Speaker 1: Time for the ninth first twenty one to four cast
Speaker 1: is going to be mostly excited to part with flighty
Speaker 1: day to day high eighty five going to the sixty
Speaker 1: two overnight becase. Guys are clearing up gets sun tomorrow
Speaker 1: with high of eighty seven, a few clouds in a
Speaker 1: low of sixty three over Thursday night. Friday is going
Speaker 1: to be a sunny day and outline at ninety degrees
Speaker 1: sixty eight degrees right now, time for traffic. Chuck from
Speaker 1: the UCLP Traumphic Center.
Speaker 2: The University of Cincinnati Cancer Center is open, the most
Speaker 2: comprehensive bund cancer center in the nation. The future of
Speaker 2: cancer care is here called five one three five eighty
Speaker 2: five u SECC westbound two seventy five over a twenty
Speaker 2: minute delay between Milford and an accident of Loveland. They've
Speaker 2: now balked off the right lane after that Loveland Ramp.
Speaker 2: Southbound seventy five slows through Walkland. Northbound seventy five is
Speaker 2: an extra forty minutes between Florence and downtown. Chuck Ingram
Speaker 2: on fifty five KRC the talk station AY twenty seven
Speaker 2: Here fifty five KRC Detalks station. Of course, you know
Speaker 2: it's that time of day, that time of week. Appointment
Speaker 2: listening everyone Wednesday at this time because we get to
Speaker 2: hear from the brilliant Judge Enteropolotan and welcome back your honor.
Speaker 1: Always a plea, Brian.
Speaker 3: I guess I'm chopped liver over at the traffic department
Speaker 3: this morning.
Speaker 1: He probably forgot what day it is. That happens all
Speaker 1: the time, and Joe pointed out in actually, in Chuck's defense,
Speaker 1: we can make fun of him and talk about how
Speaker 1: he's isolated from the rest of humanity most of his life.
Speaker 1: But we're having a lot of traffic accidents just in
Speaker 1: the area this morning, and you know, he's responsible for
Speaker 1: traffic all over the Midwest, so he's got his hands
Speaker 1: full apparently, so a bit distracted. So we'll give him
Speaker 1: a break.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm sorry to hear that, and I apologize for
Speaker 3: busting his job.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, come on, it wouldn't be a Wednesday
Speaker 1: unless we gave Chuck some hard time. He appreciated, appreciates it. Rather,
Speaker 1: let us talk about GETMO. One of my favorite topics
Speaker 1: with you is GETMO because, as I pointed out to
Speaker 1: you in our email exchange yesterday, this creates so much
Speaker 1: cognitive dissonance among my constitutional loving listeners. We have a constitution,
Speaker 1: we all embrace it, You and I and my listening
Speaker 1: audience does everything they can to support it and appreciate
Speaker 1: its value. It's critical to our nation and its future
Speaker 1: to understand these concepts and do everything we can to
Speaker 1: protect them. But then get mo and you got a
Speaker 1: demonstrably evil person, the murderer of people whatever. And it's like,
Speaker 1: I don't care about that damn constitution. Do whatever you want,
Speaker 1: torture them, go ahead, it's gurro me, he's a terrorist.
Speaker 1: That it's the attitude that flows in when we get
Speaker 1: into these concepts that did create so much problems with
Speaker 1: people's respect for the Constitution.
Speaker 3: Yes, and you know, as I also mentioned in the
Speaker 3: emails that we exchanged last night, I never got in.
Speaker 4: More trouble with my on air Fox colleagues. I'm not
Speaker 4: talking about management. I'm talking about my buddies.
Speaker 3: When I defended the constitutional rights of non Americans. But
Speaker 3: that's easy to do if you've studied the basics and
Speaker 3: the Constitution, because the relevant constitutional amendments protecting people when
Speaker 3: the government wants their life, liberty, or property, protects persons
Speaker 3: or people. It is not limited to just Americans, and
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court has made that very clear. Nevertheless, people
Speaker 3: have so much understandable, understandable animosity toward these guys that
Speaker 3: pulled off nine eleven, even though it was now twenty
Speaker 3: three years ago, that they don't seem to be interested
Speaker 3: in the niceties that do process.
Speaker 4: But think of it this way. If due process.
Speaker 3: Can be denied or watered down because the defendant is
Speaker 3: unpopular or perceived as probably guilty, that could happen to anybody.
