July 30, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Ghislaine immunity & Epstein poaching women from Mar-a-Lago
- Late night jokes
- Courtroom news & the new dinosaur movie
- WNBA news
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I'm Strong and Jettie and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The condition's list begins with a grant of immunity. This
is something that the committee has already made claar they're
not going to do. She's also saying this cannot be
at Maxwell's prison. The interview, that is, she wants the
questions in advance and would only do this after the
US Supreme Court case is resolved.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
If she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
We don't know if they're going to take it up,
but we could possibly wait until June to get an
answer there. She says, if these conditions are not met,
she will invoke her Fifth Amendment.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Right.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
So, Trump made news unfortunately around the whole Epstein thing yesterday.
I don't know why he keeps making news on this,
but so that it lasts another day, but before because
they keep asking him.
Speaker 5 (01:03):
Yeah, but he's he's got a side step it or something.
But anyway, before we get to that topic, do.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
You have your head wrapped around the Gallaine Maxwell testimony
thingy what's going on here?
Speaker 5 (01:14):
What what she's hoping for? What are lawyers hoping for?
So she she's saying.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
She's helping for a lighter sentence, of course, but but
does she have any leverage for that? Yes, so she's
saying she wants the questions ahead of time, she wants immunity,
and then she'll come talk to Congress and answer questions.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
But would we believe what she.
Speaker 5 (01:39):
Says the eye of the beholder, I would tend to
you know, not, as she's her entire adult life has
been debauchery and dishonest.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
But who's mostly demanding it at this point? Is it
the Republicans or the Democrats?
Speaker 5 (01:55):
Both both the MAGA the Republicans to appease the Magabase.
And again, this is the most interesting part of the
scandal to me, is you have two sides interested in
keeping it going for completely opposite reasons. But so the Republicans,
certain Republicans really feel the need to satisfy the Magabase
that look, we're doing everything we can to get to
(02:15):
the bottom of this because having pumped it up for years,
and I've got some quotes that are like, come on
from you know, Bongino and MGT and people like that.
But anyway, so they've got to be seen try in
their hardest, So they want this Galain mask Maxwell in.
They're going to ask your all sorts of questions and
say there, we did our best. But the Democrats just
(02:36):
want to embarrass the Republicans. Keep that division going and
pray that there's more Trump tie.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
To what's his facial person?
Speaker 4 (02:44):
First, do you think I don't want to spend a
lot of time on this if it's a hypothetical that'll
ever going to happen. Do you think there's a chance
she ends up sitting there in Congress and answering questions
like a good chance in maybe not in DC. I
could see a committee wrecking to Florida as they do sometimes,
and then Grillier, Yeah, I could win. So it would
(03:04):
be the differen thing between the questioning with the Republicans
and Democrats would be the same sort of questioning.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
The Democrats would probably just ask whether Trump was at
various parties and what he did and that sort of thing.
I would guess, and then the Republicans would ask about
the sex trafficking of children. I guess, right, yeah, yeah,
and other purpose other perpetrators.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
So I think her getting a getting out would be horrible.
Getting even a lesser sentence would be horrible. She was
involved in underage sex trafficking. That's horrifying.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
But so what immunity just means she can't get in
worse trouble.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
Yeah, she can't get prosecuted for anything she says can't
be it would be inadmissible.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Although how old is he? Somebody google her age? Katie?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Is she like fifty? So she's got a twenty year sentence.
She'd be pretty old when she gets out.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Yeah, I think she's at least fifty.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
Man all right, so she has every reason in the
world to strike some sort of deal. And I have
a feeling her instructions to her lawyers is push hard.
But whatever it takes to get me a shorter sentence,
I'll do it because she, especially if she gets immunity,
she can just lie like a rug.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
What is our age? Katie? As she's sixty three?
Speaker 4 (04:22):
Oh, she's watched she's older, and I thought, well, so
she basically has a life sentence. Then twenty years damn
near yeah? Yeah, and then so she could make up
all kinds of stuff. And then the Queen of England
walked in with two babies under her arms. I mean,
and she can say anything she wants, right, Okay, so
you got that aspect of it, you got this aspect
(04:43):
of it. Here's some good writing from Mark Alpern in
his newsletter today. This is just about it's about Epstein,
but it's about the Democrats flailing just in general.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
But Joe will like this because Joe likes good writing. Trump.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Trump has a lot of Epstein problems, to be sure,
but Chuck Schumer's it's lighting yet an additional egg in
this particular basket is yet another manifestation of the Partist
Party's tendency to swing fro and two and an undisciplined,
untested effort to blind squirrel their weight to victory. That
is good stuff, well done, Mark, Just throwing everything at
(05:19):
the wall open something somehow manages to do some damage.
But anyway, Chuck Schumer tweeted out yesterday breaking breaking, I'm
fighting for the FBI to conduct an counterintelligence threat assessment
to determine the risk posed if a foreign adversary were
to gain access to the Epstein files. Whatever is in
(05:39):
the Epstein files is clearly concerning enough to Donald Trump
that he is running scared our adversariors could try to
use this to gain influence and hurt America and Americans
all right, wow.
Speaker 5 (05:52):
How your approval ratings coming along near Chucky boy well,
and with the help of the dominant media.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
And there's Epstein up there looking at the news. What
do we ten minutes into the hour, so your big
network news are already into Epstein and what Trump said.
But so the dominant media gives democrats a pass on.
Speaker 5 (06:12):
You were in charge for four years. You could have
done anything you wanted to do, with anything you could
have You could have had them on the front page
of every newspaper in America if you wanted every bit
of information. If you there was nothing stopping you. The
dominant media does not follow up on that.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Ah, it's just clickbit.
Speaker 5 (06:34):
There are no standards, there are no ethics anymore. So,
I mean, that is kind of a funny thing to
leave out the fact that all of the information you're
talking about you completely could have released for four entire years,
but did not. AnyWho, So Trump was with the reporter
on the plane yesterday. Reporter was asking him about the
(06:56):
fallout with Epstein, and you stopped talking to him because
he was stealing employees.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
What was going on now with that? Donald? Here it is.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
I think you said yesterday you're falling out with Jeffrey
had Steve was over him taking some of the workers
from your business. But you're administration in the possid that
you grew about because he was a free So I
can you explain that the struggle.
Speaker 6 (07:16):
Well, maybe they're the same thing, you know, sort of
a little bit of the same thing.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
But no, he took people that worked for me, and
I told him, don't do it anymore, and he did it.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
I said, stay the hell out of here. Okay, goes
on demand.
Speaker 7 (07:30):
The stolen, you know, persons that include from Virginia, Jeffrey,
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
I think she worked at the spot, I think so.
I think that was one of the things with it.
He stole her.
Speaker 6 (07:47):
And by the way, she had no complaints about us,
as you know, so what soever.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
So they're talking about the most famous girl from this
whole scandal. She's the cute blonde I think seventeen at
the time standing there with Prince Andrew.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
That ruined his.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
Whole life and should have, because I think he was
knowingly having sex with underage girls.
Speaker 5 (08:06):
But so she's that famous one. Trump's answer is I
don't know. I don't know. I think so she might
have worked at the SPA. She did work at the SPA. Yeah,
she worked at the SPA and she never had any complaints.
