem now. It seems to
Speaker 2: me that the instinct of the government is to not
Speaker 2: be forthcoming with information they have. Now it's one thing
Speaker 2: that was ongoing investigation. But you know, the guy in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: he was dead. Crooks the kid. Maybe I think it
Speaker 2: was a second shooter. They should tell us that. Instead
Speaker 2: they breed suspicion. But you know, I've been saying to Lucretian,
Speaker 2: others said, we ought to be a little careful about
Speaker 2: being too confident of asserting a conspiracy. And my example
Speaker 2: there is the Paul Pelosi thing. There are all kinds
Speaker 2: of very strange things about that episode, right, but it
Speaker 2: turned out that the conventional account at the end of
Speaker 2: the day was correct. But it took the police but
Speaker 2: four or five months to release the bodycam video and
Speaker 2: to do out of the evidence. And they should have
Speaker 2: been saying in the next forty eight hours, here's what
Speaker 2: we know, here's what happened. Instead they were quiet about it.
Speaker 2: And all that does is make American citizens more That.
Speaker 1: Would screw up the investigation, Yes it would, because you
Speaker 1: want to interview the witnesses without them being biased. You
Speaker 1: want to collect evidence. If you start going out in
Speaker 1: public and sing stuff like that, you're opening yourself up
Speaker 1: to getting really easily attacked by the defense. Well, oh,
Speaker 1: they're being careful. You want them to be careful. I
Speaker 1: actually would prefer they never said anything. That was Comy's
Speaker 1: big mistake. He was talking to the media all the time.
Speaker 2: Look, look, if democracy is going to work, it has
Speaker 2: to have the maximum amount of transparency. So I'll give
Speaker 2: you two more examples at the highest level, not about
Speaker 2: our agencies, but you go back to two thousand and three,
Speaker 2: you have a sar's house break in China, a precursor
Speaker 2: to COVID, by the way, and just like COVID, they
Speaker 2: concealed it, they lied about it, and it wasn't until
Speaker 2: the World Health Organization and Canada said we're going to
Speaker 2: ban travel from China, which we didn't do with COVID
Speaker 2: till they finally opened up to it the same year. Actually, sorry,
Speaker 2: go back to eighty six, and also two thousand and
Speaker 2: three eighty seven, when the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up
Speaker 2: and when the second one, Columbia, disintegrated on descent. We
Speaker 2: knew within hours what the cause was because people who
Speaker 2: knew what the problems were came forward that day and said,
Speaker 2: we think and of course subsequent investigations fallady of this,
Speaker 2: but we were transparent about those, right, And when you're
Speaker 2: not transparent about some of these, From my mind, it's
Speaker 2: one thing about a conventional criminal investigation, but when you
Speaker 2: have something that's of world historical importance, like a plot
Speaker 2: to shoot President Trump, I think you need to be
Speaker 2: transparent about it. And that's more important than a criminal
Speaker 2: investigation or criminal conviction down the road.
Speaker 1: Just one man's opinion, one man's opinion.
Speaker 4: All I'm going to say about it is, Steve is
Speaker 4: your analogies really are not on the same level as
Speaker 4: the kind of conspiracies we're talking about, And that was
Speaker 4: what I was trying to see to John John's I
Speaker 4: wouldn't call what's happening in with the Center for the
Speaker 4: American Experiment a conspiracy by anyone the Democratic DA or
Speaker 4: the FBI located in Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't call that.
Speaker 4: A conspiracy that they haven't solved the crime, or even
Speaker 4: go so far as I say incompetence, because they haven't
Speaker 4: solved the crime. However, it'd be nice to know what happened.
Speaker 4: It'd be nice to know so that you could avoid
Speaker 4: it something like that happening again to your building, to
Speaker 4: your offices. But it's not ultimately regime changing. The conspiracies
Speaker 4: that are being passed around. Uh, you know, the debate
Speaker 4: between incompetence and conspiracy over the Trump assassination or over
Speaker 4: what's really going on behind Biden stepping down. All of
Speaker 4: those kinds of things are critical to the health of
Speaker 4: our republic and possibly even the future.
Speaker 1: No appreciate you really think you really think there was
Speaker 1: a there's just like even a five percent chance that
Speaker 1: there was a conspiracy. Why the FBI and our government
Speaker 1: to assassinate president? That's crazy.
Speaker 4: No, No, it's zero.
Speaker 6: Nobody, nobody, the Iranians, whatever, nobody is going to hire
Speaker 6: this twenty year old kid to go I'd try to
Speaker 6: assassinate Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, so, what is the conspiracy you're talking about?
