Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Who's the host today?
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Oh, I hope it's Jimmy. I hope it's Jimmy.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
I hope it's Jimmy.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I really enjoy him.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Oh please let it be Jimmy. Please let it be Jimmy.
Please let it be Jimmy.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
What I find interesting is I came in this morning
and was going to say to all of you how
much I appreciate you your indulgence while I took care
of some family matters. My mom is.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Okay, Jimmy, you need to clear out your throat.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
My mom uh in the hospital. She we put her
in rehab, not not not that kind of rehab that
sounds awful, doesn't We we put we had to put
mom in rehab. But anyway, she's been released and we
were helping with some of that. But everything's fine. Anyway.
(00:55):
I was gonna say, I appreciate you indulging my absence
for the last couple of days. But you know what,
as I told Dragon this morning, I I'm still think
of the news. I just I think I'll just go home.
Why don't you just call it, Jimmy said, he you
told me that Jimmy's wanted another hour time. He's got
(01:15):
another four hours just to get his butt in here
and eating out right.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
He totally wanted to get the motorcycle lane spilt, lane splitting,
lane filtering debate and how it's killing people, but oh,
I have time.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Oh except I pulled my well, I saw it, and
I thought, well, I'll catch the next one. But the
next one didn't have it. But coming up to twenty five,
once you cross, you know, rats home pass, the overhead
sign says one hundred and sixty five. I think it
(01:48):
said last year one hundred and sixty five motorcycle deaths.
Be aware, pay attention or something.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
It look twice, save a life or whatever it is.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
No, give them their space. And I thought when I
read that, I thought, so is every motorcycle death the
fault of an automobile or a truck?
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And give them their space. They're invading they're.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Invading our space, filtering and splitting and all that bullcrap there.
And so I wanted to take a picture of the
next one. But then the next one we had some
other stupid little thing God, and I forget what it was,
and then you know, then I gave up, and then
you know, a fourth or fifth one, then it showed
up again. But I really was pissed off that se
(02:36):
Dot is telling me and implying that all one hundred
and sixty five motorcycle desks were the fault of an
automobile or a truck.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Now they're all your fault, Well they are all my fault.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
It really it just struck me as seriously, you first
of all, think about what you put up there, one
hundred and sixty five motorcycle desks. Okay, every single one
of those that I'm sorry for, each of those people
that have died in a motorcycle accident. However, don't put
the blame by I'm supposed to give them their space
(03:10):
as if all one hundred and sixty five deaths were
the fault of someone driving a car or a truck.
Did you ever stop to think, ce Dot, that it
might have been them and the stupid rules that you
adopted that got people in, you know, because they were
and in fact, I probably twice yes yesterday on the
(03:34):
way back, particularly particularly two things that have me irritated.
So in the I twenty five gap project, I have
no idea what traffic's going to be like. So I
get in the express lane. I'm more than willing to
pay or you know, because I have an express whole
little uh gadget things tag, I can flip it over
(03:56):
to toll and well there was there was I think
two Liamburger's and one human count as three in a car.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Are bigger than most humans exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
So it turns out I really didn't need to be
in the express lane because traffic from Monument all the
way up you know, to Castle Rock wasn't bad at all.
It was what time of day was this? This was
probably because I left really early. This was probably I
don't know, eleven o'clock in the morning or something. What.
(04:34):
It wasn't bad at all. So I regretted having gotten
in the express lane. You know why, because somebody was
in the express lane driving less than the speed limit.
Because I want to ease into stuff because the news
(04:56):
is just well, the news is depressing. H I did
go to Walmart last week, first time I'd been in
a super Walmart in months, and by months, I mean
probably six months.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Real quick before we did the Walmart thing. Did you
go to a dairy queen and get a burger? No?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
I did not. I couldn't find a dairy queen. Oh well,
when I left here Saturday. When I left the Saturday
finished the Saturday program, I was just packing ready to go.
I just swung by the house, picked up the dogs,
and just kept going, gotcha. So I by that time
I hadn't thought about it, did you?
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Yes? We did?
Speaker 2 (05:33):
And how was it? Hey? Oh? Oh seriously?
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Oh this burger. I mean yeah, I know that the texts.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
And the talk ding it now okay, well, now I'm
glad I didn't do.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
It, Chrispy and I mean, and somebody said they had
criticle fries wrong, not the one we went to. It
just had regular old fries. But the onion rings were
pretty good. There was actual onion in the onion ring.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Oh wow?
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Yeah wow.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Was the proportion of crust to onion appropriate or was it? Mostly?
Speaker 1 (06:01):
It was decent. I mean, the onion itself could have
been much more prevalent, but there was real onion in There.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Was a real onion in there. Well that's that's an
you know it was.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
It was a burger. I mean, I'm not going to
go out of my way to go hmmm, I need
to get me a dairy queen berger.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Okay, well, now I'm not gonna go out of my
way at all? Did you read the story at all? Dragon?
Of course you didn't.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Of course, why are you asking me if I which
which one? Which headline is that.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
This is the man busted for sex toy heist at Walmart?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Nope? Sure didn't.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Okay, So I went to Super Walmart for through the
boob story though, Yeah, I I that one. Go figure well,
I I don't want to figure that out.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Well even left a picture in that one for you.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Oh you did. I'm not even gonna look. So I
went to Walmart went to Super Walmart over off Quebec
last week to pick up some things to throw in
the car for the trip, you know, smacks and stuff,
snacks and things. Yeah, right, So seriously it was they
make the best little sugar free little mini hershy bars
(07:08):
that you can get them with almonds, without almonds. You
also get the caramel field or not caramel. But I
don't like the terrible s But I, in my entire life,
I did not know that you can go to Walmart
and buy sex.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Toys that like Spencer's Gifts and stuff. You can go there,
but Walmart's.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Spencer's Gifts did these still exist.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
In them all the last time? I was in them.
