The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Special AWOL Edition

Behold the great 3WHH fugitive episode. Although it was posted over the weekend, somehow an Internet gremlin or something disappeared it! But now it's back, in its restored glory. (Well, almost restored. Steve had a problem with his mic that was undetected while we were recording, and we weren't able to improve it much in pist-production. We have to cut out a whole new segment on prog rock!)

And what glory there is: Lucretia hosts this week as we welcome a special guest, Prof. Phil Munoz of Notre Dame, though he is on assignment this semester at the University of Texas at Austin. Phil decided to try to outflank even Lucretia with the bold proposition that the Mahmoud v Taylor decision, which empowered parents to have their children opt-out of phonics instruction in the LGBTQ alphabet, was actually a defeat for social conservatives. 

It's a lively discussion, as we did our bnest to make Phil regret his decision to join the show this week.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well whiskey, come and take my pain, the moneys my way,
o whiskey.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Don't why think alone when you can drink it all
in with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
Join your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John, You and the international
woman of Mystery, Lucretia.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Where this laps it happen? David, ain't you easy on
the should tap? Got to give me and let that
whiskey bloon.

Speaker 4 (00:34):
Welcome everybody to this really super super special edition of
the Three Whiskey Happy Hour. We are actually taping this
at a time when all of us can drink whiskey.
Is anybody drinking whiskey? I see that John has in
his mouth a what kind of a cigar? Is as
a Cuban?

Speaker 5 (00:55):
Okay, Dominican?

Speaker 4 (00:58):
Dominican? And Steve is drinking something out of a stemless
wine glass? Yes, and what is that something? Steve?

Speaker 2 (01:06):
You know what it is?

Speaker 4 (01:08):
In a wine glass?

Speaker 2 (01:11):
You can drink whiskey out of glass like this.

Speaker 5 (01:13):
I had a Scotch. I just put it down something
like it was a fifteen year killed Kenny. I don't
know what I've had it before. Yeah, it comes from
our unnamed host, from our secret undisclosed location where I
have actually successfully kidnapped from the festivities. A secret, double
secret probationary guest, And.

Speaker 4 (01:34):
That double secret probationary guest is our good friend and
expert on all things religious freedom. Phil Munos from Notre
Dame and Texas. Right.

Speaker 5 (01:49):
Great to be with you, guys.

Speaker 6 (01:50):
Yes, I'm a visiting professor at the University of Texas.
My home school is the University of Notre Dame.

Speaker 4 (01:56):
And what are you drinking, mystery guests?

Speaker 6 (02:00):
I was drinking a very nice tenure port. I don't
remember the name, but it was a tiny port.

Speaker 5 (02:08):
It was quite quite lovely.

Speaker 4 (02:10):
Yeah, women don't drink port. You know, it's not allowed,
really really, yeah, it's a man thing. You're supposed to.
Women are supposed to go do something, and the men
go to the study, the library, whatever.

Speaker 5 (02:22):
You know, when the women, when the women leave in
those British TV shows, where do they go and what
are they doing?

Speaker 2 (02:28):
I'm not quite sure matter because they're not funny, and it.

Speaker 4 (02:32):
Doesn't it doesn't matter. Who cares is what it cans?

Speaker 3 (02:35):
Phil, You poor man the crossfire here. I hope you
survive well.

Speaker 4 (02:41):
Phil has some complaints. We're going to get to momentarily.
But the theme for tonight.

Speaker 5 (02:47):
But the but the complaints are all about Lucretia and reviews. Oh,
get in the fox all that.

Speaker 4 (02:53):
Yeah, I'm open. I am. I am so confident in
the rightness of my views that I will take all comers.
But before we get that far, I want to talk.
So we thought, what a couple of weeks ago that
we were done discussing the Judiciary and we could spend
the summer discussing our favorite books and all that other
nonsense that we talk about talking about over the summer

(03:15):
when we had time.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
Progressive Rock. Don't forget the four No.

Speaker 4 (03:19):
I told you, Steve, I'm signing off if you say
another word. Ugh, and anyway, So so Steve said, yeah,
I think we need to talk about the Judiciary a
little bit more. And I agree with him because some
stuff has happened since we last got together.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
We thought we were done with the Supreme Court for
the summer, but no.

Speaker 4 (03:36):
Thought and we were going to talk about our favorite books.
But we're not. We're going to talk about the judiciary,
and maybe next week we'll talk about our favorite books.
So let's start with the really important one, just right
off the top. That is important and isn't important at
the same time, it's the eight to one decision by

(03:57):
the Supreme Court that, as a matter of fact, it's
probably the case that the president can indeed fire employees
in the executive branch at work for him. Correct, John,
They're likely to come out on the merits with that decision.

Speaker 5 (04:15):
So I think the case is actually less significant constitutionally,
but maybe more significant politically than you would get if
you're just reading the media reports. So the Court's decision
is really about controlling these trial judges, right the seven
hundred and fifty trial judges running around the country trying

(04:35):
to stop the Trump agenda. The grounds, though, are not
what we're hoping for, which is, oh, this is going
to be the case where the Court says the president
can fire every single person in the executive branch.

Speaker 4 (04:48):
And overturn Humphrey's executive Humphrey's executor.

Speaker 5 (04:51):
And you know what, we should ask Phil what he
thinks about Humphrey's executor because he has so many unorthodox
views from true conservative belief. You know the thing about
this case, I think is this judge down below said
Trump can't fire anyone in the entire executive branch I
enjoying you from firing anyone. They lifted that, and so

(05:13):
what can happen is Trump can fire somebody, but there's
a legal process set out in a statute that says, okay,
if you're a federal employee, then you file agrievments and
one of the agreements is can be you were fired illegally.
And there's this whole process, this whole judicial process created
to hear those claims. And so all the Supreme Court
could be doing because we don't know yet because all

(05:34):
they did was lifted this injunction is just say okay,
now you fired federal employees, go use this process and
then once you're done, it can come to the Supreme Court, but.

Speaker 4 (05:45):
They remain fired, right or do most of it.

Speaker 5 (05:49):
Well, when you go through this process, you can get
your job back at the end of it.

Speaker 4 (05:53):
If you are fired at any point.

Speaker 5 (05:55):
Yeah, so it could take years.

Speaker 4 (05:56):
Yeah, it could take but in the meantime, in the meantime.

Speaker 5 (06:00):
In the meantime, you're not coming to work, right.

Speaker 4 (06:02):
But if they if they win their case at the end,
then they probably.

Speaker 5 (06:05):
Get better and they get reinstated. They can get reinstated
even but that if that's all that happens. Then you
don't get the constitutional challenge of Humphrey's executor. You just
get the Supreme Court saying, Congress set up a process
for you, just like you and I might have a right.
You know, if Lucretia's fired to the mass you know,
applause of all the professors in their department, Well, I

(06:25):
get fired. Right. We have a procedure that's set up
by the law where we you know, file our grievments
and then.

Speaker 4 (06:31):
The court that I've been fired three times in the
last month.

Speaker 5 (06:38):
That's all three times. That's all. Like I said, that's all.
I never got fired Lucretia. Well, Ucritia, I, given all
the things you say, I would have thought you've been
fired at least once a year every year for the
last twenty five years.

Speaker 4 (06:55):
I guess it finally caught up with say anyway, but
anyway we can.

Speaker 5 (07:00):
I just add politically, it's more important because, as you're suggesting,
it allows Trump's agenda to try to slim down the
federal workforce to move forward. This is really the lesson
from the nationwide in junction case. The Supreme Court is
not going to tolerate single judges trying to control all
policy throughout the executive branch. That's the real constitutional issue.

