Speaker 1: And hello, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast
Speaker 1: on this Thursday. Today is the sixteenth day of October,
Speaker 1: year of Our Lord twenty twenty five. My name is
Speaker 1: Tom Sullivan. So yeah, we got a lot today. I
Speaker 1: want to We've got to follow up on the hostage
Speaker 1: releases that are stalled in from Hamas Russia. There's going
Speaker 1: to be a meeting between the President and Vladimir Putin,
Speaker 1: give you the details. Federal judges are busy, busy, busy
Speaker 1: telling whatever Donald Trump wants to do that he can't
Speaker 1: do it. We'll dig into some of those, the shutdown
Speaker 1: and how that's impacting people. And update on crime in Washington, DC.
Speaker 1: So let's start with the business about the hostages in Gaza.
Speaker 1: There are nine now have been released. There were four
Speaker 1: and then there was another. Well there was four, but
Speaker 1: one of them wasn't DNA showed it wasn't in a hostage.
Speaker 1: So there was four, and then three. That's seven, and
Speaker 1: then overnight there was two more. So they're up to
Speaker 1: nine that have been released, and that means nineteen dead
Speaker 1: hostages still remain to be turned over.
Speaker 2: Two of them.
Speaker 1: Two of the nineteen are Americans, one of them Omer newtraum.
Speaker 1: He literally was watching the war take place a Jewish
Speaker 1: family and he said, I'm going to go over and
Speaker 1: sign up with the IDF and fight for Israel and
Speaker 1: wound up getting captured and killed. So his father is
Speaker 1: talking today about the status of where and when his
Speaker 1: son is going to be coming home, at least in
Speaker 1: the casket.
Speaker 3: Well, it depends who you listen to, right. The IDF
Speaker 3: claims that Hamas know where they are. Hamas claims that
Speaker 3: some of them they don't know where they are, but
Speaker 3: they need equipment. Listen, we need the adult in the room.
Speaker 3: We need what we've seen so far, the American government,
Speaker 3: with the leadership of President Trump, to put full force
Speaker 3: and full influence on the mediators, whether it's Qatar or
Speaker 3: Turkey or Egypt. Put Israel and Ramas together and said, listen, guys,
Speaker 3: the nineteen hostage left. It's part of the first stages
Speaker 3: of that agreement. They need to come out. And you
Speaker 3: know the alternative. If they don't come out, this ceasefire
Speaker 3: is going to collapse, and this is gonna be horrible.
Speaker 3: We may lose our boy forever. You know, our tradition
Speaker 3: calls for a burial place for us to go and
Speaker 3: start our mourning process, and we don't have it. For
Speaker 3: over two years, We've been numerous times in Washington, in Qatar,
Speaker 3: in Tel Aviv, just saying release the hostages. Thank god,
Speaker 3: President Trump released twenty hostages alive, which was the impossible,
Speaker 3: made possible by his dedication in his leadership. But now
Speaker 3: second stage of the deal, bring out the disease sausages.
Speaker 3: As two American left the Titran and omer neutral, they
Speaker 3: need to come out. President Trump deserves it, we deserves it.
Speaker 1: So Homass is responding and they're saying, we need specialized
Speaker 1: equipment to find the rest. They're implying that there's a
Speaker 1: number of the bodies that are under the rubble and
Speaker 1: they're going to have to do the digging out to
Speaker 1: try to find them. So the question then is and
Speaker 1: why did they sign the agreement saying that they would
Speaker 1: return all forty eight hostages dead and alive when they
Speaker 1: knew that they had a problem with doing that. But that,
Speaker 1: like the father said, this puts the whole thing. It's
Speaker 1: on shaky grounds. The whole cease fire could collapse over
Speaker 1: this issue. Let's hope not, but at this point I'm
Speaker 1: not so sure. This thing is going to I don't
Speaker 1: know how much patience is going to take, not only
Speaker 1: for Israel but also all the other Arab nations that
Speaker 1: signed on to this agreement as well and said, you
Speaker 1: agreed to this, So how are they going to get
Speaker 1: the rest of them that the people at MOSS say
Speaker 1: they need specialized equipment? Russia back in the news and
Speaker 1: Ukraine and the fact that the President is going to
Speaker 1: be meeting, as we've told you, with President Zelensky tomorrow Friday,
Speaker 1: and then there is going to be a group from
Speaker 1: the US and a group from Russia that are going
Speaker 1: to get together try to hammer out some sort of agreement.
