Democrats Reap What They Sowed With Comey’s Indictment

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I want to talk a bit about the indictment against

(00:02):
James Comy and the challenges it's going to face to
actually succeed. Now, there's a part of me that's I
want to address the principle of is it legitimate for
Trump to go after guys like Comy. Koby did a

(00:22):
lot of deceitful, slimy things. The way that he ensnared
Michael Flynn, for example, and then bragged about it afterwards,
was unconscionable. The way that he tried to entrap President
Trump into and tried to get the predicate ginned up

(00:47):
for the Russia investigation, which he probably knew was not
based on much to try to get President Trump impeached
as soon as he took office unconscionable. And what kinds
of false statements has Comy made false statements before Congress?

(01:12):
This is the part that is difficult because you have
to remember a couple things about James Comy. One is
that he's not a dummy. Two that he's a pretty
smart lawyer. And this is the problem with this impeachment
charge against him. Now, the impeachment charge against Comy, it

(01:34):
stems from testimony Comy made under oath in front of
the Senate was questioning from Ted Cruz, and Ted Cruz
was asking him, did you ever authorize and he said
the word authorize. Cru said the word authorize, Did you
ever authorize the FBI leaking a story to the media

(01:57):
about anything having to do with the investigation into Hillary
Clinton over her emails. This is the specific thing he's
being indicted for. And so let's go back a little bit.
We forget that James Comy. As much as people on
the right hate him, there are a lot of people
on the left who hate him too, and for good reason,

(02:21):
because he announced and then announced he was going to
reopen and broke a lot of FBI sort of protocols
about announcing stuff in the midst of election season investigations
into Hillary Clinton's unlawful use of a server. Now he
announced he was investigating it. He then announced that he

(02:41):
wasn't going to prosecute Hillary, which was silly, like she
was dead to rights guilty. He should have indicted her.
But the fact that he announced it dragged it up,
was a huge blow to her campaign in twenty sixteen.
And it's not it's crazy on Democrats part to think

(03:02):
that that was A major contributor to Hillary Clinton losing
the twenty sixteen election was James Comy talking about her emails. Now,
one could say, well, maybe the real problem was her
unlawfully storing emails on a server at her house, like yes,
with a bunch of confidential but you know all the

(03:24):
you know, kind of official correspondent of the United States
Secretary of State, and then with lots of accusations of
was there other shady stuff that she was utilizing that
home cooked server for. Yeah, that was the reason why.
And and kmy just kind of blew the lid off it. However,
this is the reason why, you know there some of

(03:44):
you may not know. There's there's Twitter, and then there's
Blue Sky. Blue Sky is basically just a Twitter copy
that all these liberals fled to after Elon Musk bought Twitter.
And it's when when you log onto Blue Sky, it's
basically you've entered just absolute liberal insanity land. All those

(04:05):
hardcore libs were on Blue Sky. They're actually like kind
of like not sure what they think about the Comy
and Diamond. On the one hand, they think Donald Trump
is horrible. He's prosecuting his political opponents, shattering our norms,
we've never seen this, and I'll address that talking point.
On the other hand, they're like, eh, well, we do
kind of hate James Comy because they again they credit

(04:26):
him for Hillary's loss in twenty sixteen. So it was
about that investigation, and there was a point in that
investigation where one of Comy's subordinates, Andrew McCabe, who was
another huge lefty in the FBI who would later get

(04:47):
because I think he got fired by the FBI for
false statements and he was a real slimeball. Andrew McCabe
leaked to The New York Times some infram to counter
the idea that the Attorney General's investigation into Hillary Clinton's
emails were just perfunctory and then that the whole point

(05:08):
was not to actually find anything against Hillary. Anyway, mccab
leaked something to the press. It seems as though, according
to McCabe's testimony, you now McCabe's kind of a known
liar and he's sort of lied about this specific story.

