Speaker 1: Well whiskey, come and take my pain the moneys all
Speaker 1: ray Why why think alone when you can drink it all?
Speaker 1: In with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders
Speaker 1: Steve Hayward, John You and the International Woman of Mystery
Speaker 1: Lucretia where they slapped it up and David, ain't you busy?
Speaker 1: On the show? Tap you guy it Give.
Speaker 2: Welcome listeners to the second episode of the new, reformulated
Speaker 2: New Coke version you reimagined, preconceptualized, preconceptualized UH version of
Speaker 2: a three Whiskey Happy Hour UH in our New Guys
Speaker 2: as an independent podcast based on the Ricochet Network. Steve,
Speaker 2: I don't know how many episodes did we have under old?
Speaker 2: Can I say this is episode like eight hundred or something?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm starting over again at number one, number two
Speaker 1: we were up to well, I don't know, because I
Speaker 1: think we're up to like five hundred and twenty two
Speaker 1: power Line shows, of which it was part of. But
Speaker 1: I think it's it's got to be. I think we
Speaker 1: did at least one hundred and fifty shows. We've been
Speaker 1: doing this since twenty twenty one, that's three years, and so.
Speaker 2: This is like the French Revolution and when they started
Speaker 2: the calendar over to the years exactly exactly word Episode two,
Speaker 2: and you start from one of my co hosts, Steve Hayward,
Speaker 2: and the other co hosts, the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia.
Speaker 2: How are you doing, Lucretia.
Speaker 3: I'm doing very well, Thank you, John.
Speaker 2: How are you? Where are you guys?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm actually in suburban Seattle tonight and I am
Speaker 1: chilling out the end of this crazy week with some
Speaker 1: dura eighteen year old single mall.
Speaker 2: Sure it's quite good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, good.
Speaker 2: How about you, Lucrecia, what are you drinking?
Speaker 3: I'm finishing the rest of a bottle of some sand
Speaker 3: you VC. I forget what the name of it is
Speaker 3: from twenty sixteen, So from dinner twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: That was pretty good.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it's delicious. Actually it's a I don't remember.
Speaker 3: I'd have to go get the bottle, but I just
Speaker 3: remember it's Sandy VC and it's twenty sixteen and it's.
Speaker 2: Doocg ah good.
Speaker 1: So it's from Italy.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Oh, we are once again sitting back in awe at
Speaker 2: all the incredible news that's happened since our last podcast,
Speaker 2: And so I think we just dive right into it
Speaker 2: and start off with Steve. In this format, Unlike last
Speaker 2: week's where we spent all our time on one issue
Speaker 2: where I want to about immigration, now we're going to
Speaker 2: spend our episode here on one issue that each of
Speaker 2: us chose. We're going to talk about three different issues.
Speaker 2: And Steve, the egalitarian, equality minded person that he is,
Speaker 2: as you can tell bomb his latest entry on his
Speaker 2: sub stack in round ten of our debate on natural law,
Speaker 2: he wants to talk about the Equal Rights Amendment. Of course,
Speaker 2: he wants to talk about the Equal Rights Amendment. Steve,
Speaker 2: what so I said, Maybe I set up for you
Speaker 2: saying the news was today at the end of the
Speaker 2: day that Joe Biden had declared that the Equal Right
Speaker 2: Amendment had been ratified and was now added to the Constitution.
Speaker 2: At the same time, he said he wasn't ordering the
Speaker 2: Archivist of the United States to officially find that the
Speaker 2: amendment was ratified, and in fact, the archivist has said
Speaker 2: the amendment did not get enough votes in the time
Speaker 2: period that Congress provided for the ratification of the amendment.
Speaker 2: There are serious scholars like Larry Tribe, our favorite, who
Speaker 2: says that Congress can't put a time limit on ratifications
Speaker 2: of the amendment. All they can do is say, here's
Speaker 2: the text of the amendment. They don't have just he
Speaker 2: just says there's nothing in the text of the amendment
Speaker 2: itself that has the time limit. It's Congress doesn't have
Speaker 2: any power in the Constitution to condition the amendments. That
Speaker 2: throws out there, So Steve.
Speaker 1: Well, look, but all right, I'll just I'll start where
Speaker 1: he left off. Article five, which gives the amendment procedures,
Speaker 1: doesn't say Congress can't put a time limit on an
Speaker 1: amendment ratification period. Nor does it say, by the way
Speaker 1: you talk about emanations and numbers, the famous phrase from
Speaker 1: the sixties. Somehow they've discovered in there that you can
Speaker 1: either have an Article five convention or ratified by three
Speaker 1: quarters of the states, or if the president sends out
Speaker 1: a tweet. That's not how we amend the Constitution. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, well, I mean, first of all, just mention
Speaker 1: and then leave aside. You know, is Joe Biden himself
Speaker 1: really behind this or is this another of his woke
Speaker 1: staff and thought they could get away with him and
Speaker 1: these He's like Governor Laptamine and blazing Saddles Will sign
Speaker 1: anything you put in front of him. But it's really
Speaker 1: quite extraordinary for several reasons. I'll try and give four
Speaker 1: or five very quickly. One is, what's that great blind
Speaker 1: of PJ. O'Rourke, that the mentality of the liberal is
Speaker 1: the spoiled child. They want what they want, They're going
Speaker 1: to get it. The more sinister version is this shows
Speaker 1: their will to power. They really want this. They think
Speaker 1: that it guarantees abortion. I suppose third this idea, All right,
Speaker 1: let's suppost tribe. And by the way, let's bring in
Speaker 1: our own Dean Chremerinsky, you know who has said for
Speaker 1: quite a while now that the Supreme Court ought to
Speaker 1: declare the electoral College and the US Senate to be unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Why because it violates one man, one vote and the
Speaker 1: equal Protection clause. In other words, the Supreme Court can
Speaker 1: just pick and choose and put in a hierarchy explicit,
Speaker 1: black and white text of the Constitution right, which is amazing.
Speaker 1: And my point is is Trump ought to say, fine,
Speaker 1: if that's how we're amending the Constitution. Now, I am
Speaker 1: going to claire that birthright citizenship is not constitutional. He
Speaker 1: could try that. He may try that anyway, or why not.