Speaker 1: And then President Putin and President Trump are going to
Speaker 1: be meeting in the near future. We don't have an
Speaker 1: exact date on a Dan Hoffman, former CIA guy, talked
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So first, it's important to emphasize that Russia continues to
Speaker 4: launch missiles and drone attacks at innocent Ukrainian civilians and
Speaker 4: Ukraine's infrastructure. President Zelenski does want those Tomahawk missiles. He'd
Speaker 4: like to strike the launch sites from which Putin is
Speaker 4: launching the missiles that are targeting Ukraine. The preamble for
Speaker 4: President Trump's discussion with President Putin. Today, Putin is on
Speaker 4: a mixture, i would say, of a charm offensive, the
Speaker 4: back channel with the First Lady, which has freed eight
Speaker 4: of twenty thousand children whom Russia has kidnapped, the decision
Speaker 4: by Russia to turn over the JFK files, the assassination
Speaker 4: files roughly three hundred and fifty page document to one
Speaker 4: of our congresswomen, and then Kmtria of the Special Envoy
Speaker 4: for Russia for Foreign Investment, also meeting with US congressman,
Speaker 4: and a charm offensive from him as well on the
Speaker 4: potential for economic opportunities, all while Putin is threatening and
Speaker 4: his senior officials threatening that for giving Ukraine tomahawks would
Speaker 4: be a dangerous move of escalation on the part of
Speaker 4: the United States. So Putin is playing his KGB game.
Speaker 4: His objective is to drag this out to the conclusion
Speaker 4: of the fighting season. Once winter sets in, it's going
Speaker 4: to be a little more difficult for both sides to
Speaker 4: strike one another. At least Ukraine Russia can still launch
Speaker 4: those missiles, but that's what Putin wants. The longer he
Speaker 4: can delay this, whether it takes another high level summit,
Speaker 4: with President Trump, he's prepared to do that.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 1: Like I said, that high level meeting will take place.
Speaker 1: They picked the location as Budapest, Hungary, but they haven't
Speaker 1: picked the date. So they have a location. I presume
Speaker 1: the date is going to be coming pretty quickly. But
Speaker 1: in addition to that, President Trump came out today and
Speaker 1: said that he has an agreement with Modi of India
Speaker 1: to have Modi stop buying Russian oil. Here was the president.
Speaker 6: We were not happy with him buying oil from Russia
Speaker 6: because that lets Russia continue on with this ridiculous war.
Speaker 6: I was not happy that India was buying oil, and
Speaker 6: he assured me today that they will not be buying
Speaker 6: oil from Russia.
Speaker 4: It's helpful, it's a helpful slow burn on Russia's war economy.
Speaker 4: But remember that Russia is receiving a lot of assistance
Speaker 4: from China, including military equipment that they're using for their drones.
Speaker 4: China's importing Russian oil. I think that it's got to
Speaker 4: be two tracks here. You've got to deal with Russia's economy,
Speaker 4: but you've also got to give Ukraine the means to
Speaker 4: defend themselves. I think that's a good lesson. We learned
Speaker 4: from Gaza and Israel taking the fight to their enemies
Speaker 4: and exhausting Hamas Russia's army is not exhausted, Putin sees
Speaker 4: no reason to stop. And I don't even think that
Speaker 4: President Trump's strong willed ability to cajole and influence senior
Speaker 4: interlocutors and presidents of other countries to see his view.
Speaker 4: I'm not that sanguine that it's going to happen if
Speaker 4: passed his prologue.
Speaker 5: It won't.
Speaker 1: Obviously, the bresident is trying to put together another peace deal.
Speaker 1: But a lot of the effort he does here in
Speaker 1: the US, all these various programs that he wants to do,
Speaker 1: and the pushback, whether it's ICE or whether it's National Guard,
Speaker 1: whether it's laying off federal employees. Federal judges are coming
Speaker 1: out from all angles. See all agents, all of the
Speaker 1: ICE officers involved in the Chicago immigration operations. They've been
Speaker 1: ordered that they must wear body cams. Another federal judge
Speaker 1: said that they cannot use non lethal weapons like pepper balls.
