Speaker 1: Well Whiskey coming thing money.
Speaker 2: From power Line blog dot com and produced by Ricochet
Speaker 2: dot Com. This is the Three Whiskey Happy Hour with
Speaker 2: your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John You and power Lines International
Speaker 2: Woman of Mystery Lucretia Cat.
Speaker 3: You gotta give me let that whiskey bloon where you're
Speaker 3: being in love down hellon. Welcome everybody to what will
Speaker 3: soon be part of the very best of the Three
Speaker 3: Whiskey Happy Hour series. Because we are steveless, Steveless at last.
Speaker 3: You may remember, dear dear listeners, that I got on
Speaker 3: this podcast because Steve Hayward went on some drinking tour
Speaker 3: of Scotland and Ireland, and in his absence, I elbowed
Speaker 3: my way in and tell, let me tell it's not
Speaker 3: easy to elbow way your way past. Steve Hayward by
Speaker 3: elbowed my way in and took his seat on the podcast,
Speaker 3: and they have been unable to get me out ever since.
Speaker 3: I'm like a tick on a dog. I'm never giving
Speaker 3: up this co hosting job. This is John You and
Speaker 3: I am joined as always by the International Woman of Mystery,
Speaker 3: Woman of Mystery Lucretia, and we are without Steve Hayward,
Speaker 3: who is off gallivanting. I think Iceland or Greenlander somewhere.
Speaker 3: So what's a just a head.
Speaker 4: He's a float and starlink has failed him. He's on
Speaker 4: the ocean and starlink has failed him. I'm a little
Speaker 4: disappointed with Elon Musk, but it does mean that we
Speaker 4: get to have an entire podcast John without any lame
Speaker 4: or inapt inapt historical analogies because analogy man is not here.
Speaker 3: And no name dropping, right, no name dropping.
Speaker 4: Now it's funny how you can do it because you know,
Speaker 4: you know a lot more important people than Steve does.
Speaker 4: He'd never admit it, but there's you have a way
Speaker 4: of doing it without it sounding like you're being a
Speaker 4: pretentious name dropper. I hope Steve's listening because I hate
Speaker 4: to talk behind his back.
Speaker 3: Oh no, we remember we rely on Steve actually to
Speaker 3: produce the show and post.
Speaker 4: Oh there's that.
Speaker 3: Oh well, we have a great show today, a lot
Speaker 3: of I mean, gosh, every week it seems like more
Speaker 3: and more happens. So let's start with the latest in
Speaker 3: the law Fair campaigns. Today, this is Friday, were recording
Speaker 3: Judge Wan mar Shaan in New York City, just announced
Speaker 3: that he was going to delay the sentencing of Donald
Speaker 3: Trump from in September. It was just to be about
Speaker 3: a week and a half from now, from then until
Speaker 3: November twenty six, and he said in explaining his decision
Speaker 3: that he didn't want people to get the impression that
Speaker 3: the court was making any decisions with an eye to
Speaker 3: the political consequences or the effects on the race, and
Speaker 3: so therefore he decided to push sentencing off to November.
Speaker 3: Not completely related, but in this general vein. Also Hunter Biden,
Speaker 3: out of nowhere yesterday decided to pleat guilty, And not
Speaker 3: only did he plead guilty, but he played guilty with
Speaker 3: no plea, no deal from the Justice Department. He just
Speaker 3: wanted to avoid a trial. Which they leaves me with
Speaker 3: the question to ask you, lupretia, what is going on
Speaker 3: with the law fair campaign against President Trump? What's the
Speaker 3: larger meaning of all this.
Speaker 4: Let's talk about Hunter for a moment. I'm a little
Speaker 4: surprised that even the appearance of their corruption was enough
Speaker 4: egg on their face for the prosecutors to stand as
Speaker 4: firm as they did. But they did, and they stood firm.
Speaker 4: Remember that Hunt, excuse me, Hunter actually pled an Alfred plea,
Speaker 4: I'd let you explain that to our listeners, but that
Speaker 4: just means you plead guilty, but I'm really innocent kind
Speaker 4: of thing. And the prosecutors wouldn't accept even that because
Speaker 4: and so they had to go out for three hours
Speaker 4: and they came back and then they read for ninety minutes,
Speaker 4: I'm told, the fifty six page indictment that included a
Speaker 4: whole lot of stuff about where Hunter got his money,
Speaker 4: which quite by the way, the judge not necessarily said
Speaker 4: was relevant to the case, but they read it anyway,
Speaker 4: making Abby Lowell very angry about everything. I'm sorry, sorry
Speaker 4: about that. I thought it was off. And so then
Speaker 4: Hunter just came back and said, okay, I plead guilty
Speaker 4: to all of it. After to each one of the counts.
Speaker 4: How many counts was it seven or nine? Seven?
Speaker 3: A lot? Three were felony counts. That's the ones that matter.
Speaker 3: The three were felony counts with jail time attached.
Speaker 4: And he could get a million dollar fine in seventeen
Speaker 4: years in jail on this one. Is that right?
Speaker 3: I think yeah, if you add it all up, it's
Speaker 3: definitely more than ten years. Although you would think he
Speaker 3: wouldn't get it, but you never know.
Speaker 4: You never know. So there's my first question before we
Speaker 4: go back to Trump. Do we does Hunter's conviction in
Speaker 4: the tax for tax fraud case, that is, pleading guilty
Speaker 4: to the tax failure to file his income tax and
Speaker 4: failure to pay his income tax. Does that go back
Speaker 4: to the lying about being a drug addict on the
Speaker 4: weapons form conviction. Everyone says it could have. I think
Speaker 4: it's a twenty five year up to twenty five years
Speaker 4: in prison, but he wouldn't get it because it, you know,
Speaker 4: first time offender and so on. Does either judge add
Speaker 4: those two things together to look at sentencing? So he
Speaker 4: wasn't a convicted felon in the first case, now he's
Speaker 4: a convicted felon in the second case. I mean prior,
Speaker 4: I'm saying prior. Does either judge look at the fact
Speaker 4: that he's been convicted now of two separate in two
Speaker 4: separate felony trials to say he's really not a first
Speaker 4: time offender. Does that make sense?
Speaker 3: Yeah? No, I believe what you're asking about is extremely
Speaker 3: important because under the sentence so the there's a system
Speaker 3: called the sentencing guidelines which control all sentencing for federal crimes,
Speaker 3: and if it's your first time offense you are, you
Speaker 3: are more leniently sentenced than if you are already a
Speaker 3: convicted felon, which has long been the practice in throughout
Speaker 3: the country. And this is a familiar practice in most
Speaker 3: states too, I would think. And so all right, if
Speaker 3: you think about the famous California three strikes and you're out,
Speaker 3: that's just a tough version of if you're a former felon,
Speaker 3: you'd get sentenced to longer rather than your first time.
Speaker 3: And so I believe the way it would work is
Speaker 3: that the and this is why I think part of
Speaker 3: the reason Hunter was going to trial in LA is
Speaker 3: that he was convicted first in Delaware of the firearms charge.
Speaker 3: He might get no jail time for that, who knows,
Speaker 3: but he would definitely get jail time in LA because
Speaker 3: by the time he gets to LA, he is now
Speaker 3: a convicted felt and so I don't think it counts
Speaker 3: in Delaware, but he counts in LA, and so he should.
Speaker 3: I you know, I was on a show yesterday right
Speaker 3: when this was coming out, and I was like, this
Speaker 3: is crazy, because you know, Hunter basically just wasted everybody's
Speaker 3: time right by deciding to plead guilty with no deal.
Speaker 3: I mean, he could have done that. He would have
Speaker 3: been better off months and months ago trying to get
Speaker 3: a plea bargain. But now he's opened himself up to
Speaker 3: going to jail. I can't imagine he won't have to
Speaker 3: serve a jail sentence. One, and the second point is
Speaker 3: I think he's doing it on the assumption he's going
Speaker 3: to get a pardon or a commutation of his sentence
Speaker 3: from his father, because otherwise where if he really doesn't
Speaker 3: want to serve jail time, then he should go to trial,
Speaker 3: right Like, I don't understand what changed, right, The only
Speaker 3: thing that changed was that his father withdrew from the
Speaker 3: presidential election, And so I could read that in Hunter's
Speaker 3: camp as, oh, well, now that he's not a candidate anymore,
Speaker 3: he doesn't have to keep that promise about not pardoning
Speaker 3: his son.
Speaker 4: Who's going to be He says he's going to, But
Speaker 4: he's broken a lot of promises before. If the judge
Speaker 4: had really wanted to put it to Hunter, he could
Speaker 4: have made the sentencing date in January. And then you
Speaker 4: know that you have to wonder. Scarcey, the judge in
Speaker 4: the case, didn't seem to be totally uh uh biased
Speaker 4: and against Hunter in any way, he seemed to be
Speaker 4: mostly fair.
Speaker 3: I guess he was just going by the book as
Speaker 3: far as I could tell.
Speaker 4: Right, But he could have actually made January rather than
Speaker 4: December the date. What what determines how long out judges
Speaker 4: actually set sentencing? Why do that? Why did they not
Speaker 4: sentence at the same time? What's what's the reason?
Speaker 3: Like in the movies, Like in the movies, verdict and
Speaker 3: then you're here. You are sent as a hang by
Speaker 3: the neck until dead or whatever dead And those were
Speaker 3: the good old days. So the thing is then you
Speaker 3: you wait often for a report. Right, there's a probation office.