Speaker 1: In my last comment, why don't we just skip straight
Speaker 1: to the world of Harrison Bergeron and have Trump announced
Speaker 1: not Trump, it'd be a leftist. But why don't we
Speaker 1: just go straight to the two hundred and tenth, two
Speaker 1: hundred and twelfth, and two hundred and eleventh Amendment of
Speaker 1: the Constitution that Harrison Bergeron wrote. If you know the story,
Speaker 1: it's what gave us the handicapper general and made us
Speaker 1: all equal by four. So it's a classic. It's one
Speaker 1: of the greatest anti egalitarian or anti socialist short stories
Speaker 1: or long stories ever written. And you know, you don't
Speaker 1: really think of Vonnegut as a conservative, but it's certainly
Speaker 1: a conservative piece of fiction. And it's absolutely devastating. If
Speaker 1: you've not seen it or read it, it's only ten pages,
Speaker 1: you should read it. John, So that those are my
Speaker 1: opening remarks on this. Absolutely incredible on a day with
Speaker 1: lots of incredible things happened too, but what a day.
Speaker 3: There's only aial amendment that have not been that have
Speaker 3: been proposed through Congress. At thousands of amendments have been
Speaker 3: proposed in Congress but made it through Congress that haven't
Speaker 3: been ratified by the voters. One of which is something
Speaker 3: called the Corwin Amendment. Do it, either of you guys
Speaker 3: know what that is. The Corwin Amendment was I want
Speaker 3: to say, eighteen sixty one, and it would have it
Speaker 3: would have been sort of an Article five qualifier, I
Speaker 3: guess you might say, but it would have prevented the
Speaker 3: thirteenth Amendment. It would have it said something to the
Speaker 3: effect that no constitutional amendment can in fact take away
Speaker 3: the power of the state or the right of the
Speaker 3: states to own slaves, to make slavery legal within their states,
Speaker 3: something along those lines. And it was actually never ratified
Speaker 3: because the South. That was one of the reasons why
Speaker 3: the South was so adamant about populating the territories and
Speaker 3: making them slave territory so they would become slave states.
Speaker 3: Because the opposite, of course, could have happened. But they
Speaker 3: could have ratified in eighteen sixty one the Corwin Amendment,
Speaker 3: and it would have been impossible ever to amend the
Speaker 3: Constitution to get rid of slavery. That I'm sorry, that's
Speaker 3: so obscure, but I just thought i'd bring it up
Speaker 3: because it seems like a Steve thing to do. I
Speaker 3: do want to mention that with respect to the era
Speaker 3: my little tweak. The thing I take a little bit
Speaker 3: of satisfaction from it is that are leftists really sure
Speaker 3: they want this? Because the ERA doesn't say that the
Speaker 3: equal rights according to gender, although believe it or not,
Speaker 3: I looked it up and Wikipedia actually says that as
Speaker 3: if that's what the language of the ERA is is
Speaker 3: that somehow it guarantees equal rights regardless of gender. It
Speaker 3: guarantees equal rights regardless of sex, which would mean you
Speaker 3: could take it to mean females, males. You might even
Speaker 3: take it so far as to mean sexual orientation. But
Speaker 3: it could never mean gender. You choose your gender. It
Speaker 3: could never mean seventeen genders. It could never mean you
Speaker 3: choose your gender as they them. It could never mean
Speaker 3: any of those things, and it would never protect those things,
Speaker 3: and it would codify in our constitution the idea that
Speaker 3: sex and not gender is what is important. That's my
Speaker 3: you know, sort of snarky answer to the eer people.
Speaker 2: Today, Critia, you don't feel different. Now you're brimming with
Speaker 2: new rights that you didn't have a few hours ago.
Speaker 3: We feel the nineteenth Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 2: But you know, it's I think it's actually an interesting
Speaker 2: intellectual question. I think by practice, we have always accepted
Speaker 2: the Congress can place limitations on the process of ratifying
Speaker 2: the amendment. But tribbrais is an interesting question is can
Speaker 2: Congress actually place a time limit? So there's two interesting questions.
Speaker 2: One can Congress place a time limit for how long
Speaker 2: the amendment is out there essentially to be approved by
Speaker 2: the states. And also can states there's another question, remember,
Speaker 2: can take their votes back?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: Because I think is a three states change their minds
Speaker 2: and withdrew their ratifications. What do you guys think of that? Steve,
Speaker 2: Steve whon't start.
Speaker 1: Using Well, it wouldn't seem to me that a bunch
Speaker 1: of states could now unratify, say, the fourteenth Amendment, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's sort of settled. But I think we
Speaker 1: said this before that we've never had any litigation or
Speaker 1: lawsuits about whether during the ratification period a state can
Speaker 1: take it back. Right. You would seem to me that
Speaker 1: you could, But I don't know. That's that one's a
Speaker 1: little beyond me. Can I raise them? It's not quite
Speaker 1: related question, but there is this peculiar maybe it's not peculiar,
Speaker 1: but at the end of Article five, you know, does
Speaker 1: the amendment process the very last clause of it says,
Speaker 1: no state without its consent shall be deprived of its
Speaker 1: equal suffrage in the Senate. Now, I've often been I've
Speaker 1: often been curious as to whether that means, as I've
Speaker 1: heard some people claim that you cannot amend the Constitution
Speaker 1: to abolish the Senate or change its composition. Curely, it
Speaker 1: means at least that Congress could not change the composition
Speaker 1: of the Senate, say we're going to give some states
Speaker 1: extra senators or something. Right, it's tu per state. But
Speaker 1: I don't know why you would need to specify it's stronger.
Speaker 2: No, No, I think it's stronger. Actually, I think that provision
Speaker 2: the Constitution says cannot be changed by I mean, that's
Speaker 2: actually permanent. Yeah, so it's not just that the state
Speaker 2: could give it up. If it's also that that is
Speaker 2: the only provision a constitution that can't be changed. And
Speaker 2: then I think it also said, I misremember, but is
Speaker 2: it also the slave non importation clause, which expired of
Speaker 2: its own terms, right, also could never be changed. Right,
Speaker 2: But that seems contrary to the idea of a constitution
Speaker 2: that can be amended.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So it just really quickly there was a very
Speaker 3: serious amendment brought I want to say around the year
Speaker 3: two thousand. It didn't get through Congress, but which would
Speaker 3: have abolished the Senate entirely, entirely. And so my question
Speaker 3: is it's one thing to say that you can't take
Speaker 3: away certain things, but could you abolish the Senate entirely
Speaker 3: if you had a constitutional amendment in all fifty states
Speaker 3: agreed to it?
