Speaker 1: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask
Speaker 1: what you can do for your country.
Speaker 2: Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
Speaker 1: It's the Ricochet Podcast with Charles C. W. Cook and
Speaker 1: Stephen Haywood. I'm James Lilyx, and today we talked to
Speaker 1: our old friend John, you about just everything. So let's
Speaker 1: have ourselves a podcast.
Speaker 3: And I don't mind making this speech without a teleprompter
Speaker 3: because the teleprompter is not working. I feel very happy
Speaker 3: to be up here with you. Nevertheless, and that way
Speaker 3: you speak more from the heart. I can only say
Speaker 3: that whoever's operating this teleprompter is in big trouble.
Speaker 1: Welcome everybody. It's the Ricochet Podcast, number seven hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty nine. I'm James Lylyx in Minneapolis, which is absolutely
Speaker 1: stunningly beautiful at the moment, just beginning to manifest itself
Speaker 1: in the tips of the leaves and in those places
Speaker 1: with the summer his eternal and nothing ever changes. California.
Speaker 1: Stephen Hayward, Florida, Charlie Cook and as I say, we've
Speaker 1: got the whole country covered. Greetings, gentlemen, how are you today?
Speaker 4: Doing well?
Speaker 2: Good?
Speaker 1: I'm good here, good, good, well. I assume now that
Speaker 1: the escalator is moving and taking us up, and that
Speaker 1: we may enter the hall and speak. And our teleprompters, well,
Speaker 1: we don't have them, but if we did, do either
Speaker 1: of you think that you could expostulate for forty minutes
Speaker 1: or so. I tend to believe that the President could.
Speaker 1: I don't know how long his teleprompter was after in
Speaker 1: the UN address, I did read a good deal of it.
Speaker 1: I saw a tweet from somebody who had characterized it
Speaker 1: as a series of just, you know, sort of self
Speaker 1: aggrandizing little me, me, me, me, me, give me award,
Speaker 1: and I thought, well, that might be so, And then
Speaker 1: I went and looked at the actual speech. There is
Speaker 1: a lot of putting the stick to some of the
Speaker 1: countries for various things that the President does not agree with.
Speaker 1: But the end of it was a rather stirring call
Speaker 1: and defensive Western civilization. It was the scripted part, you
Speaker 1: can tell, but it was we have a beautiful thing
Speaker 1: that we have inherited here, and it is our responsibility, duty,
Speaker 1: and joy to maintain it. But but but, but but
Speaker 1: but immigration. That was one of the things of which
Speaker 1: the President spoke. And here's a quote. Not only is
Speaker 1: the U and not solving the problems it should. Too
Speaker 1: often it's actually creating new problems for us to solve.
Speaker 1: The best example is the number one political issue of
Speaker 1: our time, the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It's uncontrolled. Your
Speaker 1: countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an
Speaker 1: assault on Western countries and their borders. A lot in
Speaker 1: there to parts whether or not it's the number one issue,
Speaker 1: whether or not it's a crisis, whether or not it's uncontrolled,
Speaker 1: and whether or not the U and it's funding it.
Speaker 1: So I will let either one of you leap in
Speaker 1: and tell me what you think.
Speaker 4: Well, you're in California, I feel, by definition get first
Speaker 4: DIBs on this.
Speaker 5: Okay, I'm actually in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: To day for the day.
Speaker 5: But you know, well, just quickly about the UN speech
Speaker 5: and then that point is my first thought. Excuse me.
Speaker 5: My first thought when I saw the elevator failed, the
Speaker 5: teleprofter failed is I'll bet Trump's staff did that deliberately
Speaker 5: so that he would just rough for an hour, right,
Speaker 5: because the conspiracy people said, oh, this is the win
Speaker 5: trying to monkey with Okay, the immigration thing, He's absolutely
Speaker 5: right that and even the Economist magazine recently, which is
Speaker 5: you know, that's the authoritarian centrist journal for you have
Speaker 5: the greater euro world. I suppose they said Europe is
Speaker 5: really blown out on migration. This really is out of
Speaker 5: control of the asylum policies are wrongheaded and need to
Speaker 5: be rethought. And what you see all over Europe is
Speaker 5: that the ruling party simply refuse to heed the rising
Speaker 5: public sentiment to say something needs to be done about this,
Speaker 5: and some like Britain, are doubling down and making it worse.
Speaker 5: There's a second aspect to this beyond just the recalcitrance
Speaker 5: of the ruling parties. It is you also, because of
Speaker 5: the European Union and the various international tribunals or human
Speaker 5: rights and all the rest of that tell individual nations
Speaker 5: will know you can't close your borders, you can't limit immigration.
Speaker 5: So you know, Italy is having to continue to accept
Speaker 5: asylum seekers even though the government would like to stop it.
Speaker 5: Under Maloney, I think I forget all the menacing threats
Speaker 5: to Hungary because Hungary ten years ago said no, no
Speaker 5: one's coming here. We're going to put a fence up
Speaker 5: on our border and we'll just tranship people to Germany
Speaker 5: or whatever they did. And I think there's still under
Speaker 5: sanctions and monetary penalties and all kinds of other menacing things.
Speaker 5: So you know, to the extent that the United States
Speaker 5: either follows or leads Europe, somebody's out of step here,
Speaker 5: and I'm pretty sure it's Europe.
Speaker 1: That's for the economists to be centrist. It's centrist in
Speaker 1: the European sense, I think is what we should say.
Speaker 4: Charles Well, I have a long winded take on this.
Speaker 4: If you'll indulge me.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go get some coffee.
Speaker 4: The way in which dual citizenship worked changed dramatically after
Speaker 4: World War Two. It still is something of a mixed bag.
Speaker 4: But the Western countries that were on the right side
Speaker 4: of World War Two, and in fact on the wrong
Speaker 4: side because we conquered them and told them what to do,
Speaker 4: changed their attitude toward citizenship such that if you now
Speaker 4: become a citizen of the United States, the United States
Speaker 4: does not carry the way whether you retain your citizenship
Speaker 4: of birth. Some of those countries do care and will
Speaker 4: strip you of it, but America doesn't, Britain doesn't, France doesn't.
Speaker 4: And the reason for that is that there was a horror,
Speaker 4: an understandable horror of people becoming stateless because of what
Speaker 4: the Nazis had done, And this useful instinct has been
Speaker 4: extrapolated out into a completely insane system that pertains to
Speaker 4: immigration in general, in which any sort of enforcement or
Speaker 4: desire to retain the characteristics of the West are conflated
Speaker 4: with the horrors of the mid twentieth century. And I
Speaker 4: think we are now coming up against that in a
Speaker 4: really practical sense. The big problem the left has in
Speaker 4: the United States and across the world on immigration is
Speaker 4: that it has ceased to regard it as being a
Speaker 4: quotidian political question. How many people should we have, on
Speaker 4: what basis should they be admitted? What do we expect
Speaker 4: of them? And they have come to see it as
Speaker 4: a human rights question. We don't debate human rights per se.
Speaker 4: We don't debate the worth of individuals, but we have
Speaker 4: to debate immigration, and yet we can't. And what Trump said,
Speaker 4: although it was haphazard and trumpion was correct in this
Speaker 4: regard that there is a big difference between determining that
Speaker 4: people aren't worthwhile or hating them for their national characteristics
Speaker 4: or the color of their skin or a language they speak.