Speaker 6 (07:22):
But go ahead, phil Yeah, no, no, go ahead, please
ye Phil.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
Well, I was going to say. The shocking thing to
me is not the legal argument necessarily. It was this
drama over Katanji Brown Jackson dissenting from the opinion and
summoning so do.

Speaker 2 (07:40):
My or to say.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
I mean, if you're read between the lines of saying,
do you even know what this case is about? I
mean it was an eight to one decision, and so
Jackson said, oh, I have to dissent because I you know,
I have opinions, as she explained in some interview here recently,
and I need to share my opinions with the world.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
And I'm thinking that.

Speaker 3 (08:01):
So, first of all, it was a stupid dissent. We'll
just say that on the marriage. But secondly, talk about
not reading the room and not knowing your audience and
when you're losing Soda Mayor and having Soda Mayor publicly
saying the issue you're complaining about are not before this court,
which is like did you even.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
Go to law school?

Speaker 3 (08:18):
I mean, it's unbelievable, and you know it shows once
again that Biden did us a oddly enough a backhanded
favor by appointing someone who has no cloud even with
the other liberal justices on the court.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
I mean, let's remember that back in the glory days.

Speaker 3 (08:33):
Of people like Tony Kennedy and David Souter, you know,
people like Kagan. I guess you came after those guys
are one of them anyway.

Speaker 4 (08:40):
But.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
Ginsburg and Briar and Kagan were very good at crafting
arguments to try and pull the centrist Republicans toward the
middle or even toward.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
The left, with some success.

Speaker 3 (08:55):
And instead you now have Jackson who not only is
going to anger the Republicans, but she's clearly anchoring even
the people from her own party. And that takes real talent,
and for that I salute Joe Biden for his splendid pick.

Speaker 4 (09:10):
Bill.

Speaker 6 (09:11):
Can I ask a question here on Jackson, do you
guys think she is has thought through why she's sticking
out this ground by herself. Is she trying to be
the far left justice that is just going to say
and take positions in a way just to take them
to set up the left side of the court.

Speaker 4 (09:31):
Yes, So let me Steve made reference to an interview
we were talking about before you guys came on to
This was an ABC interview she did July fifth, something
like that, I am aware that people are watching. They
want to know how I'm going to because she's the
first black woman on the court, how I'm going to
perform in this job. And I'm doing my best work

(09:52):
as well as I can do, because i want people
to see and know that I can do anything, just
like anyone else. And then she says, when it's pointed
out that she's been in descent the most often, we
have very different opinions, and it's a tradition of the
Court that justices get to voice their opinions in the

(10:14):
context of their opinions and writings. She's chelling her camel
Anda ding Dong there, right, But but there's a more
serious point there based you know, back to what you said, Phil,
She thinks that her role on the Supreme Court is
just to promulgate leftist propaganda. Her opinion is the left

(10:36):
is right, so therefore that's what she ought to be doing,
and if she has to be in descent to do
it and talk more than anybody else in oral arguments,
that's what she's going to do well.

Speaker 3 (10:46):
I think there's also there's ginsburg syndrome has gone to
her head. Remember how the Left made Ruth Bader Ginsburg
is great celebrity, you know, notorious RBG. You know, they
had movies about her and T shirts, and it was
one of the reasons I think Ginsburg decided to hang
on so long. You know, an ordinary justice. I think

(11:06):
President Obama, as he tried to do with Ginsburg, an
ordinary justice you could have could have persuaded to step down.
But I think Ginsburgh thought she was this larger than
life celebrity in a way that Kagan and Soda mayor
never will be and probably don't want to be actually,
And so I think Jackson's making the same mistake as Ginsburg,
except she doesn't have even half of Ginsburg's intellectual firepower.

Speaker 6 (11:29):
So she's writing to be known, to have a brand,
to be a personality.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah, I think so, yeah, yeah, you know.

Speaker 4 (11:35):
Honestly, though, the Left is just so far gone and
the people they are celebrating these days, Jasmine Crockett, AOC Mendammy,
What the hell is his name? Why can't people have
normal names that I can remember? I like Namesbreag Phil
and Steve and John and Mark and Scott. I don't
want to hear any more. Mendmid mom. What's that justice today, Judge?

(12:00):
We saw mammy Wammy, Whammy, Sammy Dammy trimmed down.

Speaker 6 (12:05):
This is this is why Lucretia is gonna get fired
next week.

Speaker 4 (12:09):
I don't care.

Speaker 5 (12:09):
Actually, I think she's been prospectively fired for what she
will say. You have to listen.

Speaker 4 (12:13):
Wait a minute. Both my family and my husband's family,
when they came over as immigrants, they made their names American. Okay,
why can't these people come over and have American names?
You know? Why can't they go for me, Bob Dylan.

Speaker 5 (12:33):
That's worse than that, Lucretia. They are Americans born and bred,
and they deliberately make up weird fake names. Right, that's
even worse is and then it's not like they came
here and didn't anglicize their names.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
They ready had.

Speaker 3 (12:49):
For the listeners who aren't wondering what we're talking about,
because this is something that broke late today Thursday. Federal
judge who said something about can I arrest people outside
home people or something like that, But the name of
the federal judge is and again I a little bit
with the cretia here is hard to pronounce. It looks
like it's Mammy Woosie mensa fri so Judge I like

(13:11):
it anyway.

Speaker 5 (13:14):
So still, did you ever what is.

Speaker 2 (13:17):
Who knows sounds? Is that a Filipino name?

Speaker 4 (13:21):
You look it up? While I asked Philip question, did
you ever see on the big thing on social media
somebody saying Who's who? Are you kidding that that the
Apostles had name like names like Mark and Andrew? Those
are white names.

Speaker 6 (13:35):
Who thinks.

Speaker 2 (13:38):
Reast?

Speaker 4 (13:39):
Someone wrote that, yes, okay, sorry that we just got
way for Philip. I'm sorry, but there's the answer to
your question. Phil I do think she wants to stake
out a position and be be the be the unthinking
leftist like AOC. I honestly think that the the left

(14:00):
is celebrating people that are dumb on purpose. You know,
AOC's dumb, Jasmine Crockett's dumb men Dommy day, Mommy couldn't
get into Colombia.

Speaker 5 (14:10):
They're both they're the two women are undeniably attractive, that's
part of it, isn't And they're undeniably racial minorities.

Speaker 4 (14:19):
Listen, fat.

Speaker 5 (14:25):
But but but they that's what they choose in their spokespeople.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
Right.

Speaker 5 (14:28):
They want a kind of racial celebrity, right, I mean,
like your favorite the what did you call her? I
can't remember her name, Kareem Jean Paul Sartre's. I'm sorry,
I forgot that. I shouldn't have actual you know what?

Speaker 2 (14:47):
This is?

Speaker 3 (14:47):
The old Lucretian has shown up tonight because the two
three weeks ago she was saying nice things.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
About Kareem, John Pierre Paul, Right, that's.

Speaker 4 (14:54):
Just you know, I was saying nice things about about.

Speaker 2 (15:00):
Roberts You like you were like in a very good
mood that night or something, because it.

Speaker 4 (15:07):
Was no unlike most people. I am. But I'll give
John credit for this too. I am fair if I
I somebody isn't right, because I usually agree with them
or I'm on their side. If they make the right argument,
I will support them. And if Jasmine Crockett or Kittie
could ever actually articulate a thought, I might agree with it.