(05:28):
McCabe said that McCabe himself had the authority to release
certain kinds of investigative information. He authorized the leak. He
said he told Comy about it after the fact, and
that Comy didn't really object to it. But that's different
from authorizing a leak. And before you say, well, it's

(05:50):
going to the same guys, we're talking about a perjury case,
all right. What is perjury. Perjury is lying under oath.
And if you're gonna convict someone and get a jury
in Northern Virginia, by the way, ultraliberal Northern Virginia, which
is where James Comy is being indicted, in the federal

(06:12):
district court in the Northern District of Virginia, full of
federal government workers who all think James Comy is a saint.
You've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
made a false statement with intent to deceive. A squinting
at the words and say, well, it pretty much means

(06:35):
something kind of deceitful. No, it's got to be illegal.
It's got to be a lie. It's got to be
flatly contradicting the truth with clear evidence that he meant
to deceive. Something that's not you know, something that's a
little slippery is just not going to be enough to
get a perjury conviction. I dealt with remember in my

(07:00):
legal practice, when I was young, right out of law school.
We were dealing with an attorney discipline case where an
attorney had committed perjury. And the way that it was
proven by the the board that was disciplining him was
they had two under oath statements of this attorney that

(07:23):
one hundred percent contradicted each other. Clearly, the two of
them could not both have been true. So and the
way they phrased it, the way it was phrased in
whatever the complaint was or whatever it was against him,
it was, you know, at one on this day he
said this about this matter. On this day, under oath,

(07:44):
he said this about this matter. Both of them were
under oath. Both of them flatly contradict each other. They
both can't be true. He is guilty of perjury either
for the one statement or the other. Right, that's what
you need for a That's the kind of thing, the
kind of air tight, lockdown evidence you need for a

(08:05):
perjury charge. And that so far is the only perjury
count for which people analyzing this, that seems to be
the only perjury count for which Comy is being charged.
There are some people talking about other Komy testimony. From

(08:27):
what I'm seeing, unless I'm not understanding it right, unless
I'm not seeing things right. There are other accusations that
Komy misstated things about how much the Steel Dossier, which

(08:50):
was the opposition research that Hillary Clinton's campaign cooked up
using a former British spine Nam Christopher Steele, to get
as much really corroborated dirt against Donald Trump as they could,
to try to make it the predicate for getting federal
investigators the FBI to launch a investigation into Trump about

(09:13):
a possible link to Putin Comy. There's some evidence that
Comy said before Congress it wasn't used, or it wasn't
the basis, and then there's evidence it was. But again,
I think it's going to come up against this problem.
Comy is a smart guy, as devious as he is,

(09:36):
as much of a media attention seeker, I was about
to use a worse word than seeker, as much of
an attention seeker as he is, as much of a
grand stander as he is, as unbearable as he is,
as as frankly unconstitutionally as I think he behaved in
kind of a broader sense of working for the executive

(09:58):
branch only to undermine because he didn't like the policies
of the president whom the American people had elected. As
bad as he is, he's not a moron. He's a
he's a smart guy, and he's a smart lawyer, and

(10:18):
like all lawyers, he's risk averse. He's going to be
careful and he's not going to say something. I mean, ordinarily,
he's going to be really careful with what he says
in order to not perjure himself. So when Ted Cruz
asked him, did you authorize this leak of information? Comy said, well, no,

(10:46):
I stand by the tomy had been asked that same
question a couple of years prior, or asked similarly a
couple of years prior, and he said, no, I stand
by the testimony I've made about this I made about
this subject last time I appeared before the Senate, and
you know that was and that's on Ted Cruz. Really,

(11:06):
that's the thing when you're Congress and you're interviewing someone
and you're trying to get them on the record, it's
not the witness's job to establish the record, to get
the record clear. It's your job as the questioner, whether
that's you're a senator interviewing someone under oath during a
Senate committee hearing, or if you're a lawyer trying to

(11:28):
put questions to a witness to establish a factual record
during a trial or in a deposition or something. It's
not the witness's job to get the record clear. It's
your job as the questioner. And Cruz sort of garbled it.
Now hindsight, it's twenty two. I'm not blasting Ted Cruz

(11:49):
for this. Maybe Cruz didn't think through, like, Okay, what
were the precise kinds of words I should have used?
Did you know about it after the fact? Did you
okay it after the fact, like like there were other
things that Cruz could have said. So I think that
this specific indictment against Komi, I just fear it's not

(12:15):
gonna go very far. I fear that, and particularly given
the fact that they're charging him in the Northern District
of Virginia. Okay, a Northern Virginia jury. Do you know
how many people in Northern Virginia work for the federal government?