All was well over ten years ago, so I really
couldn't tell you. Florida.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
So the headline says man bested for sex toy heights
at Walmart, and I thought the story here is there's
sex toys hot at Walmart, not that he stole them.
I mean, I just expect people steal stuff at Walmart
all the time.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
It's the wrong headline, sex points at Walmart.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Right right exactly. Florida man is behind bars on felony
charges for a pair of Walmart sex toy highs. According
to records, the guy's name Jeffrey LaForge, he's forty years old,
was arrested Friday. He's being held in a loo ten days. Man,
you can't make a ten thousand dollars bond. You can't
find a bales bondman to you know for a thousand bucks,
(08:13):
they'll let you out of jail. I'd say, you have problems,
uh store security cameras.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
What it is, Florida man who wants to bond out
of Florida man?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Oh Lord, on two separate occasions, please charge la Forge?
Seen it right?
Speaker 1 (08:31):
No?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I don't uh swipe a variety of adult toys from
a Walmart in South Pasadena, Penella's County in Penelas County,
store security cameras recorded la Forge removing items from their
packaging and then departing Walmart without paying for the pleasure devices.
The two hundred and eighty dollars worth of stolen goods,
(08:54):
which included a thirty one dollar forty four cent tush
toy and a fourteen dollars ninety eight oral stroker, are
listed in the police report. Here's from the police report.
Now just bear with me, because this is just the
kind of mood I'm in. I you know what I got,
(09:15):
This stupid I've got. I've got to go home, take
care of the dogs, and then come back here for
a stupid I'm sorry, for a meeting at noon. Lunch
will be served, which is really the only reason I'm
coming back.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
There's food.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I thought there was food involved.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
I may make an appearance.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Okay, well I don't think you were invited.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Don't care.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
I'll bring you something. I'll make you well. Yes, don't
don't come out there. Let me bring you a plate,
because that would be my opportunity.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
To totally trust whatever you bring me.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Listen, I'll just so I can have any so this
gives me the excuse to fill a plate bring it
to you. And then oh, I got off in the
wrong floor. This is fourth floor, right yeah, okay, oh
I'm sorry. I get off on the first floor as well.
Leaves as I'm down here. One Love Honey Monomee G
(10:11):
Spot and Criteral Suction Vibrator forty nine ninety four. That
seems I don't know. That seems cheap to me, I bug.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Here's Walmart, and Walmart you get things at a discount.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
How about this a here's what I like about. Here's
the here's the label. One vibrating vibrating pocket wand for
her fourteen ninety eight. Now a vibrating pocket wand for him.
I wonder how much that is twenty nine ninety eight. Right.
(10:50):
One Hello Cake Flavored Lube fourteen ninety nine, Hello Cake
Tush Toy twenty one forty four, Hello Cake or Stroker
fourteen ninety eight. Plus one Private Pleasure Vibrator nineteen eighty eight. Wow.
But the other, the Love Honey Monomee G Spoting Clinical
Suction Vibrator was forty nine ninety four. If you're trying
(11:15):
to say money, just get the Private Pleasure vibrator for
nineteen ninety eight, a vibrating massager twenty nine ninety eight,
one Mega massager thirty nine ninety eight, one Vibrating soft
Touch one thirty two forty four. One Reese's Peanut Butter
ice Cream three dollars eight cents plus one vibrating bullet
(11:37):
soft Touch Massager twelve forty four. One Hello Cake Stroker
double sided male sex Toys nineteen ninety eight.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Anybody else alarmed by the uh Greasa's Peanut butter ice
cream in the middle and all that. Let me stew
all these sex toys and I'm getting a little hungry,
might as well get a candy bar.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Since the merchandise was valued at less than one thousand dollars,
the sex would normally be charged as a misdemeanor. However,
owing to Leforge's history of multiple theft convictions, that counts
have been enhanced to felonies. And then the story continued
or concludes with this On a related note, who knew
(12:18):
that America's beloved retailer sold a g spot and literal
suction vibrator.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
See that's the story.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
That is the story right there, That, indeed is the story.
We're going to go from that to this. Can I
just say I don't want to bury the lead here,
so let me just say that the controversy over the
auto pen and the use of the autopen by Joe
(12:49):
Biden is a legal dead end. It's a political scandal
that Yes, I do believe there ought to be a
congressional investigation because I think there was abuse of power.
If that is what happened. Beyond that, there's nothing to
see here. Let's go to Article two, Section two, clause one.
(13:13):
Now I want to read the entire Article two, Section
two clause one, so you'll have the context in which
I'm going to claim that this is a nothing burger.
The President shall be this this Article two. So this
has to do with the presidency. Surely you know that
by now listening to this program. The President shall be
commander in chief the Army and Navy of the United States,
(13:36):
and as a militia of the several States. When called
into the actual service of the United States, he may
require the opinion in writing of the Principal Officer in
each of the Executive Departments upon any subject relating to
the duties of their respective offices. And he shall have power,
and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
(14:01):
for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
That is the entirety, entirety of what the Constitution has
to say on the issue of presidential pardon power. But
it is in Article two. It is not in Article
(14:21):
one the legislative branch. It is not in Article three
the judicial branch. It is in Article to the Presidency.
In that regard, it is not any different. And say
the provision in Article one of the legislative branch which
says that quote all bills for raising revenue shall originate
(14:43):
in the House of Representatives, Nor would I argue that
it is any different from the article from the language
in Article three about the courts. This language that says, quote,
in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and those in which the State shall be party, the
Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. Now why do I
(15:10):
point all of that out. Those provisions represent what's called
plenary plenary authority p L E n a r Y
plenary authority of the legislative and the judicial branches, respectively,
meaning the power is conferred to one branch of the
(15:31):
federal government to the exclusion of the other branches of
the federal government. So considering that, what are we to
make of the controversy over the signing of presidential pardons
during Biden's administrations via the autopin controversy. You know what
an autopen is, right. It's a computer control device that
(15:51):
follows the movements with a writing instrument to create an
exact duplicate of the image that is inputed into it.