Speaker 3: They make a recommendation the plank to the prosecution, and
Speaker 3: the defendant make their own recommendations to the judge about
Speaker 3: what the sentence should be. The sentencing could be its
Speaker 3: own little mini trial. The worst examples of this are
Speaker 3: death penalty cases where the Supreme Court has said, you
Speaker 3: must have a second proceeding to go into you know,
Speaker 3: whether the killer was you know, subject to abuse as
Speaker 3: a child, and that.
Speaker 4: So mitigating circumstances.
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, you know all the words. I'm sorry
Speaker 3: to hear that, Yeah, you have new bottance was called
Speaker 3: mitigating versus aggravating fact aggravating Yep, souh that that could
Speaker 3: that that's why you don't have sentencing anymore right away
Speaker 3: like you see in the old days. You have this
Speaker 3: almost like this second procedure. Uh. So you'll you'll see
Speaker 3: more arguing about and that'll be another sign about whether
Speaker 3: Hunter expects to be pardoned, because they really push hard
Speaker 3: for a lower sentence. Maybe they don't think he's gonna
Speaker 3: get a pardon. If they're like, ah, we don't care,
Speaker 3: just like this trial going and say I don't care enough.
Speaker 3: I'm not even asking for a deal. I'm just gonna
Speaker 3: plead guilty. I mean, I can't even remember the last
Speaker 3: time I saw something that like that. That seems to me,
Speaker 3: the sort of capricious nature of it seems to me
Speaker 3: to suggest, oh, Hunter thinks he's getting a pardon or
Speaker 3: he's going to get a commuted something.
Speaker 4: So maybe we look at this like that scene in Godfather.
Speaker 4: We always like to bring Godfather back into this when
Speaker 4: we're discussing the corrupt nature of our legal system.
Speaker 3: Maybe apparently Nancy Pelosi's favorite movie.
Speaker 4: I have no comment the scene where they convince the
Speaker 4: guy that they'll take care of his family for the
Speaker 4: rest of his life if he doesn't testify, and he
Speaker 4: you know, he slits his hands, he slits his wrists
Speaker 4: in the bathtub. Maybe Hunter has been promised something that
Speaker 4: isn't necessarily a pardon from his father or a pardon
Speaker 4: from Harris. I guess, I guess Kamala and ding Dong
Speaker 4: says she's not going to but who knows. But maybe
Speaker 4: it just means that if he does go to jail
Speaker 4: for a short amount of time, it didn't bring all
Speaker 4: of the corruption of the Biden crime family out in
Speaker 4: the trial in public, which it could have done. And
Speaker 4: maybe you know that, since we know you even told
Speaker 4: me this, and I'm still shocked about it when I
Speaker 4: think about it, that you can divert ill gotten gains
Speaker 4: through your family members and almost always avoid any kind
Speaker 4: of criminal liability for doing so. We know that the
Speaker 4: Biden Cried family has done that because we know they've
Speaker 4: got all these shell companies that have you know, they've
Speaker 4: they've funneled money off to grandchildren and so on. Maybe
Speaker 4: the deal is for Hunter from the DOJ is we
Speaker 4: won't go after that money if you plead guilty. And
Speaker 4: I don't know, I'm just speculating about why he would
Speaker 4: do this if his father's promising not to pardon him
Speaker 4: or commut a sentence.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, we'll always wonder what things are said
Speaker 3: to Biden and his family in the days leading up
Speaker 3: to his withdrawal from the race. And you wonder was
Speaker 3: there some kind of understanding that if he withdrew in
Speaker 3: favor of Harris that now this is actually where Steve
Speaker 3: would jump in because he was around for the Ford
Speaker 3: administration apparently. But remember Ford actually was investigated by Congress
Speaker 3: because the Democratic Congress then accused Ford of making a
Speaker 3: deal to become president and exchange pardon Nixon and Ford.
Speaker 3: I think under oath said no, that wasn't true, and
Speaker 3: that was accepted. But there were some people who thought
Speaker 3: at the time that's what was going on with Nixon
Speaker 3: and Ford.
Speaker 4: There are other people I might have believed that of
Speaker 4: even if they swore under oath that they didn't. But
Speaker 4: you know, all else being equal, Ford Ford acted pretty
Speaker 4: admirably in the whole thing he did that he said
Speaker 4: that our national nightmare is over. You know, his speech
Speaker 4: about it was was compelling. In my view, I have
Speaker 4: a hard time. I see Abby Lowell, I see even
Speaker 4: Hunter himself pretending that they have been equally concerned not
Speaker 4: only about their family, but about you the damage it
Speaker 4: will do to the country if all of this has
Speaker 4: aired out. Yeah, give me a break. And then, of course,
Speaker 4: on top of that, where some political had an article
Speaker 4: this morning, it just made me want to scream saying that,
Speaker 4: you know, poor Joe the only thing, the real reason
Speaker 4: that he dropped out of the race. It wasn't because
Speaker 4: he's senile, and it wasn't because his polls were dropping.
Speaker 4: It was because he thought maybe this would end the
Speaker 4: unfair persecution of his son Hunter.
Speaker 3: Unfair persecution by his own justice department.
Speaker 4: By his own Justice department. Yeah, I know, I know,
Speaker 4: but oh man. Anyway, So speaking of that, so our
Speaker 4: friend merch On did what I said, by the way,
Speaker 4: and you guys laughed at me, and you said, Andy
Speaker 4: McCarthy says he's going to sentence Trump too, But he didn't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, didn't sentence Trump.
Speaker 4: Or he's delayed the sentencing of Trump until.
Speaker 3: What is it, November twenty six?
Speaker 4: November twenty six, so the day before the two days
Speaker 4: before Thanksgiving Thanksgiving week, and that's after the election, so
Speaker 4: that's significant. Why do you suppose that happened? Why do
Speaker 4: you suppose that even though let me actually before I
Speaker 4: ask you that, let me throw something at you. A
Speaker 4: couple of us were speculating earlier in the week that
Speaker 4: the smart thing for merch On to do, given everything
Speaker 4: you guys said about why he will sentence Trump, would
Speaker 4: have been to levy a big fine against him then
Speaker 4: he could and I'm a little surprised he didn't do that.
Speaker 4: So let's say he'd levied a huge fine against Trump
Speaker 4: but didn't have any jail time. Said, look, this is
Speaker 4: how it would be done in any other case. Because
Speaker 4: the defendant doesn't have a criminal history, so big fine.
Speaker 4: He's then convicted, everybody can say he's a convicted felon,
Speaker 4: and then the items on appeal have to work out
Speaker 4: later that I'm very surprised he didn't do that, and
Speaker 4: I have my reasons, but I think you probably understand
Speaker 4: better than me. Why do you suppose Murchon didn't decide
Speaker 4: to sentence him next week?
Speaker 3: I think this shows I think, first of all, I
Speaker 3: think it is the right decision, but it shows how
Speaker 3: political this judge was the whole time, because in the
Speaker 3: letter he sent to the parties, he says something like,
Speaker 3: I don't want I am going to delay the sentencing
Speaker 3: till after the election, because I don't want people to
Speaker 3: think that the decisions of this court have been politically motivated. Well,
Speaker 3: by doing this, you're showing that you're paying attention to
Speaker 3: the election calendar. And then the question is, if you
Speaker 3: are going to delay the sentencing because you're worried about
Speaker 3: the effect on the election, why aren't you making decisions
Speaker 3: about all the other things that you have to do
Speaker 3: and push the trial until after the election. He rushed
Speaker 3: the trial to get to a verdict before the election,
Speaker 3: and he's refusing to obey the Supreme Court's immunity decision,
Speaker 3: which I think requires a new trial. Well, and so
Speaker 3: he should decide that now. But he's going to, I think,
Speaker 3: decide that after the election too, which I think he's
Speaker 3: going to get reversed on appeal on the merits eventually.
Speaker 3: I think he knows that. But right he got what
Speaker 3: he wanted. They got the conviction so that you can
Speaker 3: call Trump a fellon. So at the same time, he's
Speaker 3: not going to d cause the Megabase to go crazy
Speaker 3: by sentencing Trump to jail.
Speaker 4: I heard, don't know if it's true that he included
Speaker 4: in the letter because I haven't had a chance to
Speaker 4: read it, that he was also having to look at
Speaker 4: how he could square the actual trial that happened with
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court's decision. And the most egregious example is
Speaker 4: the testimony of our friend Hope Hicks, who of course
Speaker 4: was testifying about things that happened officially during the during
Speaker 4: twenty seventeen, during the Reagan during the Trump presidency, and
Speaker 4: so he would have to be able even to pass sentencing.
Speaker 4: My understanding is he would have to be able to
Speaker 4: show how it is that the evidence intro used that
Speaker 4: balls under the Supreme Court's immunity opinion did not color
Speaker 4: the jury's decisions decision about all the counts in the case,
Speaker 4: and that he was actually asking for extra time to
Speaker 4: be able to do that.
Speaker 3: Well first exactly right about the legal issue. That's why
Speaker 3: I think the case will eventually be reversed, the verdict
Speaker 3: will be reversed, the scheduling. I do not understand why
Speaker 3: he needs more time. He's had since the end of June, right,
Speaker 3: so it's been three months already. What is taking so long?