Speaker 1: Another federal judge said that, yeah, he cannot fire any
Speaker 1: of the federal employees that are sitting at home. And
Speaker 1: it forgive me, but I thought that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: said that federal judges can't do blanket national injunctions, that
Speaker 1: they can only operate within their federal reserve district. Even
Speaker 1: Elie Hone, who hangs out on the left side of
Speaker 1: the aisle, former federal prosecutor, he's thinking that these judges
Speaker 1: are not going to be successful.
Speaker 7: Well, Penn, this judge already made clear that she had
Speaker 7: concerns about the legality of the tactics being used by
Speaker 7: ICE to police these protesters. Last week, this federal judge
Speaker 7: in the Northern District of Illinois issued in order saying
Speaker 7: that ICE is not to use non lethal projectiles like
Speaker 7: pepper balls or chemical irritants like tear gas in policing
Speaker 7: this area. Now what's happened today is the judge has said, well,
Speaker 7: I've seen media reports since then that suggests my order
Speaker 7: may not be may not be observed properly by ICE.
Speaker 7: And so now the judge is calling the parties back
Speaker 7: in and has ordered ICE agents to wear body cameras.
Speaker 7: I think the response we're going to hear from the administration.
Speaker 7: First of all, we know the administration has taken issue
Speaker 7: with some of the media images claims they're misleading or
Speaker 7: not in proper context. But I think the larger issue
Speaker 7: and response we're going to hear from the administration is
Speaker 7: this exceeds a judge's authority. A judge cannot micro manage
Speaker 7: the field operations of dozens or hundreds of ICE agents.
Speaker 7: So I think that's the argument that's going to play
Speaker 7: out in front of this judge. The judge wants to
Speaker 7: have the parties back in court within a week in
Speaker 7: order to work this out.
Speaker 8: All right, Whitney Wild Ali Janek, thanks so much, Wolf,
Speaker 8: and just.
Speaker 1: Ahead got the feeling that this particular judge that he's
Speaker 1: talking about did not get the memo on the fact
Speaker 1: that you're not in charge. You're supposed to interpret the law.
Speaker 1: But you can't say that they have to wear green shoelaces.
Speaker 1: You can't get down into the nitty gritty details of
Speaker 1: how they go about the process. If the judge thinks
Speaker 1: that all of the ICE operations are illegal, then rule
Speaker 1: that way. But the idea of saying you can't do this,
Speaker 1: you can't do that, you have to wear a body camera,
Speaker 1: you can't use these types of non lethal weapons, it's
Speaker 1: getting kind of bizarre. So there's a lot again everything
Speaker 1: that we've seen with the Trump administration. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of pushback and the federal judges I thought got slapped
Speaker 1: down by the Supreme Court. Apparently that's not the case.
Speaker 1: We're also getting news as we're recording this that there
Speaker 1: was a bill to fund the military. Since the shutdown,
Speaker 1: paychecks were supposed to go out yesterday to federal employees,
Speaker 1: including the military, and the President and others have said, oh, yes,
Speaker 1: we're going to make sure and get some funds from
Speaker 1: the Defense, from the War Department and pay the military. Well,
Speaker 1: they had a vote on that in the Senate today
Speaker 1: and it was it failed. It was an individual bill,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and fifty two billion dollar bill that the
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats block that would fund the Defense Department through
Speaker 1: September next year. It was a litmus test to see
Speaker 1: about Democrats who would vote for it, who was not.
Speaker 1: Three Democrats did go along with the Republicans. It was
Speaker 1: Senator Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire, Senator John Fetterman from Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: and Senator Catherine Cortes Mastow of Nevada. But the bill
Speaker 1: fell ten votes short of advancing, which means that they
Speaker 1: are sticking to their guns and not going to agree
Speaker 1: unless the Republicans agree to spend the one and a
Speaker 1: half trillion dollars on Obamacare subsidies that were temporary that
Speaker 1: were put into place during COVID. So the military is
Speaker 1: not going to get a paycheck that was supposed to
Speaker 1: come out yesterday. Federal employees are not getting a paycheck.
Speaker 1: So this is where things start to get more interesting
Speaker 1: because so far there hasn't been a lot of repercussions.
Speaker 1: But now we're going to start hearing the stories about
Speaker 1: people that are hurting. They've got rent due, they've got
Speaker 1: to go buy groceries, they've got a variety of things.
