Hippies vs. Cops

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
As there's more and more Palestine proteststuff happening over the course of this weekend
at various graduations across the country,including a walkout at Duke University where Jerry
Seinfeld was the commencement speaker and abunch of Palestinian students start walking out when

(00:22):
he starts speaking. In spite ofthe fact I don't think Jerry Seinfeld has
other than being Jewish. I'm notsure that there is any possible connection between
Jerry Seinfeld and the Israel Gaza conflict. I don't feel like he's spoken about

(00:43):
it all that much. I thinkthere was a Curbier Enthusiasm episode where Larry
David was conflicted between wanting to supportIsrael, but then he was dating an
extremely attractive Palestinian woman, and sothat was his that was his gravy internal
complim But Jerry Seinfeld, though,has nothing to do with the Israel Palestine

(01:07):
conflict. And here in the middleof Duke's commencement exercises, as Seinfeld's getting
up to speak, all these studentswalk out. This led to the joke
that we found the identity of theorganizer of the pro Palestine walk out at
the Duke commencement speech, and it'sKevin what's his name, Kevin Knight,
the guy who plays Newman Jerry's archnemesis on the show. That he was,

(01:32):
you know, holding a Palestinian flagand leading people up. Keith Keith
Knight. Anyway, whatever, Imade this comment, and the more I
think about it, the more Ithink it's true. Because I feel somewhat
ambivalent about the Israel Palestine conflict.I think, yes, Israel is just,

(01:59):
it is right and just for Israelto defend itself. I'm not sure
though, that I'm gung ho inagreement with every single thing that the Israelis
do. I think there are alot of serious questions about conduct in the
midst of wartime. I have alot of questions and concerns about Israeli policy.

(02:25):
More broadly. Of course, Octoberseventh was horrible and unjustified and terrible
and evil, and Hamas Hamas isthis completely evil and insane entity. But
I think there are real serious discussionsto be had and we're having none of

(02:45):
them. Why Because basically, theIsrael Palestine conflict has become just another American
left right fight. It's just anotherversion of hip versus cops, some version
of hippies versus cops, which theGeorge Floyd protests were kind of like that,

(03:10):
But the George Floyd the Black LivesMatters protests were able to sort of
position themselves in a way that wasa little bit more universally sympathetic than the
Palestine protesters. The pro Palestinian protestersin America are just so loathsome, and

(03:32):
they so obviously blend into flat outanti Semitism, and they're so that they
display even if they're not anti Semitic, they just display all the most revolting
characteristics of modern day left wing youknow, woke, intersectionality, whatever you

(03:54):
want to call it, culture downto the I was reading this thing that
Columbia, at Columbia University, whichis like the epicenter of all this protest
stuff, they had a group ofpeople going on a hunger strike, and
after ten days, their original groupof hunger strikers passed the baton to another

(04:20):
group of hunger strikers because they wereconcerned about health risks to the hunger striker.
Well, of course you're concerned abouthealth risks to hunger strikers. That's
the point of a hunger strike,you threaten that you're going to kill yourself
through food deprivation until someone does whatyou want. So if you just stop

(04:43):
the hunger strike when you don't getwhat you want and just pass it off
to someone else, then what's thepoint of hunger striking? Like they demonstrate
every loathsome entire titled historically like thehistorically ignorant, politically ignorant, entitled,

(05:09):
arrogant, every characteristic you could everthink of for why I don't want to
pay for this person's student loan,Like, every single aspect of that is
on display with these pro Palestinian protests. They're so loathsome so unsympathetic, even

(05:34):
to the point of like trying toyou know, pretend like oh, making
like protesting illegally occupying buildings on campusand then demanding that the university facilitate what
they do. It's this unbelievable levelof entitlement and arrogance, all with this

(05:56):
total lack of perspective about a groupthat they're protesting for. You know,
just the the the number of youknow, queers for Palestine, LGBTQ plus
for Palestine. The Hamas would absolutelymurder these people. The idea that Hamas,

(06:24):
these ultra fundamentalist, radical Muslims whowant to impose Sharia law. They
would execute every single one of thesepeople if they were just normal citizens living
in Gaza trying to live out theirlives like this, whether for homosexuality,