Speaker 4: The conspiracy is that the left, the rabid left, the
Speaker 4: people at the top are so determined to keep Trump
Speaker 4: out of office, and they have so many loyal soldiers
Speaker 4: that they just need to do a few things that
Speaker 4: are very very clearly now in the public record that
Speaker 4: would at least have created the possibility that something like
Speaker 4: what happened to Trump happened. They did not consider it
Speaker 4: their duty to do everything possible to make sure Trump
Speaker 4: was safe at that rally. We know that they've admitted
Speaker 4: to it. I get that they're incompetent idiots. I get that,
Speaker 4: But at some point somebody has to look at that
Speaker 4: and say, we need to do something different. This is
Speaker 4: the president, the former president, and the candidate of the
Speaker 4: opposing party. We can't let something like this happen. Instead,
Speaker 4: they don't show up for meetings with local law enforcement,
Speaker 4: they don't send out drones, they don't listen to community,
Speaker 4: they don't have communications, you know, on and on and
Speaker 4: on and on. That's where you have to look at
Speaker 4: it and say, maybe it's not a conspiracy specifically to
Speaker 4: assassinate Trump at that moment, but it is definitely a
Speaker 4: conspiracy amongst the left power brokers in our government to
Speaker 4: do whatever they can to keep Trump from going into office,
Speaker 4: and all of it fits into that picture. That's what
Speaker 4: I'm arguing deliberate. Very few people have to be part
Speaker 4: of that. I know the laws of conspiracy. The more
Speaker 4: people who are part of it, the less likely you
Speaker 4: could keep it quiet, but the top people had no
Speaker 4: problem with Trump being assassinated. That's what it comes down to.
Speaker 1: That's not a conspiracy if people just say, oh, I
Speaker 1: don't mind if he disappears. But that's differently res deliberately
Speaker 1: not giving resource. Certainly, I think you can make a
Speaker 1: good case that the Secret Service has outlived its usefulness.
Speaker 1: You know, this is a civil war agency created to
Speaker 1: do counterfeiting. Somehow they're in charge of right personal protection
Speaker 1: of our political leaders. I could totally see an argument
Speaker 1: that they're under resource. They're not give their job, folding
Speaker 1: them in or totally reforming, totally reforming them. That's different
Speaker 1: than saying there's a conspiracy in the government to let
Speaker 1: whatever harms happen to Trump happened because they don't want
Speaker 1: them to be president. That's intentional. I don't think this
Speaker 1: is the.
Speaker 6: Secret Service has one job to prevent presidents and presidential
Speaker 6: candidates for big assassinators. There's nobody in the Secret Service
Speaker 6: that is indifferent. You know the things, Oh that would
Speaker 6: be okay if somebody we're protecting gets assassinated. This is
Speaker 6: a disaster for the Secret Service. What I do think, though,
Speaker 6: is that the left Democratic politicians with their constant vilification
Speaker 6: of Donald Trump, their constant reiteration that he's a threat
Speaker 6: to the republic. If he wins, there will never be
Speaker 6: another election. He's an incipient fascist dictator. I think those
Speaker 6: people would like to see susceptible people like this twenty
Speaker 6: year old Thomas Crooks take a pot shot at Donald Trump.
Speaker 6: And I think similarly, when they attack the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: in the vicious way that they have in recent months,
Speaker 6: they would be quite happy as one guy we know
Speaker 6: showed up, showed up outside bet Kavanaugh's house, you know,
Speaker 6: wanting to kill him. They would be quite happy if
Speaker 6: one or more Supreme Court justices got assassinated so that
Speaker 6: their president could appoint a successor.
Speaker 1: That's all John. That goes too far from me too,
Speaker 1: You really think so? I mean, I see, I totally
Speaker 1: agree that rhetoric is over the top.
Speaker 4: If you don't believe what happened to Michigan.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, but just saying like you've unleashed the whirlwind
Speaker 1: and so that's over the top, that rhetoric, and they
Speaker 1: are acting irresponsibly there. Trump has deranged them. But that's
Speaker 1: different than saying they would be happier wouldn't mind if
Speaker 1: someone actually tried to kill a Supreme Court justice. I
Speaker 1: don't think even Schumer Pelosi that they would that they
Speaker 1: would actually want that to happen.
Speaker 2: Let me give you a fear, is it? It might
Speaker 2: It might be.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm a squish too much.
Speaker 6: I think they would be happy to see it happen.
Speaker 6: And I think they would be happy to see what
Speaker 6: are more Supreme Court justice is assassinated. There a president
Speaker 6: can apply to the place.