Speaker 4: And setting immigration policy as a country that works for
Speaker 4: the people who are already there, and the constitutions that
Speaker 4: you already have. And I think that this confusion in
Speaker 4: the mind of the people who have been the architects
Speaker 4: of our post war order is crashing down now finally,
Speaker 4: where the average person across the world is saying, no,
Speaker 4: it is not the same thing as what the Nazis
Speaker 4: did to say, we will make broad based determinations as
Speaker 4: to who we want in our country. That is not
Speaker 4: the same thing as we were trying to avoid with
Speaker 4: the establishment of the United Nations and various declarations of
Speaker 4: human rights in the European Union and so forth. And
Speaker 4: the problem is that the people have got there, but
Speaker 4: most governments have not.
Speaker 1: They you're right, then, what walks in by hand, hand
Speaker 1: in hand and side by side with that sentiment is
Speaker 1: the idea that when people say, well, our national character
Speaker 1: is being changed or altered in ways in which we
Speaker 1: do not approve, they're being told that the national character
Speaker 1: is something of which they should be ashamed, and that
Speaker 1: it's archaic, and it's based in a variety of isms
Speaker 1: and sins. And therefore you're by defending the past by
Speaker 1: wanting the past to have continuity of the present in
Speaker 1: the future. You are defending ideas that now have fallen
Speaker 1: out of favor, and that makes you subject to approbrium
Speaker 1: in the public square. But what most people aren't buying it,
Speaker 1: and I think, as Stephen said earlier, is that this
Speaker 1: is a rising sentiment in Europe and we all know
Speaker 1: what happens when those things are not addressed and not
Speaker 1: even allowed to be spoken about. Well, that was one
Speaker 1: of the things that the President talked about at the
Speaker 1: U and the other was energy policy, which I really
Speaker 1: didn't expect. Again, it's like, these are settled issues. Why
Speaker 1: is he bringing this up talking about how the green
Speaker 1: energy is driving Europe off a cliff and leading to
Speaker 1: the industrialization and eye watering as they say, prices for
Speaker 1: these things, the fake energy catastrophe. Is he correct? Is
Speaker 1: he over emphasizing the importance of this, because I, you know,
Speaker 1: I think of the bullets that we dodged, the inscribed
Speaker 1: bullets that we dodged with a green new Deal not
Speaker 1: being fully implemented, and I am grateful that petroleum continues
Speaker 1: to be the wonderful Texas te ick or backbone that
Speaker 1: it is of the country. Is there any hope for
Speaker 1: Europe though in this respect, or are they just going
Speaker 1: to continue to play green while importing all kinds of
Speaker 1: dirty energy from elsewhere and claiming their hands are going
Speaker 1: to be clean.
Speaker 5: Well, my perspective on it is that Trump was twisting
Speaker 5: a knife because I perceive for a while now that
Speaker 5: while Europe and to some extent our country still talks green,
Speaker 5: they've been trying to beat a retreat from some of
Speaker 5: their crazy energy targets and climate targets, and so, you know,
Speaker 5: you know, over the last three four years, Germany has
Speaker 5: had to ramp up coal fired electricity with some of
Speaker 5: the dirtiest coal in the world because they have a
Speaker 5: lot of the you know, the old I guess, lignite coal.
Speaker 5: And here in this country, here's my favorite thing. First
Speaker 5: of all, there was a long article in the New
Speaker 5: York Times last week by Benjamin Wallace Wells, and essentially
Speaker 5: it was the public declaration that the climate change crusade
Speaker 5: is over. I said, we're giving up on climate politics,
Speaker 5: and your Thomas Shotts, the very liberal senator from Hawaii,
Speaker 5: said Democrats should quit talking about climate and talk about
Speaker 5: inflation and affordability and things that people care about and
Speaker 5: my favorite marker is out here Irati about here my
Speaker 5: home state of California. A year ago, Gavin knew some
Speaker 5: of the Democrats were all or maybe your year and
Speaker 5: a half. They're all up in arms about our high
Speaker 5: gas prices are the fault of the oil refiners. So
Speaker 5: they set in motion an investigation for excess profits by
Speaker 5: the refiners, and of course found out it's nonsense. And
Speaker 5: then two of the largest refineries said Valeria. One other said,
Speaker 5: we think we're going to close our last two refineries
Speaker 5: in California, and credible predictions that could lead to eight
Speaker 5: dollars gallon gasoline. And so the latest thing is, first
Speaker 5: of all, the legislator just passed the bill that will
Speaker 5: allow an expansion of oil production in Kern County in California.
Speaker 5: I think in the last two years there have been
Speaker 5: two hundred wills a drill. The state is now authorizing
Speaker 5: two thousand new ones. And better, they're begging the refiners
Speaker 5: not to leave, and they're now talking about subsidizing oil
Speaker 5: refineries to stay open in California. So in eighteen months
Speaker 5: in crazy California, we've gone from let's punish the oil
Speaker 5: refiners because they're evil people to oh, can we give
Speaker 5: you subsidies to make sure you stay open? That tells
Speaker 5: me that in the real world this whole circus is
Speaker 5: pretty much over now, the climate cult, as I call it.
Speaker 5: They're going to keep yelling and screaming and blocking roads
Speaker 5: and throwing tomato soup on artworks and so forth, and
Speaker 5: lying down the road now and then, although even some
Speaker 5: of them are starting to draw back from that, especially
Speaker 5: as they're starting to get real jail sentences in several venues,
Speaker 5: including even in Europe. But I think in the real world,
Speaker 5: reality has finally caught up with this nonsense and is
Speaker 5: reversing in a real way, in real time, right in
Speaker 5: front of us.
Speaker 1: I won't be happy in until California resembled the movies
Speaker 1: of the forties or the Two Jakes where you're driving
Speaker 1: around and you actually see a little oil rig and
Speaker 1: Soody's backyard pumping out a couple of gallons a day
Speaker 1: back in the days when California did it. Charles, before
Speaker 1: we go to our guest, anything on Europe and their
Speaker 1: energy situation is Stephen Wright, is the green fervor finally
Speaker 1: peaked in past?
Speaker 4: Yes, it's funny Steve, you mentioned this because this was
Speaker 4: pointed out to me the other day as well, and
Speaker 4: I realized that I hadn't noticed it because the people
Speaker 4: who normally scream about it had stopped, and I don't
Speaker 4: think about it, so I wasn't looking for them to
Speaker 4: talk about it. And when I read my book ten
Speaker 4: years ago, I got lots of rude letters from the
Speaker 4: left saying, wow, you know, two hundred pages and you
Speaker 4: didn't even mention climate. And I wouldn't respond to them.
Speaker 4: But if anyone asked me in person, I would say
Speaker 4: that's because I don't think it's remotely important, and they
Speaker 4: would look at me like I had three heads. Well, now, yeah,
Speaker 4: it's interesting that people they've just stopped in America, especially,
Speaker 4: they've just stopped talking about it. You just don't hear
Speaker 4: about this anymore. It's not the everything is Everything tweets
Speaker 4: that you get from the left, and there are other
Speaker 4: things that have replaced it. The important part of it.
Speaker 4: I think it's just that it be eschatological. Whatever it is,
Speaker 4: that is the issue of the day. It has to
Speaker 4: be that if we don't do it, then the end
Speaker 4: of the world will come, so something else will fill
Speaker 4: that role. But it's been a fascinating couple of years
Speaker 4: where that dog hasn't barked, Well.
