Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Were
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist
and David Harsani, senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Just
as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
Hey Molly. Last week when we were on, just as
we were on, a story broke about the ice shooting
in Minnesota of a I think i'll call her, an
activist named Renee Good by an Ice agent. It was
a huge story. Everyone was on the internet doing forensic
investigations of the video, you know what I mean, and
a big argument broke out about whether the shooting was
justified legally or not. What was your first reaction when
you saw that?
Speaker 2: Oh? Well, first reaction is just how awful it is
to see because you know, the way the story broke
is that people were posting video and I don't care
who these people are, It's just awful to see someone
get shot and killed. I don't want to see things
like that, and I don't like how it in this case.
It just kept coming over and over and over again,
and so it was hard to watch for the reason
of just loving your fellow man and hating to see
a violent loss of life. And then it became something
that you had to keep watching again because of what
you just said. Everyone had decided that they knew exactly
what was in the mind of both of the ICE
agent who shot the activist and the activist who was
in the car, and there were so many details in
play that were newsworthy that I had to keep watching
it just to kind of get a feel for what
had happened. Not great, but it's weird also to have
so much video from so many different angles of something
like this, and further reporting that explains this situation. So
ICE is carrying out efforts to enforce our country's immigration
laws throughout the country, but in certain states they get
assistance from local and state government, and in other places
they get actual opposition and hostility, which just blows me
away that it's like the segregated South or something that
we're dealing with of certain governments actually trying to fight
federal agents as they enforce the country's laws, and it's
been kind of tolerated in a weird way that clearly
is leading to people getting hurt or killed. But anyway,
Minnesota is one of those places where the government of
Minnesota is trying to be hostile style to the federal
government's law enforcement efforts, and so they're having to kind
of ramp up the federal enforcement. And I just want
to say a lot of people are like, why are
they sending federal agents to Minnesota to enforce immigration laws?
Which is kind of surprising to me that that's even
a question. ICE has had a presence in Minnesota for
decades since ICE was formed in the I believe poorly
designed Patriot Act, and they're having to ramp up there
because of the hostility from the other government. Sorry, I'm
getting too far afield, but I feel like sometimes the
background is important. And then there are really well coordinated,
well funded volunteer efforts to interfere with law enforcement, and
they're very open and honest about it. We are trying
to interfere with law enforcement, and that has also been
tolerated in a weird way that it just does not
make sense to me. And Renee Good was part of
this activist network of people trying to interfere with lawful
with law enforcement that is engaged in lawful proceedings.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree with all that, I think that the
hysteria around iis in some sense caused this. People feel
licensed to just act against law enforcement in ways that
are incredibly dangerous for themselves. I unlike most people. I
don't know if the ICE agent was legally justified in shooting,
but I think that a few things can be true.
At once. Renee Good acted very poorly. She was, obviously,
from what we've learned later, intent on disrupting law enforcement efforts.
Hitting the gas on your car when you're surrounded by cops,
I don't care what kind of cops they are, is
going to end tragically, probably for you in most cases.
And her actions were completely irresponsible. Was that like, I'm
not a thousand per se even though my instinct is
to side with the officer, because you know, everyone's slow
mowing the video, I don't. I think that doesn't benefit
the ICE agent When you slow mow it down. It
looks like he has all this time to think about
what's going on, but he really doesn't. He's making a
split second decision about whether he's in imminent danger or not.
I don't know if he was or not, but he's
not the person who created that situation. When people say, oh, what,
like you mentioned, why are they even there. Well, they're
there because they we passed laws, and we have those laws,
and we have an agency that is a law enforcement
agency whose purview is to enforce those laws, and that's
why they're there. You know, if you don't like it,
you have to go to your politician overturn those laws,
go to court if they're doing something you think is illegal.
Then there's this whole thing where the people who are
sure it was murder keep calling it murder. She was executed,
she was assassinated. You know, this is just nonsense. It's
clear to me. I don't think she trying to run
him over. Frankly, I think she was just trying to
get away or something from what I've seen. I also
don't think it's in any way a murder. I think,
you know, there's this officer felt in danger. I think
that that's fair to say. So, I don't know. Those
were my feelings on it. I think it's tragic. I
think a lot of this has to do with this,
I don't know, misplaced anger and activism against ICE. Yeah,
do some ICE agents probably behave poorly? Yeah? We always
you know, it's not utopia and people act in ways
they shouldn't. But in this case, it seems to me
it was just something tragic that happened, fueled by anti
ICE hysteria.
Speaker 2: We've had so many incidences of left wing activists, prompted
by the leaders of their of the Democrat Party and
the left wing movements in general, going to ICE facilities
or going to ICE operations, attempting to harm ICE officers.
There was so there was the killing down in Texas
where a left wing activist went on the roof of
an ICE building or some building and tried to kill
ICE agents and accidentally killed two illegal immigrants that were
in detention with ICE. But that doesn't change the fact
that he was trying to murder ICE agents and just
managed to murder his beloved illegal immigrants. There have been,
you know, in La there were efforts to cause physical
harm to ICE agents who have Antifa outposts in Texas again,
who have been trying to kill ICE agents. So it's
not like it's going to become a problem. It's been
a problem all year, and I'm a little frustrated with
the DOJ which has no problem going after every like
depressed uncle and elderly grandma who entered the Capitol and
destroying their lives, but for some reason hasn't really done
anything on Antifa and other left wing domestic terrorist organizations
like this one that is giving people instructions on how
to disrupt law enforcement. And Jade Vance spoke at a
press conference last week, and I really appreciated what he
had to say. It's very simple, but he was saying,
if you don't like our country's immigration laws, you have
every right to protest them. If you don't like the
way that we are enforcing those laws, you have every
right to protest them. And that is First Amendment protected activity.
And interfering with law enforcement is not First Amendment protected activity.
Because you hear some people in the media and other
Democrats be like she was a protester, Well, what she
was doing was not protesting. It was interfering with law
enforcement activity. And there's not a place in the world
where you get to do that without consequences. And I'm
not saying it should be a capital offense to do this,
but she was in her car, she was with her
very aggressive partner who was telling her to drive, who
herself said I'm the like I'm to blame her for
her getting shot, because I was the one like doing
all this stuff to get her to do this. She
was aggressive, she was in a vehicle, which is a
dangerous weapon when there can be a dangerous weapon, and
she hit the officer. There's so many things I want
to say really quickly here, and I don't want to
forget the part about how the media portrayed her hitting
the officer with her vehicle. But this is happening in Minneapolis,
where they that was like ground zero of the BLM riots.