I had to do my signature for the auto pen
so that my staff could use the autopin in my absence.
I had They brought me a form I had to.
I'm just guessing here because I don't remember specifically, but
(16:12):
I had to sign my name about I don't know.
It seems like a half dozen times, maybe more, and
then they take those and they feed them into computer.
It makes a compositive all of my signats to come
up with a signature, or they might just pick one
and use just one. As I've noted before, the Constitution
(16:37):
is completely silent as to what form a pardon must take.
Did you hear anything? Because there's only one place that
it says he shall have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases
of impeachment. Does it tell you anything about what the
(16:57):
form had? Does it have to be on you know? Uh?
Does that to be signed with a quill pen? Does
it does? Do you you have to make a carbon copy?
Can you use a xerox copy?
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Hmmm?
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Does that have to be of the crayon a crayola?
What's the difference between a crayon and a creola? I
don't know. The Constitution is silent as to the form
of the pardon. So whether there's a valid form or
a valid format, or whether there's an invalid format for
(17:32):
the issues of a presidential pardon, you can't answer that
because there isn't one. But I think even more driving
me nuts about this whole story is the fact that
because this is a plenary authority given to them by
the Constitution, to the president alone, there is no forum
as a legal question to determine the validity of what
(17:55):
appears to be a presidential pardons or what's being demanded
by by virtue of the claims these pardons are somehow
invalid and the recipients do not enjoy the benefit of
that pardon. Now, before you jump off the deep end.
Is there a question about the the mental competency of
(18:20):
the president at the time he signed the pardon? I
would venture to say that there is a question as
to Biden's mental competency, but beyond that, there's nothing to
investigate here. Michael, don't forget that the deaths of those
(18:42):
motorcyclists could have also been caused by the stinking rogue conditions.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
I bet one of them least hit a pothole. Have
they lost control just because of that? So they should
blame it on themselves.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Somebody's listening to me at the gym and somebody's really
ticked off about the motorcycle.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Sign busy on the treadmill, and you got to leave
a talk about I.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Love it, I love it. UH. For the first time
since Nielsen began tracking TV use by platform four years ago,
and probably the first time ever, considering the broadcast's dominant
place for much television history, over the air, networks accounted
for less than twenty percent of viewing in June. The
(19:23):
Ratings Services Nielsen's monthly Gauge rankings show broadcast at eighteen
point five percent for the month, down from twenty point
one percent in May. According to the Hollywood Reporter. Now
TV use across all platforms grow by three percent in
(19:44):
June compared to the month earlier. But broadcast actually watching
like your local news or you know, watching Days of
Our Lives or whatever, you know, that's fallen down to
less than twenty percent.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
So it's implaying like live.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
Yes, Live TV is just live the yeah, live over
the air. It's just down to nothing. Okay. I read
the text messages during the break and you're completely missing
the point. So let me finish before you jump to
your conclusions. These these provisions about pardons are plenary, meaning
(20:28):
it's absolute. Even more disconcerting, I think, is the fact
that because this is a plenary authority given by the
Constitution to the executive alone, there is no forum listen
to me, there is no forum, as a quote legal question,
(20:51):
to determine the validity of what appears to be a
presidential pardon. So I want you to think about what's
being demanded by many of you by virtue of the
claims that these pardons are somehow invalid and the recipients
that got these aren't deserving of them, And what caused
me to go down this rabbit hole was the New
(21:12):
York Times. Joe Biden called into the New York Times
and in a ten minute phone call, he said, oh, yeah,
you know, I approve the categories, you know, for you know,
certain fallons and approved this and blah blah. You know,
I don't care what you did, mister president. Now let
me just say this. Let's think, and I want you
(21:35):
to bifurcate your brain for a moment, and I want
you to think in legal terms, and I want you
to think in political terms. Consider what is being demanded
by virtue of the claims that these pardons are somehow
invalid and that the people that got the pout the pardons,
(21:58):
including like well, what's your name from up in Wyoming,
Liz Cheney or doctor Fauci for that matter, people are claiming, oh,
oh no, their pardons are invalid. Well, they didn't want
to pardon in the first place, but they've been pardoning.
There's only nothing they can do about it. The pardons
insulate the recipients from an executive branch effort to bring
(22:22):
criminal prosecution at some time in the future. To challenge
the validity of a pardon is to positive situation where
a new president want so badly to prosecute the individuals
whose conduct was pardon that it would seek to vitiate
(22:43):
the exercise of exclusive presidential authority by the previous president.
So it's a dispute between two occupants of the same
powers who disagree as to whether the decision to execute
the conduct h must to excuse, the conduct must be respected. Well,
(23:07):
wait a minute. To do so, the current occupant, President Trump,
would have to insist that a court should somehow crawl
into the inner workings of the decision making process of
the former president and then kind of start pulling the
strings to see if it all falls apart. I can
(23:28):
just I can hear this question being answered. So the
a Supreme Court justices, they're sitting in conference, and they
would say, so, the office of the President wants us
to prosecute crimes that have been pardoned by the office
of the President. The president wants us to prosecute crimes
that have been pardoned by the president. Can we do that? Oh?
(23:49):
Why no, Let's have the court's decide. For what possible
purpose would any court anywhere want to answer that question?
The president the presentation of a pardon bearing the signature
of Joe Biden regardless of how that signature was generated,
(24:10):
is going to be presumptive on the question absent some
incontrovertible evidence that Joe Biden did not sanction the pardon,
And even then I would question, what's the remedy? Does
the does the Constitution anywhere give the power of this?