Speaker 2: So, by the way, I mean, let's remember that someone
Speaker 2: has ordinarily sober and I think sound in a lot
Speaker 2: of ways, as John mcwarterer had said, maybe someone should
Speaker 2: assassinate Trump, and now he apologized and retracted that before
Speaker 2: the shooting, but he still said it, and he's a
Speaker 2: pretty serious and sober guy. I think Lucretia brings up
Speaker 2: the Michigan case with with Governor Whitmer. There's all kinds
Speaker 2: of evidence that the FBI incited a bunch.
Speaker 1: Of there's a trapman issues and trapman issues.
Speaker 2: By the way, that's not brand new. The FBI tried
Speaker 2: to do that with the New Left back in the
Speaker 2: late sixties and early seventies. So here's the thing, they
Speaker 2: find some people who might we are we absolutely certain
Speaker 2: that there wasn't somebody identifying this kid and encouraging them.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I recoil from that because it seems
Speaker 2: like a horrible thing to have happened. On the other hand,
Speaker 2: let's go back to the original conspiracy assassination, and that
Speaker 2: was Kennedy. And you know, I've always I always thought
Speaker 2: that the real conspiracy here was not necessarily second gunman
Speaker 2: and all the rest of that, but the fact that
Speaker 2: Oswald was a Communist who had been seen recently before
Speaker 2: the shooting at the Russian embassy Soviet embassy in Mexico City,
Speaker 2: had lived in the Soviet Union. And I think there's good,
Speaker 2: circumstantial evidence that the Johnson administration who succeeded were terrified
Speaker 2: that if they really unraveled all that, it would mean
Speaker 2: World War or three, and that's one reason why they
Speaker 2: had to be covered up and obfuscated. I don't think
Speaker 2: we're ever going to know about that, but that's different.
Speaker 2: That's one reason. By the way, the whole narrative from
Speaker 2: hours after the shooting was it was the climate of
Speaker 2: right wing hate that caused Kennedy to be killed in Dallas. Right,
Speaker 2: that's still the narrative about the Kennedy assassination. He was
Speaker 2: killed by a communist, right, And so no wonder people
Speaker 2: don't trust what they see in front of us, and
Speaker 2: no wonder when you can point to things like Michigan and.
Speaker 1: With Michigan looks. So Lucretia was saying, what happened in Michigan,
Speaker 1: So I guess there's some evidence that the FBI engaged.
Speaker 1: And so there's this is always the case with the
Speaker 1: FBI doing undercover action where they actually and trapping the
Speaker 1: people in doing something or are they going to do
Speaker 1: it anyway? And they were and they got taught. That's
Speaker 1: up to courts. Courts will take all the evidence. Some
Speaker 1: of those people know what happened, some of them. But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean like everything the FBI does is therefore illegitimate.
Speaker 1: Because in one case they did go too far or
Speaker 1: too that there was an actual conspiracy to kill the president,
Speaker 1: kill Donald Trump or allows assassination to occur. That's like,
Speaker 1: that's classic conspiracy theory.
Speaker 4: Those are two different things, John, those are two different things.
Speaker 4: And John Hinderaker said, and I agree with it that
Speaker 4: if you if you know, if you show severed heads
Speaker 4: of Trump he deserves. He's hitler. He you know, Time
Speaker 4: magazine had him as a hitler, what three days before
Speaker 4: the assassination attempt. And if you have that kind of
Speaker 4: over the top rhetoric, and you have lots of the left,
Speaker 4: is all unhinged anyway, you know what you're doing. You
Speaker 4: know it's called gas lighting. Watch the movie, and so
Speaker 4: you know, if.
Speaker 1: I've watched it, it just takes so long for this for
Speaker 1: the movie to finish. I know she's still because it's
Speaker 1: a black and white movie and from.
Speaker 4: The third you're too young, we get it.
Speaker 1: But I watched it. I was like, this could be
Speaker 1: a five thirty second TikTok video wise, it's taking so long.
Speaker 4: On my point, somebody said it in the and I'm sorry,
Speaker 4: there's so many there's so many comments that I'm not
Speaker 4: keeping up. But somebody said, you don't necessarily have to
Speaker 4: have people in on the conspiracy to get them to
Speaker 4: do what you want when they're rabid leftists who believe
Speaker 4: what you believe. Think about Lisa Page and who is
Speaker 4: that despicable FBI guy struck Struck, I mean, they didn't
Speaker 4: have to put them in on a conspiracy to get
Speaker 4: them to do that. They hated Trump and they'd do
Speaker 4: anything they were told to do in order to get
Speaker 4: Trump out of office or make sure he didn't win.
Speaker 4: So from that, I am not saying there's a vast
Speaker 4: conspiracy inside the government, you know, machinations and this and that.