And you might remember that Antifa and other left wing
Democrat organizations literally burned down the seventh Precinct police precinct
in Minneapolis and then wrote a guide for other people
about how they too could burn down and take over
police buildings. Hold On, and the BLM riots happened because
the left wing, including the media, claimed that black men
were uniquely at risk from basically that police were out
there trying to kill black men. And I don't feel
like enough people have commented on how this was a
white woman who felt entitled to hit a police officer
with her car to interfere with law enforcement and thought
that nothing would happen to her. I mean to me.
Either side could kind of work with this, either pointing
out that in fact, if you behave this way, it
doesn't matter if you're black or white, you're putting yourself
at risk, or the people who are professional racemongers could
point out how entitled she was acting in a way
that you know, supposedly no black person would ever act,
not like I believe that's true. And also because of
the BLM riots in Minneapolis, I just don't care about
left wing domestic terrorists. I don't care. I don't like
not trying to trying to feel what do they feel
and listen to their side of things. They destroyed the country.
Dozens of people were killed in the BLM riots, two
billion dollars in damage in the BLM riots, and the
response of the elites in our country were for Mitt
Romney to go march with them, for corporations to turn
over one hundred billion dollars in racist and other extreme funding.
You know, BLM said you you can pay reparations to
us or to other groups, you can support radical transactivism
or racist hiring practices, and then we'll, you know, will
sort of absolve you of your sin. And corporations went
along with it, and I'm still angry about it. I mean,
when when Trump won election, all these corporations tried to
meet with non leftist media and stuff, and they were like,
we just want you to know that we're sort of
like not doing that anymore. And every single meeting, I
would look up how many millions or billions of dollars
they gave as part of the BLM shakedown and I'd say, Okay, well,
you gave one hundred million for this, and you set
up this program for this. What are you doing for us?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, we're just getting out of the business of
race mongering and pushing political activism. Oh you are, how
convenient after spending a billion dollars on it? Thank you, Megacorp.
You know.
Speaker 1: Tim Walls says he's going to call out the National
Guard to oppose the federal government. Like you said, you
compared this to the South in the sixties. I mean,
that's what this is. I says, every right to be there,
and you don't have a right to try to run
them over.
Speaker 2: Okay, Can I just say, David, There were a lot
of left wingers on Twitter and other social media saying like,
I can't believe people would look at this law enforcement
shooting and think that this was anything other than a
warrantless execution of an innocent woman and other people, I
think probably the vast majority of Americans look at this
and go ooh, like wish that hadn't happened. But she
behaved very recklessly, and he didn't know she wasn't. I mean,
we don't know anything. Maybe she was trying to kill him.
I don't know. I don't think so. But you certainly
can't expect a guy who's just been hit by a
vehicle to know the state of mind of the driver
who has been repeatedly defying police commands. I mean they
repeatedly tell her to get out of the car, and
her partner says drive, baby, drive or whatever, and she
peels out of there. After spending hours, days, weeks interfering
with law enforcement. It's not like this just was. As
some Democrats said, this was a woman who was just
dropping her kid off at school and ice assassinated her. No,
not true. She was her child went to a activist school,
a charter activist school that's known for pushing left wing activism.
But she had been out there in the streets for
quite some time trying to interfere with law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Just you know, when I became a parent, I started
acting differently. I felt a little different about the world.
I felt like I had a responsibility to my kids, so
I didn't go out and do the dangerous things that
I did when I was younger. Do you know what
I'm saying? Like, I don't think she deserved to be killed, obviously,
but she put herself in a very bad situation. And
I had liberals yelling at me too, like or people
who said this was an execution. This is a woman
in a Honda pilot. So what Honda pilot is a weapon?
You could kill someone with a Honda pilot. Many people
die because of Honda pilots.
Speaker 2: But I do think that what you see is related
to what you believe. That was something you know you'd see.
I've never seen anything like this. Different people see different things,
and I actually think they're seeing the exact same thing,
but they're just interpreting it differently based on whether they
support rule of law or not. So if you think
this is an evil, racist, despicable country with horrible laws,
and that we are living in a fascist state with
a tyranny under Donald Trump. You see this and you go,
how could they shoot her? Right if you think that
we are a generally good country with generally good laws,
and that if you don't like the laws, you have
a number of ways to protest those laws, and that
that doesn't involve interfering with legal law enforcement proceedings. You say, oh,
this was a bad situation and she behaved poorly and
now she lost her life. Do you know what I'm saying? Like,
you're not necessarily seeing different things, You're just interpreting them
differently based on whether you support the law or not.
Speaker 1: Don't you think part of it? So someone told me, well,
lift the situation and transpose it into a different one,
like say this was a drug starle or just a
traffic stop. Would you say the same thing? And I
honestly tried to think about it that way, and I
would say the same thing. I think if a car
tore out in sidestriped you, a cop who had stopped
you on a highway, cop might shoot you. You know,
I think that could happen, and I probably have the
same feeling about it, kind of unsure if it was
legally justified, but understanding why the cop did it. If
that makes sense. I don't know how about you.
Speaker 2: Well, we have a very good example. I mean it's sad,
but a very good example to look at, which is
the shooting and killing of Ashley Babbitt and when that
happened on January sixth. Contrary to what the media and
other left wingers have said, the only person killed that
day was not a police officer. It was a protester.
She was yes, she was protesting, but she was also
engaged in unlawful behavior, right like she gets shot while
trying to come through a broken window, I think in
the Capitol.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree with you. I have the same exact
thoughts on that. When you have a mob banging at
the door and you're inside protecting people and you don't
know what's going to happen, maybe you're not legally justified
in the end, you know, technically, but I can understand
why a cop would react that way in this It's
almost the same situation for me.
Speaker 2: Yes, So I think a lot of people said, oh,
I really wish that everything about how that protest was
done were handled differently on both sides, right like it was.
I think the normal American response is to just be
like that was awful and also probably be like, probably
that cop didn't need to shoot her, but how did
he know that in that moment? Right? And turned out
he was someone who was not with the most stellar record,
and that the management of the Capitol Police force at
that time was not great. You know, there's a lot
you can complain about, but you never saw a single after,
you know, day after protest action over the killing of
Ashley Babbitt from conservatives. And it's not because they loved
that she was killed. It's because they understood the complexity
of the situation, right, And as the Biden, Merritt, Garland
DOJ handled everything about that so poorly and in a
way that was in no way equivalent to how they've
handled previous protest actions. I think people got more and
more upset about and the lies. You know, they would
say Donald Trump personally murdered six police officers. Not a
single one was killed, right, The only person killed was
Ashley Babbitt, or you could say that other protesters were
trampled or had heart attacks and things from how it
was handled that day. But you didn't see any corporations,
like you know, calling for money to be given to
Ashley Babbitt's people, or you didn't see any in the
street protests in LA or New York or Iowa. You know,
you didn't see anything like you see now. You didn't
see Republican members of Congress getting out there and saying
this Capitol police force is a fascist regime that is
executing citizens. You just didn't see literally anything that you're
seeing from not just left wing activists, but they're Democrat
elected representatives, right, even from people who are on more
of a fringe on the Republican side. And because like
you shouldn't you shouldn't you know, you shouldn't put yourself
in stitution. Like the whole of civil society is enabled
through proper administration of justice, including at the law enforcement level.