Speaker 3: And all you got to do is read the damn opinion,
Speaker 3: you know, Like, unless he's like reading one word today,
Speaker 3: I mean, it doesn't take too long to figure out
Speaker 3: that you have to hold a new trial here, as
Speaker 3: you as you said, lucreeship. The Supreme Court immunity decision,
Speaker 3: it almost reached out to smack Judge Merksham, but not
Speaker 3: by name, when it said, not only do you get
Speaker 3: immunity as a president from prosecution for your official acts
Speaker 3: as president, but those official acts and statements you make
Speaker 3: can't be used as evidence against you in a prosecution
Speaker 3: for your non official activities. The only case going right
Speaker 3: now that that's about that is the merchan case and
Speaker 3: Mershon you allowed in evidence from as you said, Hope Picks.
Speaker 3: He allowed in evidence describing what Trump was saying and
Speaker 3: doing in the oval office as president. The Supreme Court
Speaker 3: case directly says you can't use this evidence in a trial.
Speaker 3: I don't see how Merchon can allow the verdict to
Speaker 3: stand now, I mean, unless he just wants to provoke
Speaker 3: another constitutional crisis and have this case, his own case
Speaker 3: go all the way to the Supreme Court and force
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court to reverse him in order a new trial,
Speaker 3: and maybe that's what he wants to do, but he's
Speaker 3: just going to drag it, You drag the whole country
Speaker 3: through more months and months of this because he's being
Speaker 3: pig added.
Speaker 4: So is he being pigheaded because he's worried about his
Speaker 4: reputation amongst the left or is he just himself so
Speaker 4: invested in getting Trump that he doesn't really care about
Speaker 4: the political the political ramifications of his decision from the
Speaker 4: point of view of, you know, the larger politics of it.
Speaker 4: He just he doesn't care. He wants to get Trump
Speaker 4: no matter what. Or has he been doing most of
Speaker 4: this all the time in the same way Bragg has
Speaker 4: just to please the left and knowing that they could
Speaker 4: get away with whatever they wanted as long as it
Speaker 4: pleased the left, at least in New York.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know. And you know, one
Speaker 3: thing is will learn when the sentences date comes around.
Speaker 3: Which of these two. Neither account is a good one.
Speaker 3: But think about what happens if Trump wins. If Trump wins,
Speaker 3: then is Merchank going to sentence the pre guy was
Speaker 3: going to become president of jail? Right that's going to
Speaker 3: evoke a huge constitutional crisis between the federal government and
Speaker 3: the states. What if Trump loses? If Trump loses, is Marshank,
Speaker 3: what's he still has to decide whether you right to
Speaker 3: vacate the Dury verdict and order a new trial. So
Speaker 3: I think, well, which I think would? I don't think
Speaker 3: the left will care as much at that point because
Speaker 3: Harris will be president and they'll be so over your tongue,
Speaker 3: by your tongue.
Speaker 4: Okay, one more question for you about the Bragg case
Speaker 4: before we go onto the chuck Kin disaster. Chuck Kin, right,
Speaker 4: that's her name. I can never truck him to commit
Speaker 4: it to memory. So Bragg's state case against Trump involved
Speaker 4: misdemeanors that had uh the statute of limitations had expired.
Speaker 4: The way he was able to bring this case was
Speaker 4: to bring in a felony of election interference, right am?
Speaker 4: I am? I right? So far? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 4: Even though they the jury didn't technically find that Trump
Speaker 4: had actually violated that, I forget it was all these
Speaker 4: dumb and jury instructions and all that other stuff. But
Speaker 4: my point is if he was charging Trump with those
Speaker 4: misdemeanors to get but could do so only because he
Speaker 4: was ultimately charging him with the felony that he was
Speaker 4: convicted under. Or maybe I don't even have that right.
Speaker 4: Why can't Trump pardon himself if ultimately it was a
Speaker 4: federal violation and not a state violation, or do I
Speaker 4: have it wrong?
Speaker 3: No, So the reason he couldn't pardon is because, actually
Speaker 3: this is because of the One of the other constitutional
Speaker 3: defects of this case, which we talked about before, was that,
Speaker 3: as you said, the state criminal process acution escaped the
Speaker 3: statute limitations by pretending that Trump had committed the accounting
Speaker 3: shenanigans to cover up some other crime that in New
Speaker 3: York law that elevates accounting mistakes, accounting not mistakes, counting
Speaker 3: misrepresentations into a felony when it's usually just a misdemeanor,
Speaker 3: which is just a fine. Misdemeanor means no jail time.
Speaker 3: But they didn't have a felony. So what the felony
Speaker 3: they had to The other law they said that was
Speaker 3: broken that had to be covered up was federal election law.
Speaker 3: The first problem.
Speaker 4: Yeah, convicted under that law.
Speaker 3: No, he was never investigating. I mean, they are the
Speaker 3: Justice Apartment and the FEC are the federal agencies in
Speaker 3: charge of that the federal election laws, and they did
Speaker 3: not charge Trump with anything relating to this. You know,
Speaker 3: the gossip out of the Southern District of New York
Speaker 3: was that, which is the US Attorney's office that would
Speaker 3: hand the case, is that they interviewed Michael Cohen and
Speaker 3: they thought he was an unreliable witness and they couldn't
Speaker 3: go to court based on a case that was you know,
Speaker 3: basically came all out of Michael Cohen. So I think
Speaker 3: you're righty, So you can't. Trump can't pardon himself of
Speaker 3: the federal election crime because there was no crime charged
Speaker 3: or prosecuted and convicted. He can't pardon himself of the
Speaker 3: New York prosecution because the pardon power does not extend
Speaker 3: to state crimes. It only applies to federal crimes.
Speaker 4: So I should have established that at first.
Speaker 3: But this is you can see, like this is the
Speaker 3: very narrow path that Bragg and Mershawn are trying to
Speaker 3: right walk in order to escape all the legal problems
Speaker 3: that this prosecution has. And so one thing about the
Speaker 3: immunity thing, even if Mershan goes ahead and denies the
Speaker 3: force of the Supreme Court's immunity decision, and even if
Speaker 3: he goes ahead and sentences Trump to jail, Trump still
Speaker 3: has that argument to make that the whole prosecution was
Speaker 3: based on unconstitutional arrogation of the power to prosecute federal law.
Speaker 3: Why this, you know, Bozo local day.
Speaker 4: Okay again, it's amazing. The whole thing's amazing. Uh. And
Speaker 4: to give breg some credit, the confusion, because I've read
Speaker 4: it a thousand times, I still can't explain it. I
Speaker 4: need you to explain it for me correctly. The confusion
Speaker 4: of that whole tangled mass has allowed the argument to
Speaker 4: be made that, you know, Trump's just guilty, He's guilty
Speaker 4: of sleeping with a porn star. And that's the the
Speaker 4: the you know, the the public narrative that comes out
Speaker 4: of it. Refuting it with the actual facts of the
Speaker 4: of the case, the facts of the charges is nearly
Speaker 4: impossible for just ninety nine point nine percent of the people,
Speaker 4: those not named John You. I mean, honestly, I don't
Speaker 4: know that brag was clever enough to have thought through
Speaker 4: that part of it. But the outcome is clearly the
Speaker 4: case that you know, I try to remember how it
Speaker 4: all worked together and even I can't do it, and
Speaker 4: I have a little bit more experience with the law
Speaker 4: than the average person. I do want to go on
Speaker 4: for just a moment to the to the reindictment of
Speaker 4: Trump under Jacksmith's case. Give me some give me your
Speaker 4: your higher thoughts, your analysis thoughts, not necessarily the legal
Speaker 4: part of the case, but what you think about that
Speaker 4: from having been a former member of the Justice Department.
Speaker 4: What exactly Jack Smith is trying to do here?
Speaker 3: I mean this is this is a embarrassing for the
Speaker 3: Justice Department because they are just daring the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: to smack them down. Again. If you read the new indictment,
Speaker 3: it's almost as if they looked only to the letter
Speaker 3: of what the Court said and ignored the spirit of
Speaker 3: what the Court has been telling them. The Court clearly
Speaker 3: wants the prosecution to end, and they gave several examples
Speaker 3: of reasons why the prosecution was flawed. And so what
Speaker 3: jack Smith did is he basically just took like a
Speaker 3: black magic marker and just crossed out exactly those examples
Speaker 3: that the court provided without thinking more broadly about why
Speaker 3: the Court reached It went out of its way to
Speaker 3: smack down the prosecution. So that's you know, it's just
Speaker 3: that's embarrassing for the Jets Department to be treated that way,
Speaker 3: and then for it to respond in this way, which
Speaker 3: I think is just going to invite more losses for
Speaker 3: them in the courts. And then the other thing, the
Speaker 3: Barter point is that this just shows the whole lawfare
Speaker 3: effort by the Democrats, Remember, was an effort to try
Speaker 3: to drive Trump off the November ballot deprive the people
Speaker 3: of their right to make their own judgment about Trump
Speaker 3: and sort decide the election, you know, have it funneled
Speaker 3: through into the courthouse rather than the ballot box. Was
Speaker 3: a complete failure. I mean, I think it cost Trump
Speaker 3: some political points. But on the other hand, I think
Speaker 3: you could make a plausible case that all these prosecutions
Speaker 3: won him the primary. And now you're seeing the cases
Speaker 3: are all collapsing and this is yet another example. And
Speaker 3: then one last point is I think it also shows
Speaker 3: that Biden is not in charge because any you know,
Speaker 3: theoretically Jack Smith works for President Biden and Attorney General
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland. They got to know that this whole thing
Speaker 3: has been a disaster, and yet they're still letting Jack
Speaker 3: Smith run on as if nothing had happened in the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court immunity case. Smith is walking around like, oh,
Speaker 3: we're still going to bring saying basically the same prosecution.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I I do. I think that the point I
Speaker 4: want to there's a lot, there's so much there. But
Speaker 4: the one point I want to bring up immediately is
Speaker 4: when you say that you don't think Biden's in charge, I,
Speaker 4: I honestly do think that there are those at the
Speaker 4: top of the Justice Department, Ray and Garland and so
Speaker 4: forth that really are, regardless of the legal side of things,
Speaker 4: desperate to keep Trump out because I don't think Trump
Speaker 4: is going to be quite as scorched earth about it
Speaker 4: as you and I would probably advise him to be,
Speaker 4: and as I think he should be. But they have
Speaker 4: every reason to worry that he might be. And if
Speaker 4: we I mean, just looking at this nonsense for the
Speaker 4: last couple of days about uh implying that that the
Speaker 4: Russians who spent ten million dollars, you know, you just
Speaker 4: want to do this one million dollars. You know, in
Speaker 4: this Campaignia.
