November 18, 2024 • 25 mins
Battle over clean water in Southern California pits the island against the coast. The International Space Station is leaking. NASA and Russia space agency disagree on the risks. 'Do They Have a Case' w/ Wayne Resnick.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
KFI AM six forty Bill Handle here, good morning. It's Monday,
November eighteenth, next week Thanksgiving, and Neil on Thanksgiving Day,
as every Thanksgiving fills in for me and it's.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
All call in, what do you cook? How do you cook? Hints?
And Neil always comes up with some great ideas.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Because Neil is foody, Fork Report and all that foody
Friday also we're trying something new. We're going to do
it probably on Friday, and it's a segment which I've
never done.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
We've been doing the show for a lot of years.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Ask Handle anything and you could all answer anything you know.
Obviously there's some limitations, but not many. Go to the
iHeart app, it's free. Go to the KFI page. You
do this during the show. At the top of the
right hand corner of the KFI page a microphone. Hit
the microphone and that'll record your question and no longer
than fifteen seconds. And I well, Anne and Neil are
(01:05):
going to choose the questions, throw them at me.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I haven't heard them before and so we'll see that
should be a lot of fun. Okay, the water wars.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Now in the future there will be two kinds of wars,
one the cyber wars and the other one the water wars.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Cyber is going like crazy.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Water is It's a finite amount of water on this planet,
and because of the pollution, because of the number of people,
it gets a little crazy. So here, let's start talking
about southern California for a moment. You have politicians to
get elected in big issues, small issues not so much.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
So let me tell you an estimate that was just issue.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
There was report just issues San Berdino County, how much
taxpayers have to pay over the next twenty years to
meet new standards for clean the water that flows out
on the streets and yards and farms and into culverts
and creeks and tributaries connected to the Santa Ana River
watershed sanm Bordino, Orange Riverside County.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
And this was part of the negotiation over the regions.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Next, what's called MS four Permit, and that's a federal
mandate that was put in in the nineteen nineties for
cities over one hundred thousand population. And what it does
It sets limits on how much pollution can legally flow
into local waters and by extension into the ocean, because
(02:39):
that's where the water goes. Now, the authors suggested that
these new rules that are coming into play will be
catastrophic for the cities financially, because if these various agencies
end up doing what the Feds want, there's gonna be
no money for anything else. All of the income and
(03:01):
expenditure for the city is going to go to this.
No cops, no fire, no city services. And this has
to do with just trying to figure this out. Why
is that because there are three agencies involved. Three it
is from governments the FEDS, who mandate a certain level.
(03:25):
And by the way, the law says that every time
a new.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
MS four.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Is proposed, it can't be less stringent than the previous one.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
It has to be more stringent.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
So you have the county and its plans, you have
the state and its plans, and you have the federal
government in its plans, and if it meets all the requirements, then.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
The cities go broke.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Now, the other side of it is, since it all
goes in the ocean, and we're talking ten billion dollars,
you have to figure out a way to pay it.
If you look at clean oceans, if you look at
how much money comes off of the ocean itself. It's
estimated six hundred and sixty three, six hundred and sixty
(04:19):
thousand jobs that are related somehow to the ecosystem. And
the need for fresh ocean water is so great that
the cost of what it costs, the cost of polluting
the oceans are far more. These permits are absolutely crazy.
(04:43):
The Santa Ana River Watershed region. Remember this is watershed.
This is water that comes from everything, the garbage, the wastewater,
the dog crap that's on the street, that's hoes down
into the storm drains, all of it eventually ends up
going into the ocean. And it's not particularly healthy, to
(05:06):
say the least, and it's getting worse.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
It's unfortunately getting worse.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Fertilizer waste by the poultry farms in San Bardino County,
industrial chemicals by the hundreds of manufacturers and restaurants and
and grocery stores. And don't forget, you got the Clean
Water Act of nineteen seventy two, and that kicks in
at a minimum, and so politicians, officials, regulators have to
(05:40):
deal with all of this. Cities are going to go broke,
and who wants to deal with this. Well, we have
no choice, do we And here we go. What's the answer? Hell,
I don't know, but this is bureaucracy at its best. Oh,
let's not forget the Coastal Commission too. That's another one
that we're dealing with. So what's the takeaway? You figure
(06:04):
it out, enjoy yourself. Now, here's the news that broke,
and that is the International Space Station is leaking air.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Well, it's always been a little tiny bit of leaks.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Now it's gotten to the point where the US is saying,
we've got some real problems here, even to the point
that it is so severe that we're looking at the
demise itself of the space station that it can no
longer be habitable. Now, the space station is big, but
(06:38):
the size of a football field. It has to be pressurized,
as you can imagine, it has to have breathable air.