And you can't just walk around acting like you don't
need to obey when a cop tells you to. When
you're engaged in a law breaking activity and a cop
tells you to do something, you can't just act like
that's not something you have to follow.
Speaker 1: And no matter how passionate you are about something, you
still have to use common sense. I know this sounds weird,
but you know, I tell when you teach your kids,
my kid will say I, you know, learning how to drive.
I had the right of way, but you still look,
a car could come and hit you. Like you don't
put yourself in situations, especially when you have children, for
God's sakes, that it's going to, you know, put you
in danger. They want the left wants this to be
a new George Floyd. Right, they want protests on it.
I don't think that's happening because of the because it's
a different time, right, and also the situation's different.
Speaker 2: By the way, when the yeah, very like troubled life
of George Floyd came to its sad end, and everyone
said that this was evidence of how evil America is
and how irredeemably racist we are, and every media person
amplified this. You had all the left wingers in Minneapolis
marching in solidarity, including their mayor Jacob Frye, who went
through a Chinese struggle session on video because he was white.
And I did notice, and I realized, it's the dead
of winter in Minneapolis, and I wouldn't want to be
there in the dead of winter. But when a white
lady got killed by a cop, I did not see
that solidarity from the brothers and sisters of Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: Did you notice that, Well, we can't hide from this issue.
If this had been a black man or a black
woman who was shot, the dynamic here would be probably
much different. It would be colder. I don't know if
the cop was black or white, not that people usually sure,
but yeah, there's no denying that, even though you know,
from my perspective, I don't think the George Floyd there
was no evidence ever that I ever saw that the
George Floyd killing had anything to do with race. I
know this bothers people, but it just it's just a
fact for me. Yeah, and it is what it.
Speaker 2: Is, Okay. I just want to also say the media
has behaved horribly in this story, absolutely liing. What was it,
I think it was The Washington Post had a thing
that said, there's no evidence that the police officer was
hit when on the again the slow mode video, you
can see the vehicle hit him literally. So they're just
willing to lie brazenly about everything, and all under the
banner of experts. Say as if you can't find like,
we've been living under ten years of experts being wrong
about literally everything, to the point that it's actually something
of a crisis. I think and the media rather than
restoring trust is like, what if we just kept going
with these hoaxes and scams that we're running, And it's
really reprehensible. And also I'm very glad you know, the
moment this happened at the Federalist, we're all normal people.
We look at this and we're like, oh, this is
sad or horrible. We also understood that at that moment
that happened, the media would be marching in print and
video in lockstep with the most extreme elements of their
political party. And so we just got out there immediately
being like, you're not gonna You're not gonna Derek Chauvin,
this guy, you know, and you have to learn from
previous information and disinformation operations put out by the left
and realize, like, you can't, you can't give in to
these people for a minute. They're monsters. Like if I
can do a little segue really quickly. It reminds me
of when the Washington Post came out against Kavanaugh and
they sort of tried to accuse him of attempted rape
and murder when he was a high school student. And
I'm on, you know, I was on some of these
like supposedly conservative journalist chat groups, and the moment that
came out, there were some people associated with some ostensibly
conservative publications and stuff who's like, Oh, this looks really bad,
this looks really bad. Trump should probably get ready to
put a different nominee out. And I just immediately flashback
to being a preteen teenager. I can't remember when it happened,
exactly in the Clarence Thomas hearings, and exactly the same
thing happened. The media conspired with other Democrat partisans to
smear Clarence Thomas of what now is a much lesser crime,
but at the time was horrific of sexual harassment. And
I saw how the operation went down, and I was like, well,
they're not going to do this, Like I'm not. Maybe
Brett Kavanaugh, respected federal judge of twelve years, is secretly
a rapist and murderer. Maybe that's true, but I'm sure
as hell not going to take the Washington Post's word
for it. They're gonna have to do a lot better
than running one of these operations while they're still running
all sorts of other hoaxes like the Russia collusion hoax,
and people who are not left wing need to be
smarter about the information wars that we're in and immediately understand,
you know, what's at stake, like for the whole country
if you don't stand strong against left wing terrorism.
Speaker 1: Well, the Washington Post, yeah, they reported that analysis suggests
there is no clear evidence from the footage that he
was hit or in imminent danger. Now, the first part
of that is completely wrong because I watched the video
and he was clearly sideswiped right.
Speaker 2: And the second is very subjective.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly that can be. I don't know what experts
how an expert can can judge that in the moment,
especially without seeing the full context of what happened. I
don't know what the woman said, for instance, I don't
know what she did five minutes before, or how she acted.
What if she said I have a gun. I mean,
you don't know what she said. So I don't know
how you can make that kind of determination. I would
also just quickly say we can debate this another time.
I think experts are right about plenty of things, and
that the Kavanaugh thing, Yeah, I sniffed that out right away.
Like you said, it is exactly the same playbook, just
for a much more serious crime that they use for
Clarence Thomas. It was clear from the beginning. I thought
the Post was supposed to improve. They haven't so Amazon.
Amazon guys said they're gonna they're gonna be better.
Speaker 2: I actually think they're probably marginally better. It's just that
when you're when you've got cancer, being ten percent better
is not what you're looking for. You're looking for complete
healing and eradication of the badness.
Speaker 1: Well, I think they brought some decent people onto the
editorial board, but I'm not sure, you know if that
means that news coverage is good, because quite often a papers,
even when you have a decent editorial board, the news I.
Speaker 2: Think, I don't know who's all been brought on, but
I assume that it's still a total grand total of
one person at the entire Washington Post organization who voted
for Trump, and that's Mark Tieson, who's great but not
a representative of the like average MAGA voter himself. Probably,
you know what I mean, Like there's they are so
far out there and people have this battered wife syndrome
where they act like it's okay to be treated like
you are not just a second class citizen but like
a fourth class citizen by your elite institutions, and I'm
done with it. But go on, we should move.
Speaker 1: I mean when I say it's good or the people
are good, I mean they're good for me. I like
them because they're free market fans, don't you know. I
don't care they vote.
Speaker 2: That is good, But I like that.
Speaker 1: But I get But I get what you're saying. I mean,
you have a two time president and yet you can
barely get even on boards that they're trying to be
fair someone who actually supports the guy. That's weird, right,
It's not reflective of what's going on in the country.
So I get that as well.