Speaker 1: Well, can I add that? Stic It says that no
Speaker 1: state without its consent. So suppose you actually asked, well,
Speaker 1: but again, what if a couple of states said, if
Speaker 1: you say, abolished a senate, a couple of states said no, sorry,
Speaker 1: we're going to keep our senators. So you had six
Speaker 1: senators from you, O, Wyoming, and Idaho and they would
Speaker 1: run the whole thing. Or I mean you could see
Speaker 1: I suppose well, I don't know. No, no, I can
Speaker 1: withdraw that spec but yeah, that's right. That's an important point, John,
Speaker 1: is that the Clauset's in says that no amendment may
Speaker 1: be made prior to eighteen oh nine for ending the
Speaker 1: slave trade, or no amendment. By the way, I did
Speaker 1: say that another clause that, of course Congress could now
Speaker 1: legislate on that, which they did on January first, eighteen
Speaker 1: o nine, the banded slave trade right, so by a
Speaker 1: near unanimous vote, as I recall.
Speaker 3: Anyway, it's also interesting that John brings it up because
Speaker 3: there are still calls to abolish the Senate because of
Speaker 3: its undemocratic character. But do you ever hear anyone push
Speaker 3: back and say, but guess what you can't do that,
Speaker 3: you can't do that. You know, I can't even believe
Speaker 3: to this day that the idiots on the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: and Baker versus car and what's the other one, Westbury
Speaker 3: versus Sanders, one person, one vote is required by the Constitution.
Speaker 3: Which freaking constitution are they talking about? Those morons on
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court? For God's sake? What the hell is
Speaker 3: wrong with those people? Oh my god? Sorry, Okay, I'll
Speaker 3: be quiet now.
Speaker 1: That's all I have to say about this, that it's.
Speaker 3: One man, one vote. By the way, it's not one person,
Speaker 3: one vote. It's one man, one vote.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, I mean, but man man, okay, Well, I'll
Speaker 1: do this as my final thought if you want to
Speaker 1: continue or move on, John, I seem to recall I
Speaker 1: can't remember vaguely whether it was about very Goldwater or
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon and William F. Buckley wrote back in the
Speaker 1: sixties that when they finished taking the oath of office,
Speaker 1: either one of them should then turn to Earl Warren
Speaker 1: and say, and I hereby place you under arrest. And
Speaker 1: you know, I think it'd be fun. It'd be so
Speaker 1: trumpy if Trump finishes taking the oath of office and
Speaker 1: then has the federal marshals delivered the arrest warrants and
Speaker 1: the handcuffs to Biden and a whole bunch of Biden people.
Speaker 1: They're on the Capitol steps. I guess they're doing it
Speaker 1: in indoors.
Speaker 2: But anyway, we still have a few days left for
Speaker 2: the pardons to issue, so don't they don't get excited.
Speaker 3: Yetday Lucretia last thought, No, last thoughts.
Speaker 2: Okay, so why don't we take a break and for
Speaker 2: our sponsors and then we'll be right back. Well, Stephen
Speaker 2: Lucretia both alluded to how Biden's I don't know what
Speaker 2: you would call it, non ratification, ratification of the era.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know what it is, is part
Speaker 2: of this said effort to grasp at a legacy. Well,
Speaker 2: who's in charge, who's in charge? Why do something like this?
Speaker 2: But This is all part of a whole series of
Speaker 2: things that have been going on Lucretia. Just mentioned right
Speaker 2: before the break the pardons, right, Biden also part of
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of what he called non viol Island
Speaker 2: drug offenders because they are sentences when they were convicted
Speaker 2: are much higher than what would be imposed now. I
Speaker 2: think some of this has to do with the big
Speaker 2: complaint about mass incarceration caused by the sensusing disparity between
Speaker 2: crack and powder cocaine, amongst other things Biden's been up right,
Speaker 2: But this followed Biden also commuting the sentences of almost
Speaker 2: everybody except for three people on death rout. Biden also
Speaker 2: declaring national monuments left and right, pulling public lands out
Speaker 2: of the possibility to development or oil and glass gas exploration,
Speaker 2: and then on and on. So Lucretia, this is the
Speaker 2: topic you suggested. What is going on here at the
Speaker 2: end of the Biden presidency.
Speaker 3: It's it's awful. I don't know how else to say it.
Speaker 3: And I suppose, is your right, John, that it's either
Speaker 3: Biden or his his you know, little elves that run
Speaker 3: around and actually do whatever it is they do, that
Speaker 3: have decided that this is a good idea. What one
Speaker 3: quick comment. You offered this opportunity to me, and I
Speaker 3: missed it. I'm sorry, but I do want to say
Speaker 3: that the fact that the archivist, who agrees with Biden
Speaker 3: that she wishes that the era was part of the Constitution,
Speaker 3: stood up to it. I'm not sure if that's because
Speaker 3: there's actually somebody on the left with a little bit
Speaker 3: of a spine. I think it's more likely that the archivist,
Speaker 3: the office, the entire office of the National Archives has
Speaker 3: suffered such a blow to their integrity after their obvious
Speaker 3: collaboration corroboration with with the Biden administration on the whole
Speaker 3: Trump Document's case. I don't know what it is, but
Speaker 3: that was a bit of a surprise to me. I
Speaker 3: thought maybe she might go for it, but she didn't.
Speaker 3: So good for her. The let me mentioned those twenty
Speaker 3: five hundred pardon of pardons of so called non violent
Speaker 3: drug crimes. That's very misleading because in fact, most of
Speaker 3: those people who were pardoned were drug dealers, gang members
Speaker 3: involved in very serious crimes with drugs related to them,
Speaker 3: of course, and they were given plea bargains. They given
Speaker 3: plea bargains because our whole entire judicial system is a mess.
Speaker 3: Just they can afford to take them to court, take
Speaker 3: them to jail, I mean, scuse me, go through a
Speaker 3: whole trial. And so most of those people are just
Speaker 3: really horrible, terrible people, just like the people that Biden
Speaker 3: pardoned on death row, you know, child killers, killers who
Speaker 3: are so evil, murderers who are so evil and awful
Speaker 3: that they can't be in prison because they just murder
Speaker 3: everybody around them in prison too. I don't know how
Speaker 3: to wrap my head around anything as evil as what
Speaker 3: Biden is doing. And then, of course, you know, trying
Speaker 3: to undermine Trump. I get that that that I don't
Speaker 3: find nearly as offensive as trying to undermine Trump's possibilities
Speaker 3: for success by you know, I'm told that the amount
Speaker 3: of land that offshore offshore land, what is it when
Speaker 3: you're in the sea offshore space is equal to the
Speaker 3: size of Texas and Alaska. Yeah, so, I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: and Trump is going to be able to overturn some
Speaker 3: of this stuff, but it's going to take months, it's
Speaker 3: going to take legal battles, it's going to take court cases,
Speaker 3: and so he's just hamstringing Trump at every opportunity Okay,
Speaker 3: but to what end, right, I mean, it's awful.