It has a rotating crew of astronauts. And since two
thousand has been around twenty four years, you've got separate
sections built by various countries, the European Space Agency, Japan,
(07:01):
the US, Russia, and they're sort of all connected. And
the problem is is that the officials in the United
States now consider the aging space station, a threat to
the safety of a crew of the crew, and so
the Space Agency has expressed concerns about the integrity of
(07:22):
this leaking module and the possibility of a catastrophic, catastrophic failure.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
And we're talking. It's the Russian module that is leaking air.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
And as I told you, Russia has a very good defense,
and I'll tell you that as I end the monologue,
but I want to give you the information first. The
United States says this is potentially catastrophic. Russia says it
does not believe catastrophic disintegration is realistic, and so they
(08:00):
are going back and forth. The US is pushing for
independent experts from both sides to evaluate and to help
the two agencies, Russia and the United States Space Agency
reach some kind of consensus. And so they're precautionary precautionary
measures that are being taken. For example, the Russian part,
(08:22):
they're sealing both ends, and you need the Russian part
because you've got cargo that's delivered through.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
The Russian module.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
In other words, the docking of spacecraft is on one side,
and then that brings up water and supplies that has
to go through the Russian module.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Into the space station. So what they've done is they've
sealed both sides of that.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
You can see, it's like you can seal it like
a ship seals. It's various portions of the ship. And
so they keep it sealed and the only open it
up when they're moving cargo through. It's not being used otherwise,
And so you've got the US and the Russian portions
completely segregated, and both agencies have to make crucial decisions
(09:16):
about when operations are going to cease, when the space
station in fact, is going to no longer be usable.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Now, what happens to the space station? Does it keep
on circling Earth?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
It doesn't because one of the things that comes up
as fuel is delivered, or you've got the spacecraft that
deliver astronauts back and forth, will those engines on the
spacecraft nudge the space station up further as it drops
because gravity is there. And here we're talking about this
(09:47):
isn't like a big leak. These are virtually microscopic leak.
You can't see with the naked eye because brackets and
pipelines are connected, and in front of those are all
these pie and cables, so you can't even get behind
them to look at what the leaks are, and they're
very difficult, if not impossible, to fix. And Russian experts
(10:11):
are saying the vibration caused by mechanical systems, for example,
systems that are battery systems use for energy storage are
stressing the walls and this high cycle fatigue and you'll
see this that's what causes the leak. But it can
be fixed by simply pumping more air in or attempting
(10:33):
to repair. NASA says that it's a lot more complicated
bohannical stress, environmental exposure, residual stress, potential issues from the
manufacturing materials, and so what the US Space Agency is
doing is taking some steps, particularly closing off the entrance.
(10:56):
Also the SpaceX crew Dragon spacecraft which is now delivering
astronauts back and forth. They put an extra seat in
the spacecraft, but it's not designed for extra seats.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
It's a piece of.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Foam that the astronauts straps himself into on top of
garbage that's being brought down straps in. So basically it's
a make shift seat which is really jerry rigged a lot.
So now we've got a big issue. Russia says it's
(11:35):
fine and can be fixed. The United States says it's
not fine, and the air pressure is dropping, the amount
of oxygen is leaving at.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Too quickly a rate.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
You've got five partner agencies involved, by the way, as
I said, European, Japanese, the United States, Russia, also the
Canadian Space Agency is there. So, as I said, the
Russian defense, as they have said from the beginning, is
(12:10):
when you're dealing with astronauts, they don't need air anyway.
Why would you have a big deal about air going
in when you just don't need it. Uh, those pesky Russians,
they make it very difficult. Also, the space station is
designed to stay up there to twenty thirty. The Russian
(12:33):
agreement was through twenty twenty eight, and it looks like
Putin is honoring the twenty twenty eight date. Don't know
if he's going to go beyond that and simply pull out.