Speaker 3: This is Molly Hemingway encouraging you to listen to my
favorite podcast, Issues, et cetera. Every day you get in
depth interviews with host Todd Wilkin, asking expert guests substantive
thought provoking questions on all of the important news and issues.
Speaker 2: Of our day.
Speaker 3: The expert guests in culture, law, ethics, philosophy, theology, and apologetics.
Expert guests expansive topics, always extolling christ issues, et cetera.
Speaker 1: You want to talk about Jerome Powell, Yeah, just briefly,
so the DOJ is a grand jury out. It has
something to do with what is it that's something with
a building and misappropriation, maybe a funding or something.
Speaker 2: Right, well, I think it might be about lying to
Congress about the funding. So the Federal Reserve is building
a new building. They were appropriated certain amount of funds.
It is going way over budget. It's becoming like a
luxury building process that has been poorly managed, which is
one thing that happens all the time in DC probably,
But Jerome Powell had been asked about it in Congress
and had apparently you can say, misled or lied about
the cost overruns, why they exist, what's being done about it?
And there is an investigation going on into the funding
and we're talking like billions of dollars of overruns, Like
it's not like twenty thousand dollars or two hundred thousand dollars.
It's a really big boondoggle.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, to me, the smacks of law fair, right.
I just don't buy that this kind of thing would
happen to someone that the administration wasn't trying to pressure
if they had spoken to Congress and said what he
had said. Obviously, Trump doesn't like Pally wants interest rates
lower than the FED has them at for his own reasons.
I feel like I have a decent grasp of economics,
but the FED is sometimes a mystery to me. I
think they've done an okay job, it seems to me,
but I'm no expert on it, because it's a mystery
to me, right why they do what they do sometimes,
But this is not the way to deal with that,
and I think it cheapens in a way and undermines
legitimate investigations that should be going on against Komy or whatever.
It makes it look like the administrative DJ is acting
in a partisan way rather than going after people really
deserve it. In my view, I don't know, that's my
impression of it.
Speaker 2: What about you, I don't actually know. I don't know
about the grand jury why it was called. Those are
usually secret proceedings. Jerome Powell chose to go public with things,
so there's I truly have no idea if your allegation
that it's law fair is in any.
Speaker 1: Way I said, it's smacks of it. I mean, there
could be something in there I don't know about, but
seems unlikely to me the way he has reacted. Thinking
about like you, said, we have a federal judge for
nineteen years. We have a guy here. Everyone knows. He
seems I'm not saying, maybe he's He seems like an
upstanding guid to me, whether it's making no Jerome Powell, Yeah,
he seems like a guy who's trying. You could laugh.
He seems like a guy who's trying to do the
right thing.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. No, No, I mean, listen, I'm I do.
I'm for the independence. I actually I'm not even a
huge fan of these secret central banks. But assuming that
we're not debating that issue, I actually think there's not
just something to be said, but a lot to be
said for the independence of that Now, in a constitutional republic,
nothing is truly independent, because that would mean that it
would be tyrannical and that the people would have no
means of holding people accountable. But I just want to explain,
like I'm generally in favor of independence if it were lawfair.
If it is found to be lawfair, that's not good.
But a Jerome Powell is one of the most partisan
hacks leading that bank in a long time, repeatedly did
things to help out Joe Biden, his you know, beloved
Joe Biden to make the enemy seems stronger than it was,
and has on the other hand, been pumping the brakes
on everything for Trump. And that is something that a
lot of people have observed. It's not like he's some
big like people. Even the way he comes out with
this like weird video the other night and he's like, so,
by the way, I am the most honest person in
the history of the world, and what's happening here is
law fair. And the US Attorney for the District of
Columbia came out. He's like, they're trying to criminally indict me,
and so he's the one who reveals the grand jury
proceedings and the subpoena that had been sent his way.
And there were two comments that I thought were interesting.
One came from the US Attorney of the District of
Columbia and she's like, we never went public with this.
We're just trying to get documents and the Federal Reserve
has refused to hand them over, so there's not much
we can do here other than subpoena them. And then
the other comment came from a former administration official who
said agencies get subpoenas every year and it doesn't become
some big production with like a woe is Me video
from most people. You just comply with the subpoena. And
so while agreeing with you about the need for the
independence of the Central Bank and not to be cowed
to political pressure, I just want to point out again
Jrome Powell hasn't done that. And also independence does not
mean that you get to do literally whatever you want,
including misappropriation of funds and lying under oath about it
without legal repercussions. You can't have a central bankhead be
above the law, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't want him to be above the law.
I just told you that. My sense is that this
is politically motivated to pressure him to do things. Obviously
Trump dislikes him very much and people in the administration
dislike him. I disagree with you about what you said
about his sort of partisan leanings, but that's fine. I
agree with you. Also, the FED independence is just convention,
it is not law. There not independent so that you
know they're not above the law, but it's prudent, just
like you want to let the AG uphold law and
not be too partisan with that. You know them, you
know with ags, you don't want to be two partisan.
Speaker 2: I just think maybe instead of making a video, he
should just turn over the.
Speaker 1: But you have the president attacking that guy constantly, and
then you have a subpoena, So I can understand why
he would feel like he's under attacked from the administration. Well,
he don't want him, they don't want him there.
Speaker 2: He without evidence, accused Trump of like personally leading this investment.
Speaker 1: Have you heard what Trump says about him? I mean,
he does personally attack him all.
Speaker 2: The time, all the time. He's very transparent about it.
And that's why I'll point out that when they were like,
what do you think about this subpoena of Jerome Powell,
He's like, I have no idea what you're talking about.
And I just kind of assumed that because he's so
open about his hatred for Jerome Powell, that if he
did know about it, he'd like make the case for it,
you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I do not think that Donald Trump ordered someone to
go move forward with this. I do not I think that.
Speaker 2: But maybe you're saying someone did it because they thought
it would please the leader.
Speaker 1: Not even please him, but to put you know, to
help him. And you know, I don't know what their
motivations were. I mean that it just feels like that
I don't we don't know everything, just like you know
when when Russia Gate stuff happened. And I'm not comparing
this to the same level or anything, but you know,
you feel like the timing is a little too perfect,
the way things are falling, the things that Trump's saying,
so on and so on.
Speaker 2: I was on TV earlier this week on Fox, and
Stuart Varney had exactly your perspective. He's like including, He
was like, the health of the stock market is way
too important to bother Jerome Powell with an investigation or whatever.
And then he cuts to the guy on on the
panel and I forget who this guy. I forget his name,
and I'm sorry about it, but he was like, sure,
understand what you're saying. And also, if this guy headed
any other agency and had overseen billions of dollars of
you know, potentially fraudulent expenses, there's no question that he
would be under indictment.
Speaker 1: Oh please, Every department has billions over and looks like
it looks like if it were in the private.