(12:37):
Tons of them. Okay. It's a very liberal, exceedingly liberal place.
My brother lives there. I know, I've been there. I've visited,
I've driven around, I've seen the bumper stickers. It's a
crazy liberal place. You know, the Virginia vacillates between red

(12:57):
and blue on the basis of it's really blue in
northern Virginia and it gets more red as you go south.
So that jury is gonna have a bunch of like
federal government employees who all hate Donald Trump and who
all probably thought James call Me was a superhero for

(13:17):
trying to get Trump impeached. If you're gonna bring a
perjury charge against him, I think in that district, in
that area, with the jury pool that you're likely gonna
pull from, because remember, you got to prove you it's
a criminal it's a criminal trial. You got to prove

(13:40):
your case beyond a reasonable doubt, not with a preponderance
of the evidence, which is the evidentiary standard for a
civil lawsuit. If I'm just suing you for damages, you
drive your car into my house, and I'm suing you
for damages, I just got to prove my case by
a preponderance of the evidence. I don't have to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you're trying to if

(14:02):
it's the government trying to lock somebody up convict them
of a crime, the evidentiary standard is higher. We value
freedom a little more than money in this country. So
the government's got to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's a very high standard to meet. I don't know
if they can meet it. Now. When we return, I

(14:26):
want to discuss the charges that this is unprecedented. It's
not unprecedented. It's not an unprecedented attack. We literally had
the president for the prior four years. Next on the
John Girardi Show, everyone is wringing their hands and wailing
and gnashing their teeth over the indictment against James Komy

(14:47):
that was dropped yesterday, and the charge being this is outrageous.
We've never seen a president go after his political foes
like this. Yes we did, We just saw it it
last presidency. And this is the thing. When you break

(15:07):
a political norm, you can't expect the other side to
just still live by it. No, you don't get to
do that anymore. When you break a political norm, the
other side is going to treat it as broken. This
is the world that Joe Biden and Merrick Garland created,

(15:33):
a world where a president takes office and he goes
after his political foes. Anyway, he can't because that's precisely
what the Bidens did. The prosecutions against people like Michael
Flynn were ridiculous. The prosecution against which you know, was

(15:58):
a vengeful folks that they're Department of Justice who duped
Trump into carrying out that prosecution. The prosecutions against Trump himself,
the prosecutions against various Trump allies, A lot of it
was bunk. I'm not saying all of it was bunk,

(16:20):
but look, I've always sort of been like, you know,
wanting to call balls, and over the course of the
whole Biden era and all the indictments against President Trump,
the civil charge against him from Letitia James, I've always
been trying to call balls and strikes. And as I
look at it, I thought the prosecutions against Trump for
January sixth was an incredible stretch. It was a very

(16:50):
novel set of legal theories because ultimately they couldn't actually
connect Trump with the thing that was really bad on
January six which was the violence. There wasn't a causal
connection they could demonstrate between Trump's conduct and the actual
bad thing that happened on January sixth, which was that
a riot broke out and a bunch of police officers

(17:13):
got assaulted and property got damaged. They couldn't really do
a causal connection between anything Trump did and that, so
instead they criminalized on these huge, stretched novel legal theories
all the other stuff that they thought Trump did that
they could try to claim was illegal obstruction of an
Act of Congress or something like that, which just frankly,

(17:38):
I don't think they had the goods to do, and
which the Supreme Court ultimately just put the kaibash on
with their immunity decision, which eliminated all a ton of
the evidence that they would need to actually bring that charge.
So I thought the January sixth prosecutions against Trump were ridiculous.
I thought the New York the man had in charge

(18:00):
against Trump was preposterous. I thought that the Georgia prosecution
against Trump, bringing it as a rico charge was completely ridiculous.
And lastly, the only, in fact, the only charges against
Trump that I thought were meritorious was the mar A

(18:25):
Lago documents scandal, and he was the only one who
was getting the book thrown at him out of all
these high ranking federal government officials who were clearly bringing
classified stuff home and misusing them. Hillary Joe Biden. Trump's

(18:46):
the only one who gets indicted. Why, it made no
sense it to me, there's nothing that distinguishes Trump's conduct
in that regard from Hillary and Biden other So then
the Biden Department of Justice was more vengeful and decided
they were going after Trump. They got Jack Smith, they

(19:11):
knew was going to be this hatchet man of doom,
pretended like he was a you know, a special counsel
so that they could act like they, oh, well, he's
independent of us, you know, we're our hands are washed
of this thing. But they knew he had one job.