Speaker 1: Well, this is a pattern that goes all the way
Speaker 1: back to it. Yeah, at least the Carter years is
Speaker 1: now the practice of democratic administrations to rush out a
Speaker 1: lot of controversial regulation that they couldn't probably get through
Speaker 1: or that would have been extremely controversial if they were
Speaker 1: either running for reelection or while you know, they were
Speaker 1: still in office in the conventional way. You know, Carter
Speaker 1: declared the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I believe the lame
Speaker 1: duck period in nineteen eighty Bill Clinton. I mean we
Speaker 1: look back and say, well, gee, all Bill Clinton did
Speaker 1: was tear the W keys out of all the White
Speaker 1: House computers. But that's not quite true. They left some
Speaker 1: real landmines for the incoming George W. Bush administration.
Speaker 3: That what the w kew?
Speaker 1: That's true, They really did that. Yeah, the Bush people
Speaker 1: came in and all the w keys have been removed
Speaker 1: from what else computers? I think it's a little bit.
Speaker 2: Of the maturity of who's in charge in the Clinton
Speaker 2: at the end.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it does seem to be getting worse. And yeah,
Speaker 1: so that's a practice that they have and I don't know,
Speaker 1: you know, again complaints. These are the same people, whether
Speaker 1: it's amending the Constitution by executive FIAT or moves like
Speaker 1: these who say, oh, yeah, we're for democracy, except when
Speaker 1: we're not. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And there's just a word about the Sorry, sorry, John,
Speaker 3: I just want to mention a word about the Farewell address,
Speaker 3: although there have been several Farewell to the command as
Speaker 3: commander in cheap anyway, shut up, go home, go to Delaware,
Speaker 3: Shut the hell up, go buy Jill address that looks
Speaker 3: like a tablecloth. Just get out of Washington and leave
Speaker 3: it alone. Anyway, back to the Farewell Address, I don't
Speaker 3: think it's possible for one person to engage in so
Speaker 3: many lies and so many hypocritical statements in one small speech.
Speaker 3: I wonder if he thinks that we're all just manifestly stupid,
Speaker 3: you know, to say something like, oh, we're gonna be
Speaker 3: ruled by oligarchs. I get just shut up. I mean,
Speaker 3: you gave a damn medal of freedom to George Sorrows.
Speaker 3: I don't need our listeners are too smart for me
Speaker 3: to have to go through all those things. But I
Speaker 3: do just want to point out I'm sick of Biden
Speaker 3: and his my word as a Biden means he is
Speaker 3: lying through his teeth. He is incapable of telling the truth. Sorry,
Speaker 3: go ahead, Well.
Speaker 1: I'm going to give your sort of historians analysis. By
Speaker 1: the way, John, do you recall if George W. Bush
Speaker 1: gave a farewell address? I don't know if he did
Speaker 1: or not. I don't remember if he did.
Speaker 2: Every every present I think every president.
Speaker 1: Lincoln, Well, no way, that's just it. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's true that every that every president did, every president
Speaker 1: who was al I don't think people followed the George
Speaker 1: Washington tradition. I think it was revived in modern times.
Speaker 1: I think, excuse me, I think it was revived by Eisenhower,
Speaker 1: and who's modern, at least in modern times. His is
Speaker 1: the one a farewell address that we recall, Right, And
Speaker 1: it's only because of the one line that is called right.
Speaker 1: That was and I was about to say that was
Speaker 1: quoted out of context. The full context of that paragraph
Speaker 1: is very much an attack on the expert, elite government
Speaker 1: of a scientific ball that wanted to rule over us,
Speaker 1: and the left grab the military industrial complex and the
Speaker 1: anti war days of Vietnam and ran with it.
Speaker 3: And I'm in favor of it. That now By the way, Steve,
Speaker 3: I agree with the left. Oh yes, right, Sorry, Sorry,
Speaker 3: I didn't mean to rupt. I had to get that
Speaker 3: out there. Sorry.
Speaker 1: My point is is most presidential farewell addresses are not memorable.
Speaker 1: I think Reagan's had some memorable passages in it. But
Speaker 1: you know, Jimmy Carter, as I vaguely recall, he said, oh,
Speaker 1: outgoing presidents have to pick a cause. And I think
Speaker 1: his cause was the ecological crisis or something crazy, right,
Speaker 1: and you know, scarcity and all that nonsense from the seventies.
Speaker 1: I don't remember what Clinton did. We've just sort of forgotten.
Speaker 3: But Biden's still the White House Silver.
Speaker 1: Well, there's that, right. But in Biden's case, I mean,
Speaker 1: let's remember that he went for the flattery of all
Speaker 1: those liberal historians like John Meekham who was writing speeches
Speaker 1: for him on the side, saying, you can be the
Speaker 1: next FDR with you know, razor thin majorities in Congress, right, uh.
Speaker 1: And that went to Biden's head, It went right to
Speaker 1: his ego, and so he thought, oh, I have to
Speaker 1: have a profound, outgoing speech. So what did he warn
Speaker 1: us about, Well, threats to democracy, artificial intelligence. Gee, he's
Speaker 1: really giving us a novel thing to worry about that
Speaker 1: no one's thinking about right now. Right. In other words,
Speaker 1: the rare word that I'd like to use whenever I
Speaker 1: can is that speech was unbelievably jejune, even by Biden's standards.
Speaker 1: But how many podcasts use jajune? I love the word.
Speaker 1: The Eveland Wall like to use it in his novels.
Speaker 2: So now that's probably two. Here's the thing that and
Speaker 2: you mentioned it when you talk about the liberal historians
Speaker 2: who were advising Biden in earliness term to be this
Speaker 2: kind of groundbreaking president, is maybe we should be worried
Speaker 2: about president who are thinking about the historical legacy while
Speaker 2: they're still in office. Right, that causes them to try
Speaker 2: to you know, swing for the fences rather than just
Speaker 2: you know, maintaining basic you know, public safety, you know,
Speaker 2: do the do the basics of the job, and not
Speaker 2: worry about the historical legacy. But you have a Biden
Speaker 2: who was elected because he wasn't Trump elected during the
Speaker 2: COVID crisis, and rather than right being the transition to
Speaker 2: younger people they promised, he thought he was FDR LBJ, which.
Speaker 3: Is ridiculous except that you know, you're you're writing your
Speaker 3: book on Alexander Hamilton John And remember Hamilton's very clear
Speaker 3: about this, so is Madison. Actually that that sense that
Speaker 3: of you know, being a critical part of history, fame
Speaker 3: is the greatest of the ruling passion of the greatest minds,
Speaker 3: the noblest minds, I think, is how it goes. There
Speaker 3: is a sense where wanting to make your mark on
Speaker 3: history by doing good things, by doing things that are
Speaker 3: good for the country, is in fact of the noblest
Speaker 3: path that one can take, according to the Founders. Now,
Speaker 3: the problem is that they I don't know that they
Speaker 3: could have ever imagined an ideological hack like Biden, who
Speaker 3: somehow could believe that, you know, all this crap he
Speaker 3: wants to do is good for the country. I don't
Speaker 3: even know how left is sync this way, but go ahead.