Speaker 2: In a proper way, you know what I mean, Like
you're supposed to you're supposed to at least do a
fig leaf of oh, I didn't mean this.
Speaker 1: I bet you could find something similar and probably far worse,
in every agency in government. Here's my thing. If Jerome
Powell is doing what Trump wants, is this investigation going forward? Probably,
I would sense. I don't know, but my sense is
probably not. That's all I'm saying. It's just just theorizing.
I don't know for sure. I can't know what the
grand jury saw. All right, we want to talk about
the Iranian protests.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so yeah, going, No, I mean, did you watch
any of the stuff this weekend.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've been. I've been following it. Initially I was listen.
Though I am on the side of the Ranian people.
You never know what's sure or not. We don't have
good reporting there. But now I think yes, for people
I've spoken to, I think I trust on this that
this is real, that it is widespread, even to places
that typically you know, because it's largely urban people who
rebel against the mulahs and clerics. Now this has spread
to places that are more rural. I also believe, though
I don't know what that number would be, that thousands
of people could be anywhere from two to twenty thousand
people have probably been killed, tons have been arrested. I
don't you know. Donald Trump is obviously on the side
of the Ranian protesters. He's threatened military action against the
clerics in Iran. I don't know what the right policy is.
I will say this, it is unless there's an eternal
coup or some kind of internal upheaval in government in Iran,
it's going to be very difficult to have a successful
revolution there or external like we start bombing and force them.
But I would say that there's the Shah, remember so
he left years ago to save himself and to probably
save his people from a civil war. You had Asad
left Syria recently to save himself. The Mullahs are built differently.
They have an apocalyptic idea special to Shia there who
run that country. It is very it seems unlikely to
me that they would leave until everything was burning, right,
and so that makes it a very difficult situation. They're
not rational people, So I don't know where this goes.
But I think anyone who cares about human rights is
on the side of protesters and against the Mulahs. And
as you've noticed, the people who pretend to be for
for human rights and gods and elsewhere are silent, and
that says a lot about their position as well.
Speaker 2: So that just reminds me. Yeah, I did not watch
the Grammys, but I saw a couple of stories about
the wait, not the Grammys.
Speaker 1: Sorry, Golden Globes, Golden Globes. Sorry, it's okay, same same crap.
Speaker 2: And one of the stories was about the different political
pins that people wore, and yeah, there was nothing for
the Iranian people even as we have you know, a
massive so the government of Iran. Iran has shut down
all communications. It's very hard to find out what's going on,
which is not what a good government does first off,
and there are reports of them killing thousands of protesters,
and the sheep of Hollywood were still wearing pro Hamas pins.
Speaker 1: Well, and you know, they're out there calling America a
fascist state, which is funny that you can do that.
You can go to an awards ceremony where you made
millions of dollars that year, you're winning awards, and you're
telling people we live in a fascist state freely without
worry that you're going to end up in prison, unlike
in Iran, where every single person who's marching might end
up dead. I don't mean they're all going to end
up dead. I mean there's a chance that you will. Yeah,
you're risking your life to do it.
Speaker 2: I think the head of the DNC is Ken Martin,
and he was out there saying, if you don't like that.
Some people are comparing the regime of Donald Trump to
the Iranian regime. Stop being so much like the Iranian regime.
You know, we can't speak out freely just like the
Iranian people. It was like, you're literally tweeting right now.
You're literally tweeting about your hatred of the current administration
with no problems.
Speaker 1: EXAs shut down in Iran. No one can tweet. Yeah,
no one can tweet in Iran. No one can tell
you what they think where you know, yeah, going.
Speaker 2: I just wouldn't say that. There was one person in
particular at the Golden Globes and her name is Hannah Einbender.
Her mom was on the original cast SNL and her
dad's like a big Hollywood person too, and she's this
she plays She plays a really annoying person on this
show Hacks. Have you ever seen Hacks?
Speaker 1: Yes? Unfortunately? Gone?
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, I mean.
Speaker 1: Is this one can't she doesn't have three brain cells
s rupt together. She is so stupid and she annoys
me so much with her She like speaks for the
Jewish people, you know, and that just drives me crazy.
Speaker 2: But go on, I just in addition to having bad politics,
it makes me mad how annoying her character is. And
I don't know if it's I would normally just blame
this on the writers and say she's doing a very
good job of executing a bad character, except she plays
that character in real life too. I think it's actually
her that destroyed an otherwise really enjoyable show with Jeane Smart.
Speaker 1: I detested that show, and I'll tell you why. So
the show is like she's woke, and then her boss
is an old timer and tane or comedian I forget
what it is. You know, is like gruff, old fashioned
conservative supposedly who always every episode I watch. I think
I watched two or three, it's the gruff old time
learns a lesson about life and the enlightened young youngster,
you know, woke person. It was so annoying had to
stop watching it, even though the performance of the lead
lead woman I forget her name, is is pretty good. Okay,
this woman is the Lorraine Newman's daughter who was in
the original cast.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, regime change sounds great, but what's the real
story in Venezuela. The Watch Dout on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection
between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
Maduro's captured, but his entire apparatus is still there. Are
they truly liberated? Will the US have to cut a
deal with whoever's left even after this operation. Whether it's
happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting
you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street pot with
christmaccaski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: Back to Iran, I think it's important to note that
people are out in the streets protesting because they're in
economic crisis and they are rejecting their Mullahs for their
poor leadership of the country. I note this only because
I think we frequently want people to rebel from bad systems,
and my husband always notes that it's really being poor
that motivates people to act. Being unable to be sure
that you're going to be able to feed your family
and stuff like that. And we're seeing this in Iran
in the same way we saw it decades ago when
they were very frustrated with their Lots of people are
frustrated with their government for not providing things. I have
a friend who used to live in Iran. Oddly enough,
he just happened to live there when the revolution happened,
and he's like, it's not prizing that this is happening
in the winter. People are probably not able to heat
their homes. They've been dealing with a bad economic situation
for a very long period of time, and they are
done with it. He's pretty optimistic that things might be
happening this time, and it does seem that things are
much better.
Speaker 1: Well, can I currently just say, oh yeah? Political Islam
is a totalitarian system that lords over all your spiritual
and economic decisions. Like it's like it is a completely
totalitarian system. Their economy sucks because of their radical and
extremist views fit on religion, because they use the country
as you know, for instance, their obsession with getting nuclear
weapons is driven by religious extremism. They put their country
in a terrible position constantly over this one issue, and
they've done it now for you know, since the revolution,
almost so they're interconnected as all. I'm trying to say.
Iran is a rich, oil rich nation. It should not
be a poor nation. Iranian people are amazing, actually, you know,
and they've been oppressed. So I don't know what's going
to happen. I'm always a little skeptical. It's very hard
to dislodge these kind of regimes. But you say your
friend is optimistic, so that makes it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but he also doesn't know because there have been
previous pretty good efforts at overthrowing the regime.