(19:34):
His job was to get Trump, clearly, and he acted
in the most unbelievably over aggressive thing, almost to such
an absurd extent in some of these cases that it's
like he was cutting off his nose despite his face.
So yeah, Trump was pretty ticked about it because they

(19:58):
behaved in a lootle Chris fashion towards him for four
straight years. The norms were shattered, and guess what Trump's
not gonna take from. Look like, I think that this
particular perjury case against Komy is kind of weak. I
don't know that it's gonna go. I don't know that

(20:18):
it's got legs. But why how From Trump's perspective, especially
Trump operating as a non lawyer, he's gonna be their thing. Well,
they didn't have a case against me. They threw all
these indictments against me. You go after this guy, he's
a slimeball. We're going after him. I mean, it's probably

(20:39):
not how I would act, but it's hard to act like.
It's not an understandable reaction. It is. It's a perfectly
understandable reaction. And that's the frustrating. That's that's what's so
frustrating about all this is that this the Democrats started
this cycle, and now they're acting outraged that the cycle

(21:00):
is going to continue. They brought this on themselves. It's
all their fault. It's their fault that this stuff is
starting to happen, Like this is the world they created,
they sewed. They're upset that they have to reap. And

(21:27):
it's also in this context I'll conclude with this, Trump
gets elected in twenty sixteen, he's got Hillary dead to rights.
He's got James Comy, whose assessment of Hillary. All kinds
of conservative legal commentators are looking at James Comy's decision

(21:50):
not to prosecute Hillary and saying this is blowney. Hillary
is guilty. She clearly knew she was breaking the law
by putting this stuff on a private server. God knows
what's on that serve. Trump had Hillary at his mercy

(22:12):
and he didn't go after her. He had crowds yelling
lock her up, lock her up, and he was laughing
at them. But then he gets into office and what
does he do. He says, I don't think it would
be good for the country for me to do that.
He flat outside, I don't think it would be good
for the country for me to go after someone that
I had just beaten an election. The American people spoke,

(22:34):
let it be when what were we talking about. We
were talking about a secretary of State hiding classified documents
on a server in her house. We were talking about
allegations of all kinds of shady stuff with the Clinton
Foundation possibly being on there, her destroying evidence, blub blaha,
all this stuff which would be a massive scandal, and Trump, basically,

(23:00):
out of some sense of good order and not wanting
to turn the country in a Banana republic set I'm
not going to go after her. And what did Biden
do The exact opposite reaction? He gave into the basest
instincts of his party and let loose the hounds of
war on Trump. Well, I think Trump just takes the viewpoint, well,

(23:23):
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on me. So I'm going after you guys again. This
is the world they created, and it's so. I mean,
I don't think this indictment against Comy's going anywhere, but
I'll say, if they had a great case against Comy,

(23:45):
I'd say go for it at a certain point, Like,
we can't just let Democrats do this and not do
it back in return. If Comy committed serious crimes and
you can prove it, let's go for it. I guess
my fear is only that, but this is going to
be really hard to prove, especially with the Northern Virginia
jury and with the kinds of liberal federal judges you're

(24:07):
probably going to see in the Northern District of Virginia.
When we return, I want to talk about the idea
of how much politicians are actually influenced by Christianity. That's
next on the John Girardi Show. I want to talk
about how influence, how influential, how much politicians allow religion
to influence how much politicians allow religion to influence them.

(24:32):
There we go third times the charm how much politicians
allow religious belief to influence them. And I'm prompted to
think this about this story that I talked about it
on the show yesterday. I think we're going to talk
about it on Right to Life Radio that the Catholic
Archbishop of Chicago, Blaze Soupicch, is giving a Lifetime Achievement
award to Dick Durbin, the Democrat senator from Illinois, who's

(24:56):
a huge lefty and has been radically pro abortion for wherever.
And the contention that Cardinal Soupicch is making is that, basically,
I know that durban is terrible on abortion and is
trampling all over the rights of innocent unborn children who

(25:19):
are murdered with his full legislative support for their legal killing.
But he's done wonderful stuff on the areas of immigration,
war and peace and respect for the environment. So we're
going to honor him for that, which is I think crazy.