And now you've got the Russia just abandoning their section,
which means what the hell does it mean in terms
(12:56):
of moving cargo through that module and supplying the space station.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
That's news that just broke, And of course.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I can't wait, cannot wait to see what happens I'm
a big space fan.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Oh, you know, we should get Rod Pile.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
On this talking about the technical aspects. And I don't
know where Anne is. She's running around someplace. She has
left her seat. So when she comes back, Kono, would
you tell her that I just pitched Rod Pile and
said let's get Rod on this air business and we'll
have him hold his breath while he actually does the segment. Hey,
(13:36):
we're gonna make this real. We really are always connecting,
always connecting. Okay, Wayne Rethnick, do they have a case
same rules for I don't know how many years Wayne
researches throws a case at me that I have not heard.
We talk about it, and I take hopefully an educated
guests as to what has happened and what the courts
(13:57):
have said. All right, Wayne, Okay, hold on, we're having
a little bit of an internet issue.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yes, I think we are.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Do you remember Alex Murdoch, the attorney was convicted of
killing his family?
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Oh? Yes, of course.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
Okay, Well, he also got in trouble as if not
to pile on for a bunch of financial malfeasans and
stealing from client settlement accounts and.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
His own firm. That he stole millions of dollars.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
From Yes, and he had a buddy who was part
of that fraud, and that guy was convicted of a
bunch of wire fraud and mail fraud in connection with
that whole financial side of Alex Murdock. So here's what
happened though at his trial. He goes to trial. It's
bank fraud, it's wire fraud. And the jury starts deliberating
(14:48):
and then they get a note, and they get a
note from a juror, and the note says, I'm not
comfortable with how they're treating me because of.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
My DECI.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
So the judge decides, yes, there's somebody with a loud
piece of equipment coming through here, as you could probably hear.
So the judge says, hey, guys, meaning the attorneys, how
about if I take this juror and a court reporter
and just the three of us, we make a record
and I find out what's going on, and I'll, you know,
(15:23):
and then we'll figure out what to do. And the
lawyers say that's fine. So the judge brings in the juror.
The lawyers are not there, the defendant is not there,
and they have a little conversation, the gist of which is,
I have a lot of anxiety. I'm starting to feel
anxious because of how the other jurors are reacting to
(15:43):
my decision in this case. And the judge says, well,
do you want to be replaced? And the juror says,
I don't want to be replaced, but I can't deal
with this friction from these people. They're giving me a
hard time because of my decision. And the judge says, well,
then goodbye, you're dying. What sense goodbye?
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Go back or miss you? I dismiss you from the jury.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
You don't have to.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
I'm not gonna make you go through this, okay, And they.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Bring it an alternate and they convict the guy and
he gets seven years in prison, and now he is appealing,
and this is his appeal that.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
The judge violated his Fifth.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
Amendment rights and his sixth Amendment rights by dismissing this
juror Fifth Amendment because the lawyers weren't there.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
He wasn't there. The judge did it all on.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
His own, made the decision on his own what to
do about the issue, and so that violates his Fifth
Amendment rights to be.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Present at all.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Important parts of a trial, and also his sixth Amendment
right to an impartial jury, because the law is this,
you cannot dismiss a juror during deliberations because of their
view of the case.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
That is not a valid reason to get rid of somebody.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
And so the defendant here is saying, you basically got
rid of this juror because she had decided one way
or the other.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Probably she was not guilty.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
She was voting not guilty because they brought in the
altered it and an hour later they had a guilty verdict,
so probably not guilty, and people were giving her a
hard time, and you let her go because of her
decision in the case. And of course the government says, no, no, no,
he let her go because she was having a meltdown
and anxiety, so that's different. And then the defendant says, yes,
(17:47):
but the anxiety and the meltdown was because of her
view of the case. So the lower court, of course,
being asked for a new trial, says no, thank you,
because judges don't like to admit very often that they
were so wrong that they have to do it all
over again. So up it goes to the Circuit Court
of Appeals, for the Fourth Circuit, What do you think
(18:09):
fifth Amendment? Does he have a fifth Amendment case? Does
he have a sixth Amendment case?
Speaker 2 (18:14):
I think that the judge was wrong as soon as
the juror said I don't want to be dismissed that
that moment, the judge had no.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Reason for exactly as the defendant argued.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
I had no reason. What the judge should should have
done is simply say, too bad, you go back into
the jury room. Because how often are jurors harassed by
other jurors. There are fights constantly in the jury room
where they yell at each other. And so the judge
(18:51):
dismissing simply because he said it's anxiety. No professional went in. Uh,
nobody said so he's got anxiety, tough. And so I
think that the defendant wins on that. Now there's a
practical issue, and I don't know whether the judge the
judge should have rule for him to stay. Just in
(19:12):
terms of public policy, I mean, do you start a
major trial all over again? And could this have been
gone on for months? That is not a legal issue,
that's just the court looking at it and gone, I mean,
do we really want to go there? But I think
the court went there. I think the appeals court went
there for exactly those reasons the judge should not have.