(24:35):
You know, first of all, the power to pardon is
absolute and exclusive to the president. It's a it's an
Article two exclusively. It's not mentioned in Article one, it's
not mentioned in Article three. It's only an Article two.
(24:57):
So a court is not going to weigh evidence decided
to dispute a fact as to that question, that question
of let's have the courts decide what A court, for example,
is not going to revisit the mental competency of Joe
Biden either while in office and at the time the
(25:20):
pardon was granted. He was never determined to be incompetent
while in office, And there isn't going to be a
judicial retrospective examination of that question as part of some
court case on the exercise of clean powers that are
possessed and exercised only by the president. The very fact
(25:41):
it's a fact that a pardon was issued is going
to be the end of any judicial examination if federal
charges are filed against any individual holding a pardon from
Joe Biden, and the pardon covers the conduct that is
the subject of the prosecution. So they've been pardoned for,
you know, any crimes against UNITEDA. It was open ended
(26:02):
pardon take hunter Biden for that matter. Open ended. Who's
going to challenge that? No course is going to take it.
The Supreme Court recognized in the presidential Immunity decision last
year that got everybody so riled up. Oh my gosh,
(26:24):
we've just given Donald Trump the powers to be a dictator.
The Court wrote, this, no matter the context, the president's
authority to act necessarily stems either from an active act
of Congress or from the Constitution itself. When the president
exercises constitutional authority, he may act even when the measures
(26:48):
he takes are incompatible with the express or implied will
of Congress. The Court continued, the exclusive constitution the authority
of the president disables the Congress from acting upon the subject,
(27:08):
and the courts have no power to control the president's
discretion when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively
in him by the Constitution. Now Let's wander off into
some of imaginary imaginary territory for a moment. Let's say
that Congress decides to investigate, Oh, was the president competent?
(27:29):
I kind of wish they would do that. Let's find
out if he was competent. Let's say they find out
if he wasn't competent, So what so what if he's
exercising even if the incompetent president is acting incompetently, Guess
(27:55):
what the solution is? It's political. What's the political resolution
for an incompetent president? Either the twenty fifth Amendment or impeachment. Well,
Joe Biden neither one of those applied to Joe Biden anymore.
He's no longer president. You can't impeach someone who's not
(28:18):
the president. You can't impeach a former president for something
he did when he was president and he's no longer president.
Because the remedy in and impeachment is what, oh, removal
from office. But you've already removed him from office. Then
somebody said, well, Michael, this is like on the text line,
(28:39):
somebody said, well, this is like, you can't enter into
a contract if you're incompetent. You can't compare the two.
There are statutes governing entering into contracts. There is no statute.
There is no because Congress has no authority to act
any statutes involving the pardons. The pardon power is plinary,
(29:02):
It is absolute, belongs only to the president. If somebody
wanted to do if somebody wanted to investigate these pardons,
they should have done it when Biden was president. And
even then, the only solution would have been, oh, he's incompetent,
we're going to remove him from office. But even that
(29:24):
would not take away the effects of those pardons. And
you're gonna end up with a factual question, did he
or did he not authorize those? Well, who's to say.
Let's say he didn't authorize them. Nonetheless, his signature is there,
(29:49):
whether it was by autopin or not autopin. You see
that ship is sailed. This thing is all gone.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
So what's next, Good Biden signed it or did somebody else?
Speaker 2 (30:07):
So what So what what if he said? What if
he said, Hey, Billy Bob, go sign that pardon for me,
or Billy Bob go do the autopin. Remember what the
constitution says. It's the constitution that is our load star.
That's where we have to decide whether or not anything applies. He,
(30:31):
the President, shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
And Guber number thirteen eighty six you prove my point.
Gouber thirteen eighty six, writes Michael. The power is plenary
to potus, not the autopin. Even if he signs it
(30:53):
on a bar napkin bingo, it doesn't say anything about, oh,
it has to be on parchment. It has to be
on Remember the old carbon paper you'd have, which would
have you know, you would have the white eight and
a half by eleven, then you'd have that thin piece
of carbon, Then you'd have the yellow underneath it. You'd
(31:13):
have a carbon copy. Didn't He didn't specify anything. It
doesn't specify quill, magic marker, crayon, crayola, any of those things. Nothing.
The power is totally up to him and how he
decides he wants to do it. The only question is
(31:34):
was he competent when he did it? But don't get
excited about that. Am I curious about that? Damn right,
I'm curious about it because I want to find out
that the guy was incompetent. But so what, what's the remedy?
There is no judicial remedy, and the political remedy has gone.
That ship is sailed because you could have removed him
(31:56):
by the twenty fifth Amendment. But you, oh, let's vote
to remove Joe Biden from office. Oh it passes, you know,
let's impeat I can you know Republicans are just dumb
enough to do this. Let's impeach Joe Biden for you know,
misusing the autopen Okay. Uh. Then it gets the Senate
(32:16):
and even Democrats say, yeah, well he misused the autopin. Okay,
So he's been convicted of impeachment. What's the remedy. You're
removing from office. You can't do anything else. You can't
reverse the pardons, you can't do anything with those. Even
if you prove that he was incompetent. It's plenary to
the president, and the courts are going to go, oh,
(32:38):
this is that president did something. This president disagrees with it.
You want us to get in the middle of it. No,
those are presidential powers. It's not going I just want
everybody to do this. Oh, this is what happens when you're gone.
You listen to this stuff and you've got time to sit,
and you know you're not, like, Okay, ram Bam, I
gotta gear that next morning and talk. I'm like, good grief,
(33:01):
everybody shut up about the damn Pardons. It's over and
done with. You don't like it, good, you did the
right thing. You voted him out of office.