(06:46):
for this, for that, likethe the the idea that Hamas is some
sort of natural ally to their struggleor that they and Hamas are akin in
some way is completely absurd, andall of it has to do it's all
centered around For these American protesters,it's all centered around anti colonialism, which

(07:14):
is this huge value that has tobe preserved within liberal academia anti colonialism.
Colonialism is bad. People who engagein colonialism are bad and well correction,
not colonialism, Western colonialism, Westerncolonialism. That and usually I think what

(07:45):
they're more upset about is in theform of ideology, culture, religion,
that kind of colonialism. The ideaof quote, indigenous cultures being overrun by
Christianity, the idea of indigenous peoplesbeing having their culture taking away and having
it be replaced with and essentially Europeanor Western culture. That's what they don't

(08:11):
like. And so they see theexistence of the state of Israel as such
attempt that there were several Palestinians innineteen forty eight who were displaced from their
homes, and that several Muslims.Although the concept of quote Palestine doesn't really
make sense. It wasn't ever itsown like separate political entity. It was

(08:35):
either part of the Ottoman Empire orpart of Jordan or part of you know,
there was there was not one singlelike country in this region on the
west bank of the Jordan River orthe Gaza strip that was just Palestine.

(08:56):
But people who lived in this regionwho were removed from their home nineteen forty
eight, and that is an unforgivablesin that results in the state of Israel
just should not exist and we cannotget over it because it was a Western
act of colonialism. We don't mindEastern colonialism. We don't mind that Azerbaijan

(09:20):
is actively conquering Armenia, Armenian landthat we don't care as much about.
And even for these young liberals,I don't think they really care about the
Russia Ukraine conflict that much like honestly, the Russia Ukraine thing, it's it's
much more of a baby boomer liberalcrowd that supports that. But these aoc

(09:50):
age folks, that's not really revntheir engines. This is what they care
about. Why because it's perceived asan indigenous, brown skinned culture, because
we have to view things through thelens of American racial politics, fighting against

(10:13):
a Western imperial oppressor, even thoughthat Western imperial oppressor is in this case
Jewish. So that's what's animating them. But that's the American conflict behind this

(10:35):
American internal culture. And you know, again, it's descended in America into
a hippies versus cops thing, justanother iteration of the same thing, a
less popular iteration of Black Lives Matteror the Women's March or whatever. It's

(10:58):
all just an another example of hippiesversus cops. Behind that, though,
is like a real conflict where thereare real serious questions going on. Should
the United States provide deadly military fundingfor the Israelis? I mean, I

(11:22):
would be okay if people said Isupport Israel's cause, I support Israel's military
operations. Okay, why do wehave to give them tens of billions of
dollars of military funding? Ye?Are we able as a country anymore just
to say, you know what,we're glad you guys are fighting that war.
Keep it up, moral support ata baby. We can't just do

(11:48):
that. We have to give youtens of billions of dollars. So there's
questions about that. There's questions aboutnow what seems to be what is the
major controversy du jour is that Congresshaving authorized giving billions of dollars for military

(12:11):
aid to Israel, the Biden administrationis refusing to hand it over because Israel
wants to go into this one sectionof Gaza called Rafa to sort of do
a final offensive push against Hamas.So the money is being held up.

(12:41):
Now. I think you can raisesome real questions about President Biden. And
in the next segment I think I'lldraw a comparison here to what happened under
Donald Trump with military funding authorized byCongress and slowing up the delivery of it
so that there are a lot ofactually really serious conflicts. But I think,

(13:03):
unfortunately, unfortunately it has devolved.This whole thing has just evolved into
another hippies versus cops argument, whereI mean, I guess I'm grateful that
in this iteration of hippies versus cops, the hippies look bad. But at
the same time, we've got ahorrible war going on with America now invested

(13:30):
with billions and billions of dollars init. When we return the similarities between
Trump's first Ukraine impeachment and what Bidenis doing now. Next on the John
Girardi Show, let me take youall back in time to remind you about
Donald Trump's first impeachment. Ah,it's like a first kiss. You never