Speaker 4: I'm saying a few people can move things in one
Speaker 4: direction and the dominoes are likely to fall the way
Speaker 4: exactly the way they did with the Trump assassination. That's
Speaker 4: what I'm saying. And that's a combination of a little
Speaker 4: bit of conspiracy or at least a little bit of
Speaker 4: malfeasance on the part of the people at the top,
Speaker 4: and incompetence. But you don't allow incompetence. You don't push
Speaker 4: DEI in fat ugly stupid female agents for right.
Speaker 1: I just let it go on long enough.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't win.
Speaker 4: Anyway. You don't do that if you care, don't if
Speaker 4: you're boeing, you don't have DEI as your number one
Speaker 4: goal mission for the company. If you care about having
Speaker 4: airplanes and don't fall out of the sky.
Speaker 2: Can we conspire about the vat pick Because we're running along.
Speaker 4: I know people want to know what we think. Who
Speaker 4: do you think he'll she'll pick John Hendraker.
Speaker 6: Well, she should pick the governor of Kentucky. What's his name, Andy.
Speaker 6: I think he would be a very very good choice
Speaker 6: for her, and I hope she doesn't pick him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd say she should pick a white guy from
Speaker 1: one of those three Midwestern states she needs to win,
Speaker 1: and so Basher's pretty good, but I think she's got
Speaker 1: to pick someone from Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania. But I
Speaker 1: agree with Steve, they're not gonna pick We didn't even
Speaker 1: talk about the areas where there really is a difference
Speaker 1: between Biden and Harris, like the Gaza War, like they're curious, Steve.
Speaker 1: They're not going to pick Cohen. They're not going to
Speaker 1: pick the governor Pennsylvania because he's Jewish, unfortunately, and that
Speaker 1: would just accentuate the deep split in the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: about Israel. I hate to say that. It's a terrible
Speaker 1: thing that the Democratic Party is tolerating such anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: but I think you'll see that in the VP pick.
Speaker 1: So that leaves I guess Gretchen Whitmer, if you know,
Speaker 1: if the FBI is done using her as an a toy.
Speaker 4: The Minute of the patrol is always a good pick done.
Speaker 1: I don't see him getting any votes in the Midwest, though.
Speaker 4: Our friends on the American Mind had a good point.
Speaker 4: I hadn't thought of though. If they so. One of
Speaker 4: the problems that the left has right now is that
Speaker 4: Trump became a hero and a victim of gun violence,
Speaker 4: and that that fact in and of itself be manipulated
Speaker 4: away from the gun controlled debate and all those other things.
Speaker 4: If they nominate Mark Kelly and he does that despicable,
Speaker 4: vile thing he does all the time, which is trot
Speaker 4: her out even though she's physically not capable of those
Speaker 4: kinds of activities on the campaign trail for the sympathy vote,
Speaker 4: which I've seen him do so many times I want
Speaker 4: to throw up. They think this was the argument of
Speaker 4: not making it. I'm repeating it, that they could put
Speaker 4: a dent in what Trump is able to do with
Speaker 4: his assassination attempt. Because of course she's very seriously hurt,
Speaker 4: She's her mind is still very good. I want to
Speaker 4: say that again. I hadn't seen her for fifteen years,
Speaker 4: and she remembered me, and didn't We weren't close, I mean,
Speaker 4: and we just worked together on a few things, and
Speaker 4: she knew all about my husband because they worked together closely. Again,
Speaker 4: not seen him for fifteen years. Her mind is very good,
Speaker 4: but she can barely speak. She can't stand for any
Speaker 4: length of time. She falls off chairs and it's sad.
Speaker 4: But he trots her everywhere and you can just see
Speaker 4: the pain on her face.
Speaker 2: Lucatia, one of our commentors, said he can't pick Kelly
Speaker 2: because two women on the ticket won't work.
Speaker 4: Something ale and he looks.
Speaker 2: Like to look. I think it's gonna be h. I'm
Speaker 2: gonna be Governor Cooper of North Carolina puts George in place, supposedly,
Speaker 2: but John hinder Rocker. People are mentioning Governor Waltz, which
Speaker 2: seems crazy to me. It must seem super.
Speaker 4: With the wrong picture, wrong picture.
Speaker 6: MSNBC that five you know file US for VP Governor
Speaker 6: TiO Walls Minnesota. They put up a picture of Mike Waltz,
Speaker 6: different name, Republican congressman from.