Speaker 1: Sorry, well yeah, I mean, look, the Founders I think
Speaker 1: clearly anticipated the demagogue. That's always their worry, of which
Speaker 1: Biden is a prime example. But a footnote about Eisenhower.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know what, what is the model of
Speaker 1: true fame? And in other words, this is a test
Speaker 1: of character? Be able put it that way. Farewell addresses
Speaker 1: are maybe our test of character as well of intellect
Speaker 1: and thoughtfulness. Eisenhower hated giving national speeches on TV. His
Speaker 1: aides always wanted to go on on TV because he
Speaker 1: was popular the general rest of that, and he said, no,
Speaker 1: I don't want to do that. And then a few
Speaker 1: times he said he would, he said no longer than
Speaker 1: twenty minutes. So there's kind of an irony here that
Speaker 1: Eisenhower did give a farewell address, and that's the speech
Speaker 1: he's most remembered for in probably his entire career, and
Speaker 1: it's in many ways the best one ever made in
Speaker 1: modern times. And and well that's because he ran the
Speaker 1: government exactly as you said they should. He took care
Speaker 1: of making sure that we settled down the government did
Speaker 1: things and got things done like, oh, I don't know,
Speaker 1: interstate highways, you know, modernizing our military forces, staying out
Speaker 1: of the Vietnam War when the French wanted us to
Speaker 1: bail them out, et cetera, et cetera. And that's one
Speaker 1: reason why the left attacked him for not being a
Speaker 1: visionary and not being, you know, a new dealer. And
Speaker 1: now we all look back and say, gush, if we
Speaker 1: could have a guy like that again, we take him
Speaker 1: in a second.
Speaker 2: I had two thoughts I had to write a chapter
Speaker 2: for a book about Eisenhower. Eisenhower's presidency, and you know,
Speaker 2: there's this huge it's all over now, but there was
Speaker 2: this huge burst of Eisenhower revisionism which showed that not
Speaker 2: rather than this sort of grandfatherly golf player, which was
Speaker 2: the image that liberals attacked him with, particularly you know
Speaker 2: the Kennedy people. You know, he was very effective but
Speaker 2: behind the scenes leader, which is not surprising. The guy was,
Speaker 2: you know, the supreme Allied commander in Europe. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, he was a very capable guy. And Eisenhower's approach,
Speaker 2: it ties him with the speech, but very different than
Speaker 2: the way presidents think today, was that he should limit
Speaker 2: the amount of times he used political capital only to
Speaker 2: whin it's important and otherwise put out other people in
Speaker 2: front to take the arrows, and then the president would
Speaker 2: come in at the end with the you know, the
Speaker 2: most of local capital intact and use it to great effect.
Speaker 2: And the country I thought, actually did really well during
Speaker 2: the Eisenhower years, certainly better than the sixties the decade
Speaker 2: that followed. Second point, I wanted to, you know, follow
Speaker 2: on what Lucretius said about Hamilton, so I have been
Speaker 2: reading and thinking about this passage that Hamilton wrote where
Speaker 2: he says that you know, fame is, you know, sort
Speaker 2: of the ruling passion of the noblest minds. I think
Speaker 2: is the phrase, and he's it's it's in this part
Speaker 2: of the when he's and there's a claire Monster, one
Speaker 2: of your people, Douglas Adair. I guess I don't know
Speaker 2: if he counts as one of you, but I think
Speaker 2: he was a professor Clairemont, and he wrote a book
Speaker 2: called Fame and the Founding Fathers, right, which is it's
Speaker 2: a brilliant book. I thought you got to take a
Speaker 2: picture of that and post it in the show. With
Speaker 2: this show, so the book, but you know, it's a
Speaker 2: the context sometimes has forgotten about why Hamilton says this,
Speaker 2: and so I believe it's part of a debate where
Speaker 2: the anti federalists are attacking the Constitution for not having
Speaker 2: a term limit on the presidency right there. You know,
Speaker 2: they wanted one term or two terms and so, and
Speaker 2: their criticism is kind of interesting. They said, if you
Speaker 2: don't have a term limit, then you know what is
Speaker 2: going to constrain a president, especially at the end, you know,
Speaker 2: at the end of his term, you might just do
Speaker 2: anything right, and so Hamilton says, So for him, the
Speaker 2: interesting thing is this idea of fame and legacy is
Speaker 2: not something, is not a goal. It's actually a limit
Speaker 2: on presidents, he says, because they will be worried about
Speaker 2: their fame, their reputation. They won't act out at the end,
Speaker 2: they won't try crazy things at the end because they
Speaker 2: want it now. However, legacy and history causes presidents to
Speaker 2: go in the opposite direction. It's a yeah.
Speaker 1: See, this is another area where as much as I
Speaker 1: like Hamilton a strong natural law man, I always like
Speaker 1: to point out to you.
Speaker 2: Everybody was. Then that doesn't prove any Well.
Speaker 1: My point is, my point is different, which is Hamilton
Speaker 1: as good as he as great as he was. I
Speaker 1: think this is one of his arguments that was weak
Speaker 1: and incorrect, like his argument that we don't need a
Speaker 1: Bill of rights because you know, we haven't given any
Speaker 1: power to contents. Disagree what you disagree with the now Okay, well,
Speaker 1: I think I know why you disagree, and I sympathize.
Speaker 2: That debate to have about whether it was a mistake
Speaker 2: or not to write down the bill right.
Speaker 1: So yeah, okay, we should do that right, that's.
Speaker 2: Another one, another, another one in the long list of
Speaker 2: single episodes, single issue episodes. Well, and look, we have
Speaker 2: to take a break now. We'll take our break for
Speaker 2: our sponsors now, and then when we come back, let's
Speaker 2: continue on with what Steve was just about to mention
Speaker 2: before we go to our third topic. For once, it
Speaker 2: wasn't Lucretia interrupting Steve, it was our sponsors. And now
Speaker 2: we're back, Steve, what were you about to say?
Speaker 1: Well, I was just going to make another quip and
Speaker 1: jest at your expense that the argument about whether we
Speaker 1: should have a bill of rights falls perfectly on the
Speaker 1: axis of our debate between natural law and positivism. That's all,
Speaker 1: and to be continued.
Speaker 2: So I think that's quite right, I mean Hamilton, but Hamilton.