Who's the host today?
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Oh, I hope it's Jimmy. I hope it's Jimmy.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
I hope it's Jimmy.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I really enjoy him.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Oh please let it be Jimmy. Please let it be Jimmy.
Please let it be Jimmy.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
What I find interesting is I came in this morning
and was going to say to all of you how
much I appreciate you your indulgence while I took care
of some family matters. My mom is.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Okay, Jimmy, you need to clear out your throat.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
My mom uh in the hospital. She we put her
in rehab, not not not that kind of rehab that
sounds awful, doesn't We we put we had to put
mom in rehab. But anyway, she's been released and we
were helping with some of that. But everything's fine. Anyway.
(00:55):
I was gonna say, I appreciate you indulging my absence
for the last couple of days. But you know what,
as I told Dragon this morning, I I'm still think
of the news. I just I think I'll just go home.
Why don't you just call it, Jimmy said, he you
told me that Jimmy's wanted another hour time. He's got
(01:15):
another four hours just to get his butt in here
and eating out right.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
He totally wanted to get the motorcycle lane spilt, lane splitting,
lane filtering debate and how it's killing people, but oh,
I have time.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Oh except I pulled my well, I saw it, and
I thought, well, I'll catch the next one. But the
next one didn't have it. But coming up to twenty five,
once you cross, you know, rats home pass, the overhead
sign says one hundred and sixty five. I think it
(01:48):
said last year one hundred and sixty five motorcycle deaths.
Be aware, pay attention or something.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
It look twice, save a life or whatever it is.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
No, give them their space. And I thought when I
read that, I thought, so is every motorcycle death the
fault of an automobile or a truck?
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And give them their space. They're invading they're.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Invading our space, filtering and splitting and all that bullcrap there.
And so I wanted to take a picture of the
next one. But then the next one we had some
other stupid little thing God, and I forget what it was,
and then you know, then I gave up, and then
you know, a fourth or fifth one, then it showed
up again. But I really was pissed off that se
(02:36):
Dot is telling me and implying that all one hundred
and sixty five motorcycle desks were the fault of an
automobile or a truck.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Now they're all your fault, Well they are all my fault.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
It really it just struck me as seriously, you first
of all, think about what you put up there, one
hundred and sixty five motorcycle desks. Okay, every single one
of those that I'm sorry for, each of those people
that have died in a motorcycle accident. However, don't put
the blame by I'm supposed to give them their space
(03:10):
as if all one hundred and sixty five deaths were
the fault of someone driving a car or a truck.
Did you ever stop to think, ce Dot, that it
might have been them and the stupid rules that you
adopted that got people in, you know, because they were
and in fact, I probably twice yes yesterday on the
(03:34):
way back, particularly particularly two things that have me irritated.
So in the I twenty five gap project, I have
no idea what traffic's going to be like. So I
get in the express lane. I'm more than willing to
pay or you know, because I have an express whole
little uh gadget things tag, I can flip it over
(03:56):
to toll and well there was there was I think
two Liamburger's and one human count as three in a car.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Are bigger than most humans exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
So it turns out I really didn't need to be
in the express lane because traffic from Monument all the
way up you know, to Castle Rock wasn't bad at all.
It was what time of day was this? This was
probably because I left really early. This was probably I
don't know, eleven o'clock in the morning or something. What.
(04:34):
It wasn't bad at all. So I regretted having gotten
in the express lane. You know why, because somebody was
in the express lane driving less than the speed limit.
Because I want to ease into stuff because the news
(04:56):
is just well, the news is depressing. H I did
go to Walmart last week, first time I'd been in
a super Walmart in months, and by months, I mean
probably six months.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Real quick before we did the Walmart thing. Did you
go to a dairy queen and get a burger? No?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
I did not. I couldn't find a dairy queen. Oh well,
when I left here Saturday. When I left the Saturday
finished the Saturday program, I was just packing ready to go.
I just swung by the house, picked up the dogs,
and just kept going, gotcha. So I by that time
I hadn't thought about it, did you?
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Yes? We did?
Speaker 2 (05:33):
And how was it? Hey? Oh? Oh seriously?
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Oh this burger. I mean yeah, I know that the texts.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
And the talk ding it now okay, well, now I'm
glad I didn't do.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
It, Chrispy and I mean, and somebody said they had
criticle fries wrong, not the one we went to. It
just had regular old fries. But the onion rings were
pretty good. There was actual onion in the onion ring.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Oh wow?
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Yeah wow.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Was the proportion of crust to onion appropriate or was it? Mostly?
Speaker 1 (06:01):
It was decent. I mean, the onion itself could have
been much more prevalent, but there was real onion in There.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Was a real onion in there. Well that's that's an
you know it was.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
It was a burger. I mean, I'm not going to
go out of my way to go hmmm, I need
to get me a dairy queen berger.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Okay, well, now I'm not gonna go out of my
way at all? Did you read the story at all? Dragon?
Of course you didn't.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Of course, why are you asking me if I which
which one? Which headline is that.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
This is the man busted for sex toy heist at Walmart?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Nope? Sure didn't.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Okay, So I went to Super Walmart for through the
boob story though, Yeah, I I that one. Go figure well,
I I don't want to figure that out.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Well even left a picture in that one for you.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Oh you did. I'm not even gonna look. So I
went to Walmart went to Super Walmart over off Quebec
last week to pick up some things to throw in
the car for the trip, you know, smacks and stuff,
snacks and things. Yeah, right, So seriously it was they
make the best little sugar free little mini hershy bars
(07:08):
that you can get them with almonds, without almonds. You
also get the caramel field or not caramel. But I
don't like the terrible s But I, in my entire life,
I did not know that you can go to Walmart
and buy sex.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Toys that like Spencer's Gifts and stuff. You can go there,
but Walmart's.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Spencer's Gifts did these still exist.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
In them all the last time? I was in them.