Speaker 1: I'm curious what you think or if you think we
should do anything like Well, that's what.
Speaker 2: I wanted to talk about. But I just want to
say first off that if this government were to fall
and be replaced with anything marginally better, I don't think
people understand what a massive shift that would be globally, or.
Speaker 1: People don't oh yeah, you know what.
Speaker 2: You even just talked about the existential threats in the region.
Speaker 1: Virtually every bad thing that's happening in the Middle East
goes back to Iran from the Hutis, who are you know,
funded by them, which causes problems with Saudi's and so on.
Who are allies whether you like him or not. Obviously
hamas his ballah even in you know Muslim brotherhood stuff
like their their footprints all over the place. And obviously
you know there are other countries across trouble there, Turkey
and others, but Syria was also there. They're you know,
Assad was propped up by them, so the whole world.
Speaker 2: It also shows how this change in Venezuela is affecting
things globally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's one of their only allies in the world,
right And I would say this too, and and I've
said it before, I think on the show, but there
is no real genuine geopolitical reason for Iran and Israel
to be at war. They they are actually should be
allied for many reasons in the world, and they were
a sort of not allies, but they were not you know,
when the show was in control, it was not this way,
So I hope so it would be it's I want
to say, we talked about the Gordian nod and Trump
and all that last time, but U and people I see,
even conservatives are still critical of him on foreign policy
in a way because he doesn't have these kind of
like sharp answers or plans exactly laid out, though I
think his people probably do. It's been a bad twelve
months for dictators in this world. It's been a bad
time for the Islamist in the Middle East, a bad
time to be a strong man in Latin America, and
it's been bad for Iran. So I think that's good
for the world.
Speaker 2: So you asked what I think about military intervention, and
I was thinking about this this weekend as you saw
the protests kind of growing. How are limited information you're getting.
But first off, I'm really glad that these I'm sure
the CIA is all over every country in the world
or whatever, but doesn't seem like this is being, you know,
led by the United States. It's a genuine domestic unrest
in that country, and that's how it should be. Regime
change always happens the best from within. It's always the
most enduring and best for a country when people themselves
set about to change what's happening, and that's that is happening.
I also think that if there were ever a time,
and I'm not I'm not advocating for this right now.
I'm just saying that if there were ever a time
to do a helpful strike, it would be at a
time like this when there are people who are being
killed by the government, and yet they you know, the
regime still has a tremendous amount of power, but as weakened,
this would this would greatly help their effort. And if
you even look at our own revolution in our country,
how we got help from other countries. It wasn't like
they were leading the American Revolution against against the British,
but they would help out with it in ways that
were really key. And I think there's something about the
Trump doctrine that fits here. So we had a lot
of people for a long time think that if you
wanted a different if you wanted to change in a country,
you had to implement meant the whole thing. You're like,
we and then the change always involved like starting schools
for girls. I don't know why that was the obsession
of our US military for so long, but you know,
it was always like, Okay, we don't like how things
are there, so we're just gonna come in with hundreds
of thousands of people and we're going to force the change.
And the Trump doctrine seems to be more like I
don't like that bad guy in Iran who's killing all
the Americans. So we're just going to take him and
his people out and then we're just going to go.
And that, to me is such a more effective approach
of using our strength in the national interest without it
becoming a huge liability as well. And I know there
are variations here for all sorts of things, but I
was just thinking, like, this might be the time to
help the Iranian people. What do you think?
Speaker 1: Oh, I definitely want to help the Iranian people. There
are I agree with you. If there's no organic uprising
or organic call for regime change, what are you really
doing here? Obviously there is and there hasn't been for
a long time. The Obama administration did nothing, and so
I but yeah, I agree with you in general that
we can't help them, though it seems like with Venezuela,
maybe the Trump administration is trying to pressure the leadership
there if they don't think they'll be toppled to make reforms.
Speaker 2: Maybe well, and that does sound like that's what's happening,
and threat of force. Threat of force can accomplish good things, right,
And the White House has said that Iran is Yeah,
trying to negotiate with the Trumpet Baultry.
Speaker 1: That's what I wanted to say. I'm sorry a lot
of times. I'm sorry a lot of times we want
to topple a regime because they are enemy, and a
lot of times we don't think through the consequences in
the sense that what could come next could be worse
for us in the long run. Maybe the Soviets when
they were in Afghanistan, whatever it is, I don't think
that it could be worse in Iran. I don't think
that what's coming could be worse, could be wrong. But
it seems like that is a country that really and
a people. And by the way, that's a very diverse country,
and there are a lot of people actually hate each
other in that country, but minorities and so on. But
I'm talking about in Tehran and in the more secular
places and urban places. I think those people want to
be to join the world. Last thing I want we
wanted to talk about, I think was planned parenthood. The
other day Political reported that a lawsuit had been dismissed
after the Trump against planned parenthood. After the Trump administration
restored millions of dollars two for I think tens of
millions of dollars to I forget how many planned parenthood
I don't know what you call them outlets, But I
don't know how you feel. I mean, I do a
little bit, But it feels like this administration has said
a lot of good things the issue of life, but
hasn't followed through on many. Part of the blame I
think is probably our FK Junior, who has been a
pro abortion person his entire life, but with abortion pills,
slow movement on that. With this issue now, I don't know.
It just seems like they're forsaking people who supported them
and we're very happy about this issue, and obviously I'm
happy Roe was overturned, and I give Trump a lot
of credit for that, but I don't know, it feels
like we're taking a step back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I need to because it came from Politico,
and I just don't know if what they're reporting is
accurate or not. We have to look into it.
Speaker 1: But it was a.
Speaker 2: Very disheartening report about the ACLU dropping its case because
they're like fine with the funding that's flowing from you
and me to the largest abortion corporation in the country,
also known for transing children and other problems. It's worse
than just this though, when it comes to the life
arger issue that you're talking about. And Jordan Boyd at
The Federalist has done some really good reporting recently on Okay,
so Obamacare subsidies expire at the end of the year.
I think we're there, and so there are negotiations about
how to proceed. And just first off, this is the
Democrats problem, right. They are the ones who forced Obamacare through.
They are the ones who created a system that's in
something of a death spiral. You have to keep on
having more and more federal taxpayer subsidizing of insurance companies,
which is like my least favorite group to subsidize in
order for the program to keep operating.
Speaker 1: And can I quickly just add one thing, and this
aspect of Obamacare was supposed to be a market based,
you know, a market for people, and a market doesn't
need to be completely subsidized more cares each year. It
is not a because every even insurance companies have fallen
out because it's terrible. So you have like monopolies essentially
in states, and then we're subsidizing the monopoly. It's just
it's terrible.