(25:46):
He tried to justify it by saying, well, abortion is
not like the only important issue out there, which, okay, sure,
if you're operating from a Christian Catholic mindset. Yes, there
are other principles of justice that are operative in the
world of today. An abortion is not the only thing.
I think maybe we should give it a slightly higher priority,
given that they're if we actually think abortion is murder,

(26:10):
and there are a million children murdered legally every single
year in this country, it's kind of hard to think
anything could be more important than that. However, Okay, let's
accept that immigration is a very important thing and involves
really profound issues and questions of justice and what is
fair and what is right and what is just? And
will it impose great suffering on people if we enforce

(26:31):
our immigration laws too strictly? Are our immigration laws unjust?
Is our system unjust? Is it fair? Should we allow
more people? Do we haven't the right number of people?
Are blah blah blah blah blah. The problem Supit seems
to draw is he seems to have this sort of
shrugging defeatism of well, nobody's really living up to the

(26:54):
gospel because Republicans are all bad on war and peace
and the environment and immigration, and Democrats are all bad
on a border, so nobody's good. So I can honor
anybody when actually, if he actually believes in what he
characterized as a consistent ethic of life, that all these
issues are quite important and that none of them don't matter,

(27:15):
he would just not honor Republicans that he thinks are
bad on immigration. It's not a reason for honoring a
horrible pro abortion person. It's a reason against honoring. Let's say,
if you take the most negative interpretation possible of President
Trump's immigration policy. For example, Okay, you think you think
every deportation President Trump is carried out was unjust. Okay,

(27:37):
then don't honor Donald Trump. But it's not an argument
for honoring somebody like Dick Durbin. Now that was the
argument Stupits was making. Not questioned, though, was this. And
I think this argument happens not just in Catholicism. I
think this argument can be seen in other forms of

(27:59):
sort of Christianity, where there's this assumption that, yeah, these politicians,
these Republican politicians, are in accord with the Gospel on
like abortion and stuff, but they're totally wrong, not in
accord with the Gospel on immigration, and on the flip side,

(28:20):
that the Democrats are all fors in line with what
the Gospel teaches on immigration and this and that and
the environment and blah blah blah, they just have this
problem with abortion. And I think that's a very naive perspective.

(28:41):
First of all, you gotta start with this. I think
this is an unfortunate thing in American politics, especially among
Catholic politicians on both sides of the isle, that I
don't think for the vast majority of Catholic politicians, Republican
or Democrat, I don't think many of them give much
evidence of having their faith inform their politics. I think

(29:08):
the overlay between their faith and their politics is always flimsy.
That whatever overlap might happen to be for say, most
Catholic politicians, whatever overlay there might be between their Catholic
faith on the one hand and their political views on
the other, that the overlay is more or less accidental.

(29:28):
That these guys are Republicans first and foremost, they are
Democrats first and foremost, and then secondarily they are Catholics.
And that's a shame. It's a terrible thing. I think
that the number of Catholics who really know their faith
very well and allow their faith to form their public

(29:49):
policy views and really strive to have their faith be aligned,
that their public policy views be aligned with their faith,
rather than the other way around, other than trying to
brute force their faith into fitting their preconceived political notions.
I think that number is vanishingly small. I do think
Jade Vance thinks really seriously about his faith. I think

(30:12):
Marco Rubio thinks really seriously about his Catholic faith. But
I think for both of them, they are strong temptations
to compromise. I think Vance has been pulled into certain
Obama Esque compromises, even about miff pristone, the abortion pillar,
how we're regulating it, although they're saying that they're gonna
investigate it, but there have been that there are ways

(30:36):
in which obviously politics pulls at you and tempts you
towards less fidelity. All right with Democrats, though it's one
hundred percent clear that they do not give a flying
rip about what the Catholic Church teaches, whatever overlay there
is between their politics and things the Catholic Church teaches.

(30:58):
If you think that they're on immigration are aligned with
the Church's views on immigration, it is a purely accidental overlap.
It's not because they set out to think I want
to be faithful to my Catholic beliefs. I want my
Catholic faith to influence me, to guide me and what
is right and just, and that's how I will form

(31:18):
my political views. If they actually had that mindset, they
wouldn't all be pro abortion. No, they don't give a
crap about Catholic social teaching. They will after the fact,
after forming their political views, they will try either to
bend Catholic teaching to pretend like it fits what they believe,

(31:40):
just as I think many liberal evangelicals try to twist
the words of the Bible to try to get it
to mean what they think it should mean to align
with their worldview, or they will make some sort of
JFK esque argument that, well, I have to do what's
right for my country before I do the you know,

(32:02):
the things that are the dictates, the sectarian dictates of
my religion. You know, we live in a pluralistic society.
So if I'm forced to choose between what is in
the best interest of the country and what my faith
tells me I have to do, I will obviously do
what's in the best interests of the country. And it's
that kind of JFK nonsense that has led to every
pro abortion Catholic Democrat since JFK trying to rationalize their behavior.