Speaker 3: Lucretia does a wonderful imitation from the Austin Powers of
Speaker 3: the villain in Austin powers and that was Undy.
Speaker 4: I mean seriously, ten million dollars, okay, And how much
Speaker 4: is being spent in this election cycle this time? I
Speaker 4: can't even you know, we're told Kamala ding Dong, Kamalama
Speaker 4: ding Dong's raised three hundred and sixty million in this
Speaker 4: last quarter for her campaign. That doesn't include any kind
Speaker 4: of outside spending as well. Anyway, ten million dollars spent
Speaker 4: by Russia, and the whole implication, of course, is that
Speaker 4: it's being spent to make sure that that Trump wins
Speaker 4: and Harris loses. Crazy idea to begin with, right, But
Speaker 4: they don't talk about Iran's attempt to manipulate our elections.
Speaker 4: They don't talk about China's attempt to manipulate our elections.
Speaker 4: Mister Lucretia of the opinion that this is actually not
Speaker 4: as much about election interference, although it is, it's more
Speaker 4: about yet another pretext for the government to censor what's
Speaker 4: happening on social media by closing down accounts and whatnot. Anyway,
Speaker 4: do they think that Americans are going to be fooled
Speaker 4: into Russia Russia Russia hoax again? And what are they
Speaker 4: thinking to come out with?
Speaker 3: You I'm so this is so embarrassing for the Department
Speaker 3: that they think it's a good idea. I mean, after
Speaker 3: their last experience with Russian elections, you think they would
Speaker 3: keep their head low and just take whatever measures are
Speaker 3: necessary to deter anybody, not just Russia, but China and Iran,
Speaker 3: who are equally malevolent actors. Here and right, he quiet
Speaker 3: about it in public, and I wonder if.
Speaker 4: This came out because you're the host, I shouldn't move
Speaker 4: us to the next subject. But the next subject that
Speaker 4: we were going to discuss was a state of the race.
Speaker 4: You and I disagreed three four weeks ago that about
Speaker 4: whether or not Kam Lama ding Dong's support was really
Speaker 4: as great as it was being made out to be.
Speaker 4: I don't know who's right. She might have had that
Speaker 4: moment momentary, joy and vibe and all of those wonderful
Speaker 4: things on her side, but the polls are clearly showing
Speaker 4: the momentum moving in a different direction.
Speaker 3: Can I, yeah, please, Can I throw in some poll
Speaker 3: numbers to ask you your interpretation. So, just looking at
Speaker 3: the real Clear Politics averages, it has Harris up forty
Speaker 3: eight point three percent to forty six and a half
Speaker 3: so Harris one point eight. In the battleground states, Harris
Speaker 3: is up by point two percent, forty seven point seven
Speaker 3: to forty seven point five. But the real clear politics
Speaker 3: betting odds have Trump up fifty point eight percent to
Speaker 3: Harris forty seven point seven percent, which means I assume
Speaker 3: that's what when people bet these sums about prediction, you know,
Speaker 3: these prediction markets, that's how they're predicting them. So I, Lucas,
Speaker 3: do you think that we've now reached the steady state
Speaker 3: of the race, that there's not going to be any
Speaker 3: significant changes, That all that really happened maybe was that
Speaker 3: Harris made up the ground that Biden lost after his
Speaker 3: disastrous debate performance, but that we're just back to where
Speaker 3: we were before.
Speaker 4: To some extent. So that one. Let me give you
Speaker 4: the most radical tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and that's that
Speaker 4: they consistently use the polls that are tweaked to show
Speaker 4: Harris doing well to create a p text for why
Speaker 4: she wins when they cheat. Okay, we don't have to
Speaker 4: go into that, but I just want to put it
Speaker 4: out there for all of my listeners who believe the
Speaker 4: same thing. What we do know by the way, and
Speaker 4: this is not a conspiracy stuff. What we know is
Speaker 4: that traditionally, even when Trump lost in twenty twenty, the
Speaker 4: polls under undervalued his support by anywhere from from four
Speaker 4: to eight percent in really critical places. I don't remember
Speaker 4: what the difference is between the popular vote, but it's
Speaker 4: it's a little bit less than that. But in battleground
Speaker 4: states and so on, or even places that he won,
Speaker 4: you know, he won by a lot more than the
Speaker 4: polls had predicted. So a lot of people are saying,
Speaker 4: if you look at a national poll, that Harris poll
Speaker 4: that says she Harris is one point eight percent up, Okay,
Speaker 4: that probably means Trump's winning by read a five points.
Speaker 4: And so I think that the whole thing about Russian
Speaker 4: Russian interference in our elections was yet another desperate, desperate
Speaker 4: attempt by our current Justice Department big wigs, not the
Speaker 4: whole thing to try and change the momentum in the
Speaker 4: race again, change the where everybody's paying attention to. You know,
Speaker 4: they've been paying attention to. You mentioned it yourself, We're
Speaker 4: going to tax unrealized gains. When we had our podcast
Speaker 4: about that, what was it maybe two months ago, we
Speaker 4: weren't even thinking about Harris speculating about making that part
Speaker 4: of her campaign promises. We were talking about the Supreme
Speaker 4: Court cases, I recall, and you guys had to explain
Speaker 4: to me how this concept of taxing unrealized gains actually
Speaker 4: works in our in our tax system, and that you
Speaker 4: can actually if you tax unrealized gains, you can tax
Speaker 4: you can claim unrealized losses, but at a much lower level.
Speaker 3: Right anyway, proving it's a hard problem.
Speaker 4: It is a hard problem. Why would you do that?
Speaker 4: And then an interesting thing, let me this is a
Speaker 4: total aside, John, but I interested what you think. So
Speaker 4: the people who attempted to justify what Harris was proposing.
Speaker 4: The idea of taxing unrealized gains is no different than
Speaker 4: a property tax in the sense that when the value
Speaker 4: of your house goes up, they will increase your property
Speaker 4: taxes to follow that value. But the value is unrealized
Speaker 4: unless you sell the house. Correct is the analogy? App
Speaker 4: Let me ask that first.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it is equivalent to a property tax, because
Speaker 3: you think of the property tax is a tax on
Speaker 3: the value of your house now, and so that is
Speaker 3: the idea behind the warrant and propose which Harris you know,
Speaker 3: has endorsed back then. Doesn't sound like she does now,
Speaker 3: but you.
Speaker 4: Never know, U changed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know her ideas like, well, you can uh
Speaker 3: tax the value of your assets stocks and bonds or houses, property,
Speaker 3: even though you haven't bought or sold anything. It's just
Speaker 3: based on what we think the value of it now is. Right,
Speaker 3: here's another just make one point about the capital gains issue,
Speaker 3: is that before you even get to this, you know,
Speaker 3: can you tax people's wealth and property? Right? Uh? You know,
Speaker 3: Trump and Harris have both made have both delivered these
Speaker 3: competing speeches about the economy.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: Yesterday, I actually happened to be on Fox Outnumbered while
Speaker 3: Trump was speaking, and which was kind of it was
Speaker 3: cool to be on the show because it's, you know,
Speaker 3: for beautiful Fox women hosts and one guy and the
Speaker 3: guy sits in the middle, and they kind of gave
Speaker 3: ahead of time. I'd never been on this show, and
Speaker 3: so I was like looking so for an hour, but
Speaker 3: half of the hour got preempted by Trump talking. But
Speaker 3: let me tell listeners, by the way, even though I
Speaker 3: was on the show with these four great Fox hosts,
Speaker 3: four Fox hosts do not want Lucretia May.
Speaker 4: Let's see you watched the episode and I was texting
Speaker 4: you that I was listening to you on Falkner. You
Speaker 4: didn't tell me you were going to be on it
Speaker 4: right afterwards. I would have found a way to watch
Speaker 4: it at work.
Speaker 3: But then it wouldn't have mattered because Trump preempted half
Speaker 3: the show by.
Speaker 4: It doesn't matter watched the other half.
Speaker 3: But here's the here's the key thing. There's a huge
Speaker 3: difference in how they approach the question of capital gains taxes.