(15:32):
It's not beyond the realm of possibility. But uh, I
never I haven't heard one yet. I really like the
name that the White House gave to Jasmine Crockett. Did
you hear that? It's my favorite jasmine jellyfish because she
has the brain of a jellyfish. Is that great? Okay?
Our good friend Phil, who usually thinks I'm absolutely right

(15:53):
about everything, has a bone to pick with something I
said a couple of weeks ago. Of course, that's when
he's right. He's probably not right here, but we're going
to give him a chance to explain himself. He didn't
like my explanation, or perhaps it was my analysis of
the mood case having to deal with whether or not
parents could opt out of having their children learn their

(16:18):
their five year olds learn about sex transitions. And it's
so awfully I can't even talk about it. But please
explain to our listeners because it will make some of
them very happy for them to hear somebody sam wrong
what it was I got wrong on that? Phil?

Speaker 5 (16:34):
All right, So here here, here's my dick.

Speaker 6 (16:36):
And let me just say, usually, you guys and listening
to you, have my earbuds in in my basement gym
doing squats and deadlifts, and then John says something outrageous
and I'm afraid I'm going to hurt my back, and
so it's I notice.

Speaker 5 (16:52):
How Phil threw in there. There is an enormous body.

Speaker 6 (16:55):
Yeah, so it's great to be with you. I listen
every week every week, so you.

Speaker 5 (17:02):
You and the other for Straussians who went to Claremont
McKenna have wives.

Speaker 4 (17:08):
Okay, mood, my mood.

Speaker 6 (17:12):
So I actually think this was a defeat for social
conservatives and no one agrees with me on this. And
here's the thing. If you read the case, the books
that were in these schools, and these are I have
a second grader, Uh, these books are being talked to

(17:32):
second graders, really young kids. They're terrible, and it's shocking
if you actually go in and that. There's lots of
details in the case, in the in the opinions they
write about what these books are. And I think most
most parents, most Americans would be shocked if they saw
that these books were being taught or read to or
made available to really young kids and the parents were objecting.

(17:56):
In fact, so many parents were objecting that this too
was in in the case that the reason they thought
parent opt outs were unworkable is because so many parents
were objecting. What I see going on is these parents saying,
we don't want this stuff, this nonsense in our schools.

Speaker 5 (18:16):
And I think.

Speaker 6 (18:19):
If the court did not step in what would have happened?
And I think justice so Tomor is right here.

Speaker 5 (18:25):
Say that again, did you know, get it under his breath?
So I went that on the record.

Speaker 6 (18:31):
I think justice so too. My Or was right that
these things are handled democratically, which means that the parents
were outraged and they were going to go after control
of these schools. And when I think is going to
happen now that the parents won, Supposedly the parents can
opt out, but these books are still going to be

(18:53):
in the schools, and so like, what's going to happen
next year?

Speaker 5 (18:57):
Okay, your kids, if.

Speaker 6 (18:58):
You don't want you your kids don't have to be
exposed to these books, but all their friends are going
to be exposed to their books.

Speaker 5 (19:06):
And these books are.

Speaker 6 (19:07):
Still going to be in the schools. And if winning
is the books are still in the schools, that's not winning.

Speaker 3 (19:16):
Yeah, I see that point. You know, I've had a
parallel argument. I think it's parallel argument over the years
about California's initiative process going back forty years more than
that of fifty years now. Conservatives have won at the
ballot box, often Prop thirteen, most famously, But you'll Prop
two oh nine, you can go down the list of them.
You were around for some of those, you were in

(19:37):
graduate school, right, And I often used to say, if
you didn't have that safety valve, then maybe the people
of California would have voted differently because they would have said,
wait a minute, we don't want our governor, you know,
to not give us our money back and so forth,
and so it deludes political accountability.

Speaker 2 (19:53):
So the parallel here, I get your point.

Speaker 3 (19:55):
The parallel here is you've given a safety valve to
parents to opt out, and good for them, and I
guess they'll fill the asset. Sorry, I think I like
the logic of your argument, and.

Speaker 2 (20:06):
I agree with it.

Speaker 3 (20:08):
The counterpoint would be, how did the education establishment react
well with horror? Because they see this as an assault
on their overwhelming control and compulsion of public schools. They
see it as another step towards school choice and the
disaggregation of the public schools.

Speaker 2 (20:26):
And the extent that's right.

Speaker 3 (20:28):
I think that's an argument in favor of the opt
out as a baby step towards things.

Speaker 2 (20:34):
But I think that maybe you're right.

Speaker 3 (20:35):
So Di my or threw down a gauntlet that our
team should have picked up and run with.

Speaker 4 (20:39):
So wait a minute, So my oarse said some dumb
stuff about if they don't like their kids in school
in public school, take them elsewhere. Well, right, let's not
forget that. So let me make the counter argument that
I think makes more sense, Steve. And counter argument is

(21:01):
that everything, everything was moving in one direction having to
do with transgender, transgender things in women's sports, and you know,
across the board, the Biden administration was shoving it down
our throats in every possible way. And then Trump comes

(21:23):
along and he says, Kamala Harris is for they them,
I'm for you, which you know everyone says. It is
like one of the turning points in the campaign. I
don't know, but since that time we have seen a
steady erosion, or at least a stopping of the forward

(21:44):
movement of the transgender initiative. And that I think is
another step in saying, I mean, if the court had said,
if the Court had taken the case and said something different,
now you could be right that they never should have
taken the case, but if they had said something different,
it would have been another notch in favor of a

(22:05):
permanent class protection for transgender what I don't even know
to call them, you see my point. I see a
sea change moving in the other direction now, and people
are not afraid any longer to say I don't want
my kids, I don't want my kids seeing that, I
don't want my kids going to drag queen shows. I

(22:26):
don't want my kids having, you know, drag queens at
the library, and people are less afraid to push back
on it.

Speaker 6 (22:35):
I think you got to think through what does what
does winning look like? Does winning look like the books
are in the school but my kid is excused to
sort of awkward? Or is winning getting the books out
of the schools? If winning is getting the books out
of the schools, I don't think the case helps the

(22:56):
decision helps because for all the reasons you just said,
all moment, look, once the parents saw what was in
these books, they don't.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
Want these books.

Speaker 6 (23:04):
And now if I'm if I'm a progressive, I'm realizing, Wow,
they're not taking the books out of school, and we
can just say to those parents who are objecting, Okay,
your kids don't have to go, and we still control
what books are in the school. So I don't think
that's really winning.

Speaker 4 (23:25):
Yeah, I just think it's a had it gone the
other way, had it gone the other way, it would
have been a defeat the idea that the court could
have possibly decided that parents cannot opt out of what
you know, that this kind of horror being taught to
their children. I guess again, you can say that the

(23:48):
court never should have taken up the issue, but once
they took it up, they had to decide this way
because the alternative is horrific. It's the kind of the
same argument I've had with Hadley. It's not fairy is
not here. But if the court had decided somehow that
transsexuals were a suspect category and therefore deserved all the

(24:12):
protection suspect categories, that would have been disastrous. The fact
that they didn't go as far as they should have
that wasn't before the case here, I mean, yeah, I
My comment was, how is it possible that this wasn't
a case about getting those damn books away from children
all together? That's which the case should have been.

Speaker 2 (24:30):
Sure completing would have been.

Speaker 3 (24:33):
But also, aren't we mixing up the scir Many case
a little bit, because that's the one that raised the
question about.

Speaker 4 (24:38):
Yeah, no, no, a different case. Yeah, yeah, okay, not
mixing it up. I was referring to a different case. Sorry,
it didn't make that care anyway.