(19:32):
And by the way, the fact that the defense attorneys
weren't there or anything else, I don't think that matters.
It all has to do with the only issue was anxiety,
and that's it. And so what does the defense attorney say, No,
there isn't enough anxiety, or there.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Is too much anxiety. Come on, So I'm saying the
defendant wins on this one.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
Yes, And just so you know, the four Circuit Court
of Appeals went one better than you and said also
they said everything Bill Handle said. Plus it also was
a problem that there was nobody else there when the
judge talked to the juror and made the decision to
kick the juraff But in any event, if the judge
(20:13):
was trying to avoid a do over, he blew it
because now he has to have a do over.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
He has to do the whole trial all over again.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
With a brand new set of jurors, and.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Maybe next time around he has all the jurors go
through some kind of psychological screening and say, you, you know,
we don't want anybody who's nuts on the jury, Okay,
we're gonna come back and do one more case. I
was right except for that one issue, that one issue
where I didn't think that the defense attorneys had to
(20:50):
be there, and the court said.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
The bottom line was do they have to have a
retrial or not? You said yes, They said yes, that's
a win for you.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
You got it, all right, let's finish up. Do they
have a case? All right?
Speaker 4 (21:03):
So obviously, if you've done nothing bad and I go
on let's say CNN and I say you did something bad,
and I have a good reason to think that you
didn't do something bad, uh, You're gonna probably have a
successful slander suit against me. You would here we go,
what happens when you did something bad?
Speaker 1 (21:26):
And then I go on CNN and I say.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
You did a different bad thing. Do you have a case?
This involves Project Veritas. They were interviewing a Facebook executive
in front of his house. They never said where they were,
they said who they were talking to. They didn't say
where they were, but in the background of the shot
(21:51):
you could see house number.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
The house number.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
So at the time Twitter was taking things more seriously.
They suspended Project Veritas for publishing private information because the
video was put up and it had the house number
of this guy.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Then on CNN.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
It comes a show and the anchors say Project Veritas
was suspended from Twitter for misinformation and it's part of
a larger clampdown on misinformation. So Project Veritas writes them
and says, you got to retract that we were not
suspended for misinformation. We were suspended technically for doxing, although
(22:36):
we don't think what we did was intentional, not misinformation.
We consider ourselves a news gathering investigative organization, saying misinformation
badly damages our credibility.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
And CNN says.
Speaker 4 (22:50):
Well, eh, you did something, and you know what, is
it more damaging to your reputation misinformation? Then it is doxing.
We don't think you have a case. Does Project Veritas
have a case?
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I think they do because it does not matter if
other things are bad.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
That's not a defense. You are a murderer, you have
killed someone.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Well, I actually haven't what I did as I was
convicted for having sex with a goat.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Now granted an.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Adult consenting goat, which is different than a minor goat,
so that adds another charge. But when arguing that someone
did something wrong. It has to be specific as to that.
So I think Veritas has a case.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
Now, you know that for slander cases libel, you have
to prove not only that it was false, you have
to prove malice.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
And they weren't able to prove malice, is what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
No, No, here's the thing.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
I'm now going to tell you what the evidence was
that Project Veritas presented to show malice, which here means
you had reason to doubt whether it was true. And
you said, anyway, here's their evidence. You tell me this
is good enough. The same anchor who on the air
said Project Veritas was suspended for misinformation.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Four days prior.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
Right after they were suspended, the same person tweeted on
their Twitter account that Project Veritas had been suspended for
publishing private information.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Yeah. I think that exacerbates.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
CNN and adds to the slander, the slander argument.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
I say that Veritas wins.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
They do Okay, excellent, all right, Wayne, We'll do it
again next Yeah, two for two.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
We'll do it again next Monday. Do they have a case? Thanks? Wayne?