Speaker 1: And the thing that really you want to get ticked
Speaker 1: off about this Congress still gets paid. Members of Congress
Speaker 1: get their paycheck. The federal employees do not.
Speaker 2: Terry does not.
Speaker 1: He says the incentive is all backwards. They should continue
Speaker 1: to pay the employees. It's not their fault. They're not
Speaker 1: the ones deciding to shut the government down. They've got
Speaker 1: jobs to do. You can debate the whole issue about
Speaker 1: the productivity of federal employees, but not their fault. The
Speaker 1: ones who caused the shutdown are still getting paid. They're
Speaker 1: the ones that should not get paid, not only now,
Speaker 1: but also never make a financial hardship for the people
Speaker 1: that are actually running the show. So last night there
Speaker 1: was a town hall I don't even know network. AOC
Speaker 1: and Bernie were the stars of the town hall and
Speaker 1: they had people asking them questions. And it really truly
Speaker 1: is AOC and Bernie are the stars of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: And this is a little bit from the town hall left.
Speaker 8: So it sounds like you're call on hickem Jefferies and
Speaker 8: Chuck Schumer to endorse.
Speaker 4: Think I think I believe that I do believe in
Speaker 4: endorsing the nominee, and I think it's the right thing
Speaker 4: to do.
Speaker 1: She's much nice of them. Are you speaking directly to Hickiem,
Speaker 1: Jefferies and Chuck Schumer when you deliver that message? Sure,
Speaker 1: I am. Okay, you're watching this, I don't know.
Speaker 9: Well, look, it is two things.
Speaker 1: Of course, Alexandrew's right, he's a Democratic nominee. How do
Speaker 1: you not support the Democratic? But more and boy, are
Speaker 1: we gonna support He's a great candidate. There should be
Speaker 1: the model. Yeah, that was Bernie saying that he's the
Speaker 1: Democrat talking about man Donnie that he's the Democrat nominee.
Speaker 1: Of course you're supposed to support him. Yet Karl Rope
Speaker 1: points out that Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite because of
Speaker 1: the fact that he is an independent and has run
Speaker 1: against Democrats time after time after time. Here's Carl Well,
Speaker 1: I love the hypocrisy. Bernie has run for the US
Speaker 1: House in Vermont eight times, and four times there was
Speaker 1: a Democrat. He ran every time as an independent. On
Speaker 1: four of those elections he had a Democrat opponent and
Speaker 1: he ran anyway. And then he ran for the Senate
Speaker 1: four times, always as an independent. The first time around,
Speaker 1: the Democrat party endorsed him and he accepted the endorsement.
Speaker 1: The next three times that he ran up to including
Speaker 1: last year, he ran as an independent and refused the
Speaker 1: Democratic nomination, including after he twice ran for president as
Speaker 1: a Democrat. So this is not a guy who can
Speaker 1: lecture about party loyalty. If you need to support the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party nominee, why did four times he run as
Speaker 1: an independent against the Democratic nominee in the state of Vermont.
Speaker 1: So please, Bernie, don't be a hypocrite. It really doesn't
Speaker 1: look good on you. So Mark Short, who was chief
Speaker 1: of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, and Megan Hayes,
Speaker 1: who speaks for the Democrats. They went back and forth
Speaker 1: on this and they basically that Bernie and AOC are
Speaker 1: where all the energy is on the Democrat Party side.
Speaker 10: But I think the energy for the Democrat Party is
Speaker 10: with AOC and Bernie and Mamdani. I think that's one
Speaker 10: of President Trump's gifts is he creates a foil on
Speaker 10: the other side that attracts the most radical elements of
Speaker 10: their party. But you know, to your bigger conversations. You
Speaker 10: remember in twenty eighteen during the midterms, a lot of
Speaker 10: Democrats with campaigns saying they would not vote for Pelosi
Speaker 10: for speaker. Well, once she won twenty eighteen, they all
Speaker 10: voted for And I think it's be the same dynamic
Speaker 10: with Jeffries. It's like if he wins the midterms, then
Speaker 10: the fall in line. In the same way with Fetterman
Speaker 10: up in Pennsylvania. If they're winning, they're going to stick
Speaker 10: with what they have.