Speaker 3: So Trump basically said I want to make the Trump
Speaker 3: tax cuts permanent. They're going to expire no matter who's
Speaker 3: president next year. But then this is interesting. Harris went
Speaker 3: out and said, I'm going to cut capital gains taxes
Speaker 3: for the top, you know, for the innovators and the entrepreneurs,
Speaker 3: right and not increased capital gains tax to forty four percent. Now,
Speaker 3: that actually isn't the capital gains tax right now, that
Speaker 3: is actually what Biden wants it to be. The capital
Speaker 3: gains tax is twenty three I think it's twenty three
Speaker 3: something percent. She still wants to raise it to, you know,
Speaker 3: twenty eight percent or more. And one point that I
Speaker 3: read that was made, which was really interesting to me.
Speaker 3: I had toite forgotten. This just shows how the you know,
Speaker 3: our context has changed. That would be the highest capital
Speaker 3: gains tax rates since before Reagan was president. Like this
Speaker 3: really is dragging us back to the economic policies of
Speaker 3: the nineteen seventies. So even though you know, we've got
Speaker 3: these you know, these sort of polls out and people
Speaker 3: are complaining that we're not having enough of a substance
Speaker 3: of pol discussion, we really did have some very clear
Speaker 3: differences come out this week about Texas and their attitude
Speaker 3: to the economy.
Speaker 4: Okay, it's a start again. I don't know that, but
Speaker 4: do you think that's enough.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's to make any difference in the polls.
Speaker 4: But we do have a debate coming up, and uh,
Speaker 4: you know, the the it's been pretty funny listening to
Speaker 4: people who don't like Kamalama ding Dong make fun of
Speaker 4: her demands because you know, the whole we we talked
Speaker 4: about this when Biden and Trump debated. The Trump campaign
Speaker 4: asked for certain certain rules to be enforced, which everybody thought, uh,
Speaker 4: you know, this was going to help Biden, and they
Speaker 4: actually ended up helping Trump. You know, the mute and
Speaker 4: microphones and then you know this and that because it
Speaker 4: kept him, Yeah, it kept him him uh focused, and
Speaker 4: it kept him a little bit more uh new, serious
Speaker 4: and a little bit less just a kind of thing
Speaker 4: about Trump that some people don't like. Right, So, yeah,
Speaker 4: he was disciplined. That's a good way to put it.
Speaker 4: Kamalama ding Dong doesn't want him to be disciplined because
Speaker 4: she wants him to take out after him so that
Speaker 4: she can say, I'm speaking, I'm speaking. And you know,
Speaker 4: there are people at her young girls at a rally
Speaker 4: wearing at a rallies wearing t shirts that say, I'm
Speaker 4: speaking seriously, it's absolue, I'm speaking, I'm speaking. Yeah, that's
Speaker 4: I guess. I guess if you're a want to be
Speaker 4: feminist that you're Oh, look, the patriarchy isn't isn't keeping
Speaker 4: me from talking?
Speaker 3: Isn't Isn't that a weird? What do you think about this?
Speaker 3: Isn't that a weird? Strategy is to say, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm I'm a woman prosecutor, I'm tough, I'm equal of
Speaker 3: a man. I don't even need to raise that. I'm
Speaker 3: the first would be the first woman president issue. But
Speaker 3: then the tactic at the debate is to try to
Speaker 3: lure your male rival into saying something so that you
Speaker 3: can claim that you are mistreated and vulnerable and right
Speaker 3: like that, like they want him to cross some kind
Speaker 3: of line and they can say complain about it that
Speaker 3: he was being ungentlemanly.
Speaker 4: I guess right, And that might have worked a little
Speaker 4: bit with Pence because Pence cares about those things, but
Speaker 4: Trump doesn't really, you know, and I don't think Trump's
Speaker 4: supporters do. I don't think Trump's supporter's mind a bit
Speaker 4: if he if he talks over Kamla Harrison says you're
Speaker 4: lying when she is, or something like that. But it'll
Speaker 4: be interesting to see how it is. Supposedly she's spending
Speaker 4: a week doing nothing but debate prep because word.
Speaker 3: For Biden too. Yeah, remember Biden also will spend like
Speaker 3: a week preparing for the debate.
Speaker 4: I think he spent a week preparing and sleeping. In
Speaker 4: the case of kamalameding Dong, I think maybe they're trying
Speaker 4: to get her sober over the week. But you know,
Speaker 4: so they're looking for zing's they're looking for her to
Speaker 4: do well. It's hard for me to say what's gonna
Speaker 4: happen because even on the in the unscripted moments lately,
Speaker 4: when she's been so controlled in every aspect. What the
Speaker 4: little tiny things she says when she's speaking off the cup,
Speaker 4: cut off the cuff are just stupid. They're word solid, nonsensical.
Speaker 4: I don't know, but I do think that'll be something
Speaker 4: of a game changer. I think people will probably watch.
Speaker 4: I guess there's something funny going on that ABC has
Speaker 4: a dispute with DirecTV, and millions and millions of Americans
Speaker 4: if they want to watch the debate won't be able
Speaker 4: to do so because they're Direct TV's not broadcasting ABC.
Speaker 4: Right now, there's all this fun stuff going on. I
Speaker 4: can't even keep up with it. I can't, But I
Speaker 4: do believe that Trump is on the ascendancy and will
Speaker 4: probably remain that way unless something changes in the debate,
Speaker 4: because you know, they're trying desperately to make it seem
Speaker 4: as if Trump and Vance are weird. And the more
Speaker 4: stuff that comes out about Walts, some more stuff that
Speaker 4: doesn't come out about Kamalama ding Dong because she has
Speaker 4: no policy views that she's willing to defend. I think
Speaker 4: voters are starting to get tired of it. Only but
Speaker 4: you know, it doesn't matter. Voters who matters are those,
Speaker 4: in my opinion, not terribly bright people in the middle
Speaker 4: who for whatever reason can't make up their minds. I mean,
Speaker 4: how can you not make up your minds at this point?
Speaker 4: Which vision of America you want to see? Right?
Speaker 3: Yeah? How much more information do you need? Well, let
Speaker 3: me ask you, Lucretia, about something that maybe isn't getting
Speaker 3: as much attention as it should, which is a state
Speaker 3: of the Senate races, because that's another important difference. And
Speaker 3: let me run some of these by you. So it
Speaker 3: looks like the Republican candidate in West Virginia is going
Speaker 3: to win handily. I don't think anyone's even considering that
Speaker 3: a contest. But we still have several interesting contests which
Speaker 3: are much closer than you would think if you were
Speaker 3: just reading CNN or the New York Times. So we've
Speaker 3: got pulling out about the state of the race in
Speaker 3: Montana it's very close, Ohio also very close, Pennsylvania much
Speaker 3: closer than seems to be reported. And then the state
Speaker 3: where you're sitting right now, Arizona, apparently is much closer
Speaker 3: than is being reported. So what do you think or
Speaker 3: what do you what do you? What do you think's
Speaker 3: going on? Why are these Senate races now not just
Speaker 3: we'll put differently, the Senate race races look very favorable
Speaker 3: for Republicans right now.
Speaker 4: They do.
Speaker 3: They are closing the gap. Even if they didn't win
Speaker 3: any of these other states. Senate control should shift because
Speaker 3: of West Virginia flipping.
Speaker 4: But yes, because right now it's forty nine. Yeah, it's
Speaker 4: forty nine safe seats or not out for grabs for Republicans.
Speaker 3: And they will get West Virginia. So all they gotta
Speaker 3: do is win one of these other states and they'll
Speaker 3: firm up a majority. What's happening? Why the shift and
Speaker 3: last few days towards these all these Republican candidates and
Speaker 3: the race is getting much closer.
Speaker 4: I think there's a couple of things going on. I
Speaker 4: think Trump being I mean, Trump went to campaign, as
Speaker 4: I think we talked about a previous one in Montana.
Speaker 4: He'll win Montana handily, but he went there to campaign
Speaker 4: for Shihi. And he's in those places where Trump is
Speaker 4: popular but the Democrat was winning or it's a Democrat incumbent.
Speaker 4: Those places are the places that you're seeing Trump move
Speaker 4: excuse me the Republican candidate move up. Remember Trump lost
Speaker 4: Arizona last time by eleven thousand votes. No comment, But
Speaker 4: right now he's the poll say he's approximately five points
Speaker 4: ahead in Arizona. Carrie Lake, who's running for the Senate
Speaker 4: against Ruman Gago, is in the latest poll, the latest
Speaker 4: poll only three points behind, whereas last week Fox newshead
Speaker 4: are like ten points behind. Trump has been there campaigning
Speaker 4: with carry Lake beside him every single time. He's been
Speaker 4: here a couple times lately. I do think that Trump
Speaker 4: is gonna have some coattails. I really do. Now, it's
Speaker 4: gonna be tough in some places where you're gonna have
Speaker 4: voters who are gonna split their ticket on purpose. That
Speaker 4: does happen sometimes it's hard. I can't even understand that one.
Speaker 4: But I'd vote for Trump, but I want to make
Speaker 4: sure that the Democrats hold him accountable. Who makes that
Speaker 4: kind of decision, but supposedly some people do. Anyway, If
Speaker 4: if Trump wins Arizona, he's at fifty. If Trump wins
Speaker 4: Arizona and Montana, I shouldn't say Republicans are at fifty
Speaker 4: fifty one if they win in Ohio and Sharad Brown,
Speaker 4: I have to bring this up. I told John I
Speaker 4: was going to do it. So, you know, the joke
Speaker 4: always going around about how Democrats are are very good
Speaker 4: at getting dead people out to vote on their behalf. Now,
Speaker 4: how do you say, is it Shared or Sharad.