Speaker 1: Something else already has and that's the imminent Hitlerism, the authoritarianism,
Speaker 1: the jack boot that has descended on the throat and
Speaker 1: the faces of all of us. And I get that,
Speaker 1: of course from my social feet as well. I read
Speaker 1: the other day one out of five people in America
Speaker 1: get their news from TikTok, which which to me was
Speaker 1: just stunning, and I instantly had a version of a
Speaker 1: purple haired Walter Cronkite with a septum ring, yelling in
Speaker 1: his car while he gesticulates like an electrocuted Italian. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean everybody gets their news now from these sources.
Speaker 1: And if that's the case, at this fire hose of
Speaker 1: panic and end of the world nonsense coming at you
Speaker 1: twenty four to seven, and yet we keep scrolling. Well,
Speaker 1: it's all more important to keep a place where you
Speaker 1: can be sane while you're stepping away from the insane
Speaker 1: news cycles that dominate our culture. Even in simpler times,
Speaker 1: when you think about a life gets hectic and finding
Speaker 1: comfort and yes I'm doing an ad and finding comfort
Speaker 1: and calm, it's essential we need time for relaxation, for
Speaker 1: recharging and soaking in a sense of peace with cozy earth.
Speaker 1: You right, that's right. You can create a space that
Speaker 1: feels like a personal retreat where comfort and serenity come
Speaker 1: together naturally. And speaking of comfort and serenity and natural things,
Speaker 1: here's Charles to tell you exactly why he likes these sheets.
Speaker 4: Because they're soft, because they're comfortable, because they're breathable. I
Speaker 4: was just in Phoenix, Arizona, and it was hot, but
Speaker 4: it was hot in a different way. It's dry. I
Speaker 4: like it a great deal. Florida is not. It's humid.
Speaker 4: I like that a great deal too, except sometimes at night,
Speaker 4: so out of my cozy sheets, sleep on them every night,
Speaker 4: spend an inordinate amount of time being comfortable in them, And.
Speaker 1: I too appreciate their breatheability. They make my previous sheets
Speaker 1: look like they were asphyxiating me and being mummified in
Speaker 1: a short No, you will love them too unless they
Speaker 1: stand by their quality. Incidentally, the blankets come with a
Speaker 1: one hundred night sleep trial and a ten year warranty.
Speaker 1: And they're apparel. They've got that too, and it's backed
Speaker 1: also by a lifetime guarantee. They mean it when they
Speaker 1: say it's made the last. Go to cozyearth dot com
Speaker 1: and you use the coupon code ricochet. You check off
Speaker 1: for forty percent off. Did I say that I did
Speaker 1: forty percent off your new favorite pajama set and blanket.
Speaker 1: That's cozyyearth dot com. Code ricochet up to forty percent off.
Speaker 1: And if you get a post to purchase survey, let
Speaker 1: them know you're about a cozy of Earth right here
Speaker 1: at the Ricochet Podcast. And we do think Cozy Earth
Speaker 1: for sponsoring this the Ricochet Podcast. And now we bring
Speaker 1: to the pie who we got? Oh, And now we
Speaker 1: bring to the podcast John. You needs no introduction. John
Speaker 1: knows law. John knows McDonald's, I knows the fluffya eagles,
Speaker 1: and he's here mostly to talk about McDonald's and a
Speaker 1: little law. Hey John, how are you great?
Speaker 2: James? How are you?
Speaker 1: Couldn't be better? Actually? I'm just firing on all cylinders technic,
Speaker 1: but are.
Speaker 2: We're going to do our special star Tek science fiction
Speaker 2: episode with Hell.
Speaker 1: We do have to do that. We absolutely got to
Speaker 1: finish season three of Strange New Worlds first, which I
Speaker 1: understand is a tad disappointment, but I love it anyway,
Speaker 1: But yeah, we'll do that.
Speaker 2: Final episode was weak.
Speaker 1: I was, Yeah, they say they're going to do better
Speaker 1: for the fourth episode. I think a little bit too
Speaker 1: much on the comedy side, but I can deal with it.
Speaker 1: I still love the ship and the crew and the.
Speaker 2: Rest of it.
Speaker 1: But James Comy, he said, grinding all the gears to
Speaker 1: get to the topic. James Comy indicted by a grand
Speaker 1: jury which may of course also looked at a ham
Speaker 1: sand which we don't know, for alleged perjury and remarks
Speaker 1: me for the Sener Judiciary Committee in September thirty of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. Now lying to Congress, misspeaking saying things, we
Speaker 1: get the feeling if you're watching up clips that people
Speaker 1: do it all the time, but there's never any a
Speaker 1: penalty for it. Is that the case? And what is
Speaker 1: your impression of the indictment of Comy at this moment?
Speaker 2: So people should realize the crime is not lying in Congress,
Speaker 2: of which there would be many perpetrators lying to Congress,
Speaker 2: so I probably would have agreed with the Attorney General
Speaker 2: and the Deputy Attorney General and not brought these charges.
Speaker 2: Not because I don't think Comy lied to Congress or not,
Speaker 2: but because it would be too hard to prove. This
Speaker 2: is essentially a he said, she said case about one
Speaker 2: answer that Comy gave back almost five years ago to
Speaker 2: Congress when he was asked whether he had authorized or
Speaker 2: knew of the leaking of confidential law enforcement investigation material
Speaker 2: to the press. Comy's subordinate leaked the information to the
Speaker 2: press about the Hillary Clinton investigation, and he believed He
Speaker 2: testified under oath that he believed Komy wanted him to,
Speaker 2: but Komy said he didn't. So it's really she said
Speaker 2: case really about that. A lot of people are going
Speaker 2: to think, oh, no, Kobe's being indicted for all the
Speaker 2: other terrible things he did. I mean, if you go
Speaker 2: back and look at the record, Komy, right, if you remember,
Speaker 2: tried to entrap President Trump while he was the FBI director,
Speaker 2: tried to entrap President Trump into trying to block the
Speaker 2: investigation into the Russia hoax because Trump and he turned
Speaker 2: out to be right about this, knew the Russia hoax
Speaker 2: was actually a hoax. And so remember Komy got it,
Speaker 2: was talking to him about it, and then he was
Speaker 2: running back to his car and typing into his laptop
Speaker 2: secret memos, which he then had a friend leaked to
Speaker 2: the New York Times. Or they might think Komy's going
Speaker 2: to be investigated for all the shenanigans leading up to
Speaker 2: the twenty sixteen election, where he uh right, Remember he
Speaker 2: started an investigation into Clinton, then he closed it, then
Speaker 2: he reopened it, then he closed it, and then he
Speaker 2: announced in the without consulting with the Attorney General, that
Speaker 2: the matter was closed and that Hilly was cleared just
Speaker 2: a few days before the election. People are going to
Speaker 2: think he's being indicted for all that he's not. He's
Speaker 2: being indicted for this one statement he gave five years ago.
Speaker 2: And I'm not sure that the jury is going to
Speaker 2: convin I think it's enough. I think there's enough there
Speaker 2: to bring a charge. But I think the Attorney General
Speaker 2: of the Debuty turned Till Bondie must have thought, I
Speaker 2: think rightly so, that it's not clear whether jury would convict,
Speaker 2: and that it would be ultimately a waste of the
Speaker 2: prestige of the Justice Department to lose in court on this.
Speaker 5: Okay, Well, John, First of all, three quick points for
Speaker 5: you to respond to. One is it's hardly an unprecedented
Speaker 5: to bring a perjury charge for congressional testimony. I give
Speaker 5: you the case of Algerhiss, right, I mean that's right.