Speaker 2: So Hamilton's view was, however, that we you could take
Speaker 2: it one or two, as you could say, Well, because
Speaker 2: he believed in natural law, everyone else did, so they
Speaker 2: all knew what the rights were. Hamilton also thought, though,
Speaker 2: that you write down bill of rights and Congress will
Speaker 2: just you know, take away everything that you don't write down. Correct, Yes,
Speaker 2: and yeah, he may well be have been right about that,
Speaker 2: right because now we don't assume there are any rights
Speaker 2: that exist there outside the Bill of Rights. It was
Speaker 2: the courts to I mean, he might well have been
Speaker 2: writing his prediction.
Speaker 1: As you suggested a moment ago. John, let us put
Speaker 1: this off to another longer occasion. You're you're dangling that
Speaker 1: bait and I'm not going to take it.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, I just want to say, Steve and
Speaker 3: I have had this debate once a long time ago,
Speaker 3: and one of our listeners, the incomparable g in Yarborough,
Speaker 3: disagreed with me on this one. Do you remember, Steve.
Speaker 1: Not very clearly, No, don't anything.
Speaker 3: But anyway, so so in case Jean's.
Speaker 2: Listening, pardon, what was Jean's point?
Speaker 3: Well, it's hard to do, probably not appropriate right now,
Speaker 3: but my argument I can't. I can't give her point
Speaker 3: without giving mine. So let's put it off till we
Speaker 3: do this whole episode.
Speaker 2: But well you're really yeah, we're gonna have to have
Speaker 2: a sequel to this one too. Okay. So the third issue,
Speaker 2: which I picked I would say earlier in the week,
Speaker 2: although now it seems like it was years ago, was
Speaker 2: on Monday this two special councils released their reports. The
Speaker 2: Special Council for the Hunter Biden case. David Weiss, the
Speaker 2: US attorney in Delaware, released his report, which was soon
Speaker 2: swamped in the news coverage by Jack smith report. Half
Speaker 2: of his report was released by Merrick Garland, the attorney Dreneral.
Speaker 2: So it's an interesting point. So David Weiss's report was odd,
Speaker 2: I thought, because he didn't really need a report because
Speaker 2: he prosecuted. Unlike Jack Smith. He actually prosecuted and won
Speaker 2: the conviction of Hunter Biden, and he's spent. I wouldn't
Speaker 2: say the bull but the most interesting parts of his
Speaker 2: reports of his report was attacking President Biden for his
Speaker 2: President Biden's attacks on the Special Council claims that the
Speaker 2: investigation was political, and then his use of the pardon
Speaker 2: to wipe out all the convictions. That was very interesting
Speaker 2: jack Smith's and then you know the commentaries has come out,
Speaker 2: not a lot actually, but Jack Smith's report the news
Speaker 2: media attention on it because Jack Smith said, I think
Speaker 2: I could have gotten a conviction. Now people may not
Speaker 2: realize this, but prosecutors are not supposed to prosecute a
Speaker 2: case unless they already believe that. So it's actually no
Speaker 2: news at all for Jack Smith to say, I think
Speaker 2: I could have gone a conviction because you were not
Speaker 2: allowed as a federal prosecutor to even file charges if
Speaker 2: you have not already concluded that you think that, I
Speaker 2: think so. So much of the evidence in the jack
Speaker 2: Smith report was not new. But and this is in
Speaker 2: a weird way similar to the Weiss Report, and I
Speaker 2: had not seen it before in Special councilor course, like
Speaker 2: Robert Muller report, a lot of it was spent defensively
Speaker 2: attacking all the attackers on the Special Council, where there
Speaker 2: was an inordinate amount of oh, we're actually very neutral
Speaker 2: and we don't pay attention to the elections. And no
Speaker 2: one into my office was considering that President Trump was
Speaker 2: writing for this was just buy the books prosecution. So, Lucretia,
Speaker 2: what do you think of these Special Council reports? Maybe
Speaker 2: this is is this the how do you think about this?
Speaker 1: As?
Speaker 2: What does this say? In other words, if this is
Speaker 2: the concluding chapter or the afterward to the whole campaign
Speaker 2: of Wall Rarey watchings four years.
Speaker 3: I don't want to pretend to be have any expertise
Speaker 3: on this, John, I really actually want to turn the
Speaker 3: question back on you and say, first of all, do
Speaker 3: you see a qualitative difference between the Weiss report and
Speaker 3: the Smith report, and Weiss actually got convictions and you know,
Speaker 3: had those convictions superseded is the right word I suppose?
Speaker 3: I don't know by a pardon Smith. On the other hand,
Speaker 3: there's nobody who can think that Smith just was an
Speaker 3: utter failure, that the charges he tried to bring on
Speaker 3: Trump were trumped up. Excuse the expression that, you know,
Speaker 3: over and over even his legitimacy as a special prosecutor
Speaker 3: was determined by Aileen Cannon as I recalled to be illegitimate,
Speaker 3: you know, so it really didn't. From a purely objective
Speaker 3: point of view, Smith should have never released the report
Speaker 3: because as a prosecutor, you have one side, and if
Speaker 3: you didn't try the case and win the case, what's
Speaker 3: the point of issuing a special Council report? Am I
Speaker 3: wrong on that? I'm asking you? As the lawyer, John.
Speaker 2: Oh, Well, you know, traditionally you would never issue report
Speaker 2: on people and things you didn't charge. It's actually considered
Speaker 2: quite unethical because you know, prosecutors spend a lot of
Speaker 2: time investing someone. They don't bring charges if you announce charge.
Speaker 2: While but there's this implication that the person's guilty. And
Speaker 2: yet at the same time, since it never went to trial,
Speaker 2: Trump never had the chance to put out his own
Speaker 2: side of things. All we really have is the prosecutor's indictment,
Speaker 2: and so your federal prosecutors are really only supposed to
Speaker 2: speak about what's in the indictment and nothing else. A
Speaker 2: lot of Smith's the things that Smith wrote in the
Speaker 2: report or already in the indictment, So what's the point?
Speaker 2: And then the things he's saying outside the indictment, like, oh,
Speaker 2: we're neutral and we follow the rules, blah blah blah,
Speaker 2: and why is everyone attacking us? They shouldn't say anything
Speaker 2: about that at all. It seems to me prosecutors are
Speaker 2: you know, better seen and not heard in this respect.
Speaker 2: You know, put the put the evidence before the public
Speaker 2: on trial and leave it at that. So the reports
Speaker 2: this real element.
Speaker 3: You get in a lot of trouble with some of
Speaker 3: our listeners, John for your lawyer's approach to some questions.