Speaker 5 (24:45):
I have one of the kind of different response to phil.
That's more. I think the way a lawyer would think
of it is, you know, why would religious freedom be
the right amongst all the rights and the Bill of
Rights that you would not judicially enforce. You could make
a similar argument that you should rely on the legislature
and expect them to enforce the Constitution for the other

(25:07):
Bills of Rights too, rights there too. So I think
the curious effect for me as a lawyer is, here's
a right that's in a list, and all the other
rights in the list are enforced by the court. Right,
all the criminal procedure rights are enforced by the court.
Why do we single out religious freedom as the one
that the courts will not enforce and will expect political

(25:29):
protection and resolution for. Why don't we apply that rule
to all the other Bill of Rights protections too.

Speaker 6 (25:36):
It's a challenge to fail, I think, Well, I don't
want to derail the show, but let me.

Speaker 3 (25:42):
Give it.

Speaker 5 (25:44):
Ready, just by being here, you've derailed the show.

Speaker 2 (25:47):
Do you rail away.

Speaker 5 (25:52):
When you're listening to yourself talking when you're lifting one
hundred and thirty five pounds and break your knee or
whatever you do down in your basement.

Speaker 6 (26:03):
All right, So the First Amendment, the religion clauses are
doing different work, and they're prohibiting the State Congress and
now the states from doing something else. With the free
exercise clause is much more precise. It's the protection that
says government can't tell you how to pray, that you

(26:25):
must go to church, that you can't go to church.
We're going to find you if you don't go to
go to church. That's what it's doing. Its work is
not to shield religious individuals from laws that everyone else.

Speaker 5 (26:43):
Are subject to.

Speaker 6 (26:44):
So I've never I mean, you guys know this. I
don't think it's a blanket protection to protect anything religious
people are interested in or feel that the religious beliefs
are compel them to participate in this part the public square,
or don't participate in this part of the public square.
I just don't think that the religion clauses were originally

(27:07):
designed to do.

Speaker 5 (27:08):
That broad work.

Speaker 6 (27:09):
Rather, they had a narrow function, which is to say
that there's part of our natural liberty, are the way
we worship, or if we even don't worship, and that's
out of bounds for government to regulate.

Speaker 5 (27:24):
Yo, does it make sense from a lawyer's perspective about
enforceability of rights?

Speaker 6 (27:29):
But well, so it's not a right, it's not part
of the right. It's a question like what you're creating
something that's not originally there.

Speaker 4 (27:38):
To a certain extent based upon the way you frame
the question, John, which is that why are the criminal
justice rights? Why do we expect the court to enforce
those through judicial decision making on our behalf? But we shouldn't,
according to Phil have the court enforce free exercise establishment
clause and so forth. I mean, I can make an

(28:00):
argument that because the courts made this argument. I mean,
this is not my brilliance coming through here. This is
the court's argument earlier on, which is that you know
that the courts have to have the integrity of the courts,
and so you know there is a stupid exclusionary rule
argument that you can't expect us to take in evidence

(28:20):
that was obtained unconstitutionally and illegally that would destroy the
integrity of the courts. You can broaden that argument and
maybe make it apply to the fourth, fifth, and sixth
amendments At eighth amendments. I can see that argument. I'm
of the opinion ever since forever that we shouldn't be

(28:41):
depending upon the courts for our First Amendment rights. We
should be depending upon ourselves to make sure we can
exercise them. You know, they're not their rights that belong
to us. We don't need the government to protect us,
which the judiciary is the government in the exercise of
our rights. We need somebody has to be us to

(29:02):
protect our exercise of those rights, because there are natural rights.
And I can see that argument. But practically speaking, I
can see why a lawyer freaks out at it, honestly,
and you're the lawyer.

Speaker 5 (29:15):
John, Yeah, I mean, the Constitution creates individual rights and so,
and the Constitution is meant to be enforced in court.
I do think that Hamilton was wrong in Federal's number
eighty four. I think the anti Federals turned out to
be right about the way the government would interpret its
powers over time. It didn't. The government did not interpret

(29:35):
its powers as not being able to affect free speech,
for example, or free exercise of religion.

Speaker 3 (29:41):
Wrong.

Speaker 5 (29:41):
I think the intera Federal has predicted the future more accurately,
and so if they did, then you do need to
have judicially enforceable individual rights.

Speaker 4 (29:49):
Give me five cases, five examples of cases where we
are better off because the Supreme Court came out in
favor of a right that we as Americans possess that
government didn't give us.

Speaker 5 (30:04):
That the free speech Almost all the free speech cases
are disaster. No. I mean, look at all the ways
that the local garments have tried to suppress speech. So
here's one. What about the Nazis who paraded through skoky. Now,
the government would have suppressed that parade if it could have, right,

(30:27):
there's an argument I think they get. I think the
Nazis get the right to parade and skokey or I mean,
I'm just trying to think of like the worst free
speech cases.

Speaker 6 (30:37):
The more you talk, the more I think Lucretia is right.

Speaker 5 (30:41):
Well, that's that's it. That's my general effect on you.
Phil This is the point, This is.

Speaker 3 (30:46):
Why, this is why John, political philosophers are superior to
political theorists, and are both are superior to lawyers.

Speaker 5 (30:53):
What what are you talking about? In this case, the
market has ruled, and I make ten times more than you. You,
I make ten times more than any political philosopher, any
the worst lawyer makes ten times more than any political philosopher.
The market has spoken in its infinite wisdom.

Speaker 4 (31:11):
Did I ever tell you don't by the time five
or six years ago, it's been now at least. I
was sitting in a bar with Harvey Mansfield. We're drinking
in a bar, and I asked him, I said, can
you give me a So it was kind of prior
to all of these recent cases by the Roberts Court.

(31:33):
I said, can you give me one single Supreme Court
decision that was so profound in restoring constitutional separation powers,
protecting critical individual rights, whatever, by whatever standard you want
to do it, One Supreme Court case that undoes that
is so critical that it undoes all the incredible harm

(31:55):
done to our republic by most Supreme Court decisions. And
he sat there for a minute and his answer was, no, Okay.

Speaker 5 (32:05):
I mean, that's a different question, but some decisions where
so here's some other ones. I think that the court's
striking down campaign finance laws like it did in Citizens
United has been beneficial because, look, otherwise, the government would
do things to suppress speech to favor incumbents in office.

(32:27):
I personally think you're not going to like this Lucretia
or Phil or Steve. But I think that burning the
flags to be protected by free speech. I think that's
a legitimate form of speech, and the government would love
to suppress people from doing that.

Speaker 4 (32:43):
I actually agree with you, but I don't totally surprising.
But if you live in a society, god damn it,
I know you're going to no. But what I don't
agree with is if you live in a society where
you can burn the American flag but you can't burn
the Pride flag. That's that's where we are to get what. Oh,

(33:08):
just last week, so three kids were arrested and they
faced twenty years in jail for deframing a Pride flag.

Speaker 5 (33:16):
Oh, they're gonna win. They'll win on free speech grounds.
They can burn.

Speaker 4 (33:20):
My point is that that we are so confused about
these things that those those kinds of you know, contradictions
can actually happen in our society. But anyway, Phil, you're
going to say something.

Speaker 6 (33:34):
I'm not sure why I'm on the flag burning, but
I'm against the new dancing, and it seems to me
that your free speech gets justifies a lot of really
bad behavior that I think communities.

Speaker 5 (33:45):
Believe it the whites constitutes no dancing.

Speaker 4 (33:53):
All right, all right, Steve's gonna kill me if I don't.
But that's actually brings me to a pretty good segue here. Uh.
I do want to ask you guys really quickly, and
probably John especially to explain to our listeners because I
know they'll be interested in this question. How did we
go from the Supreme Court issuing a decision just a

(34:16):
couple of weeks ago, right, you know, saying that if
it was even that long ago that no more universal injunctions,
and there was the talk about okay, we should have
gone further and said also no class action suits. But
what was it yesterday? Yesterday the birthright citizenship decision by

(34:37):
Judge Indy No, I don't even remember a Bush appointed judge.
It was George W. Bush appointed judge saying that you know,
these people, these infants create a class and I don't
understand the rule explained to me if that's going to work.