Speaker 5: The statute limitations that expired on his espionage. So they
Speaker 5: got him for perjury and that took two trials. And okay.
Speaker 5: The second point is, and we've talked about this before,
Speaker 5: you and I, is in some respects resembles I won't
Speaker 5: say payback, but a parallel to the I think really
Speaker 5: outrageous charges brought against Scooter Libby twenty years ago for
Speaker 5: lying to the FBI when they knew that he was
Speaker 5: not the leaker. They knew it was Richard Armitage, but
Speaker 5: he was untouchable. Okay, we'll go through that whole history again.
Speaker 5: And so maybe there's payback of the second kind, which
Speaker 5: is you and I have said game theory would say,
Speaker 5: if you want Democrats to stop lawfair, make them suffer
Speaker 5: some of it themselves. And the final point in question
Speaker 5: is who is the happiest about this indictment and why
Speaker 5: is that person? Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 2: Oh, you're gonna have to explain why it's Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2: I would have thought it'd be Donald Trump, although I'm
Speaker 2: sure Hillary thinks that all of the back and forth
Speaker 2: that Comy engaged in on the Hillary investigation lost her
Speaker 2: the election.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, no, I think she said that. I think
Speaker 5: that's pretty much confirmed. And she blames Comy above everybody
Speaker 5: else for her losing. So that's why I say she's
Speaker 5: the happiest about her Oh yeah, right.
Speaker 2: Okay, Now, the Democrats have a I think it was
Speaker 2: a hate love hate relationship with Comy because they hated
Speaker 2: for the Hillary Clinton thing, but then they loved him
Speaker 2: for trying to entrap Trump into obstruction of justice. Keep
Speaker 2: in mind that Muller, as I thought he would completely
Speaker 2: cleared Trump of any of these outrageous claims that there
Speaker 2: was some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Speaker 2: The most investigation was these obstruction of justice charges that
Speaker 2: really were triggered by Komy. I mean, Comy really had
Speaker 2: set off the whole Muller investigation. That's all his fault.
Speaker 2: And I totally by the point. I've mentioned it too
Speaker 2: that the only way I think to stop the Democrats
Speaker 2: from not just conducting law for it fair, but escalating
Speaker 2: it next time they're in power, is to deter them
Speaker 2: by giving them a taste of their own medicine. I
Speaker 2: don't think prosecuting Comy is much retaliation against the likes
Speaker 2: of Alvin Bragg or Letitia James for the cases they're
Speaker 2: the ones who should be investigated. Maybe, you know, Komy is,
Speaker 2: you know, not really part of that. He's not part
Speaker 2: of the Democrat he's not part of the by in
Speaker 2: our Obama machines. I think, actually I think, and I
Speaker 2: don't know what Charlie, So, I think he's actually kind
Speaker 2: of in a way of more worrisome figure. He's like
Speaker 2: a boy scout who thinks he knows better than everybody
Speaker 2: else and is willing to subordinate the Constitution, all our
Speaker 2: normal rules of procedure because he thinks he knows better
Speaker 2: than the American people or even the way that the
Speaker 2: Congress and the President have designed our law enforcement system.
Speaker 2: So you can see that throughout his career he just
Speaker 2: acts out and does Oh, I think this is the
Speaker 2: best thing to do for the country of the FBI.
Speaker 2: I don't care what the President says or what Congress says.
Speaker 2: He's like the ultimate bureaucrat in a way, he's more
Speaker 2: worrisome than these partisan infighters, right that we're talking about now, all.
Speaker 5: Right, So John, I have one more thing for you,
Speaker 5: and then I'll turn you over to Charles and back
Speaker 5: to James. This is shift gears a little bit. I'm
Speaker 5: reading your piece in the Washington Posts from a few
Speaker 5: days ago about Trump's policy towards Venezuela, and I'm wondering,
Speaker 5: when did you decide to start letting AI write your
Speaker 5: columns for you?
Speaker 2: Because AI smarter than me. That's why I acknowledge the
Speaker 2: root do better than me. I just said, please write
Speaker 2: me a column under my name and my voice better
Speaker 2: than my track.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, I mean no, I mean well, first
Speaker 5: of all, I mean, listeners know that we're pals. But
Speaker 5: this is the worst article you've ever written. And come on,
Speaker 5: come on, well, oh, come on, all right, that's good.
Speaker 5: I'm going to give you one sentence here and then
Speaker 5: get to the serious part of it. But here's a sentence.
Speaker 5: Americans have died in car wrecks at an annual rate
Speaker 5: of about forty thousand in recent years. The nation does
Speaker 5: not wage war on auto companies. I think that's what
Speaker 5: magicians would call a category error. But the serious point
Speaker 5: of your article is we're we're not clear on what
Speaker 5: the dividing line is between criminal matter and war. In
Speaker 5: a matter of war, and now you know I'll concede
Speaker 5: to your You know more about the law that I do,
Speaker 5: and you know you've been in the middle of it
Speaker 5: from your time of Justice Department back after nine to eleven.
Speaker 5: On the other hand, it does seem to me that
Speaker 5: a Venezuela is a hostile nation to the United States.
Speaker 5: And if it doesn't arise to the sort of clear
Speaker 5: trip wires of being in a state of war, that's
Speaker 5: because they're clever and avoid going that.
Speaker 2: But look, I can go through.
Speaker 5: All the list, I won't now why Venezuela is actively
Speaker 5: hostile to the United States and why I think And
Speaker 5: by the.
Speaker 2: Way, Steve, like a typical Straussian, you did not read
Speaker 2: to the last paragraph of the text because you're searching
Speaker 2: for hidden meetings throughout. You didn't make it. Remember the
Speaker 2: last paragraph says we're at war with Venezuela. I mean,
Speaker 2: I argue that what the only way this is legal
Speaker 2: is if the drug cartels are arms of the Venezuelan
Speaker 2: government are intertwined with Venezuela, and then this is all legitimate.
Speaker 2: But then people should realize we are actually in open
Speaker 2: war with Venezuela, and they should just know that.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, by the way, John, if you're really going
Speaker 5: to throw the Straussian car at me, you will know
Speaker 5: that what's at the beginning and what's at the end
Speaker 5: doesn't count. You got to put it in the middle.
Speaker 2: I didn't see. Every time I talked to I learned
Speaker 2: something new about Eucrazian Straussians. I suspected you didn't read
Speaker 2: the beginning or the end, but I wasn't sure. Now
Speaker 2: you know, I saw that.
Speaker 5: But it just seemed to me that, you know, your
Speaker 5: logic in the middle was very wishy washing and at
Speaker 5: the end you see. Yeah, but of course it seems
Speaker 5: to me that that's a quite compelling case can be
Speaker 5: made for that. And so what I mean, you're usually
Speaker 5: very utilitarian. I always call you a grubby Benthamite right
Speaker 5: when I really utilitarian about this, And it seems to
Speaker 5: me that even that you know pleasure and pain and
Speaker 5: all that, I mean, I don't know. It seems I'm
Speaker 5: the most surprised that you wouldn't be saying, and also
Speaker 5: your fondness for executive power in national events, that you
Speaker 5: wouldn't be more on Trump's sight on this. That's all
Speaker 5: I'm surprised about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: The simple line is, I don't think we can use
Speaker 2: the military to wage war on something that's a social problem.