Speaker 2: And then they yeah, the insurance companies have the everybody
by the cojones because they can just say, oh, well,
like if you we've got these exorbitant prices that we've
set and if you don't subsidize, then these people are
going to have to spend more. And part of passing Obamacare,
if you will, recall, was every vote counted for Obama
and there was this one guy who purported to be
pro life. He was a Democrat named Bart Stupek, and
in order to get his vote, I can't remember the
exact thing, but like Obama set up a thing claiming
that funding wouldn't go to abortion directly, it would be
like a two step process or something, and for some
reason Bart's stupac was like, that's good enough for me,
I'll vote for it. And it's something that pro lifers
have long opposed because it's also in contradiction of the
High Amendment, which says that no federal taxpayer funding should
go for the violent ending of human life in the womb.
And it's been something that's just kind of worked for decades, like, Okay,
even if you think it should be legal to kill
an unborn child, you can't take taxpayer money to subsidize that.
Now money is fungible, you know. They would even say,
as they were subsidizing planned parenthood, this goes for your
electric bill, not for the baby killing part, you know,
which doesn't make any sense. But as there in negotiations
and Democrats really really really want Obamacare to continue, there
needs to be insurance that the High Amendment will be fulfilled.
And Trump said something a couple of weeks ago about
people need to be flexible on the High Amendment, and
I and anyone else who considers himself pro life were like, yeah, no,
that's literally the lowest possible standard of being even pretending
to be pro life is that you don't force people
to fund the violent destruction of life in the womb.
And so the White House has kind of walked it
back a little bit. I think the Daily I can't remember, sorry,
Daily Wired, Daily Caller, Daily Signal, someone had a report
in there. I think it was Daily Caller actually about
the walk back that the White House has done on that.
But there have also been issues with the Republicans in
the Senate, including ostensibly pro life Ohio. I shouldn't say oustensibly.
He is a pro life senator from Ohio. Bernie Marino,
who was you know, his grassroots army was all motivated
by him being pro life, and he's leading a lot
of these negotiations and we got a statement from him
this weekend saying that he was going to be strong
on this issue. But pro lifers are just not just worried,
they're sad that they have to be worried, given that
this is such a low standard to meet. Trump administration
has just not prioritized this. Now, I like you, I'm
not going to be one of those people who's like
they're the worst. Literally, without Donald Trump, we would not
have overturned Roby Wade, which is what enables us to
even have some of these fights that we're needing to have.
And I am extremely grateful for that. But yeah, it's
not good.
Speaker 1: Well, how can we You can't be flexible on the
High Amendment because the High Amendment is the law, and
we're not flexible on the law. Obviously, we have been
flexible in the sense that we look the other Like
you mentioned or you alluded to, dollars are fungible. So
even now, this money that's going to go to these
planned parenthood outlets, they are ostensibly going to be used
for birth control and this and that. But of course
they'll just move money around. They're an abortion mill.
Speaker 5: And the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, has always allowed
for money and to go to insurance plans that have
abortion within them, so we'll cover abortion within them.
Speaker 1: So it's always been ridiculous. And by the way, the
High Amendment was literally supported across the board almost forever.
I think in twenty sixteen when Hillary ran, she was
the first candidate ever I think when did I think
in seventy four or something like that. It was passed
and Hillary was the first candidate to oppose the High Amendment.
You don't have to be flexible on it at all,
you know, by the way, I mean, I don't know,
things could have changed. But when I looked at polling,
I think last year, and you if you ask people
do they support the High Amendment, it's low. If you
ask people, do you support tax dollars going to fund abortions,
it's like seventy percent of people, don't you know what
I mean, It's very high number. So it's not even
like this is something that's an unpopular position to take.
So I don't understand why it's going in this direction.
Speaker 2: But that's why I think it's so discouraging to people
is that they understand, like, this isn't even one of
the difficult issues of being prolote. You know, this should
be just the lowest possible standard to be met.
Speaker 1: And I get that this isn't like Donald Trump's forte
you know, and you know the life issue really and
that again, well, props for everything, but it's just unnecessary.
Speaker 2: A lot of people just kind of want to move
on from the issue and pretend nothing's happening. By the way,
that another issue that's been bad for the Trump administration
is that most abortions now take place through chemical abortions,
and the Trump administration has allowed to stand some of
the worst regulations on the planet about these types of abortions.
They are very dangerous for certain people. And what I
mean by that is like, let's say you're having an
ectopic pregnancy and it's not being treated by a doctor,
and you take an abortion pill. It can be you know,
it's not just a situation already that's very bad for
the baby. If it's like topic, but it's terminal for
the baby, I.
Speaker 1: Bet you it's more dangerous than yellow dye. Number five
or whatever RFK is worried about.
Speaker 2: It can be extremely dangerous for the mother and can
cause serious physical harm. And under the first Trump administration,
you at least had to have like a doctor overseas stuff,
and now you don't, and they are allowing these bad
Bidin era regulations to continue. And the reason why this
is important because I think there are people who just
don't care about the abortion issue as much as some
of us do. But in fact, it's probably a pretty
small percentage of the Republican Party voters who are seriously
obsessed about this issue. But they happen to be the
people who actually run your get out the vote operations,
who are willing to go door to door getting ballots,
getting the ballots into the boxes, and in a very
tough election year, to demoralize the one group of people
you can count on to go out and hustle because
they care so deeply about this issue is just bad
politics too.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's the High Amendment, it's the bare minimum.
You're not asking them to pass a law to ban
abortions across the country or anything. You're asking for the
bare minimum to be upheld a law that's been on
the book since seventy four or whenever. All right, great,
you have some culture for us, not much, but actually
can ask you a question. I heard from someone you
that you'll be recording your own forthcoming book. Is that true?
Speaker 2: Yes, in a couple of weeks. I have to record it,
and so I was letting you know about that for
our scheduling purposes. Have you ever recorded a book?
Speaker 1: No? I usually have to. I mean, for my last
few books, I have to pick someone. So for my
gun book, I picked someone who sounded like he was
like a Western dude, and he read it and so on.
But I think it's exciting that you get to read it.
You have a voice for audio audible.
Speaker 2: Thank you well. When Carrie Severino and I wrote a
Justice on Trial about the Kavanaugh confirmation, she and I
read the book and we alternated chapters and we got
very good marks on it, you know from the lights
that rate these things, and people said they really enjoyed it.
And my second book, Rigged, happened during COVID and they
were like, don't even think of recording it, like someone
else will record it and you have no options. And
then for this book on Alito, which comes out April
twenty second, they likewise said I couldn't record it, but
I had gotten so many complaints about not recording Rigged.