Well you're not helping.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
What way of remembering? I don't even.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
He has such a weird way of revealing information or
talking or he's thinking through how much he can reveal
and how much is safe in real time. And it's
weird because normally, if you were going to evade, you
would say I don't recall, and then you would go
back and think about it or ask your aids and say,
(08:47):
you know, I'm ninety percent sure she actually was one
of the people poached from the SPA or whatever. Saying that,
I mean, it's like my wife sees me out to
lunch with an attractive woman.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Do you know her?
Speaker 6 (08:58):
No?
Speaker 4 (08:59):
I mean I might, I do, but you know, we're
just we're just friends. Her name is Shelley. Here's her
phone number in my phone, right exactly. Well, yeah, well.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
We all know this.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
I think if we've been following court cases in politics
for a while, I don't recall is the perfect thing
always say, because nobody can claim you can recall something
from last week, let alone what year was that, two
thousand and four or something like that, something like that.
There's no way the guy who runs the entire golf
club should remember from a twenty years ago. Some of
(09:36):
that worked in the spa when she was seventeen, so
he doesn't have to remember, but he does.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
But he does.
Speaker 5 (09:44):
Why does he remember one girl who worked there twenty
years ago? Or as I said earlier, it's entirely possible
because this woman's name has been in the news for
a very long time.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
God bless her.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
She's committed suicide recently, been troubled her whole life, terrible, terrible.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Childhood, et cetera. Not surprisingly, but.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
Anyway, it's entirely possible, as this has been in the
news now for years and years. Somebody pointed out, you know,
Virginia was that her name, Virginia and Geoffrey. She worked
at mar A Lango. She was one of the people
Epstein poach that pissed you off so much. It's entirely
possible he was just reminded of it.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
You know, I don't know how his brain works or
what interactions he had with her, but the hell of
a lot of people who worked at this radio station
twenty years ago. They could walk up to me right
now and I would say, I'll bet you a million dollars.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
I don't know you.
Speaker 5 (10:30):
Yeah, it happens, and it's hurtful and I feel bad
when it does.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
But he remembers her. I guess, well, at first he didn't.
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Well, I do know, actually, I know very well, and
she was happy working here. What. Yeah, I don't think Trumpian.
I don't.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
This doesn't lead me to believe that there's some there
there around Trump just because he answered that way. But
that was a if his goal was to keep the
story going for another day and make people wonder he
did a good job, and if his goal was to
give the media a reason to continue answering asking questions,
because when you ask a question, you might get a
(11:10):
different answer than you got the other.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Day if you dig right right.
Speaker 5 (11:16):
I still remember, and I mentioned this on the air,
listening to a two very very well connected, smart New
York based journalists saying like three weeks ago now that
and it was on a Friday, I think Thursday or Friday.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
They said, Yeah, by.
Speaker 5 (11:31):
Monday, it'll be over, nobody will be talking about this,
and they were just wrong as wrong can be. And
when I look at you know, it's funny. I'm preparing
a thing on Gaza, on Hamas and Israel. You have
two parties that have no interest in coming to a
(11:51):
deal that either one could conceivably take in spite of
the muling that they must on the media.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
These people just we.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
Have no capacity for critical thought anyway. The Jeoffrey thing is,
I'm sorry, not the Jeoffrey thing. The Gilame Maxwell thing
is the opposite. She will agree to virtually anything that
gets her a reduced sentence of any sort or as
I have a strong feeling the grilling will occur.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Even if it's not a reduced sentence, just better living conditions,
maybe anything.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
I mean, if I'm going to be there the rest
of my life and I get a bigger sell or
a view or a TV or I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
What she has and what doesn't have now, but you
know why not?
Speaker 4 (12:35):
And then I gotta go out and I spin a
tale about Oh yeah, Prince Andrew, I think I saw
him eight times or whatever.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
He can make up anything, Oh right, exactly.
Speaker 5 (12:43):
Yeah, she has no downside, so yeah, she might as
well promise whatever she perceives, we'll get her.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
The best deal.
Speaker 5 (12:50):
And as Chuck Schuma said, this is a national security
threat at this point. Clearly there's something that she humor
told me it was Wednesday. I would check the calendar.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
I get a lot more on the way your thoughts
on any of this text line four one five two
nine five KFTC. What does the term TV even mean anymore?
Is that is that should we even use that term?
Or is it just is it gonna hang around in
the same way that people say roll down.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Your windows, even though there's no rolling going on anymore.
Speaker 4 (13:22):
I guess because like, I think I'm closer to the
way young people take in video television than maybe some
people my age are everything. I'm ninety nine percent of
what I watch is on my phone, So I don't
I don't like, I don't know when anything's on or
sit down and watch television. Leading up to the fact
(13:43):
that I don't like sit down and watch Greg Guttfeld
at night. I know my parents do they sit down
and watch it. It's like appointment television. It is a
late night talk show that gets better ratings than Colbert
or Fallon or Kimmel, or at least it has for
a while now, and he does a monologue and he
has guests, and it's very political, but it's political leaning
(14:06):
right as opposed to leaning left and does pretty well. AnyWho,
Michael played three jokes for me from his monologue, and
I think I was starting to get that if I
watched it, if I actually sat down and watched it,
there would be a benefit to the building of the
jokes one after another, because we take them in on
(14:26):
this show one at a time. I think if you
watched him one after another, it'd be a little different. Anyway,
Let's do three of these one at a time, just
so we have time to laugh, Michael, just like you
played him for me.
Speaker 6 (14:37):
New research says lifting weights can help fend off erectile dysfunction.
After hearing the news, Bill Clinton attached.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
A dumbbell to his penis.
Speaker 5 (14:47):
So I was thinking, because I know my parents watch
every night, I was trying to picture my mom and dad.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
My mom. Did she sit there on the couch and
laugh at that joke? Did they pretend it didn't happen?
I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
But if Colbert her average age was sixty eight what's
gutfolds on Fox? It's gotta be in the seventies, I guess, yeah, yeah,
I was shocked to hear that sixty eight figure for
uh colvert anyway or another joke.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
Rashida Tale posted a video of herself banging a metal
pan with a spoon. Some say it was to show
her support of the Palestinians. Others say it was her
way of telling everyone that she's out of kibble.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I know. And one more.
Speaker 6 (15:35):
On Saturday, Dan Bongino posted a message on x saying
since coming to the FBI, he's seen things that quote
shock him to his core and changed him forever. The
same was said by Joy Behar's team of waxers.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
There you go.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
That's just a flavor of what you get watch. Yeah, yeah,
that is fun stuff. Gotta love it. We have no
time to do anything at this point.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Not anything. An update on.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
The backlash against the backlash against the backlash against Sydney
Sweeney's genes ad perhaps the fakest fake reversity in the
history of fake reversy.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
Like, does this exist anywhere? A bit Twitter? This controversy
is anybody in real life talking about.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Whoa oh, whoa whoa?
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Whoa WHOA real life No, but I was shown headlines
from it was probably a dozen, certainly ten different publications
talking about the backlash against the ad. Is it white supremacy?
As the Columbia journalism school educated media elite of America's useful,
dopey newsrooms continues to cling to that ideology. That's why
(16:49):
that the the woke thing is going to have such
a long half life. They've got academia and the media.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
And we played a clip from Good Morning America yesterday
where they talked about the genesmercial and had a professor
on talking about how it reeked of white supremacy and eugenics.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Wow, it's a genes commercial.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
You realize it's a young attractive woman in jeans shick.