Speaker 2: So drugs is a social problem. But a drug cartel
Speaker 2: just dealing drugs, I don't think is an appropriate subject
Speaker 2: for war. I think there's actually a utilitarian basis for this,
Speaker 2: because I think actually it would cause a widespread social
Speaker 2: unrest and overuse of force by the government and deprivation
Speaker 2: of our Can I say natural rights, Steve, you am
Speaker 2: I allowed to say natural rights on this podcast? No
Speaker 2: you aren't, okay, But then you cross the line into
Speaker 2: war when you have to me the line is an
Speaker 2: organized entity with the power nation state that's trying to
Speaker 2: attack us because of our political or foreign policy or
Speaker 2: national security. I think drug cartels, drug dealers just out
Speaker 2: to use to make money. They don't care what our
Speaker 2: foreign policy is, our national security is. In fact, they
Speaker 2: probably like it the country is more stable, it can
Speaker 2: make more money out of us.
Speaker 1: If a knockoff effect of these drug dealers is increased
Speaker 1: violence in the cities, does that into your equation at all,
Speaker 1: because then it's not a social problem, it's it's actual
Speaker 1: kinetic activity.
Speaker 2: But I think it's a I think crime, drugs, they're
Speaker 2: these perennial social problems. We can't reduce them to zero.
Speaker 2: The way you can. You have to use force against
Speaker 2: an enemy that's trying to change our policies of harm
Speaker 2: or national security. If China is really behind all this
Speaker 2: fentanyl and they're really doing it on purpose to attack US,
Speaker 2: I think that's something like an active war. But if
Speaker 2: it's just like a drug cartel running drugs to satisfy
Speaker 2: American demand for drugs, it's like it's just an illicit business.
Speaker 2: I don't think that crosses the line into appropriate use
Speaker 2: of military force. I think that's I mean, I would
Speaker 2: think everyone would agree that just the question is what
Speaker 2: these drug boats are? They on one side of the
Speaker 2: line or the other.
Speaker 4: I have a question that is, in a sense the
Speaker 4: inverse of this on the COMI matter, I of course
Speaker 4: load the man. And I'm extremely irritated reading this morning
Speaker 4: every newspaper that suggests that the Justice Department was perfect
Speaker 4: and virtuous until yesterday and then introduced into our policys
Speaker 4: these pretextual prosecutions. Have they not been alive for the
Speaker 4: last ten years. But I think the case is extremely
Speaker 4: weak and will probably be dismissed pre trial. So unless
Speaker 4: you have a disagreement with that, John, I want to
Speaker 4: ask you about groups that are engaged in domestic terrorism
Speaker 4: and where the lines are. So we've had in the
Speaker 4: last few weeks a number of examples of left wing violence,
Speaker 4: or perhaps violence committed by people who have left wing
Speaker 4: views for political ends. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is one.
Speaker 4: Yesterday's attack on the ICE facility was another. And one
Speaker 4: of the things that I've seen on the right is
Speaker 4: we need to go after these people, and they point
Speaker 4: to examples of our having done this in the sixties
Speaker 4: and seventies with groups within the United States that were
Speaker 4: engaged in terrorism. And then I see other people say, no,
Speaker 4: you can't do that. There are First Amendment problems. These
Speaker 4: people tend to be lone wolves, and so the networks
Speaker 4: are too broad. What can the federal government do if
Speaker 4: there are groups or ideological wings that are engaged in
Speaker 4: sustained violence domestically.
Speaker 2: So the only thing I disagree with your view on
Speaker 2: Comy is I don't think it's going to get dismissed
Speaker 2: pre trial because it's so easy for prosecutors to get
Speaker 2: to trial right, I don't. I don't. You know, judge
Speaker 2: will just say, oh, this is a he said, she said.
Speaker 2: It's just based on the facts, and that's up to
Speaker 2: the jury. So I think fortunate, unfortunately, we're going to
Speaker 2: be treated to the circus of a trial where, you know,
Speaker 2: it'll just be like the Trump trials, like Comy will
Speaker 2: come out after every day of proceedings make statements. I'm
Speaker 2: envisioning Trump coming out too, standing outside of the courthouse
Speaker 2: making statements too, every time Comy comes out. I mean,
Speaker 2: it could be a complete circus. I'm sure the White
Speaker 2: House is considering this on the I think on the
Speaker 2: actually the more important question about you know, where the
Speaker 2: line is between war and crime. I think the federal
Speaker 2: government could do more in terms of domestic terrorism, but
Speaker 2: Congress hasn't authorized it, so there's no statute like the
Speaker 2: one against foreign terrorists. You know, you can designate a
Speaker 2: foreign group a foreign terrorist organization, you can launch investigations,
Speaker 2: you can convict people of what the crime is called
Speaker 2: material support for foreign terrorism. Congress has chosen, I think,
Speaker 2: Charlie because of your reason that the Congress was concerned
Speaker 2: about free speech issues, so they've never passed those kinds
Speaker 2: of laws for domestic groups, so even you know the
Speaker 2: weather underground. The bombings we saw in the seventies and
Speaker 2: even started in the late sixties, they were people were convicted,
Speaker 2: but they were convicted for trying to kill federal officers,
Speaker 2: trying to destroy federal property. And then they were convicted
Speaker 2: that their time, and then we made them tenured professors
Speaker 2: at the University of Chicago at the end of their
Speaker 2: which is kind of like a sentence, I suppose if
Speaker 2: you're in the education department, but there's no you know,
Speaker 2: because of the first and actually what you say this
Speaker 2: is very interesting. Another point you made is in prosecution,
Speaker 2: there is a problem that always leads to most of
Speaker 2: these cases getting pled out. It's called gray mail, because
Speaker 2: what happens is when you go after people like these people,
Speaker 2: they threaten to try to force a government to reveal
Speaker 2: classified information like how did you know it was us?
Speaker 2: How did you surveil us? And they try to force
Speaker 2: a government to produce all this classified information about how
Speaker 2: they're surveilling these kinds of groups. And so usually the
Speaker 2: government would rather plead out these cases and have to
Speaker 2: go to trial. And so I bet even if we
Speaker 2: do have wide scale investigations of the kind that President
Speaker 2: Trump is proposing. I'm not confident there's going to be
Speaker 2: a lot of convictions. There might be some investigations about,
Speaker 2: you know, are people really behind this funding these crazy people,
Speaker 2: these crazy groups, But so far I don't see anything
Speaker 2: really there to support any kind of charges against anybody.
Speaker 4: And my follow up question is where is the line then,
Speaker 4: between investigation and prosecution, Because although that law that you
Speaker 4: mentioned doesn't exist, Congress has never passed it. We have
Speaker 4: had organizations in the United States infiltrated by federal agents
Speaker 4: and they went after the Clan, and then in the seventies,
Speaker 4: eighties and nineties they went after white supremacist groups in
Speaker 4: the hills of Idaho and that was what caused Ruby Ridge,
Speaker 4: and then they were pretty worried a few years later
Speaker 4: Awaco about the huge whatever you want to call it, organization, cult,
Speaker 4: religion dissenters there, and they had people who were occupying
Speaker 4: buildings close by and watching them. So do you have
Speaker 4: to have a law of the thought that you've described
Speaker 4: as not existing to be able to just and that
Speaker 4: investigators to look into domestic groups.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. But you have to I
Speaker 2: think you need something tighter to justify the investigation first,
Speaker 2: So to investigate versus prosecute, the line is to investigate.