I mean, it's still something people will regularly be like,
I don't like that you didn't record it, which I
had nothing. I mean, I had no say in it,
but I get the complaints. So I really wanted to
record it. And they were like, yeah, you can't, but
you have to pick who's going to do it. And
I was like, I don't care, just just pick whoever
you want if I can't do it, And somehow saying that,
the publisher was like, Okay, fine, you can do it,
so I'll recording.
Speaker 1: How long does it take to record a book like that?
I assume this books around three fifty pages. Is it something? Yeah?
I think so.
Speaker 2: No, no, so it will take four to five days now.
And it's really interesting. You go up to a special
book recording studio in DC and there's a director and
he guides you on he directs you on how to
do things or if you have a problem with pronunciation.
And that's one of the things like when you're writing
and you know, I'm like writing Supreme Court cases down
but I've never said them. I might not know you
know how to say a particular proper noun or. So
I'll be reading it out loud to myself prior, just
to make sure I have a feel for what I'm saying.
And then I'll go up and I'll yeah, break it
up into four parts, I guess, and do it over
four or five days. And you have to wear really
soft clothing. You have to be careful about what you
eat because like it can pick up a stomach growl.
You have to, you know, be careful on your breathing.
I have had a cold for the last two weeks
and I'm like terrified about it that it's not going
to be done in time to record this.
Speaker 1: We talked about this off air, but it is when
it's someone like you who's on TV who people recognize,
is voice they recognize. It would be weird for me
to listen to a book from Molly Hemingway with someone
else saying your words. I think, so I'm happy that
you're recording it. By the way, a publicist got in
touch with me about your book. Instead, I'd like to
send out the book. Would you like to interview the author?
Let me know it Psychoh no, I don't need an interview,
but i'd like the book please.
Speaker 2: You have been the very, very first interview I've ever
done when books came out. Do you remember that you
were the first interview for Justice on Trial.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was incredibly impressed by that book, and I
already knew you were amazing, but that was, you know,
I was just blown away by the level of journalism.
I mean, I think people should read it today. They
think they're past the stuff in that book, you're not.
It gives you a real good historical understanding of the
left's modest operandi when it comes to new justice nominations,
et cetera.
Speaker 2: This does remind me I was saying about it this
week because this week we had oral arguments in a
variety of trans cases in front of the court. And
one of the things that I'll you know, that I
discuss in the book is justice Alito is really good
at oral argument, and a lot of his colleagues pointed
that out to me, And once you see it, you
can kind of not you have to. You have to
keep seeing it. And he did a really good job
of just wrapping the trans lawyers around the axle in
terms of how they didn't have like a legal coherence
to their argument. And I'm happy that this book is
coming out at a time when so many people are realizing, like,
wait a minute, this quiet, unassuming guy is a giant
on the court, and I'm just happy it's coming out now.
Speaker 1: It was funny. You have a court, you have the
High Court of the land. Your expectation is that they're
going to get into the nitty gritty of law and
constitutionality and history, and instead they are trying to define
what a girl is or a boy is. And it
comes off like a cuckoo, crazy idiocracy. Frankly, that we
even have to have these kind of discussions in the
High Court. At least that's you know, I haven't paid
a ton of attention to the case, but that's how
that was the impression I got that we live in idiocracy.
Speaker 2: Harvard law professor Adrian Vermuell, who you know, has interesting thoughts,
but he said, I just can't get deeply interested in
the transition under sports cases. In any reasonably well ordered polity,
such cases would never arise in the first place. The
very fact the highest court in the land is solemnly
deliberating over them is an indictment in itself. I agree
with this. It's I don't know, you hear people go oh,
the arguments went really well for the side that believes
that boys and girls are different. And then you realize
the fact that we had to have that go well
for people who believe basic reality is not a great
sign for what we're dealing with in this country.
Speaker 1: It from what I saw, it did not go well
for the pro trans people at the court anyway, So
culture okay.
Speaker 2: And then I watched with Mark dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.
Speaker 1: Remember that movie with Steve Martin from the eighties.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a total gimmick movie, right, So yeah,
it doesn't it intersperse real old times exactly. It's in
black and white, and intersperce interspers is probably like twenty
old films into a barely cohesive plot. It's goofy. But
it kind of wore on me pretty quickly, So I
love it.
Speaker 1: You liked it, though, honestly, I probably saw it as
a teenager. I don't really remember if I liked it.
You know, when your teenager bit too much like anything
that's goofy, So maybe I did.
Speaker 2: But yeah, and then I watched a movie it was
like an inspirational movie with my kid called Soul on
Fire about this kid who was burned on one hundred
percent of his body and then like succeeded in life.
And he was a big Cardinals fan. William H. Macy
plays Jack Buck, which was very exciting and it was
actually like, for being that kind of movie. I know
that sounds like an insult, but for being that kind
of a I really enjoyed it. I was crying. The
kid was, you know, deeply moved. So it was. It
was And if you're from Saint Louis or you have
Saint Louis connections, you basically have to watch the film
because it's all about Saint Louis. Ozzie Smith was in it.
Speaker 1: Oh did you do Backflip? No, I won't watch that one. Sorry,
it sounds sad, and I don't have any interest in
being sound. I have nothing. Really. I have two shows
that I probably mentioned in the past that have new
seasons that I'm watching. One is Fallout with Walton Goggins.
That's not for you, Molly, I don't think it's I
love God.
Speaker 2: I love God.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's got it. Since plays a gool, he plays
the ghoul. It's it's very stylized, violent, not for kids,
sci fi based on a video game. I should say
it's not for you. I don't know. Maybe this for you,
but I feel like probably you wouldn't enjoy it that much.
I don't even like it that much. I find it
pretty boring, I have to be honest. The other one
is Landman with Billy Bob Thornton. So I'm watching the
new season of that. It's got who's that old timey guy?
Sam Elliot's in it this season? To me, Moore is
in it? You know, it's fine. It's fine, it's about Texas.
I feel like that kind of thing. It's good in oil.
It is not like a lefty show. They actually there's
an episode everyone was talking about a few weeks ago
where they mock the View and the people on the
View as being millionaires who are angry at billionaires or
something like that, and so it avoids the usual lefty
you know, storylines and stuff.
Speaker 2: And Mark was telling me that he had watched The
Pit and he had to stop watching it because because
not because it wasn't a good show. It actually was
a good show, but they were gratuitously inserting like radical
left wing politics and warming.
Speaker 1: His makes me so mad. I like that show. Now
I know I'm going to have the same feeling about it.
I was watching some show I forget what it was
called on Apple and I sort of liked it, and
then they were inserting things like that, and I just
it was so it was gnawing at me, and then
I just stopped watching it. So all right. If you
have better suggestions for us, please email us at radio
at the Federalist dot com. We love to hear from you.
We'll see you next week. Until then, be the lovers
of freedom and anxious for the friend