Speaker 1: Kind of surprising because Meghan Hayes speaks for the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the idea about John Fetterman, there's a bunch of
Speaker 1: Democrats that are trying to primary him. Megan Hayes weighs
Speaker 1: in on that whole everyt.
Speaker 8: It's reason why I think Democrats would be careful what
Speaker 8: they wish for. I think that there's a couple of
Speaker 8: things going on here Fetterman. I think people are very
Speaker 8: concerned about his health, and I think that it's smart
Speaker 8: to have a bench. It's smart to get these people
Speaker 8: ready to go if he chooses not to run for
Speaker 8: reelection in twenty eight, which is a long time away
Speaker 8: from now. But I also do think that we can't
Speaker 8: split this. We can't split the state. We cannot have
Speaker 8: any sort of any divisiveness in that state. We need
Speaker 8: to keep that Senate seat, and we need to win
Speaker 8: in the presidential to even have the chance of having
Speaker 8: a Democrat become president twenty eight.
Speaker 1: So back to Zora and Mondani. He was on Fox
Speaker 1: News yesterday. He was asked things like, well, what's your
Speaker 1: opinion of Hamas? And literally, this is the guy who
Speaker 1: is so anti Israel, and he says, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: have an opinion on Hamas. You know, he didn't want
Speaker 1: to answer the question. It was crazy. Some of the
Speaker 1: things he's still pushing for free buses and free grocery
Speaker 1: stores and a variety of things. Here's a little bit
Speaker 1: of that interview where he turned to the gamera and
Speaker 1: addressed a message to President Trump.
Speaker 5: I want to take this moment because you spoke about
Speaker 5: President Trump, and he may be watching right now, and
Speaker 5: I just want to speak directly to the President, which
Speaker 5: is that I I will not be a mayor like
Speaker 5: Mayor Adams, who will call you to figure out how
Speaker 5: to stay out of jail. I won't be a disgraced
Speaker 5: governor like Andrew Cuomo who will call you to ask
Speaker 5: how to win this election. I can do those things
Speaker 5: on my own.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: Veez and I aron support of his candidacy for different reasons.
Speaker 1: I think it is going to be terrible for the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party to have as there as a symbol of
Speaker 1: their future the mayor of New York who says free
Speaker 1: buses and free this and free that and weird stuff
Speaker 1: on the left. This is not going to sell in Texas.
Speaker 1: It's not going to sell in most of America. In
Speaker 1: flyover country, they're not going to respond well to either
Speaker 1: AOC running for the US Senate or Mom Dami becoming
Speaker 1: mayor of New York. And let's remember all, let's talk
Speaker 1: about enthusiasm. New York has four point seven million voters,
Speaker 1: three point one million of them are Democrats. Mandabi won
Speaker 1: fifteen percent of the registered Democrats turned out and voted
Speaker 1: for him, and ten percent of New York voters voted
Speaker 1: for him in the primary season. So really, this guy
Speaker 1: has got a lot of enthusiasm. He went out of
Speaker 1: every six Democrats voted for him in the City of
Speaker 1: New York. And he's supposed to be the guy who's
Speaker 1: going to energize the Democrats for the future.
Speaker 2: Good luck with that.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a counter reaction to him as
Speaker 1: mayor of New York if he governs like he's been
Speaker 1: campaigning by promising all this free stuff and a government
Speaker 1: takeover and anti wealth and so forth. So if you
Speaker 1: don't live in New York, I know you're going to
Speaker 1: What do I care? But the idea of Democrats socialism
Speaker 1: is spreading and it's becoming more popular maybe, and that's
Speaker 1: why the tests. See how he's going to do in
Speaker 1: the Marya's race, which is coming up here in just
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks the election will be held, And
Speaker 1: the same with Bernie and same with AOC. They are
Speaker 1: where the energy of the Democrat Party is right now,
Speaker 1: and we'll see how much how many Democrats really do
Speaker 1: support them when push comes to show. Go back to Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. And the effort to wipe out crime. The
Speaker 1: President brought in troops. I think some of them are
Speaker 1: still there because it's a federal district. And the question
Speaker 1: of the day is how's that going. Because there was
Speaker 1: a case that became kind of the cause celeb A
Speaker 1: young man who worked for DOGE was beaten pretty severely
Speaker 1: and robbed not that far from the Capitol building, and
Speaker 1: the people that were involved in that were arrested. Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out where they were given probation. And this
Speaker 1: is something that you can bring in all the soldiers
Speaker 1: and troops and police and everything else. But the City
Speaker 1: Council of Washington, d C. Has passed all kinds of
Speaker 1: rules and the judges are very soft on crime. Until
Speaker 1: you get some people that are willing to enforce the laws,
Speaker 1: crime will continue. Jim Trusty, former prosecutor, federal prosecutor. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he talks about this.