They're trying to sell genes, is what they're doing.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Armstrong and geddy.
Speaker 7 (17:18):
Colorado jury now deliberating in the murder trial of former
dentist James Craig, who is accused of killing his wife
Angela by poisoning her protein shakes. In closing arguments, prosecutor
said in twenty twenty three, he researched poisons before lacing
her shakes and poisoning her with cyanide, arsenic and eyedrops,
adding the father of six had been cheating for most
(17:41):
of their twenty three year marriage and killed his wife
because he wanted out of the marriage. And text messages
presented in court, she said I feel drugged, and Craig replying,
just for the record, I didn't drug you.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
I know a few people that have been following that course.
Case sounds like a good one from a you know,
watching dateline sort of who done it murder mystery sort
of thing. Obviously it's a horrible but six kids wanted
out of his marriage, so comes up with some really
complex I'll poison her protein shake's plan to kill her
(18:15):
as opposed to just getting a divorce.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Interesting. Yeah, yeah, sick.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
I'd say that's always the spouse, or the neighbor or
a vagrant. Oh, speaking of court cases, I hate to
focus on the grim but that poor couple killed in
Arkansas on the hiking trail, Yeah, just a lunatic who knows?
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Who knows? I Oh, they catch the scumbag.
Speaker 5 (18:40):
So there are a couple of big kind of courtroom
stories that are worth at least mentioning. The other day,
a judge completely blocked a provision of the big beautiful
bill that defunded planned parenthood. It's a US district judge
Obama appoint e, questionable decision. It'll work its way through
(19:01):
the courts. That's why we have appeals. It'll be fun.
I found this interesting. You remember the big Supreme Court
case where the Supreme Court said, no, you can't just
every individual district court judge can't issue a nationwide injunction
and stop the federal government from doing stuff. Tim Sandifer
was on the show with us. He hated that ruling
(19:21):
because if something's unconstitutional in Omaha, it's unconstitutional in New
York City.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
I get both sides of the argument, right, because obviously
that's true. But if if all of a sudden, every
maybe not greatest judge in America because they hate the
current president, can stop everything they're trying to do, that
(19:48):
ain't the greatest either.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
Well right, yeah, indeed, and they might just they might
know that they're full of crap. But if they can
delay him for a month or a couple of months
or whatever, you know, if you're part of the resid stent,
that's probably enough. So it's a hell of an interesting question.
But I remember at the time of the ruling, and
Jack this may shock you. The mainstream media grossly oversimplified
(20:11):
what the ruling meant and mis reported it. I have
often said the worst reporting in America is economic reporting,
which is pretty damn bad. But reporting about what Supreme
Court rulings mean is right up there. I mean, it's
almost always if I listened to an expert, it turns
out to be completely different than I thought it was,
(20:34):
or they actually were complete as to be useless, right, right.
But I remember at the time when this came out,
some learned commentator said, but the Supreme Court also made
it clear that if the district courts satisfied some other
you know, I don't want to paraphrase and get it
as wrong as I'm accusing the media being, but they said, no,
(20:54):
it can still happen. But they wanted to make it
clear to the judges that certain steps need to be made.
And everybody ignored that. But it's stuck in my head anyway.
Let's see, who is this the general reporting. When the
Supreme Court issued a blockbustered decision in June limiting the
authority of federal judges to do what we were just
talking about, President was quick to pronounce the universal injunction
(21:14):
all but dead. One month later, States, organizations and individuals
challenging government actions are finding a number of ways to
notch wins against the White House, with judges in a
growing list of cases making clear that sweeping relief remains
available when they find the government has overstepped its constitutional authority.
In at least nine cases, judges have explicitly grappled with
(21:35):
the Supreme Court's opinion and granted nationwide relief. Anyway has
to do with They've used a range of tools defending
the necessity of existing injunctions, filing class action lawsuits, and
invoking law that requires government agencies to act reasonably.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
How administrative procedures act? Did you say nine times? Nine?
Speaker 4 (21:54):
So nine times in a month since June? It's joy
So yeah, that's amazing. Mm So, anyway, this will continue on.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
I think I think all sane Americans were hoping for
a sweet spot where if something agree, if they're you know,
like canceling a freedom of speech in California, a district
judge could go ahead and stop the canceling of free speech.
At the same time, you can't have you know, mirror obstructionists.
Speaker 4 (22:27):
Well as we know part of this is the result
of presidents becoming more comfortable with making laws with their
pen on their own. If it went through Congress and
all the ways we're supposed to do things, we'd be
in a different spot.
Speaker 5 (22:46):
And Donald Jay has been as enthusiastic or more enthusiastic
about doing that as anybody else, often in the uh
service of undoing the horrible crap Joe Biden did. But
you know, that's a discussion for another day. Anyway, It's
all leading up to just a quick mention, and it's
hilarious to me. This has been in the back of
(23:07):
my mind all the time when we're talking about tariffs
the courts haven't yet ruled, and this piece by Jess
Braven is talking about how Donald Trump has cited one
emergency after another to use his pen in his phone.
He's declared dozens of presidential documents, in dozens of documents
(23:29):
that the US faces emergencies requiring him to take extraordinary
actions to circumvent normal government processes. We here at the
show have for many years said beware of so called
emergency powers. They are just a flashing red light that
somebody is going to abuse their power. Trump has done
it a lot to be fair. But anyway, Trump is
(23:53):
declared national emergencies involving energy production, border crossings from Mexico
transnational cartels. I would suggest that at least two of
those three are very legit.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
The border was perfectly religious, border was definitely an emergency.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
Oh. He's proclaimed that the actions of the International Criminal Court,
California water regulations, protests against immigration policies all constitute emergencies
and one form or another.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
All right, blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (24:16):
But the president's strategy faces its biggest test yet tomorrow,
when his use of tariffs to address a range of commercial, political,
and diplomatic issues he has called emergencies goes before a
federal appeals court in Washington. The case is expected to
eventually reach the Supreme Court, and if Trump wins, legal
(24:36):
experts say he could claim broad unilateral power to regulate
the economy.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
If it reaches the Supreme Court, it won't be till
October and then whenever they rule on it, So the
tariffs could be in place till next June and the
Supreme Court comes out with the ruling that he can't
do that actually, and then then we go back to
whatever they were before. I mean, what what happen wrong?
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Wrong?
Speaker 5 (24:59):
No, what could is this Appeals court could say we're
issuing an injunction against this. This is an abuse of power,
and the Supreme Court could either decline to take it
up completely or let that ruling stand pending hearings or whatever.
So they have several options that don't include just immediate
(25:22):
overturning or waiting till October and overturn it.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
So who knows.
Speaker 5 (25:28):
Several courts is have rejected his proclamation under the seventeen
nineteen eight Oh that's the immigration thing.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Let's see, let me get.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
Back remember back to your emergency. Using the example of emergencies,
remember Biden's original wiping out student loan debt was under
the emergency power from nine to eleven, so that people
in the military didn't have to make their college loan
payments while they were fighting overseas in Afghanistan. I mean,
(25:59):
with a little COVID layered on top of yeah yeah
so yeah, yeah, so the yeah, emergency powers are ridiculous.
So anyway, Trump relied on the nineteen seventy seven International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying that our trade deficits are
an emergency Therefore, I am imposing all of these tariffs,
even though the Constitution gives Congress power to impose tariffs,
(26:22):
which are attacks. But the Congress can delegate authority to
the president blah blah blah, he can take steps to
deal with quote unusual and extraordinary threats to America's national security,
foreign policy, or economy.