Speaker 5 (34:55):
So this is let me just explain. So the niche
wide injunction case, that court said there could be an
exception to that which would be for class actions. And
class actions are this device created in the thirties which
allow a whole group of people potentially millions, to be

(35:15):
represented in court even though they don't show up, and
even though they may not even really approve of the lawsuit.
But so they just there's a very complicated law set
of laws about the class actions. But one thing about
it is this creates a whole other set of issues
that the Trump admission administration can win on, which is

(35:35):
that this court below granted a class action, as you said,
lucretia for infants who can't even consent to be represented
in the class. So I think actually this class action
thing might help the Trump administration. And the other thing though,
is that one of these birthright citizenship cases is going

(35:56):
to get to the Supreme Court in the next year anyway.
In this district judge is just almost like flagrantly defying
the Supreme Court by trying to find, like what the
skilly said, an elephant in this mousehole of an exception
for class actions. So I expect that this this case
will be stayed and the Supreme Court will take either

(36:16):
that case or some other case up about birthright citizenship
pretty quickly.

Speaker 6 (36:24):
No, No, I I think that's it pains me to
say this, but I think I agree with John yeah, I.

Speaker 4 (36:32):
Okay, let me follow on and give you a chance
here to phil to to say something provocative. So another
example of a universal injunction that makes even less sense
to the average American was the Taliwane decision UH deciding
that the AHHS cannot in fact stop funding planned parenthood. Right.

(36:59):
I want to get into the merits of it, but
I'm doing this for Steve. So Steve, I don't know
if you saw this on X But Damon Linker, what
do you call him? The mississink? Okay? Damon Linker says, missing. Look,
I hate Trump, support abortion rights and all the rest,

(37:20):
But how can there be an underlying violation of law
or the constitution justifying a temporary restraining order from a
duly enacted statute cutting funding for a private entity? Damon
Linker says that so smart ass. Lucretia responds and says,
it has obviously never occurred to you that the reason

(37:40):
for being of the left is simply power, the rule
of law, constitutional norms, democratic rule. These are tropes of
the left, useful in only in so far as they
advance leftist causes, like the right to murder an unborn child. Okay,
because his answer to me back, You're right, he's very sarcastic.

(38:01):
You're right, that's never occurred to me. Thanks for pointing
it out. It also never occurred to me that the
right also cares about winning and wielding power.

Speaker 5 (38:11):
Yeah, well, so let me set up what I was
gonna say. Let me set up for the discussion for
you guys to wail on this. But the theory of
the judged Inisian opinion. But I take it the theory
is and I think there is an underlying substantive argument here,
which is the government can't single out people are groups

(38:32):
for disfavored treatment just because of their view because of
their viewpoints. So imagine there's a case called Rosenberger, which
is another case I was going to give you for
where I think the government did the court did the
right thing for first Ammogrounts. So here's a case involved
in the University of Virginia. They give all student groups
money to invite speakers except for the Christian group and

(38:57):
because they say, we don't want to fund Christian speech.
And so that's what planned parent who is saying is
they're saying, you give money to everybody who performs women
health medical services except us because we also believe in abortion.
That's there, that's the argument.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
Yeah, okay, why.

Speaker 4 (39:21):
Don't we do this, Steve, I let's take a break
and come back and feels got an answer, Okay.

Speaker 2 (39:26):
I met, I wanted to think about six minutes ago.

Speaker 4 (39:28):
I know, I'm sorry. It was my screen was covered.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
It doesn't work. It just takes too long. I mean,
you stretch it out like.

Speaker 5 (39:34):
That and it's like mom and dad got divorced and
they're still fighting.

Speaker 4 (39:39):
I'm sorry, Steve, it was covered and I just wasn't
paying attention. Yeah, I apologize.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
Yeah, no, I don't know. I'll have to figure it out.

Speaker 5 (39:46):
But anyway, there's probably a place you could throw in
a brake six.

Speaker 3 (39:50):
Yeah, I can probably squeeze one in there, because actually
you're in your introduction to it was perfect, but it
was there was no and it just it just makes edit.

Speaker 2 (39:57):
That's okay, I got an extraday to edit. So I think.

Speaker 4 (40:00):
So, okay, so we're back, and so Phil, what do
you think about planned parenthood?

Speaker 2 (40:09):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (40:09):
I mean the thought that we're we the taxpayers are
funding planned parenthood is a travesty. It's an abomination. And
now I don't but I don't I think John's right
that I don't see how you can single out this
one entity if the band has to be in general,

(40:30):
we're not going to fund this type of activity. I
think that's fine, but you can't fund the general.

Speaker 5 (40:35):
Type of activity.

Speaker 6 (40:36):
And to say well, no, this one organization can't receive funds,
I mean that that strikes me as wrong. But I
don't know enough about the actual law or the implementation
of the law.

Speaker 5 (40:47):
So what the law says is it doesn't say planned parent,
and I think it says federal medicaid funds can't go
to any group that performs abortions, even if the federal
funds themselves pay for something else. Right because plant Parenthet says,
we also do like women's health checkups, but we're not
using any federal money for abortions. I mean, that's that's

(41:12):
that's nice.

Speaker 6 (41:12):
What the law does. That's that's yeah. I think that's fine.

Speaker 5 (41:16):
I mean, but they're saying what you're really but they
saying way that you wrote the law deliberately just to
apply to one class, which happens to be us. We're
the only people who fall into the law. We're the
only group that's going to get our funds cut off
before this because of this, and it's only because we
perform abortions and we and we believe in Roe versus

(41:36):
we well.

Speaker 3 (41:38):
First of all, by the way, the pleading included calling
this the clause a bill of a tainder, which I
think only applies to individuals.

Speaker 2 (41:47):
I mean, it seems like an absurd argument, but I
don't think they rule.

Speaker 5 (41:50):
And it's also only a criminal law, so it doesn't.

Speaker 3 (41:53):
Yeah, okay, second, I can't so I guess now now
that you put it this way, they're saying there's a
they're legend there's a drafting error here that's discriminatory against them.

Speaker 5 (42:05):
It's not an error. They're just saying it's written deliberately
to only get them.

Speaker 3 (42:10):
So, by the way, I mean, how many hundreds of
times a year in these budget bills are there general
conditions written into tax law, for example, that in the
real world we learn only applies to one company and
sometimes only one individual. Now that's a benefit, right, That's
something a lobbyist sneaks in the middle of the night.
But we let that go by, and none of us

(42:30):
are able, none of us have standing as supposed to
oppose that right.

Speaker 2 (42:35):
By the way.

Speaker 3 (42:35):
I'll bet there's some tax changes that disfavor for specific
companies in industries. And so you know, that's never been
brought as a claim.

Speaker 2 (42:44):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (42:44):
Maybe it has in tax court, but and but no
one ever noticed. Perhaps it has, but the idea, but look,
I mean, ultimately it seems to me as a constitutionalist,
what is the what does Article one say Congress has
the power of the purse and they say we don't
want to, uh, we don't want to fund planned parenthood.
We can either do it by saying we want fund

(43:04):
planned parenthood, or we can do it with a general
condition so that some other organization can't say we're semi
planned parenthood, right or something like that.

Speaker 2 (43:14):
Right?