Speaker 11: Yeah, Well, just remember Mark Twain said, there's lies day
Speaker 11: analyzed and statistics, so you can look at things like
Speaker 11: the DC murder rate and say it's way up or
Speaker 11: way down, depending on exactly where you use your starting point.
Speaker 11: That's part of the mischief of the politicians interpreting these numbers.
Speaker 11: But look, the FBI, that's a legitimate victory lap. The
Speaker 11: FBI has really changed course to emphasize heavily violent crime.
Speaker 11: They've had for years these task forces called Safe Streets
Speaker 11: or Safe Trails, task forces that team up with other
Speaker 11: FEDS and locals to go after violent crime. That's always
Speaker 11: been fairly successful. More maybe a modest effort to spread
Speaker 11: out into violent crime by the FBI, but the task
Speaker 11: force approach is obviously on steroids right now. And that's
Speaker 11: with or without the National Guard component.
Speaker 1: You can have an.
Speaker 11: Influx of federal agencies that are real force multipliers that
Speaker 11: work with the locals who know the players, that bring
Speaker 11: different tools from DEA, from ICE, from FBI to have
Speaker 11: very successful results. I live that as the Chief Organized
Speaker 11: Crime and Gangs for seven years. That was by far
Speaker 11: the best model for going after the worst of the
Speaker 11: worst gang is teaming up all those resources and using
Speaker 11: the locals who really know the streets and know the players.
Speaker 2: So it's a you know, there's always room.
Speaker 11: To question the stats, but it's a pretty legitimate victory
Speaker 11: lap and you look at the overall numbers. Yeah, Look,
Speaker 11: I think there's a big disconnect between the political figures,
Speaker 11: and when we talk about like police agreeing with the
Speaker 11: political figures, they kind of have to. Those are their bosses.
Speaker 11: You know, if you're the superintendent of the state police
Speaker 11: or if you're the City of Police City of Portland
Speaker 11: police commissioner, you're answerable to that mayor. So there's a
Speaker 11: lot of high level political claims that we don't need
Speaker 11: any help, everything's fine. But I think when you really
Speaker 11: talk about violent crime, you know, particularly gangs, they infect
Speaker 11: the neighborhoods where they live more than anywhere else. There's
Speaker 11: a lot of I think quiet support, quiet relief when
Speaker 11: you have that deterrent effect of National guardsmen or just
Speaker 11: more cops on the streets showing up in the neighborhoods
Speaker 11: that actually feel the consequences of violent crime. So, yeah,
Speaker 11: there's a political class as one thing, but I'm not
Speaker 11: sure it's the same.
Speaker 1: What I've been talking about is that police departments. There
Speaker 1: are police departments, and there are sheriff's departments, and the
Speaker 1: sheriffs generally almost everywhere, maybe it's one hundred percent. They
Speaker 1: are elected by the people, so they answered to the voters.
Speaker 1: They answer to their constituents. Police chiefs they are appointed
Speaker 1: by mayors, so they are political appointees and they have
Speaker 1: to do and salute whatever the mayor has to say.
Speaker 1: And if you've got a big, soft on crime mayor,
Speaker 1: you're going to get a soft on crime police department.
Speaker 1: Janein Piro, who is the US attorney for DC, this
Speaker 1: goes back a couple of weeks some must I don't
Speaker 1: have the exact date on her, but she was all
Speaker 1: frustrated because of the fact that again the city council
Speaker 1: and the judges are not holding these youthful offenders that
Speaker 1: beat the tar out of this guy, not holding them
Speaker 1: to any sort of repercussion. The people that beat this
Speaker 1: kid got probated. You're Jeanine Piro.