Speaker 3: And the whole purpose of the Constitution is to make
Speaker 3: sure it doesn't happen to anyone. And politics, which is
Speaker 3: rearing its head in this College Saik Muhammad case, politics
Speaker 3: should not interfere with due process.
Speaker 4: We have a case here.
Speaker 3: Where the judge, the government lawyers, and the defense lawyers,
Speaker 3: and the defendants and the general supervising these prosecutions have
Speaker 3: all agreed to a plea bargain. They all signed the
Speaker 3: plea agreement, and then a month later, the Secretary of Defense,
Speaker 3: who is not a lawyer, decided, wait a minute, do
Speaker 3: we really want to look weak in the middle of
Speaker 3: a presidential election campaign. He didn't put it that way.
Speaker 3: The way he put it was, I want the public
Speaker 3: to see the evidence in this case.
Speaker 1: No, you don't.
Speaker 3: If the public sees the evidence in this case, the
Speaker 3: government's behavior is indefensible, and you will expose your troops
Speaker 3: to the most vicious retribution. That's not me, that's the
Speaker 3: prosecutors in the case to the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 1: And that's because of the torture that went on. Correct.
Speaker 3: Correct, it's all because of George W. Bush and colleagues.
Speaker 3: I mean, the Congress went along with this and torture.
Speaker 3: Has anybody been prosecuted for torture?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 3: One CIA agent was prosecuted because he revealed the torture
Speaker 3: and the names of the torturers, and he went to
Speaker 3: jail for three years.
Speaker 1: Wow. And that's hard to believe. And you know, the
Speaker 1: interesting maybe detail that my listeners aren't familiar with is
Speaker 1: that this is a military tribunal, correct, Yes, which means it.
Speaker 3: Is actually a federal court with the trappings of a
Speaker 3: military tribunal. When they tried to set it up like
Speaker 3: the post World War two military tribunals and then realized
Speaker 3: that these defendants didn't actually fly the plane, they didn't
Speaker 3: actually pull the trigger to kill people, they were conspirators
Speaker 3: and charged them with conspiracy, and Defense Council said, there's
Speaker 3: no conspiracy in the law of war. You either have
Speaker 3: to drop the conspiracy charger bring us before a regular
Speaker 3: federal court. Congress and the Bush administration responded by saying, okay,
Speaker 3: we'll turn the GITMO Tribunal into a federal court. They'll
Speaker 3: follow the federal rules of criminal procedure, but we'll keep
Speaker 3: it in guantanamobey and we'll let them pick their jury
Speaker 3: from amongst the military.
Speaker 1: But the judge is not necessarily as independent as an
Speaker 1: elected official might be because his boss is the one who
Speaker 1: said pull the plug on the plea agreement, correct.
Speaker 3: So he works for the same boss that the prosecutor
Speaker 3: works for. The chief prosecutor is an admiral, the judge
Speaker 3: a Navy admiral.
Speaker 4: The judge is an Army colonel.
Speaker 3: They are both active duty, they both work for the
Speaker 3: Secretary of Defense. They're both supposed to have independent judgment,
Speaker 3: and Secretary of Defense has big footed their independent judgment
Speaker 3: and said, get rid of the plea agreement.
Speaker 4: I want this guy tried.
Speaker 1: And that's where the absurdity this all comes in, because,
Speaker 1: as you point out in your column Gitmo and Politics,
Speaker 1: which comes out tonight at midnight. Recommend everybody read it.
Speaker 1: That a normal judge and the independent judge that wasn't
Speaker 1: speaking or reacting to that edict that from on high
Speaker 1: that you need to pull the plug on this plea agreement,
Speaker 1: would have said no, everyone here agrees, the prosecutor agrees,
Speaker 1: the defendant agrees to the plea agreement, and I, as judge,
Speaker 1: approve it. So you know, you can take your recommendation
Speaker 1: and put it where the sun don't shine. This is done.