Speaker 4 (43:14):
And well what about this though, guys? What well, yeah,
but what about this? What if instead of this knee
jerk reaction, because of course, abortion is in fact a
sacred right according to the left, what if Planned Parenthood
just stood back and said, Okay, we will in fact

(43:35):
create two separate entities, and we're so committed to women's
health and women's reproductive health minus abortion. What a joke
that is. But anyway, and so what we'll do is
we will, in fact I don't know if you need
two separate corporations, however you do it, but we will
separate our abortion activities from our supposed non existent health services.

(44:01):
And then there's no issue, right that could have been
a response to this, And I would guess if there
are other entities out there that aren't quite as interested
in killing babies as Planned Parenthood, they might do exactly that.
So it seems to me that if Planned Parenthood is
worried about not being able to use Medicaid funds for

(44:23):
their other activities, there's an easy answer there, and it's
not going back to the courts and demanding that Planned
Parenthood be funded, because of course the funds that go
for other things fund abortion. Right. It's just that simple, right,
Am I wrong?

Speaker 6 (44:40):
That seems right to me.

Speaker 2 (44:41):
Yeah, it seems simple enough to me too, But I
guess what.

Speaker 5 (44:46):
So one other way to put it, I think is
also if this, if Planned Parenthood were right, and what
this Republican Congress is doing is really punishing them because
of their advocacy the belief for abortion, then Congress would
have written the law to cut off a lot more
groups than just Planned Parenthood. They would have just cut
off groups that you know, support abortion. So it doesn't

(45:09):
do there yet, but they're i mean support it, don't
just practice it, but maybe just you know, advocate for it.
So it seems that their claim of Congress's intent is
not is too narrow because Congress didn't really have that intent,
because if they did, they would have targeted more groups
than just planned parenthood.

Speaker 3 (45:29):
Well, but it is the language a preempt you know,
groups from springing up. Like I said, I mean my
example was unplanned parenthood or semi planned parent Right, there's
gotta be lots of women's health centers that do the
same darn thing and would be the cutout for taking
up the slack from Planned parenthood losing federal money. By
the way, can we just say Planned parenthood said for years,

(45:50):
oh the federal money. It's really like it's like NPR,
it really isn't that much. And you know they lie
about this stuff, right, it's you already hear stories of
them having to close down a lot of clinics because
of the perspective loss of federal funds, and that tells
you all you need to know about the sincerity of
these claims.

Speaker 5 (46:06):
You know, I think I'm much I'm not pro life
the way you three are. I think you're all three
pro life. But this is all sceinary where federalism should work.
So if California wants to support planned parenthood, they can,
you know, plan California, New York. If they really believe
in abortion rights, they'll say that the way they say
they do. Then they can just increase funding for planned

(46:28):
parenthood in those states.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
Right.

Speaker 5 (46:30):
And then one last question, you guys would have no
problem with that if a state wants to fund abortion
after Dobs, Right, there's nothing wrong with that, I take it,
and your.

Speaker 4 (46:39):
Guys, I don't know about nothing wrong, but because.

Speaker 5 (46:43):
You would yeah, you would oppose it on policy grounds
or moral grounds, but not.

Speaker 4 (46:49):
But we have something at the federal level called the
Heighth Amendment, and one could argue that planned parenthood has
skirted the intention of that law for decades, and that
this particular bill, even if it did single out planned parenthood,
which it doesn't, would actually be a way of assuring
the American public several medicaid dollars are not going to abortion.

(47:12):
And that seems to me not to be either a
First Amendment issue or an equal protection issue, because the
law is already on the books, and it's almost as
long standing as Real versus Wade. Right, Okay, all right,
So that being said, we'll move on to the Big
Beautiful Bill in general. And I read a really interesting

(47:34):
article this morning. I want to know what you guys
think about. It was by a Democrat I don't know who,
didn't know who she was, but it was a whiney article,
as usual, because that's what the left does. But what
she said was all of these Democrats that are celebrating
the Big Beautiful Bill because it's a certainty that as
a result of it, because it's so unpopular, they're going
to just sweep the twenty twenty six mid terms. He says.

(47:56):
You know, maybe, folks, it's probably not so true. And
maybe after all that, people are not really all that
happy about unhappy about Medicaid being stopped because they won't
actually see it until after the twenty twenty six midterms.
And you know, also other you know, rationalizations. But my
question for you guys is are the Democrats in more

(48:19):
trouble than they think they are?

Speaker 5 (48:23):
But isn't that so you can have two different views.
I think the bill has terrible tax policy in it,
but it all yes, it has the bad tax policy
in it. But at the same time, that doesn't mean
Democrats aren't in a lot.

Speaker 4 (48:36):
He's not eligible for Social Security, Steve like, we are
not only that, but.

Speaker 5 (48:41):
You guys are going to use it all up in
all your boomer activities, whatever those are. You know, Steve's
going to be grilling God knows what poor confused to
meet at double the price he ought to be paying
with his Social Security check that he puts on Facebook.
So look, look, it's a terrible tax bill in disrespect
you know tax policy, right, you guys agree with this,

(49:02):
don't you that the ideal tax policy should have no
exceptions and low rates broadly applied. Why are we giving
for tax breaks for tips, for social security payments, for
auto loans? I mean, this is all terrible tax policy,
isn't it. Oh God, Steve just put pictures of his

(49:23):
favorite meat and there's people. There's only four pictures, and
we know Steve has posted at least one hundred pictures
of his stakes and various poor sign products that he's
consumed Nober. The un point is, I like the part
of the tax bill that keeps the tax cuts, but

(49:44):
all these exceptions that Trump through in there I think
are really bad toxifier, the one raising the salt deduction, right,
the deduction for local taxes to forty thousand dollars a year.
I mean, it's just bad tax policy. But it's also
really bad tax policy. This is where Reagan, I think
is different. Reagan showed real leadership in his second term.
He you know, the eighty six tax actor is the

(50:06):
most brilliant tax law we've had in our lifetimes. Yeah,
and Trump Trump instead is just a whole Trump's tax
policy is like liberal tax policy saw just a bunch
of giveaways to special interest groups.

Speaker 3 (50:18):
First of all, John h. First of all, Trump didn't
do all those things. That was the members of the
House and the Senate.

Speaker 5 (50:25):
No, but they did it because but that's because Trump
promised it in the primier in the general election, and
they all felt like they had to didn't all of
those Oh he did do salt, but he did all
the other ones.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
Sault on the others. But look, the other thing is
it's completely but this is important.

Speaker 3 (50:40):
It's actually quite mistaken to compare it to Reagan's eighty
six tax reform. Why because that was a genuine bipartisan effort.
The Democrats early on said, you know what, we're for
tax reform, let's work together. It's a fascinating story. You
had Republicans and Democrats working together to screw the lobbyists,
and they did it by meeting on Saturdays. It still

(51:01):
took a year and a half, and Reagan rolled up
the sleeve was deeply involved.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
Here.

Speaker 3 (51:05):
You had every Democrat saying, no, we don't care if
any Democrat. And by the way, there are a bunch
of Democrats like AOC who did not like raising assault limit.
They could have offered a vote for something, and they
could have horse traded and they could have made it
a more sensible tax policy. But no, their view is
we have to oppose whatever it is Republicans are doing.
And so that meant that you could with such narrow

(51:28):
more margins in the House.

Speaker 2 (51:29):
It meant that anybody from New.

Speaker 3 (51:30):
York, like you know, at least the phonic who I
like otherwise and no, you can't have my vote unless
you raise the salt limit.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
I agree with you.

Speaker 3 (51:38):
All those add ons are mostly bad policy, but you
know what, they don't amount to that much. The important
part is the parts you already mentioned, John, which is
the main tax rates that are pro growth, and sometimes
you have to take the rough with the smooth, and
this is one of those times, and so you should
just lump it and be quiet.