(13:56):
forget where you were when it happened, except with the Trump first impeachment you
kind of do because it was sortof an unremarkable thing. Here's here's basically
what happened with Trump's first impeachment.The Trump administration, authorized by Congress,
presumably, was going to give militaryweaponry to the Ukrainians. This was I

(14:24):
think in twenty eighteen Biden is excuseme. Donald Trump communicates with Zelenski,
the president of Ukraine, to say, Hey, I want to give you
this military aid, but could youlook into this whole thing with Hunter Biden
for me, and seems to indicatethat he's going to make the delivery of

(14:50):
this military funding dependent on Ukraine investigatingHunter Biden. Ultimately, though he didn't
make the military funding dependent on Ukraineinvestigating Hunter Biden, he gives Ukraine the

(15:13):
military funding. A whistleblower blows thewhistle on this conversation between Trump and Zelenski,
which is troubling in itself, Like, if the President of the United
States can't have a candid conversation witha foreign military leader without a fear that
it's going to get leaked to thepress, that doesn't seem like a great

(15:35):
situation for the sake of international diplomacyand the president's interactions with other kinds of
world leaders. This gets leaked andthe press explodes. The press is sure
that this is a campaign finance violationat the very and this is the first

(15:56):
thing they run with, which iswhich strikes me is bizarre. Well,
at the very least the first thingthey say, so, this is wildly
inappropriate Donald Trump making the delivery ofmilitary a dependent on a personal vendetta,
a personal political vendetta against Joe Bidenbecause he might run for president. And

(16:19):
so people on the left try togo through, well, what did he
do that was illegal here, andthey come to realize there really wasn't anything
illegal. First they say, well, it's a campaign finance violation. That
was the first thing they ran with, and everyone was convinced that he violated
campaign finance law by asking Zelenski toinvestigate whether the Hunter Biden situation in spite

(16:48):
of the fact that Zelenski never did, and I guess an investigation of Hunter
Biden, in their twisted thinking,would count as basically an in kind campaign
donation that was not reported. Well, that's not how it works. That's
not how campaign finance violations work.Campaign finance violations work. If you pay
for a bunch of political attack adsagainst your opponent and you don't report it

(17:11):
as a campaign finance expense, right, that's a campaign finance violation activity that
only exists for the purpose of apolitical campaign. In fairness, one of
the things we've seen is that HunterBiden was probably doing all kinds of dirty
stuff, sleazy stuff. There's allkinds of allegations of illegal to shady stuff

(17:37):
that Hunter slash Joe might have beendoing, Failure to register as a foreign
agent, like all kinds of stuffthat would have been maybe legitimate for the
President of the United States to askabout. But never mind that. So
they go from campaign finance violation thenthey say it was bribery, the Trump

(17:57):
was, but that doesn't work becauseit doesn't fall into the category of what
a bribe is under the federal briberyStatute. Then they said, well,
it was a quid pro quo,a quid pro quo Trump was gonna give
them military aid if they did somethingelse. Well, quid pro quos are

(18:18):
not in and of themselves illegal.That that's not an illegal thing that happens
all. That's what most of Americanforeign relations are. We will do this
nice thing for you if you dothis nice thing for us. We will
do this if you help us advanceour interests here. So they went through
this whole mental exercise of trying tofigure out, well, this seems sleazy,

(18:45):
but how do we blame Trump forit? And eventually they just decide
to impeach him, which, infairness, you can impeach and convict someone
for I don't know, looking atyou cross the constitution. It leaves the
constitution, leaves the power of impeachmentand conviction in the political realm. It's

(19:10):
in the hand of the political branchesof government. It's a political question,
not a legal question. You don'thave to meet a certain standard of proof.
You don't have to impeach and convictsomeone of a high crime or misdemeanor.
Those things are suggested in the Constitution. But the structure is basically,
you're impeached when a majority of theHouse impeaches you. You are convicted when

(19:32):
two thirds of the Senate convicts you. That's it. That's the raw reality,
which is based in the structure ofhow the Constitution sets it up.
That's an impeachable offense. Well,it's an impeachable offense if a majority of
the House can impeach you for it. That's what's an impeachable offense. And

(19:55):
so the House of Representatives, theDemocrat controlled House of Representatives, impeach Donald
Trump for quote abuse of power becausethey couldn't find an actual statute he had
violated, an actual law he hadtransgressed. Is Joe Biden basically doing the
same thing right now? Joe Bidenis holding up the delivery of congressionally authorized

(20:26):
military funding for Israel. He isdoing so allegedly because he does not want
the Israelis to pursue their strategy inI think it's Rafa, a certain district
of Gaza. Is he abusing hispower? Why is he doing this.