Speaker 3: Bared Brown?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Okay, Shared Brown have been being accused by the
Speaker 4: Federal Election Commission, incredibly accused of accepting donations from a
Speaker 4: woman who's been dead since December of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 4: And so the Democrats weren' content just with getting dead
Speaker 4: people to vote. Now they're going to have dead people
Speaker 4: who are donating money as well. Actually, I want to
Speaker 4: stop there for just a second, go off on a tangent.
Speaker 4: After kam Lamma ding Dong was handed coronated as the
Speaker 4: Democratic nominee by Biden, or however it really happened, you know,
Speaker 4: supposedly once she went spoke at Biden headquarters. That was
Speaker 4: her first rally that she went up, and that the
Speaker 4: Biden campaign, excuse me, the Harris campaign raised some god
Speaker 4: awful amount in forty eight hours, more money than had
Speaker 4: ever been raised in such a short amount of time
Speaker 4: in the history of ever. But then there were allegations
Speaker 4: that that really wasn't quite the whole story. I do
Speaker 4: think that amount of money was raised, but that it
Speaker 4: was in fact raised by some shenanigans whereby money was
Speaker 4: basically laundered through small time donors. Did you see any
Speaker 4: anything about that, John.
Speaker 3: I didn't see that, but I'm not surprised that happened.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I guess there's all.
Speaker 3: Election finances basically an exercise and money.
Speaker 4: Launcher in money laundering.
Speaker 3: True enough.
Speaker 4: But anyway, so the Democrats will do what they need
Speaker 4: to do to raise the money. Whether money will be enough,
Speaker 4: I think there's no doubt that even though Trump's doing
Speaker 4: pretty well on the fundraising, Kam Lama ding Dong will
Speaker 4: outraise him and outspend him. I don't know if that
Speaker 4: always matters all that much. I mean, if you think
Speaker 4: about Obama winning in two thousand and eight, he outspent
Speaker 4: McCain by what seven times something like that? Seven times? Yeah,
Speaker 4: enormous amount of money.
Speaker 3: And Hilary Hillary outspent Trump, right, I mean, Trump barely
Speaker 3: had any money in twenty sixteen, right, And.
Speaker 4: So I'm I'm feeling a little bit more optimistic all
Speaker 4: the time. Missouri is obviously going you know, there's no
Speaker 4: doubt that Holly's gonna win, I don't think. But you've
Speaker 4: also got in your state. What about your friend Casey,
Speaker 4: He's considered a toss up. I mean Casey's you look.
Speaker 3: At the real clear Yeah, you look at the real
Speaker 3: clear politics average, it's only plus three Casey. And he's
Speaker 3: a long time incumbent. And not just that, but his
Speaker 3: father was a very popular governor of the state. I
Speaker 3: mean he was the Casey of planned parenthood versus Casey.
Speaker 3: He was one of the last, maybe the last prominent
Speaker 3: pro life Democrat politician in the country. And so for
Speaker 3: Casey to be only three points ahead, he's going to
Speaker 3: be running scared.
Speaker 4: Yes, And Bernie Marino, right, that's who's running against Casey,
Speaker 4: Bernie marine.
Speaker 3: No, the guy running against Casey is a Pennsylvania native
Speaker 3: who then his name is McCormick, who then went.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, who had against.
Speaker 3: One of the big Yeah. He ran against Oz lost
Speaker 3: by just a few hundred votes. And you know he's
Speaker 3: it raged guy. I mean, he's very six. Well, he
Speaker 3: was in the army, then he became the head of
Speaker 3: one of the biggest hedge funds in New York, came
Speaker 3: back home to run for Senate. The accusation that Casey's
Speaker 3: flinging at him is that, you know, he's a corporate
Speaker 3: vulture who's really an out of towner. But Casey, I mean,
Speaker 3: can anyone name anything Casey's done or stood for a
Speaker 3: Senator kenn He's just living off his dad's political name
Speaker 3: here in Pennsylvania. So that's a very strong potential pick up.
Speaker 3: McCormick's running a very good race here, I think in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And I mean there's depending on how much you
Speaker 4: trust the polls, we could see an absolute red wave.
Speaker 4: I honestly believe that, and that has to be scaring
Speaker 4: them more than anything else. The idea, I mean, remember,
Speaker 4: I think that whatever else is the case, that if
Speaker 4: the powers that be in the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 4: and so on, went there and said, look down ballot,
Speaker 4: you've got to get out down, Democrats are more likely to,
Speaker 4: you know, to take a blood bath hahaha here. And
Speaker 4: it looks like that might happen anyway, because I don't
Speaker 4: think kam Lam ding Dong has any coattails whatsoever. How
Speaker 4: could she. She hasn't done any of the work necessary
Speaker 4: to build any of those relationships, those networks and so on.
Speaker 4: She just has to rely upon the Democratic Party apparatus.
Speaker 3: Right, It's hard to see candidates and places like Montana
Speaker 3: or even Pennsylvania running for Senate trying to hitch their
Speaker 3: wagon tour. If anything, they'd want to distance themselves so far.
Speaker 3: But you know, we're running out of time, unfortunately. So
Speaker 3: let me raise one last issue that extends our discussion
Speaker 3: of prudence from last episode. We listeners, I don't know
Speaker 3: how you sat through the whole thing, but we went deep,
Speaker 3: deep dive into the idea of prudence. And one thing
Speaker 3: we did is we sparked a letter from Hadley Arcis
Speaker 3: two letters. I'm sorry too, that's right. There was a
Speaker 3: first letter and then there was a follow up letter
Speaker 3: responding to Lucretia specifically. And let me, I want to
Speaker 3: give Lucretia the opportunity to respond to Hadley, because that's
Speaker 3: what Hadley mostly commented on, was about Lucretia's comments because
Speaker 3: he thought me not worthy, not really worthy of discussion,
Speaker 3: given my defensive utilitarianism. I don't blame Hadley, but Hadley,
Speaker 3: if I could put it briefly, and I'm only summarizing
Speaker 3: what he wrote, to Steve and Lucretia, but he basically
Speaker 3: took them to task for their view that what Trump
Speaker 3: might be doing. And this is Trump saying that he
Speaker 3: would let the states decide the abortion issue. This is
Speaker 3: a response to Vance saying that Trump would veto a
Speaker 3: national ban on abortion front that would come out of Congress. So,
Speaker 3: if you remember listeners, Lucretia made the argument that Trump
Speaker 3: was acting prudently because this isn't even though Trump may
Speaker 3: bee pro life, in the end, he has to act
Speaker 3: within the political context as it is to keep moving
Speaker 3: towards that goal that you can't win one hundred percent
Speaker 3: all at once. You have to take steps that you
Speaker 3: can get now and then eventually, over time persuade the
Speaker 3: American people to change their own views to yours. Hadley
Speaker 3: took that seemed quite sensible to me, actually, and I
Speaker 3: thought we had no disagreement about that, no matter how
Speaker 3: we thought about prudence. That just seems like the right
Speaker 3: political way to go. And Lucretia invoked Lincoln for you know,
Speaker 3: as another example of someone who carried this out. Had
Speaker 3: They said, however, in his letter, and I don't mean it,
Speaker 3: but any words in his mouth, I'm just trying to
Speaker 3: fairly summarize. We said it was that this was inact
Speaker 3: comparison to Lincoln, that this was not prudent, because he said,
Speaker 3: Trump is making a serious mistake. This is not prudence,
Speaker 3: saying that the right way to achieve a pro life
Speaker 3: goal was to make these kinds of compromises, but that
Speaker 3: this was some kind of there's a moral disaster actually
Speaker 3: that you're conceding. I think, have those saying that you're
Speaker 3: conceding on the moral correctness of the pro life view,
Speaker 3: and then therefore it's a mistake to compromise on the
Speaker 3: abortion issue, just like he would say, you couldn't. Lincoln
Speaker 3: could never have compromised on whether an African American was
Speaker 3: an equal human being entitled to the same natural rights
Speaker 3: that all of us have. So, Lucretia, what's your response
Speaker 3: to Hadlee? What is your what is your view? Has
Speaker 3: he caused you to change what you were?
Speaker 4: I honestly think that because this is a complicated, a
Speaker 4: complicated argument, set of arguments that we made more complicated
Speaker 4: by bringing in what we you know, what you and
Speaker 4: I actually thought might help us understand the issue better.