Speaker 2 (24:53):
All right, we're done, guys. Tomorrow morning we start all
over again. Amy, wake up, call, Neil and I come
aboard at six am with Amy right through right about now,
and of course a big thank you, Okay, a small
thank you to Kono and to and our producer. Catch
you tomorrow. This is KFI AM six forty Live everywhere
(25:17):
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
KFI AM six forty Bill Handle here, good morning. It's Monday,
November eighteenth, next week Thanksgiving, and Neil on Thanksgiving Day,
as every Thanksgiving fills in for me and it's.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
All call in, what do you cook? How do you cook? Hints?
And Neil always comes up with some great ideas.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Because Neil is foody, Fork Report and all that foody
Friday also we're trying something new. We're going to do
it probably on Friday, and it's a segment which I've
never done.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
We've been doing the show for a lot of years.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Ask Handle anything and you could all answer anything you know.
Obviously there's some limitations, but not many. Go to the
iHeart app, it's free. Go to the KFI page. You
do this during the show. At the top of the
right hand corner of the KFI page a microphone. Hit
the microphone and that'll record your question and no longer
than fifteen seconds. And I well, Anne and Neil are
(01:05):
going to choose the questions, throw them at me.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I haven't heard them before and so we'll see that
should be a lot of fun. Okay, the water wars.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Now in the future there will be two kinds of wars,
one the cyber wars and the other one the water wars.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Cyber is going like crazy.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Water is It's a finite amount of water on this planet,
and because of the pollution, because of the number of people,
it gets a little crazy. So here, let's start talking
about southern California for a moment. You have politicians to
get elected in big issues, small issues not so much.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
So let me tell you an estimate that was just issue.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
There was report just issues San Berdino County, how much
taxpayers have to pay over the next twenty years to
meet new standards for clean the water that flows out
on the streets and yards and farms and into culverts
and creeks and tributaries connected to the Santa Ana River
watershed sanm Bordino, Orange Riverside County.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
And this was part of the negotiation over the regions.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Next, what's called MS four Permit, and that's a federal
mandate that was put in in the nineteen nineties for
cities over one hundred thousand population. And what it does
It sets limits on how much pollution can legally flow
into local waters and by extension into the ocean, because
(02:39):
that's where the water goes. Now, the authors suggested that
these new rules that are coming into play will be
catastrophic for the cities financially, because if these various agencies
end up doing what the Feds want, there's gonna be
no money for anything else. All of the income and
(03:01):
expenditure for the city is going to go to this.
No cops, no fire, no city services. And this has
to do with just trying to figure this out. Why
is that because there are three agencies involved. Three it
is from governments the FEDS, who mandate a certain level.
(03:25):
And by the way, the law says that every time
a new.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
MS four.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Is proposed, it can't be less stringent than the previous one.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
It has to be more stringent.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
So you have the county and its plans, you have
the state and its plans, and you have the federal
government in its plans, and if it meets all the requirements, then.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
The cities go broke.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Now, the other side of it is, since it all
goes in the ocean, and we're talking ten billion dollars,
you have to figure out a way to pay it.
If you look at clean oceans, if you look at
how much money comes off of the ocean itself. It's
estimated six hundred and sixty three, six hundred and sixty
(04:19):
thousand jobs that are related somehow to the ecosystem. And
the need for fresh ocean water is so great that
the cost of what it costs, the cost of polluting
the oceans are far more. These permits are absolutely crazy.
(04:43):
The Santa Ana River Watershed region. Remember this is watershed.
This is water that comes from everything, the garbage, the wastewater,
the dog crap that's on the street, that's hoes down
into the storm drains, all of it eventually ends up
going into the ocean. And it's not particularly healthy, to
(05:06):
say the least, and it's getting worse.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
It's unfortunately getting worse.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Fertilizer waste by the poultry farms in San Bardino County,
industrial chemicals by the hundreds of manufacturers and restaurants and
and grocery stores. And don't forget, you got the Clean
Water Act of nineteen seventy two, and that kicks in
at a minimum, and so politicians, officials, regulators have to
(05:40):
deal with all of this. Cities are going to go broke,
and who wants to deal with this. Well, we have
no choice, do we And here we go. What's the answer? Hell,
I don't know, but this is bureaucracy at its best. Oh,
let's not forget the Coastal Commission too. That's another one
that we're dealing with. So what's the takeaway? You figure
(06:04):
it out, enjoy yourself. Now, here's the news that broke,
and that is the International Space Station is leaking air.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Well, it's always been a little tiny bit of leaks.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Now it's gotten to the point where the US is saying,
we've got some real problems here, even to the point
that it is so severe that we're looking at the
demise itself of the space station that it can no
longer be habitable. Now, the space station is big, but
(06:38):
the size of a football field. It has to be pressurized,
as you can imagine, it has to have breathable air.