(20:48):
Is he doing this because he's afraidof losing Michigan and Minnesota. Don't think
it's outside the realm of the possible. I think if Biden came out and
very clearly stated what authority he hasover this and his reasons for slowing this
down, and said, hey,I think, hey, the United States

(21:11):
doesn't want this weaponry used to killthis many civilians, so I'm going to
slow this down, I'd respect himfor it. But Biden doesn't have that
kind of energy and ability to expresswhat he's doing. So here's the thing.

(21:32):
I mean, I don't know thatI inherently disagree with the idea of
heavily conditioning the delivery of US weaponryto a foreign country. I absolutely think
we should, although frankly, maybeif Biden wanted it this heavily conditioned,
he would have put those conditions intothe bill that was in front of Congress

(21:56):
before he signed it. But here'sthe thing, though, it seems as
though Biden, with a lot ofthis, is trying to walk this tightrope
between wanting to support Israel and looklike a normal politician, but on the
other because really our Israel Palestine debateis between hippies supporting Palestine and cops supporting

(22:22):
Israel. He wants to seem likea cop so that the majority of Americans
support him, but he can't alienatethe hippies too much. If he alienates
the hippies too much, he mightlose Michigan, he might lose Minnesota,
which have large Muslim populations that arevery sympathetic to Palestine, and he might
lose a bunch of college aged votersall over the country. When we return,

(22:45):
I'll talk about the ridiculousness of DonaldTrump's trial in Manhattan, try to
give you a little legal analysis.That is next on the John Girardi Show.
I want to go through the Trumptrial a little bit, just because
there have been more absurd things happeningin it, and again just to reframe

(23:06):
it. I want to reframe itfor all of you because some of you
might still have the idea that thisis a hush money case. That's how
it's constantly referred to, and youmight think from the testimony that the judge
is allowing in the trial that thisis about hush money. Just last week,
Stormy Daniels was led into the courtroomto testify about her affair with Donald

(23:33):
Trump, and that might make youthink that this case was about hush money,
whether Trump gave this woman hush money. I'm here to tell you that
that's not actually what's charged in thecase at all, and frankly, it
wouldn't be because hush money is notillegal. Let me repeat that, hush

(23:56):
money is not illegal. Non disclosureagreements, for better or for worse,
are not illegal. They just arenot, and it's not what Trump was
charged with. Here's what Trump wascharged with. I will lay out a
little bit of the timeline. Trumpallegedly has this affair with Stormy Daniels.

(24:19):
She wants to go public with itduring the twenty sixteen campaign. Trump would
rather her not. There are possiblymany different reasons why he would rather not,
maybe because the allegation in question isthat they started having an affair right
after his son Baron was born,a lot of reasons why certainly would have

(24:45):
been embarrassing for him in the election. They agree that she will receive one
hundred and thirty thousand bucks if shesigns a non disclosure agreement. Not illegal,
But isn't it a campaign finance violationif you don't report it? That's
the other argument that's made, Well, no, not really. Campaign finance

(25:07):
only gets involved when you're talking aboutexpenditures for things that are clearly campaign related
and you're not reporting them. Okay, television advertisements for a campaign, mailers
for a campaign, expenditures that donot exist, but for the existence of
a campaign anyway, this is almostcertainly not a campaign finance violation. And

(25:40):
how do I know this, Well, the Federal Elections Commission, which has
an easier time of proving elections violationsbecause they only need to prove things through
a civil standard. They don't needto prove that you did things beyond a
reasonable doubt. They just have toprove that you did something wrong by the
preponderance of the evidence to find youcivilly. They're not criminally convicting you.
They investigated this whole thing and didn'tcharge Trump with anything. So here we