(32:25):
And this is the sad and unfortunate reality. I don't
think most politicians let their faith form their politics. I
think most politicians have their politics and they like to
go to church on Sunday because they want to look
like a stable, normal American and they will either after

(32:46):
the fact try to rationalize their faith as fitting with
their politics, or they will I don't know, they will
try to pretend that their faith matches their preconceived political
ideas or what have you, but it's not because they're
like deeply devout and they formed their political viewpoints in

(33:09):
order to be consistent with their faith. I would like
to think that if I ever ran for political office,
that is what I would do. I hope that is
what I would do. I hope I would have the
strength not to compromise on my religious views in the
face of you know this, that or the other. Now,
when we return, I want to talk about the specific

(33:30):
contention that liberal Christianity or liberal Catholicism is actually all
fors square. Excuse me that a liberal viewpoint on immigration
or the environment, et cetera is actually all fors squarely
in line with Catholicism, more so than more conservative viewpoints.
That's next on the John Jrardy Show. I've been talking

(33:53):
the last few days about the Archbishop of Chicago giving
this massive award to Dick Durbin, the horrible pro abortion
senator from Illinois, and he does it on this contention
that Dick Durbin's views on immigration and the environment and
war in peace are that he has stood up for
Catholic social teaching in those areas. And this is a

(34:17):
big move all the time by liberal Catholics, and I'm
sure by other liberal Christian bodies to act like, well, okay,
maybe Democrat politicians aren't totally okay in their approach to abortion,
but they're really good and they're totally right with immigration
of the Da da da da. Look, if you want

(34:40):
to argue to me that President Trump's general approach to
the immigration problem is not on all fours squarely aligned
with Catholic principles of justice, I will listen to you.
I might not agree. I might think that many things,
many things Trump has done, were good. Maybe a few

(35:01):
things have not been great. Some things have not been good.
I'll have a discussion with you, but don't give me
this belooney that the mainstream Democrat actions over the past
four years, that they supported over the last five years
since the start of the Biden administration, If you think

(35:22):
that that is consistent with Catholic teaching, then I'm sorry, no,
it just isn't. Having a total open borders scenario where
you're not controlling it at all, where you've got the

(35:43):
number of unaccounted for children, unaccounted for unaccompanied miners, there's
something like that. It's in the six figures of children
who came in as unaccompanied miners that we have lost
track of drugs coming through sex trafficking, the way every

(36:07):
person crossing the border. I mean, if you've got people
crossing the border getting to the border who are paying
the drug cartels a certain amount per pop just to
get to the border or to clandestinely get across the border,
you pay them more. The way that this is funding
the drug cartells. If you think that that is a

(36:28):
great presentation of like the ideal Catholic solution to the border,
then boy, are you offering a terrible and not very
syllable version of Catholicism And because I just don't think
that is true. People act like that, you know, whatever
the Democratic Party thinks about immigration, that yep, that's exactly

(36:49):
on all fours. But the Catholic Church teaches on immigration,
and it's just not true. The basics of what is
actually quote Catholic teaching whatever about immigration is countries have
a right to regulate their borders. Countries should try to
be generous to people who would like to immigrate, They

(37:12):
should try to be kind and welcoming and accompanying. However,
they have the right to police their borders. They have
the right to police their borders in order to not
alter their own culture. That immigrants have a responsibility to
uphold the law. Like Catholic teaching on it, it's for

(37:36):
one thing, it's not super specific. It's not like, yes,
this precise set of policies is exactly what you have
to do. A lot of it is left up to
people's prudential judgments because it's hard to create a hard
and fast rule. So I just want to push back
on this notion that I think is rampant throughout liberal Christianity,

(37:58):
and this afflicts other issues, the environment, all kinds of
other things that yes, definitely what the Democrats think is
totally on force with Catholic teaching, even though they have
a little mistake here on abortion. No, it's not. You're
comparing apples to oranges here. That'll do it, Joann Grody Show,
See you next time on Power Talk.