Speaker 3: And I'm I'm not saying that to be you know,
Speaker 3: insulting at all. I mean that that's sometimes listeners have
Speaker 3: a really hard time with your inability to see perhaps
Speaker 3: the political side of things and to see only the
Speaker 3: loyally side of things.
Speaker 2: But that's why I want to ask you mean the
Speaker 2: readers would like us to dispense with the law and
Speaker 2: let Lucretia have free reign. Sure of course.
Speaker 3: They would, don't be ridiculous, But anyway, I really my
Speaker 3: point was this, that that that from the point of
Speaker 3: view of an actual lawyer, uh you know, a serious
Speaker 3: a very serious and well respected lawyer, I was really
Speaker 3: interested to see what you had to say about that.
Speaker 3: And it's and your comments confirm, of course what what
Speaker 3: what I thought was true. But from again, from not
Speaker 3: I should have.
Speaker 2: Qualified, but I should qualify it the So the reason
Speaker 2: why the reports are done is because the Justice Department
Speaker 2: regulation that creates the Special Counsel requires there to be
Speaker 2: a report. Now here's think the Attorney General doesn't have
Speaker 2: to release it to the public, right and so in
Speaker 2: that respect it's not that different, it seems to me,
Speaker 2: than what prosecutors would tell the Attorney General about any
Speaker 2: high profile case. Right if the Attorney General is the
Speaker 2: one ultimately charge of the Justice Department. So you're investigating
Speaker 2: a senator, of course the Attorney General is going to
Speaker 2: want to know did you charge them why did you
Speaker 2: charge them? What did you do in the investigation? So
Speaker 2: I actually don't think the report itself, you know, is
Speaker 2: that different. The part that's inappropriate is allowing the Justice
Speaker 2: Department to release something like that to the public, because
Speaker 2: that really does cause the implication that the target, the subject,
Speaker 2: is guilty. So both of these reports sought to do so.
Speaker 3: If Lucretia sums that up, it was a totally political
Speaker 3: act and not a legal or other.
Speaker 2: Yes, oh no, no, fact, it's quite a yeah, it's
Speaker 2: quite anti legal. Actually it's oh, it's holly political. Well
Speaker 2: that's that's why, and that's a decision for Merrick Garland.
Speaker 1: Yeah, ste well that's why I was going to say.
Speaker 1: My first impression of the whole thing was this sounds
Speaker 1: like a Scooby Doo episode. I would have gotten away
Speaker 1: with it one for you meddling voters, right. And you know,
Speaker 1: we we have, by degrees, I think you can trace
Speaker 1: it back to Watergate. We have, by degrees, moved where
Speaker 1: what it's always a difficult and problematic prosecutorial process when
Speaker 1: involves politicians and politics, we've now moved to this one
Speaker 1: where it's impossible to disentangle them. And by the way.
Speaker 1: I think that we're going to look back now on
Speaker 1: the you know, the Trump prosecutions and some others, and
Speaker 1: maybe even the you know, the mull report about Trump
Speaker 1: and the Russia hoax business seven eight years ago. Now,
Speaker 1: I think we're increasingly starting to have second thoughts about
Speaker 1: the whole Watergate business as we learn more about how,
Speaker 1: you know, the whole Independent councils I was Special Council
Speaker 1: then before the Independent Council, right, but the whole staff
Speaker 1: was borrowed from Ted Kennedy's staff. Nixon hating people who
Speaker 1: were determined to drive him from office no matter what. Now,
Speaker 1: of course Nixon gave him plenty of rope to hang
Speaker 1: him with, as he admitted himself. But the more we learn,
Speaker 1: has more documents become available after they've been released from
Speaker 1: confidentiality or whatever the restrictions are. You know, Jeff Shepperd
Speaker 1: doing all the work on this is the bad behavior
Speaker 1: of the prosecutors and Judge Serrica presiding over the whole thing,
Speaker 1: And that's looking more and more now like the political
Speaker 1: crimes created by the Justice Department going after Nixon are
Speaker 1: much worse than the Watergate break in or any of
Speaker 1: the cover up, and so now here we are, and
Speaker 1: I think the whole process regardless of the you know,
Speaker 1: the legal merits. And by the way, I think it's
Speaker 1: significant that Smith did not said there was not a
Speaker 1: case against Trump were insurrection didn't it's not in the report.
Speaker 1: I didn't read much of it, right, That's extremely important
Speaker 1: because that's what, of course drove this whole thing, and
Speaker 1: what gets the Democrats all worked up is Trump's an insurrectionists.
Speaker 1: That's why they tried to ban him from the bout
Speaker 1: in Colorado and Maine and so forth. But I think
Speaker 1: now this has gotten so bad that fortunately, I think
Speaker 1: we had the right outcome, which is the voters had
Speaker 1: the final say on this, and I hope they always do.
Speaker 3: So let me when you watch the confirmation hearings for.
Speaker 1: A pointed Sorry, yes.
Speaker 3: I know, and I know that this is kind of
Speaker 3: a separate thing, but I actually have a question for
Speaker 3: both of you about this. Do you ever find yourself
Speaker 3: like you're feeling like you're living in an alternate universe
Speaker 3: because you see these Democrats sort of I know they're
Speaker 3: grand standing, okay, but you know, asking Pam BONDI what
Speaker 3: you know, is she going to be and of course
Speaker 3: Pam Bondy is smart and she you know, she can
Speaker 3: turn it around on that pencil like Adam Adam shifts.
Speaker 3: I know, I'm trying not to say it.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: I don't even necessarily want to go into all of
Speaker 3: these things. But these Democrats, I know, I'm a partisan,
Speaker 3: I get it, but sometimes I'm I'm utterly flabbergasted at
Speaker 3: at their hypocrisy, at their Do they really think anybody
Speaker 3: takes seriously what they have to say?
Speaker 1: Well, I think no. But I think the notable thing
Speaker 1: about well we do it this way. When I first
Speaker 1: visited Washington as a student back in the seventies, and
Speaker 1: I watched some committee hearings and I'd watch remember I
Speaker 1: think I saw house hearings and I thought, God, are
Speaker 1: a bunch of buffoons, and the witnesses was sort of
Speaker 1: take it and parryot and I remember asking a professor
Speaker 1: was there with a student group. As the professor, why
Speaker 1: don't the witnesses ever talk back to them? Why don't
Speaker 1: they ever say you're full of crap? You know, and
Speaker 1: and and you know, Professor Paton explained, well, that's just
Speaker 1: the protocol, and it's the you know, the culture and
Speaker 1: all the rest of that, I said, well, okay, but
Speaker 1: this week we and we've been moving this way too,
Speaker 1: but this week you really saw a lot of Trump
Speaker 1: appointees talking back very bluntly, especially BONDI to Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: was very direct, but some of the other I mean,
Speaker 1: there was some real mic drop moment into this week
Speaker 1: from the responses from Trump's people, and rather than being
Speaker 1: courteous and deferential and pretending to have some common ground
Speaker 1: of agreement somewhere and I'll be happy to work with you, no,
Speaker 1: it was just boom and I mean really embarrassing responses
Speaker 1: from the senator's point of view. Right, I could go
Speaker 1: through someone I won't.