(26:04):
have a non disclosure agreement, notillegal, not a campaign finance violation.
Trump agrees to it. Over thecourse of twenty seventeen, Trump engages in
the alleged criminal conflict, the allegedcriminal conduct that is at issue in his
trial. This is actually what he'sbeing charged with, not with agreeing to

(26:27):
a non disclosure agreement, not withgiving this woman money, not with not
you know, having Michael Cohen bethe middleman for paying this. Cohen took
out the money himself, paid StormyDaniels himself, and then Trump reimbursed him.
None of this is illegal. Thealleged criminal action was Trump listing this

(26:53):
in his business records, his paymentsto Cohen, which were actually which was
basically repayment of a loan. Right, That's what Trump's payments to Cohen were.
Coen paid Daniels on Trump's behalf,and Trump needs to reimburse him.

(27:15):
This is payment of a loan.Trump lists the payments to Cohen not as
repayment of a loan. He listsit as ongoing legal services. That is
the crime falsification of business records.That Trump listed this as paying for attorney's

(27:41):
fees, paying an attorney retainer,when actually this was repayment of a loan.
Now, the New York statute thatthis allegedly violates, I'm not even
sure that Trump is violating it.Let me read it for you. Section

(28:06):
one seventy five point zero five ofNew York's penal law Falsification of business records
with intent. So Uh, thisis a crime. Prosecutors must prove that
the accused with intent to defraud causesa false entry to be made in the

(28:26):
business records of an enterprise with intentto defraud. So it's not just having
something wrong in your books, it'shaving something wrong in your books with the
intent to defraud. Intent to defraud. These are important words that you have

(28:48):
to kind of understand. So intentmeans that you are specifically intending that the
evil criminal outcome happened. Trump isdoing these business records with a specific intent

(29:11):
that fraud occur. However, here'sthe problem. Who is being defrauded.
Fraud doesn't just mean anything that's bad. Fraud generally a good way of thinking.

(29:37):
When you hear fraud, think ofthese words. When you hear the
word fraud, the thing you shouldthink of is lying for money. That's
basically what fraud means, lying formoney. Okay, if my five year
old tells me that he brushed histeeth when he didn't, I can't scream
at him fraud. Jack Girardi,you are a fraud, sir. No,

(30:03):
he hasn't engaged in fraud. Hejust lied. He's not earning money
as a result of it. Okay. Now, if Jack Girardi represents himself
as a healthcare provider who's reimbursed,who needs reimbursement from medical for patients,
and he doesn't actually have a medicalpractice, and he's not actually taking care

(30:26):
of any patients, and he's submittingrequests for reimbursements from medical and getting money
from the state, but he's lyingto get money, that is fraud.
Okay. So not all falsehood isfraud. So who was being bilked out

(30:48):
of money as a result of Trumpcharacterizing this as attorney's fees rather than loan
repayment. Not the government. Thegovernment actually got more tax revenue out of
this. Why, well, ifyou loan me fifty thousand dollars and I

(31:11):
pay you back within the calendar year, well my repayment of fifty thousand dollars
back for you, you're not taxedfor that fifty thousand dollars. You don't
have to pay the irs like fortypercent, you know, the top marginal
tax rate plus California taxes on loanrepayment. Loan repayment money coming back to
you is not tax the same waythat normal income is. So Cohen said

(31:37):
to Trump, Hey, if you'reif you're giving me this money as legal
fees, you need to give memore because I have to pay tax on
this. And that's what Trump did. He gave Cohen more. So,
Actually, the taxpayers the government gotoff better in this deal because all this
money that Trump was giving Cohen thathe if it had just been loan repayment,

(32:00):
the government wouldn't have gotten any ofit. Trump actually wound up giving
Cohen much more than one hundred andthirty thousand dollars. I think it was
almost double so that Cohen could payhis taxes. So who was defrauded here?
Who was lied to for money?Nobody? And that's the basics of

(32:24):
it. You can say all dayup and down, and I'll agree with
you that Donald Trump is a sleezeball. That Donald Trump jeets on his
wife wives. Okay, I'll concedethat point. His relationship with Stormy Daniels