Speaker 4: Talking about Churchill talking about those sorts of things, Yeah,
Speaker 4: got us away from my central point, and my central
Speaker 4: point was way back to the original tweets back and
Speaker 4: forth between Seth Dylan from Babylon B and me where
Speaker 4: he actually was the one who invoked Lincoln and said
Speaker 4: Trump can't take the position, he cannot do that. How
Speaker 4: can we vote for somebody call him pro life when
Speaker 4: he takes a position that it is up to the
Speaker 4: states to decide if they want abortion or not. And
Speaker 4: that was what caused me to come back and say,
Speaker 4: that's exactly what Lincoln did, and you know, to talk
Speaker 4: about the prudential decisions that Lincoln made than when we
Speaker 4: had our discussion about it last week. Again we went
Speaker 4: off in a lot of different things, ended up what
Speaker 4: I thought was a very interesting discussion about prudence. But
Speaker 4: my argument from to Seth Dillon and the one that
Speaker 4: I was going to try to carry out a little
Speaker 4: bit further in our podcast last week, was that the
Speaker 4: voters would be imprudent if they were pro life, strong
Speaker 4: pro life, life begins at conception, pro life voters that
Speaker 4: if they were to fail to support Trump, that could
Speaker 4: mean a lot of things, not vote for Trump, not
Speaker 4: support him, not praise him for the pro life steps,
Speaker 4: he has taken all the way to voting for Kamala
Speaker 4: Harris instead. Now I don't know that Seth Dylan was
Speaker 4: ever advocating for the latter option. But my point is
Speaker 4: that a pro life voter has no choice whatsoever but
Speaker 4: to vote for Trump because the opposite, and this is
Speaker 4: what I said to Hadley, the opposite would be very
Speaker 4: much like had Lincoln not one in eighteen sixty, what
Speaker 4: might have happened with the question of slavery. Would we
Speaker 4: have had a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision
Speaker 4: which Lincoln said, we were well on our way toward,
Speaker 4: much like Roe versus Wade, where slavery became legal in
Speaker 4: all the states and all the territories. That was essentially
Speaker 4: the direction that dred Scott put us in. So my
Speaker 4: comparison was the radical abolitionists were not happy with Lincoln
Speaker 4: because he was not advocating radical abolitionism. They were unhappy
Speaker 4: Frederick Douglas others were unhappy that m.
Speaker 3: Lloyd Darson said terrible about Lincoln.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, but if you're a voter choosing between in
Speaker 4: a binary a life, you choose this versus that, that's
Speaker 4: the prudential thing. To do is to vote for Trump.
Speaker 4: I also think Harry, excuse me, Hadley called me to
Speaker 4: task for not fully appreciating all of the faults of
Speaker 4: Trump's supposedly pro abortion argument, the moral deficiencies of his
Speaker 4: understanding of the case against abortion and the case for
Speaker 4: an unborn child from the moment of conception being a
Speaker 4: human being. I did agree with everything he said there,
Speaker 4: but it was beside the point as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 4: You know, Trump, he said, didn't adequately fight against the
Speaker 4: partial birth abortion legislation here or there. It did this,
Speaker 4: it did that, I said, Hadley, you're the one who
Speaker 4: said the place to start is to come out against
Speaker 4: partial birth abortion. Why because most most Americans, most Americans,
Speaker 4: except the just really vile sort of human beings like
Speaker 4: at planned parenthood, believe that a baby born alive in
Speaker 4: a botched abortion should be should be given, should be
Speaker 4: considered a life right, whether whatever you think about it
Speaker 4: before that five weeks, fifteen weeks at conception. To have
Speaker 4: a baby in a bodged abortion be born alive and
Speaker 4: left there to die is I mean, it's cruel, it's gruesome.
Speaker 4: There's no words to describe it. Had they got me
Speaker 4: for not going far enough, because the actual issue at
Speaker 4: hand was not partial birth abortion. It was a baby
Speaker 4: born alive and left to die. Okay, All of those
Speaker 4: things to me are points you bring in the political
Speaker 4: argument to move hearts and minds against abortion, and that's
Speaker 4: I think that if I'm a pro life voter and
Speaker 4: that is the most important issue for me, I vote
Speaker 4: for Trump. But I also helped Trump to understand that
Speaker 4: because of he got my vote, he can take a
Speaker 4: more pro life stance. I think in some ways that's
Speaker 4: what Lincoln was able to do. Over time, he changed
Speaker 4: public opinion, and as public opinion changed, he moved more
Speaker 4: and more in the direction of being able to get
Speaker 4: eventually to the point of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. And
Speaker 4: we'll go into the thirteenth Minument because it takes us
Speaker 4: really far afield. But that was my argument and the difference,
Speaker 4: the real only difference between you and me, John was
Speaker 4: talking about the ends versus the means and how we
Speaker 4: characterize the means. Right. Is that not a fair thing.
Speaker 3: That you're because I was trying to say that the
Speaker 3: ends and means are not linked, and you were saying
Speaker 3: they were.
Speaker 4: And I guess I would say that a cost benefit
Speaker 4: I'm going to put it in the stargus terms possible.
Speaker 4: A cost benefit analysis would say, what's the most effective
Speaker 4: that you put all the adjectives in you want, like
Speaker 4: least costly, et cetera, et cetera, means to get to
Speaker 4: this particular end, and whatever that end is, we should
Speaker 4: do the smart thing to get there. The difference between
Speaker 4: that and prudence. If I could be oversimplified one more
Speaker 4: time and get I got as many negative comments, by
Speaker 4: the way as you did that time, John, I really did.
Speaker 3: Well, there's a first for everything.
Speaker 4: And positive ones for you. That's a second flare with
Speaker 4: your loyally way of looking at things that I was
Speaker 4: in my trunk tied blind but really quickly. If let
Speaker 4: me do do this as an example, if Trump really
Speaker 4: wanted to win in order to advance the pro life cause,
Speaker 4: the thing to do would be to have to send
Speaker 4: the National Guard out to blow up all the planned parenthoods,
Speaker 4: and then you'd be done with that part of it
Speaker 4: and you could move on. Right, they'd stop being able
Speaker 4: to spend money. Why would that not be prudent?
Speaker 3: That's that's true.
Speaker 4: I would, But I mean, there's a couple of reasons.
Speaker 4: One would be it might my backfire, but the other
Speaker 4: would be it would be wrong. Right.
Speaker 3: So that's so that's a different argument I took you
Speaker 3: to make. So last time I took you to make
Speaker 3: the argument that prudence really only applies to people who
Speaker 3: have just goals in mind. So that like it would
Speaker 3: so just you know, put sorry, Like it's not possible
Speaker 3: for the Soviets to act prudently during the Cold War
Speaker 3: because they just have evil motives in the end, or
Speaker 3: evil's wrong, unjust, unjust.
Speaker 4: Okay, So there's an opening for me because I actually
Speaker 4: saw the Ragged movie.
Speaker 3: Ah, I haven't seen it yet.
Speaker 4: I haven't been to a movie. People talk about not
Speaker 4: having been to a movie pre COVID. I have not
Speaker 4: been to a movie at the theater in probably ten
Speaker 4: years because I hate going to the theaters. And I'm
Speaker 4: reminded again why I hate so much going to the theaters.
Speaker 4: And we're going to that. But the movie does an
Speaker 4: interesting thing with Gorbachev and actually shows how Gorbachev has
Speaker 4: different motivations. He's still pro Mother Russia, pro Soviet, all
Speaker 4: those other things, but you see that because he had
Speaker 4: some notion of justice however tweaked or perverted or whatever
Speaker 4: you might say. It was he could talk to Reagan
Speaker 4: where the other people couldn't, and Reagan could talk to him.
Speaker 4: And so I do think that you want to say
Speaker 4: it's the people I believe have a just end in mind,
Speaker 4: That's not it. But it is someone who is seeking
Speaker 4: a just end. And most people that seek a just
Speaker 4: end are wrong about it, a little bit wrong, a
Speaker 4: lot wrong. But to seek justice and then to seek
Speaker 4: the means that get you there, that's what I would
Speaker 4: call prudence, as opposed to simply seeking an end and
Speaker 4: whatever means get you there. Does that fair? I mean
Speaker 4: you may not agree with that, I understand.
Speaker 3: I understand no, and I understand your point. I just
Speaker 3: I think then that's why I was saying, you need
Speaker 3: to it would be worth having a fuller discussion of
Speaker 3: what prudence is because to me, it seems you could
Speaker 3: have someone who you disagree with, but they could act
Speaker 3: prudently to achieve their own goals, and you would say no.
Speaker 3: So I would say, could a pro choice person act prudently?
Speaker 3: I think you would say no, not possible.
Speaker 4: I think I could say yes because what I what
Speaker 4: I said before their view of justice is in fact,
Speaker 4: in at least some of them. Some of the people
Speaker 4: who are pro choice, I think, have been duped into
Speaker 4: believing that somehow a woman's choice to do what she
Speaker 4: wants to do with her own body is somehow some
Speaker 4: great an end, and they could they could have prudential
Speaker 4: means of achieving that end versus you know what they
Speaker 4: really do, which is to shut down any conversation about
Speaker 4: it and so on. I do think that that's the thing.
Speaker 4: I can't tell you this is a just end or
Speaker 4: an unjust and with any finality, I can certainly give
Speaker 4: my opinion about it, You can give yours. We can
Speaker 4: deliberate about it, maybe we get closer, but we can
Speaker 4: look at some ends and say those are unjust. The
Speaker 4: ends of wanting to impose sharia law on a Western
Speaker 4: democracy is unjust, and anything that those scum Islamic fundamentalists
Speaker 4: due to affect that end is by definition unjust and
Speaker 4: not prudent. Does that make sense?
Speaker 3: I do understand what you mean. We are going to
Speaker 3: have to end the show, though, because we're about to
Speaker 3: launch into a whole nother hour.
Speaker 4: That's and you have places to be and things to do.
Speaker 3: John well, I'm in the American Political Science Association, where
Speaker 3: you should be because you're actually the political scientist, not me,
Speaker 3: And I'm here to at the Union League of Philadelphia,
Speaker 3: which is one of the great historical sites. I recommend
Speaker 3: people stop by. It has a great route. It was
Speaker 3: founded by supporters of the Union in eighteen sixty two
Speaker 3: and has a great a series of portraits, historical historical things.