Speaker 9: Young criminals in d C have been emboldened to commit
Speaker 9: crimes because they believe that they're not accountable. And why
Speaker 9: do they believe that? Because they are not accountable. We've
Speaker 9: got a DC a counsel that has passed laws that
Speaker 9: make it almost impossible for me, as both federal prosecutor
Speaker 9: and kind of quasi local prosecutor to be able to
Speaker 9: incarcerate these kids. If you shoot someone with a gun
Speaker 9: in DC and you're up to nineteen years of age,
Speaker 9: I can't even indicte you.
Speaker 1: It brings me back to again. You can send in
Speaker 1: all the National Guard, you can send in all the
Speaker 1: police that you want to do, but you need the
Speaker 1: judges to also be tough on crime.
Speaker 11: Back to Jim Trust, Well, she's actually pretty spot on
Speaker 11: in terms of the system.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 11: Juvenile court. The whole concept is kind of a noble one.
Speaker 11: It started, believe it or not, around nineteen hundred in Chicago,
Speaker 11: of all places. But the idea is young offenders are
Speaker 11: more accepting the possibility of rehabilitation. If we don't just
Speaker 11: throw them in prison, if we try to keep them
Speaker 11: from becoming adult offenders, we can have some success. That's
Speaker 11: a great idea, and there are services that you can
Speaker 11: render that will deter some young offenders from going down
Speaker 11: that path. The problem in DC is a couple of things.
Speaker 11: The DC Superior Court is notoriously soft on everybody. When
Speaker 11: you add in the juvenile court emphasis on rehabilitation, these
Speaker 11: guys get multiple free passes. You have a horribly violent event,
Speaker 11: like a good Samaritan being beaten senseless by a mob
Speaker 11: of twelve or thirteen people doing a carjacking, and they
Speaker 11: get nine months probation. And the problem is if they
Speaker 11: come back or if they violate that probation, they're not
Speaker 11: going to get much more. So you have to come
Speaker 11: up with a system that either allows for waiver to
Speaker 11: adult court more freely, or at least has more regular,
Speaker 11: sustained consequences, including detention for people that are doing violent
Speaker 11: crime at young ages. And believe me, the gangs know
Speaker 11: the young guys don't get punished. That's why they make
Speaker 11: them do the worst stuff. I'll give you another one.
Speaker 11: This is a little bit different topic, but I saw
Speaker 11: this come across last night that the City of Los Angeles,
Speaker 11: I'm sorry, the County of Los Angeles, the officials there,
Speaker 11: voted yesterday to declare a state of emergency, and I thought, oh,
Speaker 11: what's the state of emergency. About the state of emergency
Speaker 11: is that they're going to provide money for residents that
Speaker 11: say that they have suffered financially from ongoing federal immigration raids.
Speaker 11: LA County Board of Supervisors voted to allow rent relief
Speaker 11: for tenants who have fallen behind as a result of
Speaker 11: a crackdown on immigration. And I don't know. I'm trying
Speaker 11: to figure out now, how does the crackdown on illegals
Speaker 11: in your city affect your ability to pay rent unless
Speaker 11: the breadwinner for your home or your apartment happens to
Speaker 11: be illegal and is now gone. That's the only thing
Speaker 11: I can think of. So they're going to give taxpayer
Speaker 11: money to pay have people pay their rent that our
Speaker 11: families of illegals is the best that I can get
Speaker 11: from all of that.
Speaker 1: It's kind of crazy out there. One more for you.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court yesterday had a hearing on the Voting
Speaker 1: Right Act, the Voting Rights Act that was passed in
Speaker 1: back in the nineteen sixties, I think nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 1: Lyndon Johnson was the president. He signed it into law,
Speaker 1: the Civil Rights Act, and then the Voting Rights Act
Speaker 1: came along. The Voting Rights Act was to basically make
Speaker 1: it so that Southern states who had drawn redistrict team
Speaker 1: lines to make sure that blacks did not have any
Speaker 1: voting power, even if they would allow them to register
Speaker 1: to vote, which was a thing back then. That's not
Speaker 1: the same today. And so the question is is the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act still applicable that the federal government gets
Speaker 1: to say how redistricting lot lines are drawn for various
Speaker 1: states that don't look anything like the populations that they
Speaker 1: had in nineteen sixty five. It's a little bit of
Speaker 1: the hearing yesterday with the Justice Kavanaugh talking to the
Speaker 1: people that were in front of the bit.