Speaker 2: You just need reasonable grounds to think that someone's engaging
Speaker 2: in federal crimes, and so it depends what the federal
Speaker 2: crimes are. We've actually seen cases of this in the
Speaker 2: United States because there have been investigations of groups that
Speaker 2: were thought to be supporting foreign terrorist groups. And actually
Speaker 2: there's a case that went to the Supreme Court about this,
Speaker 2: and the Supreme Court said that even groups connected to
Speaker 2: foreign terrorists they're just using money for lawyers and using
Speaker 2: money for media relations, if they're also helping the foreign
Speaker 2: terrorist group, they can be investigated. I don't think you
Speaker 2: could do that domestically. I think domestically you have to
Speaker 2: have we think that they're planning to attack federal building,
Speaker 2: we think they're in some of the cases you mentioned,
Speaker 2: the crime was depriving people of their constitutional rights. So
Speaker 2: it's hard to explain. But I think you need a
Speaker 2: tighter link for domestic investigations because I think Congress was
Speaker 2: worried after what came out about Hoover and all the investigations,
Speaker 2: because he also he did some of those investigations. He
Speaker 2: also launched investigations into what seemed to be legitimate activity,
Speaker 2: like the civil rights movement. Congress never I think has
Speaker 2: always been careful about and I think the courts have
Speaker 2: been careful too. They I mean. The problem and here's
Speaker 2: the thing about what's going on with bring it back
Speaker 2: to Komy too, is even if Come's never convicted, right,
Speaker 2: the investigation itself, in defending yourself could ruin him. And
Speaker 2: maybe that's partially what Trump is after. Even if a
Speaker 2: jury is almost certain to acquit him or to be hung,
Speaker 2: just making Comy go under this is the punishment. And
Speaker 2: that might be a worry here with your group's questions, Charlie,
Speaker 2: is that if you have a First Amendment concern, even
Speaker 2: being forced to defend yourself from these investigations can really
Speaker 2: be harm chill speech. There's I don't think there's anything
Speaker 2: that can be done about that until it gets to
Speaker 2: the courts, when you present the charges and go to trial.
Speaker 1: Part of the problem maybe is that some of these
Speaker 1: relationships seem both tentacular and amorphis and there's so much
Speaker 1: plausible deniability. The Ties Foundation gives money to the Utah
Speaker 1: Committee for doing all the good things, and the Utah
Speaker 1: Committee for Doing All the Good Things gives money to
Speaker 1: Queer Rifles Salt Lake City, whose founder espouses the overthrow
Speaker 1: of the United States government and free Palace and the
Speaker 1: rest of it. And then somebody who isn't connected to
Speaker 1: the organization at all, but has been adjacent to it
Speaker 1: online or hearing its ideas from other people and other
Speaker 1: friends it goes decide to go and shoot somebody. So
Speaker 1: you can't draw a line from a guy who shoots
Speaker 1: somebody to George Sorows. But there is this sort of
Speaker 1: money that spreads and flows throughout these organizations, and I
Speaker 1: think that's what they're trying to look at.
Speaker 2: But again, you're right, exactly right, that's exactly right. That's
Speaker 2: what we had to deal with when we were investigating
Speaker 2: the groups responsible for nine to eleven and foreign Paris groups.
Speaker 2: They would and actually you know he did this first.
Speaker 2: The Irish, the Irish Republican Army would set up in
Speaker 2: the United States these fundraising groups, right, they have clubs
Speaker 2: and they would raise money and the government, the US
Speaker 2: government could not do exactly what you're saying, James, prove
Speaker 2: that there was a direct link to their fundraising and
Speaker 2: community building. And then of course they were in some
Speaker 2: ways getting money over to Ireland for their resistance to
Speaker 2: the United Kingdom. But you can't just say giving the one,
Speaker 2: you know, the grandma who gives five dollars in the
Speaker 2: tip jar at, you know, O'Shaughnessy's Bar in the North
Speaker 2: end of Boston is supporting terrorism. And so because of that,
Speaker 2: the government gave a lot of leeway for First Amendment reasons.
Speaker 1: If we truly were a repressive, authoritative regime, they would
Speaker 1: need no pretext whatsoever to go after all of these organizations,
Speaker 1: shut them down, confiscate their assets, and kick them in
Speaker 1: the huscau. But the people that are doing these things
Speaker 1: are convinced, of course, that were were precisely the sort
Speaker 1: of authoritarian regime that must be deposed, even though none
Speaker 1: of our act, even though our actions permit them to
Speaker 1: flourish and do what they wish. It is the damnedest thing.
Speaker 1: I think Steven had something else on this, well, not really.
Speaker 5: I mean I mean Antifa, and that's the specific organization
Speaker 5: being designated as a terrorist support or whatever. They're not
Speaker 5: really engaged in free speech. They don't really do that
Speaker 5: much speaking at all. I mean they exist to violently
Speaker 5: disrupt things and damage things, and I mean they're really
Speaker 5: nihilis and anarchists, right, So I don't think that line
Speaker 5: is actually very hard to make out, and I think
Speaker 5: that line's pretty bright. Now there may be a statutory
Speaker 5: like you and I, as you say, but I don't
Speaker 5: know if I went back. I got to think that
Speaker 5: the way we went after, as you say, the Weather Underground,
Speaker 5: but decades ago the Communist Party, where by the way,
Speaker 5: we never did uncover all the different money flows and
Speaker 5: all the rest of that wasn' until the Soviet Union
Speaker 5: collapsed and we got into the archives that we found
Speaker 5: out that there was lots of money coming in from
Speaker 5: the KGB to America we never uncovered. So it seems
Speaker 5: to me the case for vigorous action on these things
Speaker 5: like the Venezuelan drug runners is pretty compelling. I agree.
Speaker 2: I think Antifa going after Antifa the group, although it'll
Speaker 2: be very hard to because they're decentralized, right, they don't
Speaker 2: really have a leadership in a conventional way. I don't
Speaker 2: think going after them is a problem because they commit
Speaker 2: the violence, they organize the violent that you know, they've
Speaker 2: organized the protests, they occupy the buildings. They target officers.
Speaker 2: But if you want to try to get at the
Speaker 2: larger group of people who are just giving money, that's
Speaker 2: the harder. But you know, James's point is that, I
Speaker 2: think is that that's really the root of it. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you could cut them off from the money and
Speaker 2: the support, they couldn't do what they do. But I think, Charlie,
Speaker 2: because the First Amendment reasons, you know, there's it's a
Speaker 2: you know, we have free speech protections for money. Yeah,
Speaker 2: give the donation of money. And that's the problem is
Speaker 2: you over prosecute. Then you're going to suppress legitimate.
Speaker 4: Free speech protections for edition under brand Burgh right, Yeah.
Speaker 5: Well well the only yeah, sorry, the only other thing
Speaker 5: they add, John, because it's in my contract that I
Speaker 5: have to is if we're in our green room, h
Speaker 5: when we were doing the Cozy Earth spot and Charles
Speaker 5: praised their breatheability. Their breatheability is of course the result
Speaker 5: of lower small from the Clean Air Act. You must
Speaker 5: know that.
Speaker 2: Oh you mentioned the clean Era and you've now ruined
Speaker 2: two podcasts.
Speaker 5: I have to do that to you, John. You know it.
Speaker 2: From mentioning the Clean Air Act and other podcasts, because
Speaker 2: then it's just it just descends into boredom in about
Speaker 2: thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: If not, well, it's proof that speech is violence. In
Speaker 1: this case violence of course speech. I too would want
Speaker 1: to detail the minutia and the particulars of particulates in
Speaker 1: the air, but we're not going to do that. Instead,
Speaker 1: what we're going to note before we get onto the
Speaker 1: next topic is John Is in Washington. I forget John.