Speaker 4 (51:55):
I agree with them, I have a different take on
John put this smooth business. So everything about finance and
tax law is designed to benefit the rich. Okay, It's
just that simple, even the salt. It's to benefit the rich.

(52:18):
And who right now is the party of the rich
and the elite. It's, of course, it's the Democrats. And
Trump's appeal is to the middle and lower classes, the
working middle and lower classes. And everything that he put
in that bill that you don't like, the no tax
on tips and the hunt, the thousand dollars savings account

(52:42):
for you know, a newborn, and all of those things.
One thousand dollars in a savings account is meaningless to
a John you who makes billions every year. But it's
not millions, I said, But it's not meaningless to the
woman who's working two jobs, and one of those is

(53:03):
working nights as a waitress. And the government right now
takes a percentage of their tips, whether they make tips
or not. And if you ask me, Trump's constituency is
the middle class and the lower middle class that's gotten
screwed over and over for the last forty years, and

(53:25):
I'm all in favor of it. I don't like those
giveaways either, but if that's what it takes to solidify
the middle and lower classes in the Republican Party or
the Trump Party or whatever we're gonna call it someday,
I'm in favor of it. Because, again, what Steve was
kind of saying with a different perspective is the tax
policy has always done that. It just usually favors the rich.

Speaker 5 (53:49):
Sorry, just I feel like I'm in I feel like
I'm in some kind of economic bizarre world where we
have adopted the Democratic Parties approach.

Speaker 4 (53:58):
And the Democratic Parties adopted.

Speaker 5 (54:00):
Yeah, we're giving away tax benefits to favorite interest groups,
and then we have a tariff policy that's like an
industrial policy, and we're spending lots of money. You know,
we're actually not repealing all the Chipsack and the Inflation
Reduction Act. We're still doing industrial policy too, just Biden's
industrial policy. And you saw what happened when the Democrats

(54:21):
pursued all these policies. They ruined the economy and you
had to have Reagan come in and clean House.

Speaker 4 (54:27):
Yeah, your your analogies are too lame. Sorry, John, Steve
won't let me. Steve won't let me take them up.
Fill any closing thoughts on that before I moved to
the final closing.

Speaker 6 (54:40):
Well, I mean.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
You're both right.

Speaker 6 (54:42):
I mean I I John is right. I think it's
it has not been conservative.

Speaker 5 (54:48):
Phil Sussick, he's running for office. Here, everybody's right here.

Speaker 6 (54:56):
Look, the Republican Party has changed, right, It's become a
lot more like the Democratic Party, and it's the party
of the working class. And so we're abandoning the ideas
of the old understanding was flat taxes and no exceptions
and no giveaways to certain groups. And well it turns

(55:18):
out when when your constituency is as as Lucretia just explained,
working class people, and you can give working class breaks
in these narrow ways to your benefit. I don't know.
To me, it shows lack of principle, and I don't
like it. I think taxes should be low and flat.
I think that's best for everyone in the long term.

(55:41):
But greed maybe, But I'm sympathetic to the idea, like,
maybe you have to take this, maybe this is the
only way you can you can win in today's America.
I don't much like that, but that is politics.

Speaker 4 (55:55):
Okay. So the last thing I want to talk about
as we end today is this whole concept of cover ups.
I don't want to talk about Epstein. I'm going to
leave that aside. I have nothing to say about it,
but I think that there have been, in fact enough
other kinds of cover ups that are actually serious. Never
mind the conspiracy theories are on Epstein. No comment on

(56:17):
that either way. But what we do know is that
Biden was non compostmentus, that a lot of people covered
it up, that his stupid ass doctor couldn't even come
in and tell the truth about the most basic kind
of questions and somehow managed to plead the fifth. I
want to know exactly what criminal law he was afraid

(56:38):
of being charged with when he plead the fifth, But
we know that the more we find out, that's a
huge cover up. They're now investigating, thank god, the scum
of the earth, Brennan, Clapper and Comy, and I hope
those guys get executed for treason, but that probably won't happen.

(56:58):
But they are at least investigating them, and so is
anything going to happen? What do you guys think is
are we going to find out who actually ran the autopen?
Are there going to be authorizations? Are we going to
find out that As a matter of fact, what we
know with anybody with any brains knew all along it
Brendan was the most despicable creature on the planet and

(57:20):
he was plotting against Trump from day one and using
the intelligence services for his purposes and Obama's purposes. But
will we get any closure on that? Guys? Predictions I'm
gonna start with you, Phil, Let's.

Speaker 5 (57:34):
Have our guests.

Speaker 6 (57:35):
Yeah, I predict the past, so I don't know that
I have any good predictions on this, but I tell
you I don't like them. I don't like government officials
using their power to go after past government officials just
in general. I think that's very bad. But I am
very curious what they're going to find out about Comy
and Brennan. And it will be interesting if what we

(57:56):
find out, And part of me hopes we don't find
anything and it goes away because I don't like this
criminalizing politics. But I do wonder if if there's something
to be found, and if there is something to be found,
it should be investigated.

Speaker 4 (58:14):
Yeah, I'm oh, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (58:17):
Well, I'm i I'm worried this may slip away. I
think back to almost thirty years ago when you had
all those shall we say, irregularities in the Clinton re
election campaign in nineteen ninety six, there was a special
committee appoint in the Senate. Remember Fred Thompson sheared it,
the great Fred Thompson from you know, Hunt for Red
October and all that great hope that they were going

(58:38):
to be you know, a great Watergate like hearings that
would unravel the corruption there, and it all fizzled out.
I'll just mention, as in the side that I had
a bit of an inside look at that because a
certain musician who resides in my household was on the
staff of that committee until this person resigned because of
how feeble it was, and it came to nothing. Right,

(58:58):
So Republicans are bad at this. On the other hand,
it does seem there's more of a killer instinct than
the Trump administration and the current Republican Congress. So maybe
they will see it through and really not take no
for an answer or Fifth Amendment pleadings and other kinds
of subterfuges, because it certainly deserves it. I think, and so,
as Trump likes to say, We'll just have to see

(59:18):
what happens and thank you for your attention to this matter.

Speaker 5 (59:23):
That was supposed to be the tagline for the show.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
Now I got new one tonight.

Speaker 5 (59:26):
Oh you got a new one. Yeah, yeah, you got
to have one that makes fun of Notre Dame in football,
I hope. So you've got time to work on it.
So you know, the congressional investigator, a former congressional investigator
in me thinks that the reason why Biden's doctor took
the fifth is because he doesn't want to have to
be prosecuted for lying to Congress, because what they would

(59:49):
do is say, okay, you signed all these things saying
Biden was, you know, was in a fine state to
be president? Is that really what you think? And if
he says no thing, he's lying Congress right, well, either
way he's going to get caught for lying to Congress.
So I can see why he doesn't want to testify
at all. But the congressional investigator in me that thinks

(01:00:10):
the way to really get to the bottom of this
is to find one person in Biden's inner circle and
offer them immunity from prosecution. So they'll rat out all
the other ones. And it seems to me to be
able to keep this front up that they did for
so long, involving so many issue areas that Biden was
really in charge, meant that the circle of people who

(01:00:31):
actually knew that there was a cover up has to
be pretty large in the White House. Like it couldn't
just be the chief of staff who could do this.
It have to be several people. And so all you
have to do to crack that is to get one
of them. Maybe it's this doctor. Maybe the doctor would
testify with given immunity that the National Security Advisor and
the Chief of Staff told him to lie to the

(01:00:52):
American people or to Congress that Biden was actually mentally competent.
On Phil's example, I you know, I think you know,
on this intelligence investigation, I'm not so sure prosecution will
get us to the right answer, because these guys are
all going to take the fifth two. And so if
we really want to find out what happened, and I

(01:01:13):
share Phil's view that we really want, it's important for
us to know what happened with crossfire, Hurricane. Perhaps more
important than is to see Jim Comey go to jail.
Is we might give all of them immunity from prosecution
if they promised to really tell the truth about what
they did, and so they will have to live with
so so assume that they really did do what Phil thinks,

(01:01:34):
and they you know, you know, concocted all of this
information to affect the outcome of the twenty I'm sorry,
the twenty sixteen election. They will live with the shame
of that for the rest of their careers, and it'll
be part of their legacy. I think for these guys,
that's going to be punishment. Maybe maybe it'll be punishment enough.