Speaker 5 (26:35):
Very vaguely worded. And so Trump's unprecedented. I'm going to
do individual deals with every country on Earth. Thing is
absolutely going to be kicked around now by the course,
as it should be. But all of this could be
whistled and given a yellow card.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (26:53):
So what we've got for you coming up? We've got
a grouping of very odd wnbas stories that we could
bring you.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
We've got this not for the kids, shocked the conscience.
R rated at best, maybe X, maybe triple X.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
R rated reminds me my son. I might take him
to his first R rated movie, My thirteen year old,
which seems pretty young for our depends parenting. But it's
a new movie. I forget what it's called. If you
can figure it out, Katie, let me know. It's a
combination of dinosaurs like Jurassic Park with a Vietnam War movie.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Have you seen a trailer for this? What the hell?
Speaker 4 (27:36):
Yeah, I know it's Vietnam and in the trailer and
it's got Creeden's clear Water in the background.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Ye, yes, it ain't me.
Speaker 5 (27:44):
It ain't me. I mean, it's a good Vietnam War
sort of setting. I lost five green braves. We got
to figure out what happened, and.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
It turns out it's dinosaurs got them, and so the
US Army in Vietnam's fighting dinosaurs.
Speaker 5 (27:58):
I could just see that elevator pitch. Look, boss, I
got an idea. It's Apocalypse Now meets Jurassic Park and
them thinking, what.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
That's exactly what it looks like.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
It looks like Apocalypse Now meets Jurassic Park exactly.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Yes, Katie. What's the name of it.
Speaker 8 (28:14):
It's called Primitive War and it comes to theaters August
twenty five.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
Yeah, and Henry said, Dad, you gotta take me, And
if you don't take me, I'm gonna find a way
to sneak out of the house and go.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
You're gonna have realistic portrayals of people being bitten in half. Yeah,
I know, but what a hilarious premise. And one of
their taglines is this is no walk in the park.
Is then this is not your kind of your Jurassic
Park silliness sort of dinosaurs eating people?
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Does anybody else find this horrifically distasteful?
Speaker 8 (28:43):
Oh my god? Why did you have to make it
the Vietnam War? I am fascinated and horrified by this. Yeah,
no kidding.
Speaker 5 (28:57):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Anyway, we've got the WNBA show.
Speaker 5 (28:58):
We've got a bunch of stuff, So stay here, yo
yo yo, Kier Starmer, the Prime Ministry of Britain is
a jackass. Hamas will never agree to anything Israel could
agree to. And there's just not going to be an
end to this anytime soon. Anybody thinks there is is
(29:21):
just wishing reality away, trying to wish reality a way
that next hour.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
Yeah, when we talk about that, I want to talk
about I've learned more about where they're going with free
speech in Great Britain.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
It's crazy. Oh yeah, I've been trying to sound that
alarm for a long time. It's disturbing. They're off the rails.
Canada too, Australia to some extent.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
So the biggest star in WNBA history, Caitlin Clark, has
been injured for quite some time, so that has hurt
the league viewing, but.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
They're still a finding way to make news. I went
through the rep Oh no, oh no, she don't go
ahead to the back.
Speaker 9 (30:05):
Oh no.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
Time out Paul or Copper to deal with the malfunction.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
They didn't want to say it. I guess one of
the players lost their wig during a play. Yeah, got
screened and their wig got knocked off. So she slapped
her hands to her head, grabbed the wig off the court,
and ran to the locker room, something you don't often
see in the NBA. But then there was more Jack
Apparently her Mercury teammates noticed a fan mocking miss Copper
(30:40):
what was her name? What is it doesn't matter, mocking
her for losing her wig, and had him ejected, Well, you're.
Speaker 5 (30:49):
Not allowed to make a comment.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
About wig loss. Apparently not.
Speaker 5 (30:55):
Yeah, the refs and officials can be heard saying to
each other they made fun of her for the situation
on the floor.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
How many women is that a common thing? Women wearing
wigs in the in the w NBA.
Speaker 5 (31:09):
A lot of them do, yes, which I commemorate them
for because I would die.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Oh yeah, a lot of them. And by the way,
she's she's being called hair Jordan.
Speaker 5 (31:29):
That's Kaliah Cooper. Yeah, her airness. Oh that's beautiful. Why
is it just trying to look glad to get like
advertising contracts and stuff like that. I mean, everybody wants
to look good. I don't fault somebody for trying to
look good. There are plenty of NBA players who've got
you know, dyes, dyed hair or braids or whatever. But
(31:52):
we're wearing a wig. A wig hat is the old
blues sayers, and I would think it'd be blues singers
used to say.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
I would think it'd.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
Be pretty easy to have that thing come off your
head while you're playing. Forearm crosses your head when they're
trying to swipe for the ball, and all of a sudden,
your wigs there in the in the lane has displayed
in the lane.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Yeah, but the but as.
Speaker 5 (32:14):
Sorry part of you is in the lane for three seconds.
There is a certain irony though, to the hard ass
pay us what you owe us w NBA players that
if their wig gets down a knockout, they're like and
they run to the locker room clutching their wig, and
a timeout is called on the floor because.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Of wig loss.
Speaker 4 (32:37):
Wow, I feel like really some sort of misogyny, Yes, Katie.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
I mean some of the girls are out there also
wearing fake lashes. Oh yeah, Angel Reese has those on.
Yeah she's uh yeah she she but she's got like.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
A multi million dollar fashion contract with a variety of
different products.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
So I get it.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
That wasn't the only thing that made news in the
w n b A last night. We have this titled activity.
Speaker 9 (33:06):
Yeah, and no once picked the objects up yet you
got go my gosh, okay, okay, inappropriate, get him out
of here.
Speaker 4 (33:18):
Whoever it is, well, clip is, clip is funnier after
you know what it is. Maybe we'll have to play
it again when you know what it is. Somebody threw
a graphic marital aid onto the age.
Speaker 5 (33:32):
Yes, a phallic marital aid. Oh yeah, a glowing green
dol dough.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
If you will.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
Now, was it like the sort of thing that a
couple would use in a in a loving way or
was it like novelty size like some or a circus
act sort of deal?
Speaker 2 (33:51):
It was it was you could use it? Okay, your
word for him, but thank you. Hr phrase.
Speaker 4 (33:59):
Hr is walking down the hall right now and says
I should not further question with Katie, anything about.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
Are you kidding? They're sprinting down the hall. I have
to go.
Speaker 5 (34:08):
So you got to You got a bright, bright green
dol dough heaved onto the court.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
And this was the play by play type of activity.
Speaker 9 (34:19):
Yeah, I know, once picked the objects up, Yet you
got to go, my gosh, okay, okay, inappropriate, get them
out of here?
Speaker 4 (34:32):
Whoever it is, Oh, it's inappropriate to throw it on
the court during a correct Okay, Well then I wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
I did not really any object check, but especially.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
I didn't read the back of the ticket. It said
something about a rain out, but it didn't say anything
about this.