All was well over ten years ago, so I really
couldn't tell you. Florida.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
So the headline says man bested for sex toy heights
at Walmart, and I thought the story here is there's
sex toys hot at Walmart, not that he stole them.
I mean, I just expect people steal stuff at Walmart
all the time.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
It's the wrong headline, sex points at Walmart.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Right right exactly. Florida man is behind bars on felony
charges for a pair of Walmart sex toy highs. According
to records, the guy's name Jeffrey LaForge, he's forty years old,
was arrested Friday. He's being held in a loo ten days. Man,
you can't make a ten thousand dollars bond. You can't
find a bales bondman to you know for a thousand bucks,
(08:13):
they'll let you out of jail. I'd say, you have problems,
uh store security cameras.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
What it is, Florida man who wants to bond out
of Florida man?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Oh Lord, on two separate occasions, please charge la Forge?
Seen it right?
Speaker 1 (08:31):
No?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I don't uh swipe a variety of adult toys from
a Walmart in South Pasadena, Penella's County in Penelas County,
store security cameras recorded la Forge removing items from their
packaging and then departing Walmart without paying for the pleasure devices.
The two hundred and eighty dollars worth of stolen goods,
(08:54):
which included a thirty one dollar forty four cent tush
toy and a fourteen dollars ninety eight oral stroker, are
listed in the police report. Here's from the police report.
Now just bear with me, because this is just the
kind of mood I'm in. I you know what I got,
(09:15):
This stupid I've got. I've got to go home, take
care of the dogs, and then come back here for
a stupid I'm sorry, for a meeting at noon. Lunch
will be served, which is really the only reason I'm
coming back.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
There's food.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I thought there was food involved.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
I may make an appearance.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Okay, well I don't think you were invited.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Don't care.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
I'll bring you something. I'll make you well. Yes, don't
don't come out there. Let me bring you a plate,
because that would be my opportunity.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
To totally trust whatever you bring me.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Listen, I'll just so I can have any so this
gives me the excuse to fill a plate bring it
to you. And then oh, I got off in the
wrong floor. This is fourth floor, right yeah, okay, oh
I'm sorry. I get off on the first floor as well.
Leaves as I'm down here. One Love Honey Monomee G
(10:11):
Spot and Criteral Suction Vibrator forty nine ninety four. That
seems I don't know. That seems cheap to me, I bug.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Here's Walmart, and Walmart you get things at a discount.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
How about this a here's what I like about. Here's
the here's the label. One vibrating vibrating pocket wand for
her fourteen ninety eight. Now a vibrating pocket wand for him.
I wonder how much that is twenty nine ninety eight. Right.
(10:50):
One Hello Cake Flavored Lube fourteen ninety nine, Hello Cake
Tush Toy twenty one forty four, Hello Cake or Stroker
fourteen ninety eight. Plus one Private Pleasure Vibrator nineteen eighty eight. Wow.
But the other, the Love Honey Monomee G Spoting Clinical
Suction Vibrator was forty nine ninety four. If you're trying
(11:15):
to say money, just get the Private Pleasure vibrator for
nineteen ninety eight, a vibrating massager twenty nine ninety eight,
one Mega massager thirty nine ninety eight, one Vibrating soft
Touch one thirty two forty four. One Reese's Peanut Butter
ice Cream three dollars eight cents plus one vibrating bullet
(11:37):
soft Touch Massager twelve forty four. One Hello Cake Stroker
double sided male sex Toys nineteen ninety eight.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Anybody else alarmed by the uh Greasa's Peanut butter ice
cream in the middle and all that. Let me stew
all these sex toys and I'm getting a little hungry,
might as well get a candy bar.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Since the merchandise was valued at less than one thousand dollars,
the sex would normally be charged as a misdemeanor. However,
owing to Leforge's history of multiple theft convictions, that counts
have been enhanced to felonies. And then the story continued
or concludes with this On a related note, who knew
(12:18):
that America's beloved retailer sold a g spot and literal
suction vibrator.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
See that's the story.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
That is the story right there, That, indeed is the story.
We're going to go from that to this. Can I
just say I don't want to bury the lead here,
so let me just say that the controversy over the
auto pen and the use of the autopen by Joe
(12:49):
Biden is a legal dead end. It's a political scandal
that Yes, I do believe there ought to be a
congressional investigation because I think there was abuse of power.
If that is what happened. Beyond that, there's nothing to
see here. Let's go to Article two, Section two, clause one.
(13:13):
Now I want to read the entire Article two, Section
two clause one, so you'll have the context in which
I'm going to claim that this is a nothing burger.
The President shall be this this Article two. So this
has to do with the presidency. Surely you know that
by now listening to this program. The President shall be
commander in chief the Army and Navy of the United States,
(13:36):
and as a militia of the several States. When called
into the actual service of the United States, he may
require the opinion in writing of the Principal Officer in
each of the Executive Departments upon any subject relating to
the duties of their respective offices. And he shall have power,
and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
(14:01):
for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
That is the entirety, entirety of what the Constitution has
to say on the issue of presidential pardon power. But
it is in Article two. It is not in Article
(14:21):
one the legislative branch. It is not in Article three
the judicial branch. It is in Article to the Presidency.
In that regard, it is not any different. And say
the provision in Article one of the legislative branch which
says that quote all bills for raising revenue shall originate
(14:43):
in the House of Representatives, Nor would I argue that
it is any different from the article from the language
in Article three about the courts. This language that says, quote,
in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and those in which the State shall be party, the
Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. Now why do I
(15:10):
point all of that out. Those provisions represent what's called
plenary plenary authority p L E n a r Y
plenary authority of the legislative and the judicial branches, respectively,
meaning the power is conferred to one branch of the
(15:31):
federal government to the exclusion of the other branches of
the federal government. So considering that, what are we to
make of the controversy over the signing of presidential pardons
during Biden's administrations via the autopin controversy. You know what
an autopen is, right. It's a computer control device that
(15:51):
follows the movements with a writing instrument to create an
exact duplicate of the image that is inputed into it.