Speaker 3: You know, under the federal rules of criminal procedure, once
Speaker 3: a guilty plea has been entered, signed, and accepted by
Speaker 3: the court, there are no do overs. So I really
Speaker 3: don't know how this ends. Now, just to make this
Speaker 3: even more absurd, this is the fourth judge on the case,
Speaker 3: and this is the second team of defense lawyers and
Speaker 3: the second team of prosecutors. Even though under the Constitution
Speaker 3: you're entitled to a speedy trial, this has been going
Speaker 3: on since two thousand and three.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's because of the legal machinations they had
Speaker 1: to go through because again they started it as a
Speaker 1: military tribunal, but as the Supreme Court said, well, this
Speaker 1: is not something that is appropriately in front of a
Speaker 1: military tribunal. So let's start over. Kick the can down
Speaker 1: the road. You and I. You're a judge, you know
Speaker 1: how long it takes the wheels of justice to turn correct.
Speaker 3: Has anybody been tried for nine to eleven? Yeah, you
Speaker 3: may remember this name. A guy by the name of
Speaker 3: Zacharias Musawi was indicted for being the twentieth hijacker and
Speaker 3: something happened.
Speaker 4: And he wasn't able to be around that morning. Obviously
Speaker 4: didn't die, he didn't fly the plane.
Speaker 3: He was charged with conspiracy to commit mass murdery pleaded guilty,
Speaker 3: and then they had a penalty phase trial.
Speaker 4: That the government spent millions on.
Speaker 3: The government tried to prove to a jury that he
Speaker 3: should be executed. The defense tried to approve to the
Speaker 3: jury that he should get life in prison. The jury
Speaker 3: in Virginia, where the government rarely loses, rejected the government's
Speaker 3: argument and he got life in prison. This was fifteen
Speaker 3: years ago. The same thing could have happened to these
Speaker 3: people in Guantanamo Bay if Bush and Cheney had not
Speaker 3: been so hung up on the macho nature of a
Speaker 3: military tribunal. As opposed to a regular criminal trial in
Speaker 3: a regular federal court, which never takes longer than two
Speaker 3: or three years from indictment to trial.
Speaker 1: Amazing well, and pivoting back to a conversation you and
Speaker 1: I had recently regarding our freedoms of speech. Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: thinks that maybe people should be criminally or civilly prosecuted
Speaker 1: for the words that come out of their mouth. I
Speaker 1: see had a quote here. I also think that our
Speaker 1: Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda referring
Speaker 1: to the Russians maybe having an influence over someone's heart
Speaker 1: and mind, and whether they should be civilly or even
Speaker 1: in some cases criminally charged is something that would be
Speaker 1: a better deterrence. And ultimately made a point that I
Speaker 1: think we need to uncover all the connections and make
Speaker 1: it very clear that you could vote however you want,
Speaker 1: but we are not going to let adversaries, whether it's China, Russia, Iran,
Speaker 1: or anybody else. I emphasize, basically, try to influence Americans
Speaker 1: as to how we should vote in picking our leaders. Sir,
Speaker 1: I get my opinions, commentary, and my analysis based upon
Speaker 1: news sources from around the globe. I am entitled to
Speaker 1: do that. I can read a Russian report and you know,
Speaker 1: perceive it with some measure of bias, recognizing it's going
Speaker 1: to be biased towards Russia's positions, but ultimately those positions
Speaker 1: may be sound ones in my logical mind, I'm not.
Speaker 1: I haven't been convinced by some you know, paid adversary
Speaker 1: to reach that conclusion. I reach it on my own.
Speaker 1: I'm allowed to do that.
Speaker 3: She is former First Lady, of course, former United States senator,
Speaker 3: former Secretary of State, former Democratic Canada for president, and
Speaker 3: a graduate of Yale Law School, and she seems to
Speaker 3: have forgotten the basics on free speech. Guess what, Senator Clinton,
Speaker 3: Secretary Clinton, missus Clinton propaganda is protected free speech. One
Speaker 3: person's propaganda is another person's truth. The test of an idea,
Speaker 3: of a thought, of an opinion is its ability to
Speaker 3: be accepted in the marketplace of ideas, not its consistency.
Speaker 4: With what the government wants.
Speaker 3: The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep
Speaker 3: the government out of the business of evaluating the content
Speaker 3: of speech. I was surprised that Rachel Madbow, on whose
Speaker 3: show she said this, didn't jump down her throat. Rachel,
Speaker 3: though very left wing. Is a staunch defender of the
Speaker 3: freedom of speech. This is Clinton, though left wing is
Speaker 3: now an adversary to the freedom of speech unless she
Speaker 3: agrees with it.