Speaker 5 (34:52):
Oh boy, I remember when they used to refer to
the Raiders fans and Philadelphia fans actually as battery chuckers,
the worst sort of fan. Is that term about to evolve? Well,
I don't know what was the message there. That is
a great question. There are a number of the possible
(35:13):
answers that leap to my mind.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
Stay with us, Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I'm Strong and Jettie and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The condition's list begins with a grant of immunity. This
is something that the committee has already made claar they're
not going to do. She's also saying this cannot be
at Maxwell's prison. The interview, that is, she wants the
questions in advance and would only do this after the
US Supreme Court case is resolved.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
If she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
We don't know if they're going to take it up,
but we could possibly wait until June to get an
answer there. She says, if these conditions are not met,
she will invoke her Fifth Amendment.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Right.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
So, Trump made news unfortunately around the whole Epstein thing yesterday.
I don't know why he keeps making news on this,
but so that it lasts another day, but before because
they keep asking him.
Speaker 5 (01:03):
Yeah, but he's he's got a side step it or something.
But anyway, before we get to that topic, do.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
You have your head wrapped around the Gallaine Maxwell testimony
thingy what's going on here?
Speaker 5 (01:14):
What what she's hoping for? What are lawyers hoping for?
So she she's saying.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
She's helping for a lighter sentence, of course, but but
does she have any leverage for that? Yes, so she's
saying she wants the questions ahead of time, she wants immunity,
and then she'll come talk to Congress and answer questions.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
But would we believe what she.
Speaker 5 (01:39):
Says the eye of the beholder, I would tend to
you know, not, as she's her entire adult life has
been debauchery and dishonest.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
But who's mostly demanding it at this point? Is it
the Republicans or the Democrats?
Speaker 5 (01:55):
Both both the MAGA the Republicans to appease the Magabase.
And again, this is the most interesting part of the
scandal to me, is you have two sides interested in
keeping it going for completely opposite reasons. But so the Republicans,
certain Republicans really feel the need to satisfy the Magabase
that look, we're doing everything we can to get to
(02:15):
the bottom of this because having pumped it up for years,
and I've got some quotes that are like, come on
from you know, Bongino and MGT and people like that.
But anyway, so they've got to be seen try in
their hardest, So they want this Galain mask Maxwell in.
They're going to ask your all sorts of questions and
say there, we did our best. But the Democrats just
(02:36):
want to embarrass the Republicans. Keep that division going and
pray that there's more Trump tie.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
To what's his facial person?
Speaker 4 (02:44):
First, do you think I don't want to spend a
lot of time on this if it's a hypothetical that'll
ever going to happen. Do you think there's a chance
she ends up sitting there in Congress and answering questions
like a good chance in maybe not in DC. I
could see a committee wrecking to Florida as they do sometimes,
and then Grillier, Yeah, I could win. So it would
(03:04):
be the differen thing between the questioning with the Republicans
and Democrats would be the same sort of questioning.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
The Democrats would probably just ask whether Trump was at
various parties and what he did and that sort of thing.
I would guess, and then the Republicans would ask about
the sex trafficking of children. I guess, right, yeah, yeah,
and other purpose other perpetrators.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
So I think her getting a getting out would be horrible.
Getting even a lesser sentence would be horrible. She was
involved in underage sex trafficking. That's horrifying.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
But so what immunity just means she can't get in
worse trouble.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
Yeah, she can't get prosecuted for anything she says can't
be it would be inadmissible.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Although how old is he? Somebody google her age? Katie?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Is she like fifty? So she's got a twenty year sentence.
She'd be pretty old when she gets out.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Yeah, I think she's at least fifty.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
Man all right, so she has every reason in the
world to strike some sort of deal. And I have
a feeling her instructions to her lawyers is push hard.
But whatever it takes to get me a shorter sentence,
I'll do it because she, especially if she gets immunity,
she can just lie like a rug.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
What is our age? Katie? As she's sixty three?
Speaker 4 (04:22):
Oh, she's watched she's older, and I thought, well, so
she basically has a life sentence. Then twenty years damn
near yeah? Yeah, and then so she could make up
all kinds of stuff. And then the Queen of England
walked in with two babies under her arms. I mean,
and she can say anything she wants, right, Okay, so
you got that aspect of it, you got this aspect
(04:43):
of it. Here's some good writing from Mark Alpern in
his newsletter today. This is just about it's about Epstein,
but it's about the Democrats flailing just in general.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
But Joe will like this because Joe likes good writing. Trump.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Trump has a lot of Epstein problems, to be sure,
but Chuck Schumer's it's lighting yet an additional egg in
this particular basket is yet another manifestation of the Partist
Party's tendency to swing fro and two and an undisciplined,
untested effort to blind squirrel their weight to victory. That
is good stuff, well done, Mark, Just throwing everything at
(05:19):
the wall open something somehow manages to do some damage.
But anyway, Chuck Schumer tweeted out yesterday breaking breaking, I'm
fighting for the FBI to conduct an counterintelligence threat assessment
to determine the risk posed if a foreign adversary were
to gain access to the Epstein files. Whatever is in
(05:39):
the Epstein files is clearly concerning enough to Donald Trump
that he is running scared our adversariors could try to
use this to gain influence and hurt America and Americans
all right, wow.
Speaker 5 (05:52):
How your approval ratings coming along near Chucky boy well,
and with the help of the dominant media.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
And there's Epstein up there looking at the news. What
do we ten minutes into the hour, so your big
network news are already into Epstein and what Trump said.
But so the dominant media gives democrats a pass on.
Speaker 5 (06:12):
You were in charge for four years. You could have
done anything you wanted to do, with anything you could
have You could have had them on the front page
of every newspaper in America if you wanted every bit
of information. If you there was nothing stopping you. The
dominant media does not follow up on that.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Ah, it's just clickbit.
Speaker 5 (06:34):
There are no standards, there are no ethics anymore. So,
I mean, that is kind of a funny thing to
leave out the fact that all of the information you're
talking about you completely could have released for four entire years,
but did not. AnyWho, So Trump was with the reporter
on the plane yesterday. Reporter was asking him about the
(06:56):
fallout with Epstein, and you stopped talking to him because
he was stealing employees.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
What was going on now with that? Donald? Here it is.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
I think you said yesterday you're falling out with Jeffrey
had Steve was over him taking some of the workers
from your business. But you're administration in the possid that
you grew about because he was a free So I
can you explain that the struggle.
Speaker 6 (07:16):
Well, maybe they're the same thing, you know, sort of
a little bit of the same thing.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
But no, he took people that worked for me, and
I told him, don't do it anymore, and he did it.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
I said, stay the hell out of here. Okay, goes
on demand.
Speaker 7 (07:30):
The stolen, you know, persons that include from Virginia, Jeffrey,
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
I think she worked at the spot, I think so.
I think that was one of the things with it.
He stole her.
Speaker 6 (07:47):
And by the way, she had no complaints about us,
as you know, so what soever.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
So they're talking about the most famous girl from this
whole scandal. She's the cute blonde I think seventeen at
the time standing there with Prince Andrew.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
That ruined his.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
Whole life and should have, because I think he was
knowingly having sex with underage girls.
Speaker 5 (08:06):
But so she's that famous one. Trump's answer is I
don't know. I don't know. I think so she might
have worked at the SPA. She did work at the SPA. Yeah,
she worked at the SPA and she never had any complaints.