Speaker 1: I know that Charles is a football found you a
Speaker 1: football fan.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, I am an Eagles fan born and Brett, Well,
Speaker 2: that's right. If you saw the greatest play of all
Speaker 2: time last game three seconds to go, this three and
Speaker 2: twenty five pound Eagles, the defensive lineman blocked a punt
Speaker 2: and then ran in sixty yards for a touchdown, and people,
Speaker 2: I mean the stadium went nuts. But one of the
Speaker 2: announcers SAIDs saying it was very funny. It's like, I'm
Speaker 2: not surprised he blocked a field goal. I'm surprised he
Speaker 2: could run sixty yards.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean, but he died at the end
Speaker 1: of that and they had to inter him in the
Speaker 1: end zone. Well, here's the thing about it. I mean,
Speaker 1: at that moment when that guy tip when he tipped
Speaker 1: it and he caught it, and he looked at the
Speaker 1: field ahead and he made the decision to run. And
Speaker 1: you and I make decisions every day. But on Prize
Speaker 1: Picks prize excellent, being right can get you paid. Don't
Speaker 1: miss any of the excitement this season on Prize Picks,
Speaker 1: where it's good to be right. Charles, you have a
Speaker 1: little bit to say about football Ricochet's leagues and Prize Picks.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm a huge football fan. When that happened to
Speaker 4: the Eagles, I was at the Jaguars stadium as I
Speaker 4: usually am season ticket holder, that I am watching them
Speaker 4: win for once against the Houston Texans for once.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they've lost almost every game at home against the
Speaker 4: Texans for ten years. They didn't lose this one, but
Speaker 4: I got to see them win, so that's great. And
Speaker 4: I also do like betting on sports. I don't bet
Speaker 4: a lot, I just bet a little bit. But I
Speaker 4: like appsite prize picks because the more that you pay attention,
Speaker 4: the more you win. And I've noticed that when I
Speaker 4: first started getting into football, James, I didn't really know
Speaker 4: anything about it and I didn't really know what was
Speaker 4: going on. I didn't know who the players were, and
Speaker 4: I didn't know how it worked. And now I know
Speaker 4: a bit more, and now I'm doing better, and so
Speaker 4: I'm a prize pick sort of guy.
Speaker 1: Yes, Price Picks it's the best way to get action
Speaker 1: on sports and more than forty plus states, including California
Speaker 1: and Texas and Georgia. Simple to play, just pick more
Speaker 1: or less on two to six player stamp projections. You
Speaker 1: get your picked right, you could cash in Picks is
Speaker 1: the best way to win cash this football season. Really,
Speaker 1: which players are going off, which ones aren't. Make your
Speaker 1: picks in less than sixty seconds and turn of your
Speaker 1: tanks into cash all season long on Price Picks and
Speaker 1: Price Picks puts their users first, so all your withdrawals
Speaker 1: are fast, they're easy, they're secure. Price Picks offers Venmo,
Speaker 1: Apple pay MasterCard more for quick and easy deposits into
Speaker 1: your account this football season. So download the app today
Speaker 1: and use the code ricochet to get fifty dollars in
Speaker 1: lineups after you play your first five dollars lineup. That's
Speaker 1: code ricochet to get fifty dollars in lineups after you
Speaker 1: play your first five dollars lineup. Price Picks. It's good
Speaker 1: to be right, and we thanks Price Picks. Responsing this
Speaker 1: the Ricochet Podcast, Well, gentlemen, at the time we have left,
Speaker 1: do we want to keep this you guy around or
Speaker 1: is he? Is he? Oh that's right, I'm sorry, No, Steven,
Speaker 1: you were saying clean Air Act. Do go on?
Speaker 2: Oh no, no, no, that was a very good way
Speaker 2: to get me to sign off.
Speaker 1: No things are any intended. Let's see. Well, uh, John
Speaker 1: you there, John you there, didn't mean that. Ah, he's gone.
Speaker 1: Oh he wait he left. Oh and with that, John
Speaker 1: just swanned off, so we'll talk to him later. We
Speaker 1: didn't get to the Mike rib which I don't believe
Speaker 1: is all courant, but when it is, of course you
Speaker 1: know that he is the judge of it. Anything else, gentlemen,
Speaker 1: In the week that we have seen, there's an interesting
Speaker 1: titlan All all of a sudden in the news. I
Speaker 1: imagine Thailand all doesn't want to be in the news
Speaker 1: much because the last time they were didn't go well.
Speaker 1: And in this instance, we have all of these discussions
Speaker 1: about Thailand and autism, and people have been surfacing John
Speaker 1: Hopkins and Harvard Studies and tweets from thailandol from six
Speaker 1: years ago, emphasizing or underscoring the point that the administration
Speaker 1: seems to be making about this. Now, I, as a
Speaker 1: layman on these and under the ignorant of the matter,
Speaker 1: I really find it hard to believe that what they
Speaker 1: call an explosion in autism is to title and all
Speaker 1: or vaccines. I think it just is simply due to
Speaker 1: additional screening and wider definitions than the rest of it.
Speaker 1: That's what I feel it coming as somebody who knows
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing, But I kind of think there's a possibility
Speaker 1: I might be right, gentleman.
Speaker 5: Well, well, I think that there's a parallel here. And
Speaker 5: now I'm with you on this. I'm skeptical. Although I've
Speaker 5: long been down on tile and all and some of
Speaker 5: this research that suggests that there are risks we haven't
Speaker 5: fully judged. I think there's something to it. I think
Speaker 5: RFK Junior likely takes it too far, as he does
Speaker 5: with most things. But yeah, the diagnosis has changed, and
Speaker 5: the parallel there that I do know a lot about
Speaker 5: is asthma and comes back to my whole Clean Air
Speaker 5: Act fascination. You know, asper case has exploded, and it
Speaker 5: turned out that we change the diagnostic procedure for detecting it,
Speaker 5: and asthma is still somewhat mysterious. It's partly an autoimmune disease,
Speaker 5: and the clauses are still somewhat obscure and contested. But
Speaker 5: once we expanded the diagnosis of it, all of a
Speaker 5: sudden we had more cases of it. And I think
Speaker 5: that's also happened with autism, and some people in the
Speaker 5: I guess there's an autism community have been complaining about
Speaker 5: this for a while, that they're the lumping everything into
Speaker 5: just the spectrum is right, it is not useful or
Speaker 5: you know, has all kinds of problems with it, which
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 1: Is right right because it tells you that the spectrum
Speaker 1: is infinitely stretchable in either direction out I mean, so,
Speaker 1: Charles your take on this, I think Stephen has said
Speaker 1: at all. But of course you're always free to come
Speaker 1: up with something else.
Speaker 5: I agree.
Speaker 4: I'm skeptical as well. What I do think is that
Speaker 4: if there is indeed any link here, the way that
Speaker 4: Trump and RFK Junior did this was not helpful. If
Speaker 4: you find something that changes your conception of the consequences
Speaker 4: of taking a particular drug, the only drug in this
Speaker 4: case that pregnant women can take to manage pain. You
Speaker 4: should not release the information in that manner. You should
Speaker 4: not send out conflicting statements as Trump did, and you
Speaker 4: should not scare people who are now going to have
Speaker 4: to choose between this unproven link and managing the pain
Speaker 4: that comes with pregnancy. So I am skeptical on the merits,
Speaker 4: but I think irrespective of that, I really think they
Speaker 4: got this one wrong.