Speaker 3: It has wonderful paintings. That has a room dedicated to
Speaker 3: Abraham Lincoln with a statue of Lincoln and the Gettysburg
Speaker 3: address inscribed in the well. Was really beautiful room. And
Speaker 3: so the Cleremont Institute is having its reception for the
Speaker 3: APSA here tonight and then tomorrow will have a panel
Speaker 3: about the Supreme Court with Claremont friends. And I always
Speaker 3: tag along as the loyal Opposi, the loyal opposite opposing
Speaker 3: positivist in all this and happy to play a role
Speaker 3: not just on the three whiskey happy Hour, but at
Speaker 3: political conventions everywhere.
Speaker 4: Well, you ought to. You never actually talk about the
Speaker 4: other role that you play, which is the resident conservative
Speaker 4: at a place like Berkeley. And you know, because I
Speaker 4: also think that would be an interesting role for you.
Speaker 4: To play and you probably you probably play that one
Speaker 4: more often, right, all the time, one per One thing
Speaker 4: I will say is that I've seen this, this is
Speaker 4: a new theme coming out that the Maga crowd, shall
Speaker 4: we say, is much more accepting of people who believe
Speaker 4: some of what they believe, who share some of their
Speaker 4: beliefs than the leftist crowd is of people who share
Speaker 4: ninety eight percent of their beliefs and disagree with them
Speaker 4: about two percent. And I would imagine that you will
Speaker 4: find yourself much more welcomed by the Claremont crowd than
Speaker 4: you are by your strident liberals most of the time.
Speaker 3: And it's true. I think conservatives have become far more
Speaker 3: tolerant than progressives, and you see it at the university
Speaker 3: every day.
Speaker 4: And let's I'm just gonna say a part of that
Speaker 4: is because we're willing to talk about it. We're willing
Speaker 4: to have an argument, we're willing to have a debate,
Speaker 4: We're willing to discuss things with someone we disagree with,
Speaker 4: and the left is not.
Speaker 3: In many cases, I think is conservatives are not sure,
Speaker 3: they're ever sure they're right, and progressives are always convinced
Speaker 3: they're right. So if you're always right, and you have
Speaker 3: why would you buyples?
Speaker 4: What do you need?
Speaker 3: A discussion for Sofasia We always end with the Babylon
Speaker 3: B headlines of the week. What's your favorite Babylon B headlines?
Speaker 4: Oh? My favorite? That's not fair. I've got a couple.
Speaker 4: Trump prepares for debate against Kamala Meedingdong by going to
Speaker 4: bar and arguing with drunks.
Speaker 3: One of these days, you're gonna have to explain to
Speaker 3: me this meme about Harris being a drunk.
Speaker 4: It's a meme. I actually don't know if it's true.
Speaker 4: I think part of it is based upon the fact
Speaker 4: that she she just comes off like such a moron,
Speaker 4: you know, the cackle and the inappropriate cackle at points. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 4: so yeah, it's there's always.
Speaker 3: People forget this is not that she's drunk. She's just Canadian.
Speaker 4: Maybe that's it. But I didn't know any Canadians that
Speaker 4: The first thing I thought of them is that they
Speaker 4: were drunk. Okay, after motorcade involved in fender bender, Well
Speaker 4: was that all about? Tim Waltz adds purple heart to resume.
Speaker 4: You'd like that one. Just a couple more. Uh, it's
Speaker 4: a picture of Hillary Clinton and it says, grizzled veteran
Speaker 4: comes out of retirement for one last Russian Russian collusion hoax.
Speaker 4: Oh and we didn't even get to it this time.
Speaker 4: F Sorry, it just disappeared. FBI says they were just
Speaker 4: about to get the school shooter, but they had to
Speaker 4: take care of a few dangerous pro life protesters first.
Speaker 4: We didn't even talk about that whole thing. Maybe next
Speaker 4: time because it'll still be in it. Hamas excited to
Speaker 4: learn killing Israeli somehow makes Biden condemn Israel took a second,
Speaker 4: U tangent for a real quick second. You know that meta,
Speaker 4: the meta what's it? The their their censorship board, Yeah, Facebook,
Speaker 4: but their censorship board came out and said that no,
Speaker 4: from the River to the Sea is not hate speech,
Speaker 4: which you know, I am generally in favor of. Uh,
Speaker 4: it is hate speech, but it shouldn't be banned. No,
Speaker 4: I'm generally in favor of a lot hate speech because
Speaker 4: I don't believe right, that's what I meant to say. However,
Speaker 4: I think I think this is clever of me, and
Speaker 4: I'm not very often clever, you know, Steve, he's a
Speaker 4: clever one. But I came up with if every time
Speaker 4: you see from the River to the Sea posted on Facebook,
Speaker 4: you should write from the River to the Sea full
Speaker 4: Israeli sovereignty. Can you imagine if I went out to
Speaker 4: ol hamas protest and started yelling that I think I'm
Speaker 4: gonna do it? Okay, Final stop foreigners meddling in our
Speaker 4: elections says Party inviting foreigners to medal in elections, And that,
Speaker 4: of course is a picture of a Chuck Schumer arguing
Speaker 4: that we can't have the Save our Elections Act or
Speaker 4: whatever it is that they're going to put in the
Speaker 4: Continuing Resolution to stop illegal aliens from voting in our elections.
Speaker 4: Do you think we need that law, John.
Speaker 3: Well, they're not allowed to as it is. I mean,
Speaker 3: the only citizens can vote in elections.
Speaker 4: That's not in federal elections, that's true.
Speaker 3: Oh you mean state and local? Well, you know, I
Speaker 3: actually do think the states should be allowed to make
Speaker 3: their own decisions on that. I mean I do. I'm
Speaker 3: a federalist. A federalist on that one.
Speaker 4: I rather see a deeper philosophical issue there.
Speaker 3: Oh well, I'm just being as you often accuse me,
Speaker 3: I'm just being a stray positivist about it or constitution
Speaker 3: just constitution just gives that to the states to decide
Speaker 3: in non federal elections, So let them. I'd have to
Speaker 3: think about it some more because to me, that's just
Speaker 3: a policy question.
Speaker 4: It is a policy question, and whether or not the
Speaker 4: question is whether it needs to be done. You say
Speaker 4: that that it already that they can't. But remember it
Speaker 4: is states that that create the the requirements for voting.
Speaker 4: That it's each state gets to decide. Other than the nineteenth,
Speaker 4: twenty fifth, thirteen, fourteenth, fifteenth amendments, did I miss one,
Speaker 4: twenty second, twenty third, the poll tax, the eighteen year old,
Speaker 4: the nineteen the women voting and the people voting not
Speaker 4: can not be denied on account of race. All of
Speaker 4: those restrict the states. But otherwise they can actually put
Speaker 4: a lot of restrictions or a lot of liberties in place.
Speaker 4: They could, in fact, I think, allow illegal aliens to
Speaker 4: vote in federal elections unless you know of a law
Speaker 4: that says they can't.
Speaker 3: Oh no, no, I believe it's the case. In federal
Speaker 3: elections aliens are not allowed to vote.
Speaker 4: According to what though?
Speaker 3: So I think I thought there was a statute, but
Speaker 3: it's also is it not in the constitution?
Speaker 4: No, it's not.
Speaker 3: Really. Really, I have to go look at that thing again.
Speaker 4: The Constitution.
Speaker 3: Let's defer that to next.
Speaker 4: Okay, we can, but but but my simple answer this
Speaker 4: is where you have to come back and correct me
Speaker 4: if I'm wrong. My simple answer is, other than those
Speaker 4: four amendments, the Constitution leaves voting eligibility.
Speaker 3: Right about vote. Most of voting is up to this,
Speaker 3: most of most of the running of elections are up
Speaker 3: to the states.
Speaker 4: Right, you really campaign finance where the federal government has
Speaker 4: gotten involved, correct?
Speaker 3: I mean, although the election finance laws don't apply to
Speaker 3: state and local elections.
Speaker 4: I got a great idea. And then then you can
Speaker 4: close out. Instead of having Steve back next time, let's
Speaker 4: have Allison back.
Speaker 3: Oh I was worried you were going to say let's
Speaker 3: have Hadley because I want to see him. Okay, well,
Speaker 3: every way that brings to a close our Steve Hayward
Speaker 3: less episode of The three Happy Hour. Please in the
Speaker 3: reader's comments, of which there were many last week. Apparently
Speaker 3: I don't read them. Tell us whether you like the
Speaker 3: Steve list format, do we need hey We're back at all?
Speaker 4: Should he you miss the historical analogies.
Speaker 3: Where he talks all by himself straight for an hour.
Speaker 3: Do we need to have more people? Should it be
Speaker 3: more than the three of us? Let us know your
Speaker 3: thoughts on the lineup this week, let us know what
Speaker 3: we should be telling Steve about his absence, and let
Speaker 3: us know how the three Whiskey Happy Hour is doing.
Speaker 3: Thank everybody. See you next week, Lucretia.
Speaker 4: See you next week, John, have a good time with
Speaker 4: my friends at Claremont.
Speaker 1: Bye everybody.
Speaker 2: So you think expony.
Speaker 4: Is, it's far not too y.
Speaker 3: Say all things.
Speaker 1: Nobody who is in your fam?
Speaker 3: Right? Right, you're bloody well right.
Speaker 4: You gotta bloody right to say right, you're Paddy well right.
Speaker 3: You know you got a right to.
Speaker 2: Say you Paddy well right.
Speaker 3: You know you're right to say.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah you Pladdy weather Day.
Speaker 3: You know Ricochet Join the conversation.
Speaker 4: Mm hm