Well you're not helping.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
What way of remembering? I don't even.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
He has such a weird way of revealing information or
talking or he's thinking through how much he can reveal
and how much is safe in real time. And it's
weird because normally, if you were going to evade, you
would say I don't recall, and then you would go
back and think about it or ask your aids and say,
(08:47):
you know, I'm ninety percent sure she actually was one
of the people poached from the SPA or whatever. Saying that,
I mean, it's like my wife sees me out to
lunch with an attractive woman.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Do you know her?
Speaker 6 (08:58):
No?
Speaker 4 (08:59):
I mean I might, I do, but you know, we're
just we're just friends. Her name is Shelley. Here's her
phone number in my phone, right exactly. Well, yeah, well.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
We all know this.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
I think if we've been following court cases in politics
for a while, I don't recall is the perfect thing
always say, because nobody can claim you can recall something
from last week, let alone what year was that, two
thousand and four or something like that, something like that.
There's no way the guy who runs the entire golf
club should remember from a twenty years ago. Some of
(09:36):
that worked in the spa when she was seventeen, so
he doesn't have to remember, but he does.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
But he does.
Speaker 5 (09:44):
Why does he remember one girl who worked there twenty
years ago? Or as I said earlier, it's entirely possible
because this woman's name has been in the news for
a very long time.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
God bless her.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
She's committed suicide recently, been troubled her whole life, terrible, terrible.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Childhood, et cetera. Not surprisingly, but.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
Anyway, it's entirely possible, as this has been in the
news now for years and years. Somebody pointed out, you know,
Virginia was that her name, Virginia and Geoffrey. She worked
at mar A Lango. She was one of the people
Epstein poach that pissed you off so much. It's entirely
possible he was just reminded of it.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
You know, I don't know how his brain works or
what interactions he had with her, but the hell of
a lot of people who worked at this radio station
twenty years ago. They could walk up to me right
now and I would say, I'll bet you a million dollars.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
I don't know you.
Speaker 5 (10:30):
Yeah, it happens, and it's hurtful and I feel bad
when it does.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
But he remembers her. I guess, well, at first he didn't.
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Well, I do know, actually, I know very well, and
she was happy working here. What. Yeah, I don't think Trumpian.
I don't.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
This doesn't lead me to believe that there's some there
there around Trump just because he answered that way. But
that was a if his goal was to keep the
story going for another day and make people wonder he
did a good job, and if his goal was to
give the media a reason to continue answering asking questions,
because when you ask a question, you might get a
(11:10):
different answer than you got the other.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Day if you dig right right.
Speaker 5 (11:16):
I still remember, and I mentioned this on the air,
listening to a two very very well connected, smart New
York based journalists saying like three weeks ago now that
and it was on a Friday, I think Thursday or Friday.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
They said, Yeah, by.
Speaker 5 (11:31):
Monday, it'll be over, nobody will be talking about this,
and they were just wrong as wrong can be. And
when I look at you know, it's funny. I'm preparing
a thing on Gaza, on Hamas and Israel. You have
two parties that have no interest in coming to a
(11:51):
deal that either one could conceivably take in spite of
the muling that they must on the media.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
These people just we.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
Have no capacity for critical thought anyway. The Jeoffrey thing is,
I'm sorry, not the Jeoffrey thing. The Gilame Maxwell thing
is the opposite. She will agree to virtually anything that
gets her a reduced sentence of any sort or as
I have a strong feeling the grilling will occur.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Even if it's not a reduced sentence, just better living conditions,
maybe anything.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
I mean, if I'm going to be there the rest
of my life and I get a bigger sell or
a view or a TV or I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
What she has and what doesn't have now, but you
know why not?
Speaker 4 (12:35):
And then I gotta go out and I spin a
tale about Oh yeah, Prince Andrew, I think I saw
him eight times or whatever.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
He can make up anything, Oh right, exactly.
Speaker 5 (12:43):
Yeah, she has no downside, so yeah, she might as
well promise whatever she perceives, we'll get her.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
The best deal.
Speaker 5 (12:50):
And as Chuck Schuma said, this is a national security
threat at this point. Clearly there's something that she humor
told me it was Wednesday. I would check the calendar.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
I get a lot more on the way your thoughts
on any of this text line four one five two
nine five KFTC. What does the term TV even mean anymore?
Is that is that should we even use that term?
Or is it just is it gonna hang around in
the same way that people say roll down.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Your windows, even though there's no rolling going on anymore.
Speaker 4 (13:22):
I guess because like, I think I'm closer to the
way young people take in video television than maybe some
people my age are everything. I'm ninety nine percent of
what I watch is on my phone, So I don't
I don't like, I don't know when anything's on or
sit down and watch television. Leading up to the fact
(13:43):
that I don't like sit down and watch Greg Guttfeld
at night. I know my parents do they sit down
and watch it. It's like appointment television. It is a
late night talk show that gets better ratings than Colbert
or Fallon or Kimmel, or at least it has for
a while now, and he does a monologue and he
has guests, and it's very political, but it's political leaning
(14:06):
right as opposed to leaning left and does pretty well. AnyWho,
Michael played three jokes for me from his monologue, and
I think I was starting to get that if I
watched it, if I actually sat down and watched it,
there would be a benefit to the building of the
jokes one after another, because we take them in on
(14:26):
this show one at a time. I think if you
watched him one after another, it'd be a little different. Anyway,
Let's do three of these one at a time, just
so we have time to laugh, Michael, just like you
played him for me.
Speaker 6 (14:37):
New research says lifting weights can help fend off erectile dysfunction.
After hearing the news, Bill Clinton attached.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
A dumbbell to his penis.
Speaker 5 (14:47):
So I was thinking, because I know my parents watch
every night, I was trying to picture my mom and dad.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
My mom. Did she sit there on the couch and
laugh at that joke? Did they pretend it didn't happen?
I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
But if Colbert her average age was sixty eight what's
gutfolds on Fox? It's gotta be in the seventies, I guess, yeah, yeah,
I was shocked to hear that sixty eight figure for
uh colvert anyway or another joke.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
Rashida Tale posted a video of herself banging a metal
pan with a spoon. Some say it was to show
her support of the Palestinians. Others say it was her
way of telling everyone that she's out of kibble.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I know. And one more.
Speaker 6 (15:35):
On Saturday, Dan Bongino posted a message on x saying
since coming to the FBI, he's seen things that quote
shock him to his core and changed him forever. The
same was said by Joy Behar's team of waxers.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
There you go.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
That's just a flavor of what you get watch. Yeah, yeah,
that is fun stuff. Gotta love it. We have no
time to do anything at this point.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Not anything. An update on.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
The backlash against the backlash against the backlash against Sydney
Sweeney's genes ad perhaps the fakest fake reversity in the
history of fake reversy.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
Like, does this exist anywhere? A bit Twitter? This controversy
is anybody in real life talking about.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Whoa oh, whoa whoa?
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Whoa WHOA real life No, but I was shown headlines
from it was probably a dozen, certainly ten different publications
talking about the backlash against the ad. Is it white supremacy?
As the Columbia journalism school educated media elite of America's useful,
dopey newsrooms continues to cling to that ideology. That's why
(16:49):
that the the woke thing is going to have such
a long half life. They've got academia and the media.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
And we played a clip from Good Morning America yesterday
where they talked about the genesmercial and had a professor
on talking about how it reeked of white supremacy and eugenics.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Wow, it's a genes commercial.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
You realize it's a young attractive woman in jeans shick.
They're trying to sell genes, is what they're doing.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Armstrong and geddy.