Speaker 1: What's interesting, though, is that a week from now we
Speaker 1: will completely forget this because there will be something else
Speaker 1: of the of that ILK large statements, germ of truth
Speaker 1: overreaction on both. It's it's frustrating these days to be caught,
Speaker 1: as it seems, in this constant mailstrom of reaction. But
Speaker 1: on the other hand, I suppose people say that, well,
Speaker 1: it's a sign at the swamp is no longer having
Speaker 1: its you know, it's baleful effect on people that things
Speaker 1: are moving quicker than we would like. For example, we're
Speaker 1: going to be getting judges approved much more quicker. But
Speaker 1: there are there are there any knockoff effects of that
Speaker 1: of changing rules in order to do that. Can't bite,
Speaker 1: can't bite the right in the keyster in the future
Speaker 1: cannon No.
Speaker 5: I don't think so. I mean, I think you had
Speaker 5: an asymmetry here where Republicans they would vote no on
Speaker 5: Democratic appointees, but they didn't filibuster and block final floor
Speaker 5: votes except in very rare cases. And here you had
Speaker 5: Democrats in the Senate blocking any votes on judges and
Speaker 5: a lot of other lower level candate appointees. And I
Speaker 5: think rightly Senate Republicans finally said nuts to that, and
Speaker 5: so I don't think it actually. In other words, there
Speaker 5: are other areas where you can say just wait till
Speaker 5: Democrats are back in power, like abusing the FCC, but
Speaker 5: this is not one of them.
Speaker 1: Oh, the FCC abuse, that is a that is a dandy.
Speaker 1: That really is Charles. I mean, we spoke about this
Speaker 1: last week, and now Jimmy Kimmel is back to two
Speaker 1: great accolades. The Savior of our time is descended. But
Speaker 1: do you think Kimmel is going to stick around or
Speaker 1: are they just going to wait for the Brujaha to
Speaker 1: die down and then just usher them off the stage again.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know what's going on Disney, but I
Speaker 4: do know that they're not going to keep losing money
Speaker 4: on Jimmy Kimmel to make a point. They may have
Speaker 4: brought him back to make a point, but you don't
Speaker 4: do it over multiple years, especially when the president has
Speaker 4: now been set in the Colbert case. I do think
Speaker 4: that it is extremely annoying. And I say this is
Speaker 4: someone who's very critical of Brandon Carr for what he did,
Speaker 4: and who doesn't want the federal government to wield that
Speaker 4: sort of power that the Democrats. How long did they
Speaker 4: wait until they started talking about going after Sinclair and
Speaker 4: using the FCC themselves. Elizabeth Warren can't help herself, So
Speaker 4: they don't believe in anything on this question. That doesn't
Speaker 4: mean we shouldn't, and I do, but they don't believe
Speaker 4: in anything on this Jimmy Kimmel is not a hero,
Speaker 4: and Jimmy Kimmel is not the story of Charlie Cook's murder.
Speaker 4: And it was thus not only a mistake legally for
Speaker 4: Brandan Carr to do what he did, but it was
Speaker 4: a political mistake because they managed to turn someone on
Speaker 4: the left who is not good and I did something
Speaker 4: wrong into a sympathetic figure. And when you have the
Speaker 4: world's attention, you should avoid that.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: I hate when people say I'm not going to listen
Speaker 1: to you complain about this, because you didn't complain about
Speaker 1: this thing over here that I think you should complain about.
Speaker 1: But I am going to do exactly that, because this
Speaker 1: week we got more confirmation exactly what the government was
Speaker 1: doing to strong arm pressure Google, Facebook, every Twitter and
Speaker 1: all the rest of them to take the COVID misinformation,
Speaker 1: you know, like our good friend doctor Jay out of
Speaker 1: the picture. And that is something to be irritated about.
Speaker 1: It is something to be angry about, which you seemed
Speaker 1: to have accepted it and sort of kind of moved along.
Speaker 1: I'm not crazy about that.
Speaker 4: And that's fifty times worse. That story is fifty times worse,
Speaker 4: and it got no coverage.
Speaker 1: It absolutely and I wonder why that could be. Well,
Speaker 1: that's because the clock is reset every day. What was
Speaker 1: done in the past doesn't matter unless it's a good
Speaker 1: argument for why we should not do in the things
Speaker 1: we did in the past. Before. Gentlemen, I think we've
Speaker 1: solved the world, or at least wrapped it up to
Speaker 1: our own satisfaction here and all I can say now
Speaker 1: is a variety of things, the nature of which you
Speaker 1: can entirely predict. One I am going to thank Price Picks,
Speaker 1: and I am going to thank Cozy Earth for sponsoring
Speaker 1: this show. Two I'm going to tell you that if
Speaker 1: you support them a your life gets better. I mean
Speaker 1: we're talking breathe ability. And of course you don't help
Speaker 1: the show as well. Three or c if you would like.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't because I've been maintaining a numerical order here.
Speaker 1: I think that you should join ricoget because there's something
Speaker 1: there you're just not going to find elsewhere. It's the
Speaker 1: member site. We're all kinds of conversations and friends form.
Speaker 1: It's a place where you have football leagues and movie
Speaker 1: talk and politics and religion and everything in the world.
Speaker 1: But it's not like those places like Facebook where people
Speaker 1: just you know, scream at each other in froth. There's
Speaker 1: a code of conduct. We stick to it religiously, and
Speaker 1: that's what makes it special. Four. I'm going to ask
Speaker 1: you to give us a D star review, no, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: an E star review, I'm sorry, five star review on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts. And if you do that then you will win.
Speaker 1: How much is it, Charlie, What is the pot up
Speaker 1: to now? I think it's up to three cents if
Speaker 1: we actually find out that somebody did that and can
Speaker 1: prove it, we're going to give them, you know, four
Speaker 1: cents or something like what is it? What is why?
Speaker 4: Inflation's still with us, so it will over time change.
Speaker 4: So if you're listening to this two years into the future,
Speaker 4: then it's ten thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: Of course, I'm kidding. That would be payola. And I
Speaker 1: don't want to go all all that on you. I
Speaker 1: was going to name somebody who was caught up in
Speaker 1: that scandal, but you know what, you know, times are different.
Speaker 5: Let them be.
Speaker 1: I want to say thank you, and I want to
Speaker 1: say that Ricochet is now up to what builds Charlie Goodness,
Speaker 1: James Goodness. You knew I was going to ask.
Speaker 4: I did, and I thought about looking it up, and
Speaker 4: then I thought, I'm just going to sit there and
Speaker 4: say four point one point nine point tw twelve point
Speaker 4: three point one point and I just you know, people.
Speaker 5: Got to be that.
Speaker 4: People who listen to me do it are going to
Speaker 4: be begging us to return to the topic of the
Speaker 4: Clean Air Act.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: Well, we're approaching now not just an irrational number like pie,
Speaker 5: but we're approaching the singularity, right.
Speaker 1: I said, I only to remind you that the code
Speaker 1: is constantly being improved, as is the site, as is
Speaker 1: our contribution to the discourse of the Internet and the
Speaker 1: world is Stephen Charlie. It's been great fun as ever,
Speaker 1: and everybody will see you in the comments at Ricochet
Speaker 1: four point, you know. Goodbye.