It has a rotating crew of astronauts. And since two
thousand has been around twenty four years, you've got separate
sections built by various countries, the European Space Agency, Japan,
(07:01):
the US, Russia, and they're sort of all connected. And
the problem is is that the officials in the United
States now consider the aging space station, a threat to
the safety of a crew of the crew, and so
the Space Agency has expressed concerns about the integrity of
(07:22):
this leaking module and the possibility of a catastrophic, catastrophic failure.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
And we're talking. It's the Russian module that is leaking air.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
And as I told you, Russia has a very good defense,
and I'll tell you that as I end the monologue,
but I want to give you the information first. The
United States says this is potentially catastrophic. Russia says it
does not believe catastrophic disintegration is realistic, and so they
(08:00):
are going back and forth. The US is pushing for
independent experts from both sides to evaluate and to help
the two agencies, Russia and the United States Space Agency
reach some kind of consensus. And so they're precautionary precautionary
measures that are being taken. For example, the Russian part,
(08:22):
they're sealing both ends, and you need the Russian part
because you've got cargo that's delivered through.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
The Russian module.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
In other words, the docking of spacecraft is on one side,
and then that brings up water and supplies that has
to go through the Russian module.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Into the space station. So what they've done is they've
sealed both sides of that.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
You can see, it's like you can seal it like
a ship seals. It's various portions of the ship. And
so they keep it sealed and the only open it
up when they're moving cargo through. It's not being used otherwise,
And so you've got the US and the Russian portions
completely segregated, and both agencies have to make crucial decisions
(09:16):
about when operations are going to cease, when the space
station in fact, is going to no longer be usable.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Now, what happens to the space station? Does it keep
on circling Earth?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
It doesn't because one of the things that comes up
as fuel is delivered, or you've got the spacecraft that
deliver astronauts back and forth, will those engines on the
spacecraft nudge the space station up further as it drops
because gravity is there. And here we're talking about this
(09:47):
isn't like a big leak. These are virtually microscopic leak.
You can't see with the naked eye because brackets and
pipelines are connected, and in front of those are all
these pie and cables, so you can't even get behind
them to look at what the leaks are, and they're
very difficult, if not impossible, to fix. And Russian experts
(10:11):
are saying the vibration caused by mechanical systems, for example,
systems that are battery systems use for energy storage are
stressing the walls and this high cycle fatigue and you'll
see this that's what causes the leak. But it can
be fixed by simply pumping more air in or attempting
(10:33):
to repair. NASA says that it's a lot more complicated
bohannical stress, environmental exposure, residual stress, potential issues from the
manufacturing materials, and so what the US Space Agency is
doing is taking some steps, particularly closing off the entrance.
(10:56):
Also the SpaceX crew Dragon spacecraft which is now delivering
astronauts back and forth. They put an extra seat in
the spacecraft, but it's not designed for extra seats.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
It's a piece of.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Foam that the astronauts straps himself into on top of
garbage that's being brought down straps in. So basically it's
a make shift seat which is really jerry rigged a lot.
So now we've got a big issue. Russia says it's
(11:35):
fine and can be fixed. The United States says it's
not fine, and the air pressure is dropping, the amount
of oxygen is leaving at.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Too quickly a rate.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
You've got five partner agencies involved, by the way, as
I said, European, Japanese, the United States, Russia, also the
Canadian Space Agency is there. So, as I said, the
Russian defense, as they have said from the beginning, is
(12:10):
when you're dealing with astronauts, they don't need air anyway.
Why would you have a big deal about air going
in when you just don't need it. Uh, those pesky Russians,
they make it very difficult. Also, the space station is
designed to stay up there to twenty thirty. The Russian
(12:33):
agreement was through twenty twenty eight, and it looks like
Putin is honoring the twenty twenty eight date. Don't know
if he's going to go beyond that and simply pull out.