Speaker 7 (17:18):
Colorado jury now deliberating in the murder trial of former
dentist James Craig, who is accused of killing his wife
Angela by poisoning her protein shakes. In closing arguments, prosecutor
said in twenty twenty three, he researched poisons before lacing
her shakes and poisoning her with cyanide, arsenic and eyedrops,
adding the father of six had been cheating for most
(17:41):
of their twenty three year marriage and killed his wife
because he wanted out of the marriage. And text messages
presented in court, she said I feel drugged, and Craig replying,
just for the record, I didn't drug you.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
I know a few people that have been following that course.
Case sounds like a good one from a you know,
watching dateline sort of who done it murder mystery sort
of thing. Obviously it's a horrible but six kids wanted
out of his marriage, so comes up with some really
complex I'll poison her protein shake's plan to kill her
(18:15):
as opposed to just getting a divorce.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Interesting. Yeah, yeah, sick.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
I'd say that's always the spouse, or the neighbor or
a vagrant. Oh, speaking of court cases, I hate to
focus on the grim but that poor couple killed in
Arkansas on the hiking trail, Yeah, just a lunatic who knows?
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Who knows? I Oh, they catch the scumbag.
Speaker 5 (18:40):
So there are a couple of big kind of courtroom
stories that are worth at least mentioning. The other day,
a judge completely blocked a provision of the big beautiful
bill that defunded planned parenthood. It's a US district judge
Obama appoint e, questionable decision. It'll work its way through
(19:01):
the courts. That's why we have appeals. It'll be fun.
I found this interesting. You remember the big Supreme Court
case where the Supreme Court said, no, you can't just
every individual district court judge can't issue a nationwide injunction
and stop the federal government from doing stuff. Tim Sandifer
was on the show with us. He hated that ruling
(19:21):
because if something's unconstitutional in Omaha, it's unconstitutional in New
York City.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
I get both sides of the argument, right, because obviously
that's true. But if if all of a sudden, every
maybe not greatest judge in America because they hate the
current president, can stop everything they're trying to do, that
(19:48):
ain't the greatest either.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
Well right, yeah, indeed, and they might just they might
know that they're full of crap. But if they can
delay him for a month or a couple of months
or whatever, you know, if you're part of the resid stent,
that's probably enough. So it's a hell of an interesting question.
But I remember at the time of the ruling, and
Jack this may shock you. The mainstream media grossly oversimplified
(20:11):
what the ruling meant and mis reported it. I have
often said the worst reporting in America is economic reporting,
which is pretty damn bad. But reporting about what Supreme
Court rulings mean is right up there. I mean, it's
almost always if I listened to an expert, it turns
out to be completely different than I thought it was,
(20:34):
or they actually were complete as to be useless, right, right.
But I remember at the time when this came out,
some learned commentator said, but the Supreme Court also made
it clear that if the district courts satisfied some other
you know, I don't want to paraphrase and get it
as wrong as I'm accusing the media being, but they said, no,
(20:54):
it can still happen. But they wanted to make it
clear to the judges that certain steps need to be made.
And everybody ignored that. But it's stuck in my head anyway.
Let's see, who is this the general reporting. When the
Supreme Court issued a blockbustered decision in June limiting the
authority of federal judges to do what we were just
talking about, President was quick to pronounce the universal injunction
(21:14):
all but dead. One month later, States, organizations and individuals
challenging government actions are finding a number of ways to
notch wins against the White House, with judges in a
growing list of cases making clear that sweeping relief remains
available when they find the government has overstepped its constitutional authority.
In at least nine cases, judges have explicitly grappled with
(21:35):
the Supreme Court's opinion and granted nationwide relief. Anyway has
to do with They've used a range of tools defending
the necessity of existing injunctions, filing class action lawsuits, and
invoking law that requires government agencies to act reasonably.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
How administrative procedures act? Did you say nine times? Nine?
Speaker 4 (21:54):
So nine times in a month since June? It's joy
So yeah, that's amazing. Mm So, anyway, this will continue on.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
I think I think all sane Americans were hoping for
a sweet spot where if something agree, if they're you know,
like canceling a freedom of speech in California, a district
judge could go ahead and stop the canceling of free speech.
At the same time, you can't have you know, mirror obstructionists.
Speaker 4 (22:27):
Well as we know part of this is the result
of presidents becoming more comfortable with making laws with their
pen on their own. If it went through Congress and
all the ways we're supposed to do things, we'd be
in a different spot.
Speaker 5 (22:46):
And Donald Jay has been as enthusiastic or more enthusiastic
about doing that as anybody else, often in the uh
service of undoing the horrible crap Joe Biden did. But
you know, that's a discussion for another day. Anyway, It's
all leading up to just a quick mention, and it's
hilarious to me. This has been in the back of
(23:07):
my mind all the time when we're talking about tariffs
the courts haven't yet ruled, and this piece by Jess
Braven is talking about how Donald Trump has cited one
emergency after another to use his pen in his phone.
He's declared dozens of presidential documents, in dozens of documents
(23:29):
that the US faces emergencies requiring him to take extraordinary
actions to circumvent normal government processes. We here at the
show have for many years said beware of so called
emergency powers. They are just a flashing red light that
somebody is going to abuse their power. Trump has done
it a lot to be fair. But anyway, Trump is
(23:53):
declared national emergencies involving energy production, border crossings from Mexico
transnational cartels. I would suggest that at least two of
those three are very legit.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
The border was perfectly religious, border was definitely an emergency.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
Oh. He's proclaimed that the actions of the International Criminal Court,
California water regulations, protests against immigration policies all constitute emergencies
and one form or another.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
All right, blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (24:16):
But the president's strategy faces its biggest test yet tomorrow,
when his use of tariffs to address a range of commercial, political,
and diplomatic issues he has called emergencies goes before a
federal appeals court in Washington. The case is expected to
eventually reach the Supreme Court, and if Trump wins, legal
(24:36):
experts say he could claim broad unilateral power to regulate
the economy.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
If it reaches the Supreme Court, it won't be till
October and then whenever they rule on it, So the
tariffs could be in place till next June and the
Supreme Court comes out with the ruling that he can't
do that actually, and then then we go back to
whatever they were before. I mean, what what happen wrong?
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Wrong?
Speaker 5 (24:59):
No, what could is this Appeals court could say we're
issuing an injunction against this. This is an abuse of power,
and the Supreme Court could either decline to take it
up completely or let that ruling stand pending hearings or whatever.
So they have several options that don't include just immediate
(25:22):
overturning or waiting till October and overturn it.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
So who knows.
Speaker 5 (25:28):
Several courts is have rejected his proclamation under the seventeen
nineteen eight Oh that's the immigration thing.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Let's see, let me get.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
Back remember back to your emergency. Using the example of emergencies,
remember Biden's original wiping out student loan debt was under
the emergency power from nine to eleven, so that people
in the military didn't have to make their college loan
payments while they were fighting overseas in Afghanistan. I mean,
(25:59):
with a little COVID layered on top of yeah yeah
so yeah, yeah, so the yeah, emergency powers are ridiculous.
So anyway, Trump relied on the nineteen seventy seven International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying that our trade deficits are
an emergency Therefore, I am imposing all of these tariffs,
even though the Constitution gives Congress power to impose tariffs,
(26:22):
which are attacks. But the Congress can delegate authority to
the president blah blah blah, he can take steps to
deal with quote unusual and extraordinary threats to America's national security,
foreign policy, or economy.