I had to do my signature for the auto pen
so that my staff could use the autopin in my absence.
I had They brought me a form I had to.
I'm just guessing here because I don't remember specifically, but
(16:12):
I had to sign my name about I don't know.
It seems like a half dozen times, maybe more, and
then they take those and they feed them into computer.
It makes a compositive all of my signats to come
up with a signature, or they might just pick one
and use just one. As I've noted before, the Constitution
(16:37):
is completely silent as to what form a pardon must take.
Did you hear anything? Because there's only one place that
it says he shall have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases
of impeachment. Does it tell you anything about what the
(16:57):
form had? Does it have to be on you know? Uh?
Does that to be signed with a quill pen? Does
it does? Do you you have to make a carbon copy?
Can you use a xerox copy?
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Hmmm?
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Does that have to be of the crayon a crayola?
What's the difference between a crayon and a creola? I
don't know. The Constitution is silent as to the form
of the pardon. So whether there's a valid form or
a valid format, or whether there's an invalid format for
(17:32):
the issues of a presidential pardon, you can't answer that
because there isn't one. But I think even more driving
me nuts about this whole story is the fact that
because this is a plenary authority given to them by
the Constitution, to the president alone, there is no forum
as a legal question to determine the validity of what
(17:55):
appears to be a presidential pardons or what's being demanded
by by virtue of the claims these pardons are somehow
invalid and the recipients do not enjoy the benefit of
that pardon. Now, before you jump off the deep end.
Is there a question about the the mental competency of
(18:20):
the president at the time he signed the pardon? I
would venture to say that there is a question as
to Biden's mental competency, but beyond that, there's nothing to
investigate here. Michael, don't forget that the deaths of those
(18:42):
motorcyclists could have also been caused by the stinking rogue conditions.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
I bet one of them least hit a pothole. Have
they lost control just because of that? So they should
blame it on themselves.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Somebody's listening to me at the gym and somebody's really
ticked off about the motorcycle.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Sign busy on the treadmill, and you got to leave
a talk about I.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Love it, I love it. UH. For the first time
since Nielsen began tracking TV use by platform four years ago,
and probably the first time ever, considering the broadcast's dominant
place for much television history, over the air, networks accounted
for less than twenty percent of viewing in June. The
(19:23):
Ratings Services Nielsen's monthly Gauge rankings show broadcast at eighteen
point five percent for the month, down from twenty point
one percent in May. According to the Hollywood Reporter. Now
TV use across all platforms grow by three percent in
(19:44):
June compared to the month earlier. But broadcast actually watching
like your local news or you know, watching Days of
Our Lives or whatever, you know, that's fallen down to
less than twenty percent.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
So it's implaying like live.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
Yes, Live TV is just live the yeah, live over
the air. It's just down to nothing. Okay. I read
the text messages during the break and you're completely missing
the point. So let me finish before you jump to
your conclusions. These these provisions about pardons are plenary, meaning
(20:28):
it's absolute. Even more disconcerting, I think, is the fact
that because this is a plenary authority given by the
Constitution to the executive alone, there is no forum listen
to me, there is no forum, as a quote legal question,
(20:51):
to determine the validity of what appears to be a
presidential pardon. So I want you to think about what's
being demanded by many of you by virtue of the
claims that these pardons are somehow invalid and the recipients
that got these aren't deserving of them, And what caused
me to go down this rabbit hole was the New
(21:12):
York Times. Joe Biden called into the New York Times
and in a ten minute phone call, he said, oh, yeah,
you know, I approve the categories, you know, for you know,
certain fallons and approved this and blah blah. You know,
I don't care what you did, mister president. Now let
me just say this. Let's think, and I want you
(21:35):
to bifurcate your brain for a moment, and I want
you to think in legal terms, and I want you
to think in political terms. Consider what is being demanded
by virtue of the claims that these pardons are somehow
invalid and that the people that got the pout the pardons,
(21:58):
including like well, what's your name from up in Wyoming,
Liz Cheney or doctor Fauci for that matter, people are claiming, oh,
oh no, their pardons are invalid. Well, they didn't want
to pardon in the first place, but they've been pardoning.
There's only nothing they can do about it. The pardons
insulate the recipients from an executive branch effort to bring
(22:22):
criminal prosecution at some time in the future. To challenge
the validity of a pardon is to positive situation where
a new president want so badly to prosecute the individuals
whose conduct was pardon that it would seek to vitiate
(22:43):
the exercise of exclusive presidential authority by the previous president.
So it's a dispute between two occupants of the same
powers who disagree as to whether the decision to execute
the conduct h must to excuse, the conduct must be respected. Well,
(23:07):
wait a minute. To do so, the current occupant, President Trump,
would have to insist that a court should somehow crawl
into the inner workings of the decision making process of
the former president and then kind of start pulling the
strings to see if it all falls apart. I can
(23:28):
just I can hear this question being answered. So the
a Supreme Court justices, they're sitting in conference, and they
would say, so, the office of the President wants us
to prosecute crimes that have been pardoned by the office
of the President. The president wants us to prosecute crimes
that have been pardoned by the president. Can we do that? Oh?
(23:49):
Why no, Let's have the court's decide. For what possible
purpose would any court anywhere want to answer that question?
The president the presentation of a pardon bearing the signature
of Joe Biden regardless of how that signature was generated,
(24:10):
is going to be presumptive on the question absent some
incontrovertible evidence that Joe Biden did not sanction the pardon,
And even then I would question, what's the remedy? Does
the does the Constitution anywhere give the power of this?