Speaker 2: This Court's cases in a variety of contacts have said
Speaker 2: that race based remedies are permissible for a period of time,
Speaker 2: sometimes for a long period of time decades in some cases,
Speaker 2: but that they should not be indefinite and should have
Speaker 2: an endpoint.
Speaker 1: Here's John You weighing in on this case before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court.
Speaker 12: I think he is right. I think you can see
Speaker 12: that this view is motivating the sixth Conservative justices the Court.
Speaker 12: Here's the basic issue. The Constitution bans the government from
Speaker 12: ever using race it caused. It wants all of us
Speaker 12: to treat each other the same, regardless of our skin, collar, race,
Speaker 12: national origin, religion, and so on. We allow deviations from
Speaker 12: that core principle to just make up for past sins,
Speaker 12: for the government's use of race and segregation in the South,
Speaker 12: for so many years, or for slavery before that, And
Speaker 12: what just Kavanaugh is asking is when does that end.
Speaker 12: It's sixty years later now, since the Voting Rights Act
Speaker 12: of nineteen sixty five. It's been sixty years since the
Speaker 12: government has forced states to try to use race to
Speaker 12: create these what are called majority minority districts to increase
Speaker 12: the number of minorities who actually get elected to Congress.
Speaker 12: But that's got to come to an end. It's not
Speaker 12: going to be and it shouldn't be under the Constitution
Speaker 12: ever permanent. And the Court's been making that clear in
Speaker 12: other areas, like the Harvard case where it said no
Speaker 12: more use of race and college. I think that campaign
Speaker 12: for a color blind constitution will continue here and the
Speaker 12: Court will say no more use of race when states
Speaker 12: draw congressional districts either. I am sure the Justices when
Speaker 12: they decide this case don't care and won't look at
Speaker 12: what the effects on the midterm maps may be. Now,
Speaker 12: what's been going on note is that these states, in
Speaker 12: order to create these majority minority districts, have done what's
Speaker 12: called crack and pac They've packed minority voters into tight
Speaker 12: districts on the assumption they'll vote for a black or
Speaker 12: Hispanic or even Asian candidate, which I think, by the way,
Speaker 12: is offensive because it assumes that people of one race
Speaker 12: will vote for people of the same race when they
Speaker 12: vote for office. What will happen, I think if this
Speaker 12: practice ends, is that there will be more minorities spread
Speaker 12: out into more districts. That might make more districts competitive
Speaker 12: in the long run between Republicans and Democrats, even though
Speaker 12: in the short run it might lead to less Democrats
Speaker 12: in the House. I think is the pernicious view of
Speaker 12: the Voting Rights Act and the fifteenth Amendment that this
Speaker 12: cause has adopted is the idea that because I have
Speaker 12: a skin color or you have a skin color, you
Speaker 12: think you're only represented by people who look like you.
Speaker 12: What if you want to be represented by people who
Speaker 12: share your interests instead. Suppose I want to vote for
Speaker 12: someone as my view on tax policy or foreign affairs
Speaker 12: or Israel, Why does race and skin color have anything
Speaker 12: to do with your view or my view on policy
Speaker 12: issues are? And I think that's what the court wants
Speaker 12: to end. The Court wants to end the practice of
Speaker 12: the government assuming that you and I have certain views
Speaker 12: and think a certain way just because of our skin color.
Speaker 1: So that's a hot button Supreme Court case that they
Speaker 1: heard yesterday, and of course we won't know what their
Speaker 1: decision is until late May or June of next year.
Speaker 1: Wall Streek today selling off again. A lot of nervousness
Speaker 1: about are we in a bubble market? Today fell three,
Speaker 1: the Dow fell three hundred and one down to forty
Speaker 1: five thousand, nine to fifty two, SMP down forty two,
Speaker 1: Nazdack down one hundred and seven. Wow, look at gold
Speaker 1: up one. I've never seen this. One hundred and forty
Speaker 1: two dollars announce up one hundred and forty two to
Speaker 1: four thousand, three hundred and forty four. Price of oil.
Speaker 1: Fellow dollar, it's all the way down now to fifty
Speaker 1: seven dollars for a barrel of oil. So thank you
Speaker 1: for coming by today. That's it for this Thursday. We
Speaker 1: will try this again tomorrow. I hope to see them