Speaker 5 (26:35):
Very vaguely worded. And so Trump's unprecedented. I'm going to
do individual deals with every country on Earth. Thing is
absolutely going to be kicked around now by the course,
as it should be. But all of this could be
whistled and given a yellow card.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (26:53):
So what we've got for you coming up? We've got
a grouping of very odd wnbas stories that we could
bring you.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
We've got this not for the kids, shocked the conscience.
R rated at best, maybe X, maybe triple X.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
R rated reminds me my son. I might take him
to his first R rated movie, My thirteen year old,
which seems pretty young for our depends parenting. But it's
a new movie. I forget what it's called. If you
can figure it out, Katie, let me know. It's a
combination of dinosaurs like Jurassic Park with a Vietnam War movie.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Have you seen a trailer for this? What the hell?
Speaker 4 (27:36):
Yeah, I know it's Vietnam and in the trailer and
it's got Creeden's clear Water in the background.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Ye, yes, it ain't me.
Speaker 5 (27:44):
It ain't me. I mean, it's a good Vietnam War
sort of setting. I lost five green braves. We got
to figure out what happened, and.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
It turns out it's dinosaurs got them, and so the
US Army in Vietnam's fighting dinosaurs.
Speaker 5 (27:58):
I could just see that elevator pitch. Look, boss, I
got an idea. It's Apocalypse Now meets Jurassic Park and
them thinking, what.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
That's exactly what it looks like.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
It looks like Apocalypse Now meets Jurassic Park exactly.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Yes, Katie. What's the name of it.
Speaker 8 (28:14):
It's called Primitive War and it comes to theaters August
twenty five.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
Yeah, and Henry said, Dad, you gotta take me, And
if you don't take me, I'm gonna find a way
to sneak out of the house and go.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
You're gonna have realistic portrayals of people being bitten in half. Yeah,
I know, but what a hilarious premise. And one of
their taglines is this is no walk in the park.
Is then this is not your kind of your Jurassic
Park silliness sort of dinosaurs eating people?
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Does anybody else find this horrifically distasteful?
Speaker 8 (28:43):
Oh my god? Why did you have to make it
the Vietnam War? I am fascinated and horrified by this. Yeah,
no kidding.
Speaker 5 (28:57):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Anyway, we've got the WNBA show.
Speaker 5 (28:58):
We've got a bunch of stuff, So stay here, yo
yo yo, Kier Starmer, the Prime Ministry of Britain is
a jackass. Hamas will never agree to anything Israel could
agree to. And there's just not going to be an
end to this anytime soon. Anybody thinks there is is
(29:21):
just wishing reality away, trying to wish reality a way
that next hour.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
Yeah, when we talk about that, I want to talk
about I've learned more about where they're going with free
speech in Great Britain.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
It's crazy. Oh yeah, I've been trying to sound that
alarm for a long time. It's disturbing. They're off the rails.
Canada too, Australia to some extent.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
So the biggest star in WNBA history, Caitlin Clark, has
been injured for quite some time, so that has hurt
the league viewing, but.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
They're still a finding way to make news. I went
through the rep Oh no, oh no, she don't go
ahead to the back.
Speaker 9 (30:05):
Oh no.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
Time out Paul or Copper to deal with the malfunction.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
They didn't want to say it. I guess one of
the players lost their wig during a play. Yeah, got
screened and their wig got knocked off. So she slapped
her hands to her head, grabbed the wig off the court,
and ran to the locker room, something you don't often
see in the NBA. But then there was more Jack
Apparently her Mercury teammates noticed a fan mocking miss Copper
(30:40):
what was her name? What is it doesn't matter, mocking
her for losing her wig, and had him ejected, Well, you're.
Speaker 5 (30:49):
Not allowed to make a comment.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
About wig loss. Apparently not.
Speaker 5 (30:55):
Yeah, the refs and officials can be heard saying to
each other they made fun of her for the situation
on the floor.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
How many women is that a common thing? Women wearing
wigs in the in the w NBA.
Speaker 5 (31:09):
A lot of them do, yes, which I commemorate them
for because I would die.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Oh yeah, a lot of them. And by the way,
she's she's being called hair Jordan.
Speaker 5 (31:29):
That's Kaliah Cooper. Yeah, her airness. Oh that's beautiful. Why
is it just trying to look glad to get like
advertising contracts and stuff like that. I mean, everybody wants
to look good. I don't fault somebody for trying to
look good. There are plenty of NBA players who've got
you know, dyes, dyed hair or braids or whatever. But
(31:52):
we're wearing a wig. A wig hat is the old
blues sayers, and I would think it'd be blues singers
used to say.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
I would think it'd.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
Be pretty easy to have that thing come off your
head while you're playing. Forearm crosses your head when they're
trying to swipe for the ball, and all of a sudden,
your wigs there in the in the lane has displayed
in the lane.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Yeah, but the but as.
Speaker 5 (32:14):
Sorry part of you is in the lane for three seconds.
There is a certain irony though, to the hard ass
pay us what you owe us w NBA players that
if their wig gets down a knockout, they're like and
they run to the locker room clutching their wig, and
a timeout is called on the floor because.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Of wig loss.
Speaker 4 (32:37):
Wow, I feel like really some sort of misogyny, Yes, Katie.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
I mean some of the girls are out there also
wearing fake lashes. Oh yeah, Angel Reese has those on.
Yeah she's uh yeah she she but she's got like.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
A multi million dollar fashion contract with a variety of
different products.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
So I get it.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
That wasn't the only thing that made news in the
w n b A last night. We have this titled activity.
Speaker 9 (33:06):
Yeah, and no once picked the objects up yet you
got go my gosh, okay, okay, inappropriate, get him out
of here.
Speaker 4 (33:18):
Whoever it is, well, clip is, clip is funnier after
you know what it is. Maybe we'll have to play
it again when you know what it is. Somebody threw
a graphic marital aid onto the age.
Speaker 5 (33:32):
Yes, a phallic marital aid. Oh yeah, a glowing green
dol dough.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
If you will.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
Now, was it like the sort of thing that a
couple would use in a in a loving way or
was it like novelty size like some or a circus
act sort of deal?
Speaker 2 (33:51):
It was it was you could use it? Okay, your
word for him, but thank you. Hr phrase.
Speaker 4 (33:59):
Hr is walking down the hall right now and says
I should not further question with Katie, anything about.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
Are you kidding? They're sprinting down the hall. I have
to go.
Speaker 5 (34:08):
So you got to You got a bright, bright green
dol dough heaved onto the court.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
And this was the play by play type of activity.
Speaker 9 (34:19):
Yeah, I know, once picked the objects up, Yet you
got to go, my gosh, okay, okay, inappropriate, get them
out of here?
Speaker 4 (34:32):
Whoever it is, Oh, it's inappropriate to throw it on
the court during a correct Okay, Well then I wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
I did not really any object check, but especially.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
I didn't read the back of the ticket. It said
something about a rain out, but it didn't say anything
about this.
Speaker 5 (34:52):
Oh boy, I remember when they used to refer to
the Raiders fans and Philadelphia fans actually as battery chuckers,
the worst sort of fan. Is that term about to evolve? Well,
I don't know what was the message there. That is
a great question. There are a number of the possible
(35:13):
answers that leap to my mind.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
Stay with us, Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.