Speaker 3: But although they're probably not so let me just i'm
Speaker 3: you through an anecdote. They're probably not embarrassed at me.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna throw one at you. So I'm telling what
Speaker 3: I would call a somewhat disengaged friend of mine, disengaged
Speaker 3: from politics, about the whole Hank Johnson episode where you know,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna tip over that while right thing, yes, and
Speaker 3: you know, explaining how the whole thing went and how
Speaker 3: the admiral who was just kind of sat there and
Speaker 3: said nice or we don't think that's gonna happen. And
Speaker 3: his reaction was, I can't use the terms that he used,
Speaker 3: because even Lucretia won't say there's in private, never mind
Speaker 3: on a family podcast, but he was. He blamed the
Speaker 3: admiral for not just looking at Hank Johnson saying, you're
Speaker 3: a member of Congress. How can you be so effing
Speaker 3: stupid that you could say something so maronic? And people
Speaker 3: you know and on a you know, the Admiral acted
Speaker 3: with grace and so forth. But my thought, based on
Speaker 3: what you just said, Steve, is that Trump's election was
Speaker 3: based on the fact that there's more and more people
Speaker 3: like my friend who say, why are we playing these
Speaker 3: stupid games? These Marie Harono made not just the dumbest
Speaker 3: person in Congress, but the dumbest person in the country.
Speaker 3: How is that woman? Oh? Sorry, okay, I'm done. Wait,
Speaker 3: Oh no, I.
Speaker 2: Okay. So we're almost at the end of our hour,
Speaker 2: any any other I just want to flag one or
Speaker 2: two issues that we're not going to get to today,
Speaker 2: but did happen this week, But they're going to go
Speaker 2: into another special one subject episode today. Also, the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court unanimously by nine to zero upheld the bill requiring
Speaker 2: TikTok to either shut down or to be sold as
Speaker 2: I predicted they would because of the overwhelming national security justification.
Speaker 2: That's a I think actually one of the more important
Speaker 2: Supreme Court cases involving how our society is going to
Speaker 2: work for some years. And then there was another big
Speaker 2: free speech issue. CNN lost a defamation case where our
Speaker 2: jury awarded them five million dollars awarded a government contractor
Speaker 2: who was helping companies get people out of Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Well, John, I got three more quick bullet points for
Speaker 1: you from the news this week. One is, if listeners
Speaker 1: didn't hear it, Hunter Biden is claiming you lost millions
Speaker 1: of dollars in value in his artwork in the fires
Speaker 1: out in California. So you can add insurance fraud to
Speaker 1: the latest Biden bunker. Yes, you missed that one. Hear that.
Speaker 1: Hear that one right? When the other one is is
Speaker 1: you've probably heard the news that because of cold weather,
Speaker 1: Trump's inauguration is going to be moved into Rotunda in
Speaker 1: the Capitol like Reagan did nineteen eighty five. And so
Speaker 1: what we wait for here is for the left and
Speaker 1: the media to explain to us why global warming has
Speaker 1: caused this to happen. That's inevitable, right, And then finally,
Speaker 1: and this is just too serious a subject and it
Speaker 1: could be a whole episode. But the Gaza deal that
Speaker 1: these cabinet ratified is well, that's I mean, we'll just
Speaker 1: have to see what happens. As Trump likes to say,
Speaker 1: it worries me and bothers me a lot. But I
Speaker 1: also know people who'd also bothers who said, but it
Speaker 1: may have been necessary under the circumstances.
Speaker 2: So also I should have thrown that in as another
Speaker 2: example of Biden reaching for a legacy, right, Yes, what
Speaker 2: enormous pressure on that deal to be done before he
Speaker 2: left his presidency finished.
Speaker 1: Although apparently a lot to do with it.
Speaker 2: But yeah, okay, but here we get we are at
Speaker 2: the end of the hour. And so Lucretia your Babylon
Speaker 2: b headlines of the week, gen.
Speaker 3: Z upset about TikTok band for four point three seconds waitch,
Speaker 3: just the maximum amount of time they can focus on
Speaker 3: something thanks to TikTok Right, right, that's pretty good. Right
Speaker 3: with TikTok band, China force to spy on Americans by
Speaker 3: hiding little cameras and fortune cookies. Sorry we didn't we
Speaker 3: didn't actually get to Christy Nome, But this one's kind
Speaker 3: of funny. Senate Committee sticks to softball questions for shotgun
Speaker 3: toting Christy Nome. This one's my personal favorite. I only
Speaker 3: have two more. In effort to improve Senate confirmation hearing,
Speaker 3: Democratic women replaced by rabid hyenas.
Speaker 1: Difference God.
Speaker 3: Finally, because this follows onto what you two didn't want
Speaker 3: to talk about. Biden takes credit for developing dementia, so
Speaker 3: Kamla would take his place and lose to Trump, so
Speaker 3: Hamas would release the hostages.
Speaker 1: What that sounds about? Yeah, that sounds about right.
Speaker 3: Okay. One one real quick one based on the farewell speech.
Speaker 3: Head of Biden crime family warns about dangers of corruption.
Speaker 2: That's not I don't.
Speaker 3: Know, it's not even funny anymore.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, we really are going to have to develop
Speaker 2: a new sign off with the change of administration. But
Speaker 2: it's still good for four more days, right, So always
Speaker 2: drink your whiskey meat. Let's go Brandon and.
Speaker 1: Steve imagine and there's no Joe Biden. It's easy if
Speaker 1: you try. No Kamala Harris too. Bye bye. The picture
Speaker 1: around here still isn't settled, and is it great? The
Speaker 1: self same.
Speaker 2: Hopes and self same knowing has passed away.
Speaker 1: So glad you came by.
Speaker 2: To check out the rumors that you'd heard.
Speaker 3: I know you'll talk this away with important things that
Speaker 3: you've learned.
Speaker 1: And the kids are still around here. But your kids
Speaker 1: aren't still around here, and the kids aren't still around
Speaker 1: here anymore any more. I'm tired of my own voice.
Speaker 1: Later on selling and warn bless you.
Speaker 2: Ricochet join the conversation.