Speaker 1: I was just thinking, George Soro spends a lot of
Speaker 1: money trying to influence the hearts and minds toward gravitating
Speaker 1: people toward leftist ideology. We're going to prosecute him. I'm
Speaker 1: not advocating for it. He can do whatever he wants
Speaker 1: with his money. But see, that's the point for her,
Speaker 1: It's a question of whose ox is being gored? Correct? Correct?
Speaker 3: It was just reprehensible and if you if you watch
Speaker 3: the clip, she she said it with such venom and fury,
Speaker 3: like she wants to take.
Speaker 4: Brian Thomas and judge Thepolitano.
Speaker 3: And make us defendants in some sort of a proceeding
Speaker 3: for what Because she doesn't like what we say, because
Speaker 3: Joe Biden doesn't like what we say, because Tony Blinken
Speaker 3: doesn't agree with what we say. That's that's as Unamerican
Speaker 3: as is imaginable.
Speaker 1: Well, seeing, get mo your honor, Okay, judge.
Speaker 3: The Politana's defending criminal defense rights and getvo because he's
Speaker 3: worried about ending up there himself.
Speaker 4: There was one American there, Jose Padilla.
Speaker 3: That's a long, long complicated stories, not there anymore, but
Speaker 3: he was there. There was another American there, John Walker Lynde,
Speaker 3: another long complicated story.
Speaker 4: But the other defendants there are not Americans.
Speaker 1: Well, so it is possible, Judge Jennita Palatown to find
Speaker 1: him online. Judging Freedom is searched for that you'll find
Speaker 1: his podcast. Are you going to be talking with today,
Speaker 1: you're honor.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to be talking to anybody from the
Speaker 3: Bengals or the Giants, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: I wish you would. You can ask him about the
Speaker 1: one point two billion dollars stadium upgrade, which we the voters,
Speaker 1: the Hamilton County taxpayers, are going to have to pay.
Speaker 1: A topic for another day, and there will be another day.
Speaker 1: That'll be next Wednesday with another edition with Judge Enna
Speaker 1: Palatoonner here in the fifty five Carson Morning Show.
Speaker 3: Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven o'clock Eastern is I most
Speaker 3: sought after guests to be with me today.
Speaker 1: Always enjoy it, your honor until next Wednesday. Best of health,
Speaker 1: you your honor, you're sir. It's always a pleasure. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Brian eight forty one fifty five care se detalk stations
Speaker 1: stick around. We're gonna hear from Jason Williams from the
Speaker 1: Quire speaking of the stadium, how much are you and
Speaker 1: I going to be paying for a one point two
Speaker 1: five billion dollar upgrade? A Sadly, I don't think the
Speaker 1: answer is zero. And anyway, Chimneycare Fireplace in Stow. I
Speaker 1: love to point out because this is the time of
Speaker 1: year we're not using our chimney stating the obvience. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not man's plaining. I'm just encouraging you to consider
Speaker 1: your safety right now while you're not using it. You
Speaker 1: need the Chimneycare fireplaces stove of experts at your home.
Speaker 1: They'll affect the chimneys. See if there's any water damage,
Speaker 1: See if you're lining his cracked, see if it needs
Speaker 1: to be swept, making sure it's venting appropriately. That's and
Speaker 1: that's the truth for you know, not just wood burning fireplaces. Gas.
Speaker 1: You can have some problems with gas. Maybe it's not functioning,
Speaker 1: operating correctly. The venting issue is a problem. That's why
Speaker 1: I always use that as an opportunity to say, please,
Speaker 1: Dear God, get a carbon monoxide detector. That's a simple,
Speaker 1: inexpensive life saver. So add that to your list of
Speaker 1: things to do. And when you're calling the Chimneycare Fireplace
Speaker 1: and Stove to get that fireplace insert installed or a
Speaker 1: free standing stove installed, have them clean your dryer vent
Speaker 1: as well. Energy saver and of course, uh money money
Speaker 1: saver because your drying time continues to get longer and
Speaker 1: longer and more clogged than this. Plus you got that
Speaker 1: fire hazard thing going. A plus the better businesspeer for
Speaker 1: all things chimney and fireplace related. They have a beautiful
Speaker 1: showroom four thirteen Wards Corner Road. Call them up for
Speaker 1: that inspection. Five one three two four eight ninety six
Speaker 1: hundred five one three two four eight ninety six hundred
Speaker 1: Online Chimneycareco dot Com, fifty five car the talk station.
Speaker 1: Are you receiving letters