(32:47):
was sleezy, his relationship with MichaelCohen was sleezy. His relationship with the
guy who publishes the National Inquirer issleezy. We're basically all this stuff is
sleep NDA's or sleez Slee's away.Totally agree with you all of this is
sleazy. I just don't think it'sillegal. I just don't think he's committed

(33:09):
a criminal act for which he shouldbe convicted. And I think it is
absurdly politicized that this whole trial isabsurdly politicized. This judge has ruled against
Donald Trump on like every single issuepossible. He has allowed in evidence that

(33:30):
has nothing to do with the centralcase, which is in twenty seventeen,
after the election is over. DidTrump engage in fraudulent bookkeeping practices? No,

(33:51):
I just don't think he did well. Or he had bookkeeping practices that
were maybe inaccurate, but they certainlyweren't bilking anyone out of money. And
that's the end of it. Thejudge has allowed in all this testament Stormy
daniels testimony, her testimony about whetherthe details of her and Trump's sexual liaison

(34:19):
has nothing to do with what ischarged, namely, did you falsify business
records in a fraudulent with fraudulent intent? That was after his relationship with Stormy
Daniels. That had nothing to dowith his relationship with Stormy Daniels. It
was long after the fact. Itreally, it isn't even connected to the

(34:43):
agreement to pay her money. Itwas how Trump was writing down his records
for repaying Cohen, for paying hermoney. The judge has allowed in all
this evidence that has nothing to dowith the central thing. And what is
it all about. Really? Theyare angry that Donald Trump won the election.

(35:06):
They think that somehow, if theStormy Daniels story had come out,
that Trump would have lost the twentysixteen election. And they're never ever going
to get over it. They're nevergoing to get to go over the fact
that Donald Trump won an election.That's all it is. When we return,
I put the dirt on any conservativesupport for the Robert Kennedy Junior campaign

(35:27):
that's next on the John Groardy Show. I've noticed this thing of a decent
number of conservatives, not a largenumber, a decent number flirting with anyway
Robert Kennedy Junior saying, you knowthat Robert Kennedy, He's got a lot
to say. And I've just beenwaiting for the other shoe to drop.

(35:47):
I've been waiting for the other crazyshoe to drop because fundamentally he's a Kennedy
and I fundamentally just don't trust him. I feel like a lot of this
is a a bit. I thinkhe seems to genuinely care about the vaccine
issues, and so in the postCOVID like anti vaccine, the era where

(36:12):
COVID related issues were really animating everybody, Kennedy seemed like, Oh, this
is the guy, this guy reallyhas something to say. Well, we're
in this sort of COVID doesn't reallystill matter anymore quite as much. I
think we need to learn from thedisastrous lessons of the COVID response. I

(36:35):
think, frankly, I thought itshould have been more of a point during
the Republican primary that Trump actually wasn'tall that great in a lot of his
COVID response stuff, and actually Ronde Santis was much better. But whatever
Republicans decided, we're sticking with Trump. Biden was obviously terrible the whole time.
So Kennedy sort of stood out forall that. Well, Kennedy came

(36:58):
out last week and he's been flipflopping on specifically the issue of abortion.
At one point, like six monthsago, he seemed to indicate that he
would support federal legislation banning abortion afterlike a certain maybe the ten or fifteen
week point in pregnancy, which Iwas shocked. I was like, wow,

(37:20):
that would be amazing if if yousupport that, I'd have to like
actually really seriously like reconsider my likewhere I stand in the world as far
as here's someone who actually now seeminglyis supporting a more vigorous pro life round
of policies than Donald Trump. Well, the other shoe dropped one was a

(37:45):
story that RFK had some kind ofworm in his brain. Don't know how
that would work. And also,maybe not unrelated, he announced that he's
totally supportive of legal abortion, evenup to the point of birth, a
position that was so radical that thewoman who is running as his running mate

(38:06):
his vice presidential nominee, learned aboutit on a podcast and was completely taken
aback. So rest in peace toconservatives supporting the RFK Junior campaign. It
was fun while it lasted. That'lldo it for John Girardi Show, See
you next time on Power Talk