(24:35):
You know, first of all, the power to pardon is
absolute and exclusive to the president. It's a it's an
Article two exclusively. It's not mentioned in Article one, it's
not mentioned in Article three. It's only an Article two.
(24:57):
So a court is not going to weigh evidence decided
to dispute a fact as to that question, that question
of let's have the courts decide what A court, for example,
is not going to revisit the mental competency of Joe
Biden either while in office and at the time the
(25:20):
pardon was granted. He was never determined to be incompetent
while in office, And there isn't going to be a
judicial retrospective examination of that question as part of some
court case on the exercise of clean powers that are
possessed and exercised only by the president. The very fact
(25:41):
it's a fact that a pardon was issued is going
to be the end of any judicial examination if federal
charges are filed against any individual holding a pardon from
Joe Biden, and the pardon covers the conduct that is
the subject of the prosecution. So they've been pardoned for,
you know, any crimes against UNITEDA. It was open ended
(26:02):
pardon take hunter Biden for that matter. Open ended. Who's
going to challenge that? No course is going to take it.
The Supreme Court recognized in the presidential Immunity decision last
year that got everybody so riled up. Oh my gosh,
(26:24):
we've just given Donald Trump the powers to be a dictator.
The Court wrote, this, no matter the context, the president's
authority to act necessarily stems either from an active act
of Congress or from the Constitution itself. When the president
exercises constitutional authority, he may act even when the measures
(26:48):
he takes are incompatible with the express or implied will
of Congress. The Court continued, the exclusive constitution the authority
of the president disables the Congress from acting upon the subject,
(27:08):
and the courts have no power to control the president's
discretion when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively
in him by the Constitution. Now Let's wander off into
some of imaginary imaginary territory for a moment. Let's say
that Congress decides to investigate, Oh, was the president competent?
(27:29):
I kind of wish they would do that. Let's find
out if he was competent. Let's say they find out
if he wasn't competent, So what so what if he's
exercising even if the incompetent president is acting incompetently, Guess
(27:55):
what the solution is? It's political. What's the political resolution
for an incompetent president? Either the twenty fifth Amendment or impeachment. Well,
Joe Biden neither one of those applied to Joe Biden anymore.
He's no longer president. You can't impeach someone who's not
(28:18):
the president. You can't impeach a former president for something
he did when he was president and he's no longer president.
Because the remedy in and impeachment is what, oh, removal
from office. But you've already removed him from office. Then
somebody said, well, Michael, this is like on the text line,
(28:39):
somebody said, well, this is like, you can't enter into
a contract if you're incompetent. You can't compare the two.
There are statutes governing entering into contracts. There is no statute.
There is no because Congress has no authority to act
any statutes involving the pardons. The pardon power is plinary,
(29:02):
It is absolute, belongs only to the president. If somebody
wanted to do if somebody wanted to investigate these pardons,
they should have done it when Biden was president. And
even then, the only solution would have been, oh, he's incompetent,
we're going to remove him from office. But even that
(29:24):
would not take away the effects of those pardons. And
you're gonna end up with a factual question, did he
or did he not authorize those? Well, who's to say.
Let's say he didn't authorize them. Nonetheless, his signature is there,
(29:49):
whether it was by autopin or not autopin. You see
that ship is sailed. This thing is all gone.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
So what's next, Good Biden signed it or did somebody else?
Speaker 2 (30:07):
So what So what what if he said? What if
he said, Hey, Billy Bob, go sign that pardon for me,
or Billy Bob go do the autopin. Remember what the
constitution says. It's the constitution that is our load star.
That's where we have to decide whether or not anything applies. He,
(30:31):
the President, shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
And Guber number thirteen eighty six you prove my point.
Gouber thirteen eighty six, writes Michael. The power is plenary
to potus, not the autopin. Even if he signs it
(30:53):
on a bar napkin bingo, it doesn't say anything about, oh,
it has to be on parchment. It has to be
on Remember the old carbon paper you'd have, which would
have you know, you would have the white eight and
a half by eleven, then you'd have that thin piece
of carbon, Then you'd have the yellow underneath it. You'd
(31:13):
have a carbon copy. Didn't He didn't specify anything. It
doesn't specify quill, magic marker, crayon, crayola, any of those things. Nothing.
The power is totally up to him and how he
decides he wants to do it. The only question is
(31:34):
was he competent when he did it? But don't get
excited about that. Am I curious about that? Damn right,
I'm curious about it because I want to find out
that the guy was incompetent. But so what, what's the remedy?
There is no judicial remedy, and the political remedy has gone.
That ship is sailed because you could have removed him
(31:56):
by the twenty fifth Amendment. But you, oh, let's vote
to remove Joe Biden from office. Oh it passes, you know,
let's impeat I can you know Republicans are just dumb
enough to do this. Let's impeach Joe Biden for you know,
misusing the autopen Okay. Uh. Then it gets the Senate
(32:16):
and even Democrats say, yeah, well he misused the autopin. Okay,
So he's been convicted of impeachment. What's the remedy. You're
removing from office. You can't do anything else. You can't
reverse the pardons, you can't do anything with those. Even
if you prove that he was incompetent. It's plenary to
the president, and the courts are going to go, oh,
(32:38):
this is that president did something. This president disagrees with it.
You want us to get in the middle of it. No,
those are presidential powers. It's not going I just want
everybody to do this. Oh, this is what happens when you're gone.
You listen to this stuff and you've got time to sit,
and you know you're not, like, Okay, ram Bam, I
gotta gear that next morning and talk. I'm like, good grief,
(33:01):
everybody shut up about the damn Pardons. It's over and
done with. You don't like it, good, you did the
right thing. You voted him out of office.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.