Regime Change in Iran

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
There's this funny guy, funny guy that I follow on Twitter.
He goes by the handle Jarvis Best, and he tweets
a lot of funny goofball stuff. He's like a lawyer
from Denver, but he's made himself famous for tweeting about
how thirsty, as the kids say, he is for various

(00:24):
attractive female members of Congress, including Nancy Mace from North Carolina,
or she's from South Carolina, I can't remember. Anyway, I
believe South Carolina. And so he tweets stuff about how
in love he is with Nancy Mace and lots of
other funny jokes. Anyway, he had a tweet that I
retweeted from my account that I think perfectly sums up

(00:46):
my attitude on Iran. He writes, as a complete dumbass centrist.
I am finding myself just automatically agreeing with the last
Iran take. I see the last Iran opinion. I see
someone will post something like we can't let Ron get
a nuke, and I'm like, oh my gosh, you're right,

(01:08):
And then someone else will post we can't get dragged
into another war, and I'm like, well, yeah, that's a
great point. I'm helpless I'm at your mercy, and that's me.
I am worthless as a talk radio host. The point
of having a talk radio host is to loudly get
in front of a microphone and yell your opinion. And

(01:28):
I am completely hopeless. So at the moment, it seems
like here's where we stand as far as could the
US get pulled into this. So up until now it's
been all Israel. Now kind of all Israel, because the

(01:52):
only reason Israel's able to engage in an attack like
this is because of all the military aid that we
have given them over the course of years and years
and years and years and years. So it's not like
we're totally not involved. Obviously we have been involved and Trump,

(02:13):
I don't think Trump gave Israel the green light, but
he didn't give them the red light. And also I
think it might be a little unreasonable to expect that
the United States can just dictate to Israel what it
will and will not do. It seems as though Trump
asked Israel to hold off for sixty days while he
put this Iranian deal on the table. Iran didn't act

(02:36):
on it, Israel started their attack, and now most of
the people that the United States was negotiating with are dead.
So it seems as though Israel is kind of doing
this on their own, not necessarily with a green light
from the United States, not necessarily with the red light
from the United States. There is reporting that the United

(02:59):
States is involved in some of the defensive stuff that
Israel is doing to counter incoming Iranian ballistic missiles, so
US military forces are involved in shooting down According to
the story from the Wall Street Journal, US military forces

(03:20):
are involved in shooting down incoming Iranian ballistic missiles that
have been shot at Israel. Here's from Wall Street Journal.
Iran has fired about two hundred ballistic missiles in four
barrages and more than two hundred drones toward Israeli territory
so far in response to multiple waves of Israeli strikes
in Israeli military official said before the retaliatory strikes even began,

(03:42):
US jet fighters, Navy destroyers, and ground based air defense
systems had positioned to help counter any attack. According to
US officials, US ground based interceptors also helped defend Israel
in the latest barrages. The officials said the US operates
several Patriot anti missile batteries across the region, moving them
around to address perceived aerial threats. They're concentrated in Arab

(04:03):
countries on the Persian Gulf, where the US operates sprawling
military bases, as well as Jordan and Iraq. So we're involved,
but only in defensive operations. We're not involved in offensive operations. However,
it seems that reading some of the more neo Khan

(04:25):
leaning commentators like Jim Garrity writing a National Review, who
I think is Leans, certainly he is solidly a you know,
pro involvement in Ukraine of super pro Israel. I'm not
saying neokon in a pejorative sense. I think I'm just
saying that is the position he has staked them. Basically,

(04:52):
it seems as though the temptation that's on the table
for the United States actually become directly involved with this
war or in Iran is the possibility that we could
actually affect regime change, the tantalizing possibility that maybe the

(05:12):
current Iranian regime under the Ayatola Komani, who is eighty
six years old and all of his senior officers are
now dead, that the whole regime could topple any minute,
and that maybe if the United States intervenes with direct

(05:38):
aerial bombardment something like that, maybe we could topple the
Iranian regime and have something replace it. That is tantalizing.
It is tantalizing, especially to the neo con types. Now

(05:59):
why is it tantali Well, first of all, the existing
Iranian regime is horrible. It is evil. They are terrible, terrible, terrible.
They are the source of Iran is the chief exporter
of Islamic terrorism worldwide. Iran has supported most of the

(06:21):
most disastrous, chaotic bad actors in the Middle East who
have caused the most disruption in the region. They armed, equipped,
funded hamas. Iranians were involved in the planning for the
October seventh, twenty twenty three attack. The Iranians fund the Huthis,

(06:42):
The Iranians fund Hezbolah. So Iran funds its proxies all
throughout the Middle East to engage in all kinds of
terrorist attacks. They are a hugely destabilizing force in the
world and to depending on who you talk to, it
seems that they have been trying to develop a nuclear

(07:05):
weapon for a long time. And that's sort of the
trump card for me at least, is you know, I
absolutely don't want the United States to be involved in
a war in another Middle Eastern country. We have been there,

(07:25):
done that, Iraq, Afghanistan, decades of being there, decades of
being in Afghanistan, and what happens we get driven out
in the Taliban's back in power. What was the point. Yes,
we killed Osama bin Laden, Yes al Qaeda is diminished,
But I don't want another twenty years long war. I

(07:48):
don't want any other war. And especially I mean, this
is more crystallized in my mind having my little brother
who's an officer in the United States Army. My actually
my brother just got promoted. He's now a captain in
the Army, got promoted from lieutenant to captain just this
past weekend. We're very proud of him. So don't I

(08:11):
don't want another war. But Iran is really bad. They
are a terrible, terrible, terrible, evil regime. And Iran also
sort of has a history, like within living memory of
many people of having a relatively western, open modern society

(08:39):
prior to the nineteen seventies under the Shaw. Now the
Shaw himself got toppled, he got regime, he got his
rear end, regime changed. But under the shaw. Iran was
a fairly open and modern society and it's still within
the living memory of many people in Iran. So unlike Afghanistan. Okay,

(09:06):
Afghanistan was a certain we got to Afghanistan in two
thousand and one, we toppled the regime. Afghanistan had had
a certain way of life for way longer than we
had ever been through. The Afghans had preserved that way
of life against the Soviet invasion, beat off the Soviet
invasion invaders. Iran is different. Run's a totally different culture

(09:29):
from Afghanistan. So now I don't purport to know everything
there is to know about Iran, but not by a
long shot. But it's different. And the thought is, well,
maybe the United States takes part in aerial bombardment and

(09:53):
this and that and the other, and maybe we can
topple this regime. Well, so that's the temptation, that's the
tantalizing temptation for especially the neo con types, is what
if we could actually do it? What if we could
actually get rid of the current system in Iran with
the Ayatolas, the theocratic, insane, Sharia based regime, and maybe

(10:19):
replace it with something. Now there are two problems. One
is what comes next. That's one of the big problems
with a lot of countries in the Middle East is
you know, you don't like such and such leader. Okay, well,
what's gonna come next. You know, we don't like Saddam

(10:42):
Hussein Sadamasin's a very bad guy. What comes next? Well,
maybe we get democratically elected sharia' that's what the people
vote for. Okay, you don't like, uh, you know, Israeli
control of Gaza, Well, the Israelis leave, and what happens
the Gazans elect Hamas you know, giving people in these

(11:04):
regions the right to vote, the right to self determination
doesn't always lead to good outcomes because look, there are
a lot of populations there who may want to vote
for something that is incredibly anti Western and incredibly medieval
in its way of thinking. So you know, be careful

(11:30):
what you wish for. I mean, it's hard to envision
anything worse, anything more illiberal, anything more pigheaded, anything more
terror supporting than the Ayatolas. But you could affect regime
change and then just go, you know, out of the

(11:50):
frying pan into the fire. Secondly, to affect state regime
change is not as easy as one, two three. It's
not as easy as snapping your fingers. You know, Syria,
which has been fighting a civil war for years and

(12:11):
years and years. They finally the one side overthrew the
existing regime of Bashar al Asad. Bashar al Assad, who
had been the president kind of dictator of Syria for
the prior you know, twenty four years. He gets overthrown,
and he was a terrible guy. He was bad dude.

(12:34):
He was kind of I think he was kind of
a also an Iranian proxy. Iran would use Syria under
Bashar al Asad and before Bashar al Asad was his
father was kind of the dictator. Before that, they would
use Syria as their sort of through point for getting

(12:54):
arms and weaponry transferred from Iran to the Syrian to
their various little proxy militant entities throughout the Middle East.
The Huthis, Palestinian Palestinian groups has blah things like that. Anyway,

(13:17):
the guy who overthrew As'ad, who's now in charge of Syria,
he had been a former al Qaida guy, and now
everyone's like, oh, he's this moderate rebel because everyone disliked,
you know, everyone within the American foreign policy establishment. Understandably
he did not like Asad, but they are trying to
gussie up this new guys if he's some wonderful saint,

(13:39):
and it sort of remains to be seen how this
new guy is going to govern, and it also remains
to be seen, like, you know, how stable is this
guy gonna be? This guy Ahmed al Sharrah, so you know,

(14:01):
how stable is that guy going to be? You know,
we replaced the Taliban in Afghanistan and we had twenty
years of constant fighting. We replaced Saddam in Iraq and
we have, you know, twenty years of constant fighting. So

(14:23):
the idea of you know, oh, the US will just
engage in a couple of air strikes and then all
of a sudden up regime change done. Hooray, mission accomplished. Boys,
we did it that. I don't think that's how that works.
I think there's a good chance that you can't achieve
regime change, you know. And that's the thing. I feel

(14:45):
like people of neo cons love doing this. I've been
following politics since I was I don't know, fifteen, sixteen,
seventeen years old, and I feel like I've heard for
the last decade US certainly, and maybe longer than that,
especially about Iran. Like remember the Green Revolution those happened

(15:06):
all these different Middle Eastern countries during the Obama years
we're having you know, the Egyptian government got overthrown and
then got reoverthrown back to basically the same government they
had before. All these Green revolutions were actually uh, people
wound up with a lot worse governments during that time.
And for years people have been saying, the Iranian people

(15:27):
hate the regime they live under. They are suffering under
the regime they live under. They they are chafing for
They're they're champing at the bit yearning for freedom, to
which I say, well are they? Though? Are they really?
I mean that there were some of the Green Revolution

(15:48):
protests like in the Obama era, But if so many
millions of Iranians really don't like this regime, there's really
no way that they could have overthrown this regime on
their own without us prior. I don't know, That's the thing,
Like I feel like we always want to overestimate this

(16:10):
idea that the people genuinely hate their current existing government
that the United States also hates. You know, I don't
know how dissatisfied the Afghans were with the Taliban. I
don't know how dissatisfied the Iraqis were with Saddam Hussein.

(16:32):
I don't know. I don't know how dissatisfied, which leads
me to my point. I don't know how dissatisfied the
Iranians are with the current setup. I mean, will we
actually be like and it's just that that narrative again, Well,
we'll be treated as liberators, will we? I mean, yeah,

(16:55):
they used to have the Shah, and they used to
have this more open, you know, western open societ that
was like fifty years ago, and they overthrew that guy
and replaced him with the most not that kind of
regime possible. You know, we bring up that they'll shoot

(17:17):
women or execute women for walking around without a heye job.
We think that's terrible. I don't know that most Iranians
think that's terrible. I don't know. Maybe there are a
lot of them who think it's terrible. Maybe, but I
don't know that. And I don't feel like anyone in
America has really the most solid grip on just how
unpopular or popular the iatolas are in Iran. At the

(17:43):
same time, there's the nuke thing. So we'll talk about
the nuke thing, the big trump card in this after
the break. This is John Girardi Show. As I said
at the start of the show, I think my opinions
on Iran are sort of wildly all over the place.
I feel like I just kind of agree with whatever's
the last thing I read. So if the last thing
I read was we cannot allow the Iranians to get

(18:03):
a new because we should, We should intervene, we should
topple the regime now while we got the chance, I'm like, oh,
that's pretty persuasive. And then I read someone else being like, really,
you wont another war in the Middle East that's gonna
drag on for twenty Oh, that's pretty persuasive. And you know,
you're trying to do. Regime change is obviously not so simple.
It's not like you snap your fingers and it just
happens very often. It requires twenty years of dedicated, you know,

(18:28):
ground forces, and maybe it's not super stable and god
knows how committed the Iranians are. The one thing, the
one thing with Irun that makes it a little more
dicey than everyone else is whether they are well, let
me put it this way, whether they were close to

(18:49):
getting a nuke before the Israeli strikes, whether they are
close to getting a nuke now after the Israeli strikes,
whether long term they're going to be close to getting
a nuke, whether they even want a nuke to begin with, Okay,

(19:11):
which it seems that all of those points are disputed now,
I guess I'm not. I give more credence to the
idea that, yes, Iran would like to have a nuke,
thank you very much, and then also the idea of, well,
how will Iran act with a nuke? Most countries with nukes,

(19:32):
even really bad countries like North Korea, don't use them
willy nilly. It gives you negotiating leverage, but most countries
don't actually use them. North Korea has a nuke, they
don't use it. It strengthened, it strengthens their negotiating position

(19:54):
in various kinds of ways. But they're not firing the
nuke because they know if they actually fire a nuke,
we will eliminate them from the face of the earth.
So they don't fire a nukes. They have a nuke,
it's a negotiating leverage point. They don't use it is

(20:17):
the Ayatola Komane, an eighty six year old man, by
the way, and there are these news stories about how
he's kind of feeling totally disconnected because all the people
he worked with are now dead. And frankly, I think
it's a fair question of whether any you know, given
that we in the United States just went through this
with an octogenarian president, you know how loose it is he,

(20:38):
how stable is here, and how stable is whoever's going
to replace him? Is an iatola in Iran, either the
current one or whoever's the next one, who is going
to step up after Komane. Are they crazy enough, suicidal
enough to actually use a nuke, to give a nuke

(20:58):
to approx see to explode in Jerusalem? Is that even
physically possible? I guess. I don't know all that. Do
they have actually the ballistic missile technology to deliver said
nuke a long distance? Do they have the ability to
detonate a nuke in a city, to smuggle it into

(21:21):
a city and there by detonate it. I don't know.
I don't know. I don't know, I don't know, I
don't know. But that is the big threat. That is
the one thing that the Neokon side has in its
favor is this is a unstable suicide bomb loving martyrdom,

(21:43):
Islamic martyrdom, jihad, embracing theocratic government. It genuinely embraces these
principles of theocracy and martyrdom for the cause of Jihad
and Sharia. And they're going to have a nuke. You know,

(22:05):
you think that they won't use the new You hope
they would act rationally with the nuke, but that's not
always a guarantee. One person can make one bad decision
and all of a sudden, no Tel Aviv, no Jerusalem. No,

(22:26):
you know, I don't know if it's possible to smuggle
a nuclear weapon into a city in the West, you know,
No Paris, no, you know, whatever it is. So I
guess I can't I acknowledge that that is maybe the
trump card. Now, maybe the Israeli strikes have completely decimated

(22:46):
their nuclear capacity. I would want to know that one
way or another before I'm supportive of regime change. But
the nuke angle is the one trump card. And all
this all right, when we return, will go away from
foreign policy to domestic stuff. Gavin Newsom Gavin's Last gasp
An update on his lawsuit against President Trump. That's next
on the John Gerardy Show. I had a piece published

(23:10):
by National Review today. You can check it out at
my Twitter account Twitter dot com slash Fresnojohnny at Fresno Johnny.
It's a piece basically about Gavin Newsome, And as I've
talked about before, my thesis is that I think non
Californians and even a lot of Californians, don't realize just
how politically damaged Gavin Newsom is right now, and how

(23:36):
he has really isolated himself within California and has racked
up just a string of really embarrassing and devastating failures
that and critically, it's failures that are non partisan in nature,

(23:57):
that have outcomes that are non partisan in nature. Things
that he said were a priority in twenty eighteen that
he just didn't deliver on. Things that are just bad homelessness,
lack of new home construction, when he's been saying since
twenty eighteen, Oh, there's a serious problem, we need to

(24:18):
fix it. The high speed rail having zero point zero
inches of operable track. Wildfires. Wildfires were a huge problem
twenty nineteen, twenty twenty, they were still a big problem
at the start of twenty twenty five. He has issue

(24:39):
after issue after issue after issued like that where it's like,
it's not a thing where Republicans really don't like it,
but Democrats really like it because it's a super liberal policy. No,
it's a wildfire. Nobody likes a wildfire. Homelessness. Nobody likes homelessness.
Davin Newsom spent twenty four billion dollars on homelessness and
it hasn't helped the problem at all. So no one
likes homelessness. No one likes high how costs. No one

(25:01):
likes the fact that we can't build anything quickly in California,
including new homes. Nobody likes wildfires. Nobody blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah, issue after issue after issue, or
what he has is something that's like a liberal policy
that he's had to backtrack from because it's been such
a disaster. He extended medical eligibility to illegal aliens. It

(25:21):
wound up being way more expensive than he thought, so
he has to pull back on it. So that looks
bad to everybody. It's not a thing that just Republicans
are mad at because Republicans don't support giving medical coverage
to people who aren't supposed to be in the country.
This is something that looks bad to everyone. Liberals are

(25:45):
far angrier at Gavin Newsom right now than conservatives are
over the medical for illegals thing. All right. Conservatives are
just like, okay, well, you know, just another thing that
we don't like. I mean, you know, it's a thing
that we would expect from Gavin Newsom. Liberals in Sacramento.
Liberals in the state legislature like Joaquin A. Rambula, for example,

(26:10):
are really upset at the withdrawal of coverage from illegal aliens,
really upset. Advocacy groups all up and down the state
are super angry at Gavin Newsom for the withdrawal of
some medical coverage from some illegal aliens, not all, but some,
so they are just fit to be tied. Most of

(26:35):
the state legislature, in fact, is unhappy with it, and
the state legislative proposal for the budget. The state legislator's
proposal from the budget sort of moderates even the Newsom position,
and a bunch of Democrat legislators aren't even happy with that.
So Newsom is hugely politically damaged right now. He has

(26:58):
isolated people in California. You've got because of his cuts.
You've got teachers unions mad at him, public workers, public
workers unions mad at him. You've got the abortion industry
mad at him. You've got Planned Parenthood was furious at
the cuts he proposed in the May revision. He's got
environmentalists getting mad at him because now he's belatedly trying

(27:21):
to do more water delivery stuff for southern California to
equip them for wildfires, and they're mad at some of
the stuff he's trying to do there. You've got legislators
really mad at him. You've got advocacy groups really mad.
Everyone is mad at him. So he has all these

(27:44):
non partisan failures. He's got fellow liberals really ticked off
at him. He's the ultimate lame duck. He's only got
a year and a half. He's got a year and
a half left as govern and you can see the
tenor of conversations that happened in Sacramento. It's shifting away

(28:06):
from a Newsom centric focus. The legislature sees his May
revision of the budget and they're like, well, we don't
want that. We're gonna give our own proposal. That doesn't
cut as much as you cut, and they sort of
I think they're taking this attitude of they're not afraid
of Gavin Newsom anymore. I think Gavin Newsom, especially around

(28:28):
the time of his recall, Newsom at the time of
his recall clearly had more power, more clout, more money
behind him, more support within the Democrat Party than he
had ever had, and he was able to intimidate every
elected Democrat in California and basically say, if any Democrat

(28:48):
dares to run in the recall election, their career is over.
And he was able to do that. He had the muscle,
the money behind him to do that. He had organized
labor all behind him, he had the environmental groups all
behind him. He had his traditional, you know, magic circle
of donors. The CEO of Netflix was giving like tens

(29:09):
of millions of dollars to the anti recall campaign because
there wasn't a there's no dollar contribution limit on a
yes or a no on a recall campaign like there
is for individual races giving a donation to a candidate.
Newsom had that muscle back then. He doesn't have that
muscle anymore now. The most innovative kinds of legislative proposals

(29:32):
that are happening in the legislature. They're sort of happening
independent of Newsom. It's not a Newsome proposal. You got
Buffy Wicks from Oakland who's proposing all these new things
having to do with trying to reform SEQUA. That's all
kind of a legislative initiative. It's sort of Gavin Newsom
tagging along after the fact. He's not the chief driver

(29:56):
of things in Sacramento anymore. They know he's gone a
year and a half, even with a lot of his cuts.
I mean, you had these advocacy groups saying we look
forward to working with the legislature to fix this, not
working with the governor, working with the legislature to fix this,

(30:17):
because they all know he's not long for this world.
We're not scared of him anymore. He's not the kingmaker
that he was because his political mortality is coming up.
He's you know, after the twenty twenty six elections, he's done.
He turns out as governor and he's not coming back

(30:38):
into California politics. That's the other thing is I don't
see a credible path to ongoing political relevance for Newsom.
For anything short of the presidency. What's Newsom gonna do
after this? Well, he can't realistically run for the Senate

(31:03):
right now. The two US Senate seats are filled, so
and they're filled with it's not aging Dianne Feinstein or
aging Barbara Boxer anymore. You've got Alex Padilla, whom Newsom appointed.
Newsom appointed Alex Padia in twenty twenty one to replace

(31:24):
Kamala Harris after Harris became the vice president, so Newsom
appointed him. He appointed him to the Senate in twenty
twenty one. Padilla got re elected in twenty twenty two.
So Padilla is in office through twenty twenty eight, and

(31:49):
you know, odds are he's gonna run for president in
twenty twenty eight, So Newsom can't get Padia's seat. Probably
if if Padea runs for reelection and he's he's not
that old, I don't think. Yeah, he was born in
nineteen seventy three, so he's only like fifty something. Yeah,
he's like fifty two years old. Padilla is likely going

(32:11):
to run for reelection twenty twenty eight. I don't know
how Gavin Newsom can incredibly run against him. It's not
I you know, what's he going to do? Primary the
guy that he appointed? The other Senate seat is filled
by Adam Shiff. Shift just got elected in twenty twenty four,
so you know that seat's not open to Newsom at
least until twenty thirty. And again, Shift's a relatively young guy.

(32:33):
I wouldn't you know, in the grading on the curve
of the American gerontocracy where we've had eighty year olds
be president, I would imagine Adam Schiff is going to
run for reelection twenty thirty, And again, what's Newsom going
to do? Try to primary the guy they don't really
disagree on much. So Newsom can't take one of the

(32:53):
two California US Senate seats. Running for the House seems
like a bit of a step down. Frankly, I don't
know that he wants to be one of you know,
three hundred and four or however many members of the
House there are members. That's a step down to be

(33:16):
a state representative, forget it. So Newsom has nowhere to
go other than try to run for president. So when
we return, I want to talk about how that's the
main reason I think he is so desperate to get
into and win this current little legal fight he's having

(33:38):
with Donald Trump. That's next on The John Gerardy Show.
Gavin Newsom has nowhere to go but up. It's his
only route to any kind of ongoing political relevance. He
can't run for either of the two US Senate seats.
They're not open to him. He appointed Padilla Adam Schiff

(33:59):
just got elected. I don't think he wants to go
back down to be like a member of the House
of Representatives or something, or in the state legislature. God forbid.
So what does he have left the presidency. That's his
only option left for any kind of continuing political relevance,
and it's an office he has obviously coveted for a

(34:19):
long time. Problem is he has so many failures on
his resume, non partisan failures. Wildfires. We had bad wildfires,
He had opportunity time to do stuff to correct it.
We had more bad wildfires. Homelessness was a big problem
when he started. It's a worse problem now. And he
spent twenty four billion dollars on it, and no one

(34:39):
knows where the money went. No new housing constructs, you know,
bad low housing, new housing construction. When he started as
governor it continues to be a huge problem. No high
speed rail, No high speed rail, just problem after problem
after problem after problem. You know, he he extends medical

(35:01):
coverage to illegal aliens. Now he has to pull it back.
All of his problems are non partisan coded in nature.
And if he goes to a Democrat primary and he's
on that debate stage, Josh Shapiro can skewer him, not
with you did this super liberal thing and a lot

(35:21):
of people don't like liberal things. Shapiro can skewer him
with non partisan failures. You said you were going to
address homelessness. Homelessness is worse than when you started. You
said you were going to address the fact that housing
construction takes too long. You know, you said you were
going to high gas prices. During your time as governor,

(35:42):
gas prices expanded enormously. You signed this law in twenty
twenty four, and then within a year two years, gas
prices shot up enormously. You know, you did this, You
did that, you did that, and all of it is
non partisan aligned, it's non partisan coded. It's the kind
of thing that other Democrats in the Democrat primary can

(36:02):
demolish him with. So what does he have left? Trump
the white whale for all Democrats. If Newsom so Newsom
filed this lawsuit to stop Trump from activating the California
National Guard, he gives this wildly over dramatic speech about
how the democracy is at stake, it's on the line.

(36:25):
He pretends like he's gonna cry and stuff. He gets
the lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California, even
though the riots are happening in southern California, and the
Northern District of California is the judicial district that's centered
in San Francisco, seven hours north. Why does he do
that because sixty three of the sixty five federal judges,

(36:45):
the Federal District Court judges who serve in the Northern
District of California are Democrat appointees. Each of the Bush's
got one judge, and they're both at senior status, so
they're like, you know, not full time judges. He gets,
of all people, Steven Bryer's brother, who gives a predictably

(37:06):
wildly left wing ruling while during the oral arguments, he
was talking about how Trump can't be a king, you know,
just coincidentally, the same language that's being used for all
the protests that took place over this past weekend, the
No Kings protest. So that's the thing. Newsom has a
lot of failures. But if he can get into a

(37:29):
showdown with Donald Trump and somehow win and come off
as a sympathetic figure, all that other crap could go away.
That could cover up the multitude of his failures. If
he's in the debate stage and say, I'm the only
person here who's been able to take on and beat
Donald Trump. None of you other people have. I'm the
one person who knows. I stood toe to toe with

(37:51):
Donald Trump, and I stopped him when he was trying
to be a dictator and use the California National Guard to,
you know, impose martial law. I think that's why he's
so invested in this. It's his only shot, his only
shot at relevance, his only shot at the presidency, his
only shot at the Democrat nomination, to cover up his

(38:15):
laundry list of failures. That'll do it. John di already
shows you you next time on Power Talk.