And now you've got the Russia just abandoning their section,
which means what the hell does it mean in terms
(12:56):
of moving cargo through that module and supplying the space station.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
That's news that just broke, And of course.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I can't wait, cannot wait to see what happens I'm
a big space fan.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Oh, you know, we should get Rod Pile.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
On this talking about the technical aspects. And I don't
know where Anne is. She's running around someplace. She has
left her seat. So when she comes back, Kono, would
you tell her that I just pitched Rod Pile and
said let's get Rod on this air business and we'll
have him hold his breath while he actually does the segment. Hey,
(13:36):
we're gonna make this real. We really are always connecting,
always connecting. Okay, Wayne Rethnick, do they have a case
same rules for I don't know how many years Wayne
researches throws a case at me that I have not heard.
We talk about it, and I take hopefully an educated
guests as to what has happened and what the courts
(13:57):
have said. All right, Wayne, Okay, hold on, we're having
a little bit of an internet issue.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yes, I think we are.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Do you remember Alex Murdoch, the attorney was convicted of
killing his family?
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Oh? Yes, of course.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
Okay, Well, he also got in trouble as if not
to pile on for a bunch of financial malfeasans and
stealing from client settlement accounts and.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
His own firm. That he stole millions of dollars.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
From Yes, and he had a buddy who was part
of that fraud, and that guy was convicted of a
bunch of wire fraud and mail fraud in connection with
that whole financial side of Alex Murdock. So here's what
happened though at his trial. He goes to trial. It's
bank fraud, it's wire fraud. And the jury starts deliberating
(14:48):
and then they get a note, and they get a
note from a juror, and the note says, I'm not
comfortable with how they're treating me because of.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
My DECI.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
So the judge decides, yes, there's somebody with a loud
piece of equipment coming through here, as you could probably hear.
So the judge says, hey, guys, meaning the attorneys, how
about if I take this juror and a court reporter
and just the three of us, we make a record
and I find out what's going on, and I'll, you know,
(15:23):
and then we'll figure out what to do. And the
lawyers say that's fine. So the judge brings in the juror.
The lawyers are not there, the defendant is not there,
and they have a little conversation, the gist of which is,
I have a lot of anxiety. I'm starting to feel
anxious because of how the other jurors are reacting to
(15:43):
my decision in this case. And the judge says, well,
do you want to be replaced? And the juror says,
I don't want to be replaced, but I can't deal
with this friction from these people. They're giving me a
hard time because of my decision. And the judge says, well,
then goodbye, you're dying. What sense goodbye?
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Go back or miss you? I dismiss you from the jury.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
You don't have to.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
I'm not gonna make you go through this, okay, And they.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Bring it an alternate and they convict the guy and
he gets seven years in prison, and now he is appealing,
and this is his appeal that.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
The judge violated his Fifth.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
Amendment rights and his sixth Amendment rights by dismissing this
juror Fifth Amendment because the lawyers weren't there.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
He wasn't there. The judge did it all on.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
His own, made the decision on his own what to
do about the issue, and so that violates his Fifth
Amendment rights to be.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Present at all.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Important parts of a trial, and also his sixth Amendment
right to an impartial jury, because the law is this,
you cannot dismiss a juror during deliberations because of their
view of the case.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
That is not a valid reason to get rid of somebody.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
And so the defendant here is saying, you basically got
rid of this juror because she had decided one way
or the other.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Probably she was not guilty.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
She was voting not guilty because they brought in the
altered it and an hour later they had a guilty verdict,
so probably not guilty, and people were giving her a
hard time, and you let her go because of her
decision in the case. And of course the government says, no, no, no,
he let her go because she was having a meltdown
and anxiety, so that's different. And then the defendant says, yes,
(17:47):
but the anxiety and the meltdown was because of her
view of the case. So the lower court, of course,
being asked for a new trial, says no, thank you,
because judges don't like to admit very often that they
were so wrong that they have to do it all
over again. So up it goes to the Circuit Court
of Appeals, for the Fourth Circuit, What do you think
(18:09):
fifth Amendment? Does he have a fifth Amendment case? Does
he have a sixth Amendment case?
Speaker 2 (18:14):
I think that the judge was wrong as soon as
the juror said I don't want to be dismissed that
that moment, the judge had no.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Reason for exactly as the defendant argued.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
I had no reason. What the judge should should have
done is simply say, too bad, you go back into
the jury room. Because how often are jurors harassed by
other jurors. There are fights constantly in the jury room
where they yell at each other. And so the judge
(18:51):
dismissing simply because he said it's anxiety. No professional went in. Uh,
nobody said so he's got anxiety, tough. And so I
think that the defendant wins on that. Now there's a
practical issue, and I don't know whether the judge the
judge should have rule for him to stay. Just in
(19:12):
terms of public policy, I mean, do you start a
major trial all over again? And could this have been
gone on for months? That is not a legal issue,
that's just the court looking at it and gone, I mean,
do we really want to go there? But I think
the court went there. I think the appeals court went
there for exactly those reasons the judge should not have.
(19:32):
And by the way, the fact that the defense attorneys
weren't there or anything else, I don't think that matters.
It all has to do with the only issue was anxiety,
and that's it. And so what does the defense attorney say, No,
there isn't enough anxiety, or there.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Is too much anxiety. Come on, So I'm saying the
defendant wins on this one.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
Yes, And just so you know, the four Circuit Court
of Appeals went one better than you and said also
they said everything Bill Handle said. Plus it also was
a problem that there was nobody else there when the
judge talked to the juror and made the decision to
kick the juraff But in any event, if the judge
(20:13):
was trying to avoid a do over, he blew it
because now he has to have a do over.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
He has to do the whole trial all over again.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
With a brand new set of jurors, and.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Maybe next time around he has all the jurors go
through some kind of psychological screening and say, you, you know,
we don't want anybody who's nuts on the jury, Okay,
we're gonna come back and do one more case. I
was right except for that one issue, that one issue
where I didn't think that the defense attorneys had to
(20:50):
be there, and the court said.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
The bottom line was do they have to have a
retrial or not? You said yes, They said yes, that's
a win for you.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
You got it, all right, let's finish up. Do they
have a case? All right?
Speaker 4 (21:03):
So obviously, if you've done nothing bad and I go
on let's say CNN and I say you did something bad,
and I have a good reason to think that you
didn't do something bad, uh, You're gonna probably have a
successful slander suit against me. You would here we go,
what happens when you did something bad?
Speaker 1 (21:26):
And then I go on CNN and I say.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
You did a different bad thing. Do you have a case?
This involves Project Veritas. They were interviewing a Facebook executive
in front of his house. They never said where they were,
they said who they were talking to. They didn't say
where they were, but in the background of the shot
(21:51):
you could see house number.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
The house number.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
So at the time Twitter was taking things more seriously.
They suspended Project Veritas for publishing private information because the
video was put up and it had the house number
of this guy.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Then on CNN.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
It comes a show and the anchors say Project Veritas
was suspended from Twitter for misinformation and it's part of
a larger clampdown on misinformation. So Project Veritas writes them
and says, you got to retract that we were not
suspended for misinformation. We were suspended technically for doxing, although
(22:36):
we don't think what we did was intentional, not misinformation.
We consider ourselves a news gathering investigative organization, saying misinformation
badly damages our credibility.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
And CNN says.
Speaker 4 (22:50):
Well, eh, you did something, and you know what, is
it more damaging to your reputation misinformation? Then it is doxing.
We don't think you have a case. Does Project Veritas
have a case?
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I think they do because it does not matter if
other things are bad.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
That's not a defense. You are a murderer, you have
killed someone.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Well, I actually haven't what I did as I was
convicted for having sex with a goat.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Now granted an.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Adult consenting goat, which is different than a minor goat,
so that adds another charge. But when arguing that someone
did something wrong. It has to be specific as to that.
So I think Veritas has a case.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
Now, you know that for slander cases libel, you have
to prove not only that it was false, you have
to prove malice.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
And they weren't able to prove malice, is what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
No, No, here's the thing.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
I'm now going to tell you what the evidence was
that Project Veritas presented to show malice, which here means
you had reason to doubt whether it was true. And
you said, anyway, here's their evidence. You tell me this
is good enough. The same anchor who on the air
said Project Veritas was suspended for misinformation.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Four days prior.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
Right after they were suspended, the same person tweeted on
their Twitter account that Project Veritas had been suspended for
publishing private information.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Yeah. I think that exacerbates.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
CNN and adds to the slander, the slander argument.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
I say that Veritas wins.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
They do Okay, excellent, all right, Wayne, We'll do it
again next Yeah, two for two.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
We'll do it again next Monday. Do they have a case? Thanks? Wayne?
Speaker 2 (24:53):
All right, we're done, guys. Tomorrow morning we start all
over again. Amy, wake up, call, Neil and I come
aboard at six am with Amy right through right about now,
and of course a big thank you, Okay, a small
thank you to Kono and to and our producer. Catch
you tomorrow. This is KFI AM six forty Live everywhere
(25:17):
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.