(01:01:55):
I know a lot of people on our side would
like to see them go to jail, but I don't
think they ever for will end up going to jail.
But I don't think that's ever really going to happen
because I think it's too hard to prove. So maybe
the better thing is for just the American people to
learn the facts of what really happened.

Speaker 4 (01:02:12):
Yeah, the all I just want to slight editorial comment.
The problem is is that those people live in such
a self enforcing bubble. I'm not sure they're capable of
feeling shame because they'll be celebrated, no matter what anything
they did to try to keep Trump from office, all
of their cocktail Washington, DC cocktail party friends are gonna

(01:02:33):
stand by them in the same way that they did.
When you know, you know, McCabe didn't lose any of
his uh anything, He didn't lose his retirement anyway. That
makes me sick. But that's the problem with your theory, John,
that you have to be capable of shame, and you
have to be capable of people willing to shame you
in the circles that you run in before shame becomes

(01:02:54):
any kind of punishment. But just this is my thought, Steve,
no I already said mine, So okay, all right, and
I'm done. I I would prefer firing squad if they're
found guilty of any of this, because it would be treason.

Speaker 5 (01:03:11):
Wait, you know what we should We should have a
feature next week Lucretia's firing squad. Who else is on
that list, long, long list of people who are on
the list for her firing squad?

Speaker 6 (01:03:23):
You know?

Speaker 4 (01:03:24):
The only thing else say is I get what Phil's saying.
But remember they put Vannon in jail. They put what's
his name, the old guy, Peter Navarro in jail. You know,
they they went after Trump, and so this I mean
even John, even John of all people, mister equanimity and
mister I want to be fair, said we got to

(01:03:45):
play the game back to them for a while and
teach him a lesson. Do you remember that?

Speaker 5 (01:03:49):
Yeah, that I agree with. That I still agree with.
But I would go after I would like to prosecute right,
Alvin Bragg or Letitia James. They were the ones who
really tried to affect your friend, what's your name.

Speaker 4 (01:04:04):
Big fan willis?

Speaker 5 (01:04:08):
You know this has been like a Greatest Hits episode.
We got Big Fanny came out, Kareem whatever, Sartre whoever.
They all made an encoreppearance today. I think for some reason,
Phil brings out memories of the biting years. I don't
know why.

Speaker 6 (01:04:26):
Wait one serious point here though, but how do you
you're going to start a cycle of Okay, so they
did bad things to Trump, use the criminal justice system
in ways that are not good, broke from tradition. But
if if Republicans now do that, Democrats are going to
be back in power sooner or later, and they're gonna

(01:04:48):
do it. We just I mean, that cycle has got in.

Speaker 5 (01:04:52):
They're gonna do it anyway. If we Yeah, if we
let them get away with it, They're gonna do it
any anyway. You got to deter them.

Speaker 4 (01:04:59):
I just I give you the Independent Council Law.

Speaker 2 (01:05:02):
Exactly exactly right.

Speaker 3 (01:05:04):
Once Democrats figured out that the Independent Council Law could
be used against Democrats, they decided they didn't like it,
and we got rid of it.

Speaker 4 (01:05:11):
So yeah, I do think Trump creates this whole new
category of things we don't quite understand, both from the
point of view of Trump being different, but also Trump
arrangement syndrome being just a totally irrational It makes it
possible impossible to predict how people are going to behave
because they are so irrational about their hatred of Trump.

(01:05:31):
But anyway, so that being said, here's my Babylon b
So get ready, guys. Furious Newsome says he won't stand
silently by. Well, Trump fixes California.

Speaker 5 (01:05:42):
Love that that's true.

Speaker 4 (01:05:45):
Man wants, this is my favorite man wants. However, many
deportions deportations are needed for him to no longer have
to press one for English.

Speaker 5 (01:05:56):
Oh oh yeah, you're going to.

Speaker 4 (01:05:59):
Be all whatever. CSA announces. Passengers no longer have to
remove their shoes before being fondled, Like, yeah, no, you know.
The thing is, I have the TSA pre check thing,
but I always have to remove my shoes because they
put spikes in women's heels.

Speaker 5 (01:06:22):
And what Really there's metal in there.

Speaker 4 (01:06:24):
As we give them their their stability and strength. So
I always have to take my shoes off anyway. So
former White House doctor denies ever knowing a Joe Biden Republicans.
You'll like this one. John Republicans unveiled debt plan transfer

(01:06:45):
balance to capital one credit card was zero percent intro APR.

Speaker 5 (01:06:50):
Oh awesome. Can you imagine how many freaking fire miles
I would get?

Speaker 4 (01:06:54):
Right? Would you get the government's frequent fire miles?

Speaker 3 (01:06:59):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (01:06:59):
Yeah, I checked.

Speaker 4 (01:07:00):
I've been such a loyal government servant.

Speaker 5 (01:07:02):
No, this is why I checked on when I was
in the government, to make sure I get the frequent
flyer miles. Not the government. Damn straight.

Speaker 4 (01:07:08):
They almost took that away, you.

Speaker 5 (01:07:09):
Know, I know I tried.

Speaker 4 (01:07:11):
Yeah, I know they But see there's another there's an
example of what I'm talking about. That's a that's a
benefit that you get that rich people get and poor
people don't. So there disaster liberal goes back in time
to kill Hitler, but now has no one to compare
people he disagrees with too.

Speaker 5 (01:07:34):
Yeah, okay, unfinished, Steve, your turn, John, always drink your whiskey,
meat and Steve, did you come up with a haikup
attacking Notre Dame football?

Speaker 2 (01:07:44):
No? I didn't. I didn't think about.

Speaker 3 (01:07:46):
Oh I do have an AI couplet left over from
a while ago, and it goes three whiskey Happy hour,
Tilt your mind and take the dive. Logic burns like
April Showers. That makes no sense in the hour? Not
quite alive? Where forgotten thoughts revive? That was really logic

(01:08:07):
burns like Aple Showers.

Speaker 2 (01:08:08):
That's that's that?

Speaker 5 (01:08:09):
Doesn't that one makes no sense? Sense?

Speaker 2 (01:08:12):
For a better one next week and maybe if I
can find one for not.

Speaker 1 (01:08:15):
Was that was that?

Speaker 5 (01:08:15):
Wa? Wait? Did you was that? Were you using Rock?

Speaker 2 (01:08:20):
Nor?

Speaker 5 (01:08:24):
Was that? At the end of one of its anti
semitic rants would.

Speaker 4 (01:08:27):
Reminds me one last Babylon B Sorry, I know it's
out of order. Elon Omar announced his engagement to Grock.

Speaker 5 (01:08:34):
That's pretty good, all right, guys?

Speaker 4 (01:08:38):
By everyone legs everyone.

Speaker 6 (01:09:10):
Alonga blia after the ricochet

Speaker 5 (01:09:14):
Join the conversation.