Speaker 7: One of them, and handsome.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he did not look the least bit like our
Speaker 6: pudgy Governor Tim Walls, which goes to show that Tim
Speaker 6: Walls is not a household name. I don't take seriously
Speaker 6: that he is a he's a real contender. He happens
Speaker 6: to be the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association right now.
Speaker 6: I think that's kind of a rotating thing. So he's
Speaker 6: been on the national media a lot in the last
Speaker 6: few months, and I think maybe that's why he's starting
Speaker 6: to get some notice. But two of my colleagues in
Speaker 6: American Experiment yesterday in the Minneapolis Star Tribute had a brilliant,
Speaker 6: wonderful op ed what America should know about Governor Tim Walls.
Speaker 6: His record is so bad you can hardly believe it.
Speaker 6: The OpEd included some charts and grafts and you could
Speaker 6: just go down the list. You know, you can talk
Speaker 6: about the economy, you can talk about education, you can
Speaker 6: talk about the migration, the fact that Minnesota is like
Speaker 6: California and New York and Illinois in that people are
Speaker 6: leaving instead of moving in. He's been a completely failed governor.
Speaker 6: So in that sense, i'd like to see I'd like
Speaker 6: to see Kamala pick him, because he would be a
Speaker 6: lousy choice.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm hoping she picks Pete Booty Juice. All right,
Speaker 4: he's a he's from a Midwes.
Speaker 2: All right, Steve all right, We're way over time here,
Speaker 2: but I know.
Speaker 4: Thank you guys. Thank you, first of all, thanks for
Speaker 4: my co host and John Hinderaker for a great podcast.
Speaker 4: Thank you to all of our listeners for joining us live.
Speaker 2: Yeah, do you like my hat?
Speaker 4: Johan?
Speaker 2: It's lovely.
Speaker 4: I had to. I had to make it myself because
Speaker 4: even though Steve and John promised me one a long
Speaker 4: time ago, they never got me one. So we usually
Speaker 4: end the show with a couple of things. One of
Speaker 4: them is to highlight our favorite satire site, which is
Speaker 4: really no longer satire. They got to come up with
Speaker 4: what is it? Fake news you can trust? Yeah, fake
Speaker 4: news you can trust? The Babylon b Kamala Harris distances
Speaker 4: herself from Kamala Harris Media Warrens. So if you don't,
Speaker 4: if you're not on Twitter, I got to explain this
Speaker 4: one a little for John.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 4: Twitter has this thing where if somebody posts something, you
Speaker 4: can put a community note, and then other people can
Speaker 4: add to it, and you can rate it and decide
Speaker 4: if it's helpful or not helpful, so that when when
Speaker 4: fake news or cheap fakes are posted, the community can decide.
Speaker 4: Not Twitter, but the community community can decide if it's
Speaker 4: real or fake or not true in that sort of thing.
Speaker 4: So media warrens community notes may make it harder for
Speaker 4: them to lie. I guess you have to be on
Speaker 4: Twitter to appreciate. FBI director suggests Trump's ear just spontaneously exploded.
Speaker 4: I'm going to I'm not going to read Babylon, but
Speaker 4: I do want to end because I'm the host. So
Speaker 4: I get to do this with a call to boycott
Speaker 4: the Olympics. Oh at the Olympics, and to the extent
Speaker 4: you see any of them, boycott every corporation or company
Speaker 4: that does any kind of advertising or support of the Olympics.
Speaker 4: The most recent atrocity, in your face atrocity is that
Speaker 4: they began in the opening ceremony with a recreation of
Speaker 4: the Last Supper with an extremely fat Okay, this is
Speaker 4: not lookism. This is a description obese woman barely clothed
Speaker 4: as Jesus, and then a bunch of trans and very
Speaker 4: on the Q side of Q people as the Twelve Apostles.
Speaker 4: And it's just bile. And this is the same Olympics
Speaker 4: that seriously considered requests from both the Palestinians and the
Speaker 4: Arab States not even to allow Israeli athletes to participate.
Speaker 4: So if you're giving your money to the Olympics by
Speaker 4: watching them, I'm ashamed of you. Okay, I'm done, Steve.
Speaker 1: Oh no, John, Yeah, John, always drink your whiskey meat.
Speaker 1: Let's go Brandon and Steve can't say that anymore.
Speaker 2: What let's go Brandon. Oh that's right. We have to
Speaker 2: retire that. But I can still use our new clothes out,
Speaker 2: which is you have wasted another perfectly good hour with
Speaker 2: the three whiskey happy hour, which is unburdened by what
Speaker 2: has been.
Speaker 5: Bye, everybody, thanks for tuning in, everybody, Conna and won the.
Speaker 1: Conavi Jus.
Speaker 2: Ricochet join the conversation.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm