November 27, 2025 • 56 mins
Naturally the 3WHH bartenders can't agree on the best way to cook a Thanksgiving turkey as well as the side dishes at the outset of this special Thanksgiving Day edition, but after that we get down to discussing what to make of prosecutions being dropped left and right—literally left and right in the case of the misbegotten Big Fani Willis case against Trump being dismissed in Georgia, and the Trump DoJ case against James Comey and Letitia James being dismissed in federal court. At least we still have trial by jury to be thankful for in America, as we hear Britain may abolish trial by jury for many crimes. Maybe the Labour Party is just trying to get out ahead of what's coming for them.
We'll be back over the weekend with a regular episode, just as soon as our tryptohpan-induced comas wear off.
We'll be back over the weekend with a regular episode, just as soon as our tryptohpan-induced comas wear off.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Whiskey coming, fake me, pay the money all right?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Why think alone when you can drink it all in
with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward,
John U and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Where the laptapping live.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
It ain't you easy on the should taps, gotta give
me and let that whiskey clone. Welcome everybody to a
special Thanksgiving Day episode of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour,
where we have decided to interrupt your viewing of the
Detroit Lions and the Dallas Cloud Cowbs losing their usual
(00:59):
Thanksgiving Day games, and we're gonna get straight to it
and find out what Our co hosts, Steve Hayward, Hey,
Steve Hi, and the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Lucretia who has a real kid, who has a real
name up in the panel, but maybe she'll fix well
they've got unfixed.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Wait by the way, John Krisha fixes her name. We
are going to find out what they're doing for Thanksgiving
because I know when everybody right now when you listen
to this is having Thanksgiving dinner, you're going to be
comparing the meal before you to what are too glamorous
philosopher slash cooks. And that's where Plato went wrong. He
should not have said philosopher king should run the world.
(01:46):
He should have said philosopher cooks should run. Well, what
are two resident philosopher kirks cooks are going to do
for Thanksgiving? Steve? What do you got going on that
immense barbecue of your sitting over the California Yeah cliffs
and the Pacific Ocean.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Well, actually I'm going over the hill to pass the
robles where I'm fighting with one of my best friends,
and we're gonna row tistrie a large turkey outdoors on
a grill. Uh, because it's warm weather. Yes, yes, a
rotiss turkey. The only thing is better than you've never
if you've never thought of such a thing, John, it's
a uh yeah, it's a great way to do it.
The only better way maybe is to deep fry a turkey,
(02:25):
which I have done a couple of times. But we're
gonna rotissriy uh.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
And uh.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Then I'm also because.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
The oven in the kitchen inside the house is going
to be busy with all the other vegetables and stuff
I'm gonna make, uh, I'm gonna attempt to make for
the first time popovers on a gas grill outside because
we you know, my friend has two grills, uh, and
we're gonna wash it all down with.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
What Joslaughlin with his TV show Steve raw please save
us for these monstrosities Thanksgiving.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
Over?
Speaker 1 (03:04):
What are you going to do?
Speaker 4 (03:06):
He sends me pictures, and they always burned. I bet
when they're not burned, they're good. Though. I'll give you that.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
You're not burned.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
I have a picture of it still in my photos, Steve,
don't you ever say that? Today? I am cooking, of course,
pumpkin pies from scratch, without any like nasty old evaporated
adulterated milk as they would say in uh caroline products
(03:35):
with real cream. But here's the big thing and that
and we're wiped cream, of course, is I make my
crust with vodka, and I don't you know, all of
that obviously cooks so you don't get any taste. But
it makes butter pie crust made with vodka. It's the flakiest.
I don't even eat crust. And I'll eat this and
then people fight over it and stab each other with
(03:57):
forks to try to get more of the crust so
pumpkin pie. And then for mister Lucretia and you know
his ongoing autoimmune issues with food, I am making a
honey cinnamon cheesecake so that he can actually have something
like dessert. But when Steve mentioned that thing about vegetables,
who on earth actually eats sorry, who on Earth eats vegetables?
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Well, I don't know, man, maybe sweet potatoes.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
I don't know what they're I.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Don't charge that part.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
But the last reason that you're wrong, yes, exactly so wrong,
is because if you put a turkey on the grill,
how do you make gravy? How do you make ky bravy?
And what are you going to put on top of
your mass potatoes? And what are you going to put
on top of the star at the Lucasia household? Is
(04:46):
my stuffing made from my home sour dough, sausage, apples, cranberries,
et cetera, et cetera, that you can eat. The gravy
just makes it better. And if you don't have bravy, you.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Your efforts and culture have failed. Again, you have no imaginations.
A good American tradition, look is the best part of
the best.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Person of all, you get better stuffing in things because
you bank the coals and you put a pan below
the turkey as it wrote, as it based as it
rotates self basting that way, and you get the most
wonderful juices out of it with a smoky barbecue flavor.
Then you have lots of juice for use on your
stuffing and other side dishes.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
So there, so can I say to resolve this, we
will be having a regular episode this weekend, and so
both Steve and Lucretia are invited to post pictures episode
of the final product. And Steve, no photoshopping, Steve, no
Ai Jen, no consulting AI to have it up, shoot up,
(05:50):
no bloat.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Your pictures has got to be a real picture.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Okay, But you know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna
fly my drone over it, over the mess.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yes that's right.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Well, now, any are you interview using any Campbell's soup
products to go along with you?
Speaker 3 (06:04):
No, this is an outrage and outrage another attacker. What
are they gonna do next? Go after the inventor of
the McRib This is an outrage. I don't know if
any of you saw this, but Campbell's soup a great
American institution was attacked by a whistleblower lawsuit someone who
worked at Campbell's assuing his boss, saying that the boss
(06:25):
said that the food was not fit except for poor
people and used genetically modified meat for the chicken.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
This isn't now.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
I consume massive quantities of campbell soups with my mcribs,
and this is just another blatant lie by the enemies
of the republic.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
Ingredient. Sometime, I can't even imagine actually putting something made
by Campbell's soup into my body. To be honest with you,
last night, I'll but not campbell soup last night. For years,
since I was a kid, I've made a beef strogan
off with you know, usually New York strip but and
(07:09):
the base of it was always Campbell's mushroom soup. Anyway,
I made it last night with entirely clean ingredients from scratch,
and it was wonderful. You don't need campbell soup. You
don't need Cambell soup in your green bean kass role. So,
just just in case anybody had any questions out there,
it's possible to do all of those things without buying
(07:31):
a can of poison.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
I have actually been in a Campbell soup factory. You know,
there was one John maybe it's still there in Oakland.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
What lucky meat they didn't give me.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
They didn't give me.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
And if you had my chicken soup, you'd never eat
another chicken soup again.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Mmm. Yeah, I make a pretty good chicky.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Was every house having chicken soup laced with vodka crust,
I would powerfully die of poison, for sure.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
I never thought of that. Vibe could get crust to
make a chicken pop pie. There you go.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
And by the way, while we're on the subject of cuisine,
before we get off of the something maybe more serious.
I think comment of the week Jon is from I
forget who was now, but somebody who said, why isn't
the McRib called the pig mac? Which I think it's
a we should agitate for that. I think the pig mac,
it should be the pig mac.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
But maybe they could just have a different pig product
and call it the pig mac because the McRib is
kind of iconic, you know, so they could maybe make
a pork well, they could call the the the breakfast sandwich.
What's is called mc riddled egg McMuffin. That's it. They
could make the egg McMuffin a pig McMuffin.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah, okay, it's not bad. The sausage and the egg
McMuffin is really good.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Hey, I got something to show. Sorry, John, you have
an itinerary, itinerary, an agenda for us. But but go
ahead and you have something to show if I can
find it here?
Speaker 1 (09:01):
What did I do?
Speaker 4 (09:01):
Well, you're looking. I want to point out to all
of our listeners that some of us take seriously the
fact that this is a three whiskey happy hour and
are actually in the middle of the afternoon when we're
actually taping this drinking whiskey in the form of an
Irish whiskey.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
So yeah, okay, apprecia.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
So you know we're going to talk more about them. Well,
this is I'll ascribe it for listeners, and I think
I think our livestream viewers.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Can see this.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
You know I talked about I think I mentioned briefly
in passing in our discussion of the you know a
few days ago, if Gordon would the declaration all the
rest of that that in nineteen seventy six you had
the People's Bicentennial Commission, which is this left wing effort
to attack the bi centennial.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Of the Declaration.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
And you know back then, Lo and behold, I discovered
this morning trolling around looking for something that is Senate
Judiciary Committee, and that's what you see on the screen
here held hearings. Actually was there subcommittee on Internal Security,
which I love. It was later abolished under President Carter.
So this hearings from nineth teen seventy six in March,
and I've just skimmed through it, but it looks delicious
(10:04):
because it's a sustained attack by the committee on this
left wing group, and it talks about all the propaganda
they're putting out, all the distortions that they're making of
the Declaration in the American Founding. And the point is,
and I think I will write this up and maybe
more than once, the point is is that almost everything
that they say in this hearing, this is a Democratic Senate.
Right Democrats ran the Senate in that year. All the
(10:26):
things they're saying now are artificial policy of America's public
schools and the theme of the New York Times sixteen
nineteen project, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
So the point is, at least.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Back in nineteen seventy six, even Democrats still have their
heads on straight about left winging attacks on the founding
of the country. And now we're going to sit back
and listen to all the Democrats spout the stuff that
once upon it to Okay, you get the point. I
think this is going to be fun. Maybe after I
find some excerpts, we can bring it up in the
future episodes. But that's my discovery of the day.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
So Johnson, since we're now jolly co authors, we should
actually write a paper on the history of that subcommittee,
because there's this long, sort of tumultuous back and forth
between the Executive and the Congress about the kinds of
(11:16):
about money that was appropriated for the executive branch to
carry out internal security operations, including about the Pinkertons, and
it's just crazy how they go back and forth. And
it is true that Carter finally abolished it, and now
of course nobody watches over any of our internal security apparatus.
But anyway, sorry, I know that's a topic near and
(11:39):
dear to.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Your heart, internal security or committee. But Lucretian I did
do a piece together that was up on the Civitas
website on Monday where we tried to in the course
of answering a article by Richard Epstein tried to draw
distinction between conservative and role or leftist brands of populism.
(12:04):
And I hope everybody had a chance to read it,
and we can.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
I think we can.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Discuss it further if people wish to. But why don't
we turn to the first topic at him? The news
just broke this afternoon that the prosecutor, a prosecutor in Georgia,
decided to dismiss the case. That it seems like so
long ago, but it was just really a year ago,
(12:30):
just a little bit over a year ago. Last summer,
we were riveted by the trial testimony involving Fanny Willis,
Lucretia's favorite prosecutor, into her into a claim that that
President Trump and his advisors, including one John Eastman, a
(12:53):
friend of ours, had tried to steal the twenty twenty
election and violation of Georgia law. And you might remember
that it turned out that this special prosecutor, who was
brought in by Fanny Willis, who is the district attorney
in the Atlanta area, had had or was having some
(13:15):
kind of personal relationship with the DA. This was used
as grounds to try to disqualify the whole investigation. The
case was taken away from Fanny Willis by a Georgia
body that oversees prosecutions and reassigned to this prosecutor, who
issued today the declaration that the case should be dismissed.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
He gave two.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Reasons, One that reasonable minds could differ over the infamous
phone call between candidate Trump and Georgia Secretary of State
Brad Raefisberger that said something along the lines of if
you've got to find me one hundred and ten thousand votes,
and then second that President Trump won the election in
twenty twenty four, is now the president and any prosper
(14:00):
acution would be unsuccessful. One step in there, I wonder,
why don't you begin?
Speaker 4 (14:06):
No, I just have a question for you, John. One
step in there that you didn't mention, and I wonder
if it's significant. So that guy whose name I cannot remember.
Of course, the current prosecutor dismiss the case, ended up
with the case and was actually tasked with finding another
prosecutor to take on the case, and when he couldn't
(14:27):
buy the deadline, he said, Okay, I'll take it, and
then decided that was about a week ago. If I'm
not mistaken, he said, Look, I tried, I asked everybody
I knew, and nobody wanted to take it on, and
so I'll take it on. And then about a week
later he decided there was nothing, he was not going
to go forward with it.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Which the prosecutor's name is Peter Scandalacus, Yes, with.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
A great name, Scandalacus.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
But it also seems to be, at least in my mind,
a humiliation for your favorite prosecutor, Lucretia, because she sort
of staked her whole career on this.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Thing, it seemed to me.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
And there's I would think that even though the court,
the court or the prosecutor has to say anything about this,
it seems that this personal relationship completely tubed the case.
It was remarkable if you remember last summer's trial proceedings where,
(15:31):
for example, President Trump's lawyer said something along the lines of, well,
we have the locational data from your cell phone showing
you outside her house at two a m.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
And he said something along the line what were you doing?
Speaker 3 (15:45):
And he says, I don't remember what you might have
been doing. I like to drive around at night, so.
Speaker 4 (15:53):
Let me just one off kind of topic that we've
discussed once or twice before. At the risk, at the
risk of sounding i'll be honest with you racist, I'm
going to say this anyway, that there seems to be
among a very small subset of blacks in public service
(16:13):
this this attitude of entitlement that and we've just seen
about four or five different examples of it in the
last week or so. You know, the congresswoman who accepted
five million dollars and the stuff going on in Minnesota,
and there's just this sense and I blame I blame
(16:35):
Black Lives Matters, who's also the leaders of which are
also accused of quite a bit of wrongdoing and fraud
and so forth, that the pendulum swung so far in
the direction of we're not going to be racist, We're
not going to look twice at somebody who's you know,
(16:57):
who's black and and in a position of power, that
there was a sense of entitlement. You see it in
Jasmine Crockett all the time. What's the reason that X happened?
It's racism, you know, And she can just be an
idiot day after day after day, but if you say
anything about it's racism. So I actually think that the
best thing that could happen would be for some of
(17:17):
these people who carried on in ways that were fraudulent
or betrayed the public trust really to get the book
thrown at them, so that the good people out there,
of any race or color will understand that the laws
apply equally, and they won't be you know, they won't
be Fanny Willis thinking she can sleep with her chief prosecutor,
(17:39):
go on vacation, spend, you know, do all the things
that she's accused of doing, and still get away with
it and still be a you know, a public Official's
that's my takeaway from that. To believe it or not,
she went after Trump, I get it, and that makes
it important. But she's one of a kind out there
that just seems to be popping up everywhere. I don't know,
(18:00):
am I going to get us kicked off the the Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:04):
I mean, because I don't know whether the rate of
dumb corrupt politicians is higher among blacks than whites. I mean,
there's plenty of dumb white corrupt politicians too great.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
I don't know if it's anything.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Now you could say which I would, I would say
about Asian politicians as I would hold people from my
own culture to a higher standard than dumb white politicians.
I want them to be better, not worse or the same.
And I would every ethnic I would, I would.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I would think.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Black voters want the black officials to hold themselves to
a higher ethical standard than what they see.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
And but I think the opposite has been true.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
I just don't know if it's factually true. You have
a different rate.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Well, well, so, first of all, I mean I always
thought the Willis prosecution, even if you even if you
knew there wasn't succeed if it kept Donald Trump from
running again and re being re elected to the presidency,
Wills could reasonably assume that she'd be rewarded by Biden
or a successor Kambala Harris with a judge ship or something,
(19:12):
a federal judge ship or some federal job. So I think,
you know, just being part of a political machine can
explain why she went about it. Now, Lucretia's point, I mean,
we have heard over the years a parallel argument that
you know, when during some of the Black Lives Matter riot,
it's only riots before that you've heard. Well, actually, Maxine
Waters in LA in nineteen ninety two, saying this is
(19:34):
an insurrection against the oppressive regime and be you know,
any looting, Well, that's just reparations, you know, defact of reparations.
So you can find that mentality out there. And by
the way, Maxine Waters implicated many times in you know
sweetheart deals for certain kinds of bank treatment for her husband.
I forget the exact details, but the question you don't
want to ask. I think lucretia is I would want
(19:54):
to have some. And I'm surprised somebody like Steve Saylor
hasn't done this, is find some actual statistic so we know.
For example, John mentions why politicians Lyndon Johnson got a
lot of sweetheart radio licenses he ended up with very
rich man having only been in elected office his whole life.
How did that happen? Well, the usual kinds of favoritism
and you know, petty corruption that goes on in politics
(20:15):
on a wide scale. Is the proportion higher among black politicians?
I don't know. I mean, you know, I could think
of all kinds of examples long before Black Lives Matter
comes along five years ago. Like I just spad a
long review of a biography of why he goes Charles Diggs,
wasn't he the congressman from Detroit, well regarded for having
(20:36):
actually being a real legislator. You know, he actually worked
on passing laws, unlike a lot of grand standing politicians do.
And yet he ended up going to prisident because he
was exacting kickbacks from his office staff. Right, he'd spend
his whole budget on you know, hiring staff and then
require them all to kick back a portion of their
salaries to him personally. Right, So you know, I don't know.
(20:56):
It does seem that there are among some people who
were in resentful ideologies who think that the political process
is something to be exploited. Does that make it worse
than the mafia?
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Or at least defend myself for a second, I'm just
saying throwing let's throw in hispanics too. Let's listen to
forget Sener to mean Mendez. Oh my god, yes, let's
get the Hispanics.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
I am actually not making a fame of numbers.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
Do they violate the Declaration of Independence? Promise that all
men are created equal and all politicians are equally corrupt
without regard to their that I would.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Be very willing to say, but it does all I'm
saying is since the Black Liudge Matters movement, I'm not
looking past away because you can find corruption now and
everywhere in the past. What I'm saying is in the
last call it six months, Lisa Cook, Fanny Willis, Letitia James,
(21:51):
the again the Black Lives Matters, a woman who I
can't be bothered to remember her name, the congresswoman who
took you know, got five million dollars instead of fifty
thousand dollars and and spent and hit it all. And
you know there's there's actually but they've all been recent,
like in the last few months. Is it because Trump is?
(22:12):
This is why I was thinking about it. There was
an article about how Trump is going after black women,
but every single one of the black women that this
you know, sympathetic to them article pulled up was actually,
you know, pretty much clearly guilty, just like you know,
Letitia James seems to be because I know we're going
to get to her, clearly guilty of committing mortgage fraud.
(22:33):
Yet it's all being they're they're hoping that the entire
thing can be overlooked and that all the case is
ultimately dismissed by the left. Because you can't go after
women like that. You can't go after people who are
persecuted by Donald Trump, you know, And so that that
was my point. I'm really not accusing blacks or black
(22:56):
women or anybody else of being more corrupt simply speaking
than anybody else. Like you say, John, we should hold
them all to a higher standard, not just your Asian buddies.
It's not a comment about some genetic makeup. It's a
comment about the environment that has allowed a certain licentiousness
(23:18):
to happen among certain politicians who think that they will
not be held to account. Right, that's what and that
includes Menendez. Of course he never think the argument anybody
get in the argument you could make is that.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Because of the way the Voting Rights Act has been
used to create, right the black safe seats, that you
have a situation where several many of these congressmen and
are not in competitive districts, and they seem to have
their seats for decades, and then they abuse their power
because they don't have to run competitive elections. And maybe
that's going to end after the Supreme Court term in
(23:55):
the Calilite case, when the Court starts to say you
can't use racial trying to districts. Maybe that's really I
think that's going rather than anything about race per se.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Actually, go ahead, Steve so got to say, there actually
is pretty good data that shows that one party rule
or you know, safe seats like you put in John,
you can't have a statistically higher rate of corruption. Precisely
for the way you put it, it doesn't matter where
Chicago or wats or wherever, right, and that.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
The Voting Rights Act has been used by both parties
to try to create a lot of safe seats for
black politicians. It could have been white politicians who are
at the advantage of the v r A two and
that would have had the same effect.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
But it's the misuse of civil rights law that produces this.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
It sometimes does actually white politicians, because in order to
draw safe black seats, you end up drawing safe white
seats and whatever whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Well, what I thought you were going to say, Lucretia,
was that this case shows the final failure of the
law fair campaign against President Trump, because I believe this
is the latter, this was the last ongoing case against
President Trump. All it just shows their complete failure.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
And I have to say.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
I'm thinking about the New York case is not really over.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
I think the New York case was ended by the judge.
There's still I think there was still this lingering question
whether it could be restarted after he left office.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
But we're talking about the prosecution by Alvin Bragg.
Speaker 4 (25:29):
The felonies.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Ye, yeah, it has been was dismissed.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
The civil cases are still going on, the defamation cases
and the civil judgments.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
There's still the case about the.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
Alleged mortgage civil mortgage fraud that Leticia James brought that's
still going on at the damages stage on appeal.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
That's not over.
Speaker 3 (25:51):
But the appeals Court made it seem quite strongly that
they are going to reduce, if not reverse the damages
award entirely. But the one point is going to make
was that this really showed that these criminal cases were
deeply flawed and everybody knew it at the time. And still,
as Steve was saying, they were used to try to
(26:12):
drive Trump out of the election, try to drive them out.
And so now people are complaining about Trump's use of
prosecution to strike back at these people. I agree several
of these cases have a lot of problems. We're going
to talk about a second. But again, how do you
get lawfare to stop if you're not willing to retaliate
(26:33):
against its originators?
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Right?
Speaker 3 (26:36):
The Republicans did not start this, The Democrats started in
cases what exactly like this case, like Fanny Willis's case,
And so how do you get them to stop the
next Fanny Willis could come along? What are we going
to do to stop her from ever bringing a case like.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
If the next Fanny Willis came along and didn't didn't
commit all of those you know, outside ethical problems, how
would this turned out? That's I mean, based on the
way you described the judge's ruling, it seems as if
just based on the facts, the facts themselves are somewhat ambiguous,
(27:12):
shall we say, But still, what if it had been
a really good, solid prosecutor who didn't fool around and
didn't do any of those other things, didn't make comments
about I'm going to get Trump no matter, you know,
all of those things. And like the way that presumably
the Justice Department is having to go after Trump's enemies,
(27:32):
they're having to be a little bit less open about
how much they're going after Trump's enemies, I would think
because anyway that's my question. Do you think it would
have gone forward or is his explanation controlling here about
why he didn't push it.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
I mean, ultimately, I thought that the case should have
been preempted because it's an obvious effort to interfere with
a federal election. But they never got to that stage
because of the disqualification.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Of Fenny Well.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
There as a series of other issues that would have
come up, and one of them would have been, can
you use state prosecution basically try to affect a federal
election with the outcome of the federal election?
Speaker 4 (28:12):
Remember how many of those.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Biggership it would just din't get to it.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
I'm sorry, I'm just going to say. I was thinking
about Colorado and how many attempts there were at the
state level, and we did get a ruling from the
Supreme Court overturning the Colorado case, which might have been
somewhat applicable to sign a.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Sign of what the Supreme Court might have defended in
this case.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Okay, So, Steve, did you want to make a.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Still thinking about the popovers you're going to stuff into
your god for saken Turkey.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Presidents. I had to put up with you cretins and
Philistines about everything donut.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
So let's turn to Steve. I mean for your thoughts
on the other prosecution and indictments that were dismissed, which
was we just had news of the Komy prosecution and
the prosecution of lets James being dismissed. In this case,
the court never reached them bar Remember Jim Comy is
(29:18):
being prosecuted for lying to Congress about whether he authorized
the leak of the whole investigation into Hillary Clinton. This
said involves back obviously in the twenty sixteen election. The
same prosecutor also brought the mortgage fraud my mortgage fraud.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Case against Letitia James.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
The reason they're connected is that's the same US attorney,
Lindsay Halligan, who was one of President Trump's personal attorneys,
was appointed to be the US attorney, that's the top
federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia to bring these cases, which
she did. She went to the grand jury, got them
only after the previous US attorney who have been appointed
(30:04):
by Trump had refused.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
And there's this statue. I'm sorry if it's complicated, because
it is complicated.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
But the statute says that someone can be put into
the job temporarily for one hundred and twenty days, and
then after that time lapses, the district court.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
Just gets to appoint the US attorney.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
So the person Halligan replaced went through that process, had
been temporarily appointed, did the hundred twenty days appointed? And
so so the question really was could Halligan be appointed
for a new one hundred and twenty days? And the
court here said no, you can't, and so anything. Now,
(30:46):
the thing is that this isn't, weirdly a creative problem
of Halligan's creation, because she chose herself to bring the charges.
She's the one who signed the indictment. There's no other
prosecutors who sign the dictment. So her legality, you know,
whether rises or falls, the prosecution follows. And then second,
(31:07):
she did it on I think the day before the
statute of limitations had run on Comey's conduct, which means
that you're gambling if her, if there was some flaw
in what she did, he might get off completely, because
now recharging him at this point might be outside the
statute of limitations. Steve, let me ask you, does this
(31:29):
sound like the adults are running are in the room here?
This sounds like some kind of Keystone Coppish running of
prosecutions against some pretty serious major figures. And does this
harm Donald Trump by seeing these two efforts to get
two of his pursuers.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
Fail this way.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Well, see, now I get to use the line lucretia
usually uses, John John, you're reading too much from the
Washington Post and National Review, which I did a National
Review in an article saying, you know, the gang couldn't
indict straight our pal Anie McCarthy.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
I think, right.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
I love Andy, but you know he's too conventional for
my take, wrong on everything.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
So no, I won't say that.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Let's leave that as well. Now, now let's stay on
point here. I shouldn't have said that I knew. I
knew that was lucretie of bait. Look, I mean, yeah,
it would be better if they had gotten her properly confirmed.
It sounds like this is a technicality. Really that doesn't.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
All right?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
So I want to show you one more thing that
I'll explain to listeners. I think the broader story here
is democratic obstructionism is succeeding, and that is why this
has happened. So here's a chart that'll describe it for listeners.
This is a chart of confirmation delays going back to
Reagan for the first two hundred days. We're beyond twohundred
(32:46):
days now. But the point is is that, uh, the
obstruction of a prompt executive branch nomination executive branch nominations, right,
and you know, you see a few delays from Reagan
through Obama and Trump one it starts to take off.
The Republicans did it some to Biden, but Trump too.
Democrats are blocking and slowing down everything as much as
(33:07):
they possibly can, and that means confirmations.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
For all kinds of jobs.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
I'll bet the Justice Department is high on that list,
by the way. You know, on the Ricochet podcast a
week ago, we had Harme Dilon on who said two
thirds of the career lawyers and the Civil Rights Division
have quit. I say, congratulations, When are you gonna get
the other third to quit? But then she said, but
we're shorthanded throughout the entire Justice Department, right, And so
I think that's the story that's not being reported.
Speaker 4 (33:34):
People. Sorry, Steve, Do all those people have to be
confirmed at the lower levels that she's talking about?
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Yeah, I think so, well, not the career people. No,
that's true, ye defin, but you know a lot of
throughout the the schedule see appointees, which you know, John,
you were right, and when you're a legal counsel, right,
that's all Senate confirmation and you need those people too
because you don't just hire lawyers off the street and
so forth. Anyway, So anyway, I think that is the
(34:01):
subtext here is that this is all part of a
plan of Democrats that is joined considerable success. And the
way the meeting he's going to report it as well, Gosh,
I just can't think do things right. I think you
mentioned a key point, John, I think, which is there's
a statute of limitations running on these things, so they
need to get these cases filed. And so that's another
reason why maybe you cut corners if you think that's
(34:23):
what's happening.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
So plus the I mean Trump made a mistake. I'll
accuse him of Keystone coppery with the appointing of the
Eric guy to begin with, because that guy is just
you know, deep in the swamp. And it turns out
I'm going to forget what it is, but it's like
his father in law is or mother whoever it was,
he's related to the judge that decided that the prosecutor
(34:49):
was not duly appointed. I have a deeper question for you.
It goes back to something we keep talking about, John.
How is it that it's not a violation of the
separation of powers to have a statute whereby the judge's
name the prosecutor.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Yeah, you would think it was, But there's this. It
is in the appointments clause. Strangely really, Yeah, if you
go look, if you look at an article two, look
at the appointment's clause. It allows for the appointment of
inferior The listeners can't see this, but Steve and are
early looking for their costal test.
Speaker 4 (35:31):
Well, it's not that I don't believe you. I just
wanted to see exactly how said he.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Was shuffling with various popover recipes and can't find his
But it says it's an article too, and I'm and listeners,
I'm just quoting from memory.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
So this is the most impressive.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
But I believe it says that inferior officers can be
appointed by the heads of departments, by the President, heads
of departments, or by the courts, as.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
Directed by law. And this came up.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
And the reason I remember this is because it came
up in Morrison versus Olsen, because recall that the Special
Council of the Old Days who prosecuted ted Olsen and
who investigated reg and investigative Bush, was appointed by a
special court, and the Supreme Court upheld that in Morrison
versus Olsen. So it's a weird. Otherwise, you're quite right, Lucreti.
(36:23):
Your instinct was, or how can the courts be involved
at all with appointing a prosecutor?
Speaker 1 (36:28):
Seems wrong?
Speaker 3 (36:29):
But actually the Constitution would allow Congress to vest the
appointment of lots of inferior officers into the courts, which
actually the nice thing I always say about this, It
really shows how the Framers did not expect there to
be large federal bureaucracies.
Speaker 4 (36:46):
Because is that an element Let me put you on
the spot, John, can you give me a check and
balance element to why they would have done that? In
other words, you know, thinking about why would they do that?
But Hamilton says that this is a changerous branch.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
Yeah, I mean this is discussed just a little bit
in this Morrison versus also in case which I think
was generally wrong because it upheld the DC Circuit appointing
the special prosecutor but I think the idea was with
the transportation and communications back then being so slow that
you would need to have the federal prosecutor appointed, and
(37:25):
suppose someone died or resigned, you couldn't have like a
month while the news went to Washington and then the
president reappointed and then another month back. So it was
a provision to allow the district courts to keep the
criminal justice system at work.
Speaker 1 (37:39):
That's the I think that's the reason.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
Yeah, that makes sense, but I don't think it takes
away from your basic point, Lucretia, was that the problem
was all the appointment of the predecessor to Halligan, and
that was a big mess. And then this guy Siebert
is his name, refused to indict who the President ordered
him to.
Speaker 1 (37:59):
Indict, and he was removed from office.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
I don't know if Halligan was the best choice. She
She's never done criminal law, never done indictment, never done
a criminal trial. As far as I I mean, I
think the last time I heard he of her was
when she screwed up the search of mar A Lago
and was the personal Trump's personal lawyer on the scene
for that. So it's not a distinguished career. And I
(38:21):
do think It's an example of incompetence by the Trump
Justice Department to have had this time.
Speaker 1 (38:27):
It's embarrassing. Well, let me just let me all kinds
of other problems.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
Even beyond this, Remember, I mean there you could go on.
There's apparently the grand jury didn't sign the final docum,
the grand jury didn't actually see the final indictment, which
is also what it could result in being thrown now
and then. I don't think you can win the case
against Komy. It's just too hard. You're not supposed to
indict people where you can't. You don't, you don't believe
you're gonna win the case.
Speaker 4 (38:50):
But all I'll say in Trump's defense for just a moment,
is that he the first term, he surrounded himself with
very well respected establishment types who knew the ropes and
did all of those things, and they turned out to
be massively disloyal to him. And I guess, if you know,
(39:14):
I'm not really making excuses so much as maybe just
an explanation. If I'm Trump, maybe I'd just rather put
people in the office that I know are going to
be loyal to me, rather than that are you know,
the as you put it, I would hire Miguel Estrata
or Abby Lowell to be my attorney because but but
if you're Trump, maybe you just want people who will
(39:36):
who will be loyal And I'm just throwing it out there.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
Sorry, Well, I think, well, it's not it's not so
much like Steve well It. Loyalty is one thing, and
that's important. I mean, you know, Nixon said that was
his big mistake in the point loyalists. But I think
there's another reason, which is the people Lucretian mentions were
in the first term were very conventional Republican, and so
many the people he appointed where people you'd expect any
Republican presidency. So I'm thinking when Churchill became Prime Minister
(40:03):
in you know, May nineteen forty, he was pretty disgusted
with the government establishment that had been sluggish about prosecuting
the war that had been going on for what eight
months to no effect, and then plus getting him to
that point, and you know, building supplies very slowly, and
so he said he put on a memo saying, I
want unconventional people appointed as senior positions, people who would
(40:26):
normally not be part of the British establishment. I want
odd balls. And he got some odd balls too. They
weren't all successful appointees. But the point is if you
want to shake if you really want to shake things up,
which Trump clearly wants to do more so than ever,
you can't use the conventional people. You're going to have
to appoint a lot. That's why you have hag Seth
at the Defense Department instead of the people he had
(40:47):
the first term, exapt Kennedy instead of what Price and
and alex As are at HHS. So you know, he's
doing that model, and I think that makes some sense
as a general matter, even though in our government it's
going to lead to a lot of i'll say disasters,
like we see this not a disaster, but it is
embarrassing and it is a problem.
Speaker 3 (41:05):
Yeah, well it's I think you're of course, the president
has the right to appoint loyalists, but at some point
loyalty bumps up against what can be done, like we'll
connect and when a prosecutor tells Trump, look, we can't
indict them, we can't.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Win the case. Yes, but it's not just I would
think it would go on with.
Speaker 3 (41:30):
Science or mediciner engineering. They're just the presidence, of course
wants some political outcome, but some of them are not possible. Right,
Like you met John officials Deember.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
You're going to lose the case. You cannot win a prosecution.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Well, hold on a minute, John, and I'm going to
be the cynical bare knuckle Paul here and say that
may be true, uh is considered in the abstract. On
the other hand, what's the old saying about how the
process is the punishment? And if you're an advocate of
game theory, as you are in these matters, then you're
gonna want to die anyway because you want him have
to spend a million dollars on legal feasts to get
(42:03):
back at him for his bad behavior, which is.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
Why the judge's decision was such a victory for him,
because he didn't have to do any of that by
dismissing the case. One last question, because I know you
want to move on, but I do want to ask
my resident expert. I listened to Jonathan Turley on this
subject and really was probably more confused after it than
I was before.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
So this makes you the average response.
Speaker 1 (42:29):
Because I only.
Speaker 4 (42:30):
Listened to Jonathan truly when I don't have access direct
access to you, John Sue. But his argument was this
doesn't mean the end of the case. But he didn't provide,
in my opinion, the really solid explanation.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
There is a maybe I didn't get it.
Speaker 3 (42:47):
No, no, no, no, he should have mentioned there's a
statute which says that if you if indictment is dismissed
essentially for procedural faults, not because of the substance of
the charges for proceding regions, that the test Department I
think has sixty days or maybe it's six months. I
think it's six months to seek a new indictment, even
(43:08):
if the statute of limitations would have otherwise run. So
there's a statute that Congress has passed to take care
of examples exactly like this.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
So they can reindict.
Speaker 3 (43:19):
They have to go back to a grand jury, get
a grand jury to agree, but it's still going to
be tough to get any prosecutor to do it. And
just having looked at it closely, I don't think the case.
I don't think the department can win, and so they
normally as a matter of policy, wouldn't bring the case.
Speaker 4 (43:37):
And then we go back to you can beat the
rap that you can't beat the ride, right, Steve, Yeah,
something like that. Yeah, So I have one quick question.
It's not on the agenda, but it came up since
and I have to ask about it. Really is, It's
all along the same line. So another judge, yet another judge.
At the local level. In Minneapolis, a jury unanimously convicted
(43:58):
a Somali man of stealing seven point two million dollars
worth of taxpayer money. The jury deliberated, et cetera, and
the judge overturned their verdict.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
Really, yeah, and almost impossible.
Speaker 4 (44:14):
That's what that's that's what I thought. She said something
I was looking for. Sorry, I was looking forward. I
won't waste any more time with it, but I wanted
to hear that because jurors are furious.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
No, So a judge is only that I don't know
this case.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
I've heard about your broader issue of fraud, fraud in
the Somali immigrant community of welfare programs that are taking
place in Minnesota, and I imagine I assumed that Department
of Justice and h is launching investigation.
Speaker 1 (44:45):
But a judge is.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
Only allowed to override the verdict of a jury if
the judge finds that no reasonable juror could have concluded
guilt based on all the evidence.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
That is such.
Speaker 3 (45:00):
I mean, I don't even I can't remember recently ever
reading of a judge reaching out to find because it means,
like the finding is every single juror had to be
irration totally irrational to find that this person was guilty.
It is very, very It happens a lot more on
TV in the movies than ever in real life. Now
(45:21):
you see more often judges changing, you know, giving narrow
sentences things like that if they really disagreed with the
jury's verdict, but to actually override the verdict is almost
unheard of.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Yeah, so that's amazing.
Speaker 3 (45:34):
But anyway, we'll figure out more about that and report
back on the next episode where don't want to tax
our listeners too much. On Thanksgiving Day, I hope all
of you have been listening to this while you've been
cooking your turkey, which means that if you're following Steve's example,
you've got another four or five hours ahead of you,
so you're listening to other podcasts. But if you're finding
(45:57):
the Lucretia example, you're probably just about finished. And so
let's go to our final Thanksgiving question, which is, uh, Steve.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
What do you have to be thankful for?
Speaker 3 (46:10):
Well?
Speaker 2 (46:10):
I have two things I'm thankful for. First of all, John,
I am thankful for the Clean Air Act because.
Speaker 3 (46:15):
Oh my god, oh my god, you have ruined Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
America has been ruined.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
Well, this is why. This is why I am thankful for.
It gives me an easy way to annoy you unfailingly
every time works every time. And we do have a
couple of listeners who every week say they want more
Cleaner Act content.
Speaker 1 (46:37):
So now I am obliged.
Speaker 4 (46:39):
But he doesn't understand sarcasm.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
We now know, because of the the Twitter locational feature
that both of these people who ask for this information
are from Russia but run Indonesia.
Speaker 2 (46:51):
I said, I am too. The serious thing. This is
a serious point that we don't need to spend time
getting into. But I am thankful that the United States
still has trial by jury. I've just been reading the
news the last few days that Britain wants to get
rid of trial by jury for a clubs of the
lower level of crimes. They say, but you can see
where this is going, and you know, jury's get things
(47:13):
wrong in this country, especially a DC jury is going
to rule against the Republican and rule in favor of
a Democrat. Every time.
Speaker 1 (47:19):
It seems like.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
But I think it's not a bad thing that prosecutors
have to say, you know, well the jury by this
or that argument. It is I've kind of forgotten now
about you know, how juris arose but doesn't go back
seven eight hundred years and more, John to check, you're
right to you know, it's against the arbitrary power of
the nobles.
Speaker 1 (47:39):
In the crown.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
It was, you know, one of the long chain of
things that lead us to democracy. And so when you
have things like the International Criminal Court that has no
trial by jury, or lots of these international bodies, to
hear that Britain is thinking of getting rid of jury
trials for any class of crime as anything, a very
bad sign of many bad signs coming out of England.
And thank goodness that we are not following that bad idea.
Speaker 4 (48:01):
And thank goodness that we decided not to continue to
do that in seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 2 (48:06):
Right, Yeah, well it was one of the bill and
it was one of the bill of particulars against the
King in the enumeration. The declaration was denying us to
mine a trial by jury. It's obviously very important to uh,
the you know that was in that document that that
particular right was enshrined and included.
Speaker 3 (48:24):
So so for the listeners like me who still wonder
how Steeves's brain works. The two things he's thankful for
are trial by jury and the Clean Air Act. Explained
to me how those two things in one brain at
the same time. Macritia, what are you thankful for this?
Speaker 4 (48:40):
I'm gonna be serious for a moment, to try not
to choke or anything. I you know, I'm Catholic. I
have a wonderful senior pastor at my parish who gives
an a case this homily occasionally about how if you
live where I live in Coaches County, he said, you
(49:01):
have so much to be thankful for. And the way
he would describe it in the Humley as he would say,
imagine that you put every person in the world and
all the blessings that they enjoyed in a big, long line.
If you are from America, you are in the top
quarter of a percentile of the whole world in terms
(49:22):
of blessings material and otherwise. You know the fact that
you have freedom of religion. I for one, I'm not
really happy with my pope these days. I haven't been
for some time. But you know what, I haven't been
killed once for being Catholic, nor have I seen any
you know, in my classrooms where kids are kidnapped. So
freedom of religion is an amazing thing and we still
(49:44):
have it in the United States. I'm thankful for that.
Speaker 1 (49:47):
But I'm just.
Speaker 4 (49:47):
I'm thankful for all the blessings that we as Americans enjoy,
and I'm very fortunate. I'm thankful for my family. I'm
thankful I'm not a Muslim because I sure love my dog,
So you don't.
Speaker 3 (50:04):
Know, that's all.
Speaker 4 (50:08):
I don't eat my dog. No dogs are considered how
do you say it, harum something awful. And so this
has been all over social media lately, all of these ugly,
stupid barbarian and mom saying you need to get rid
(50:29):
of your dog, you need to beat your wife to death,
you know that sort of thing. Anyway, So I'm thankful
that I'm not a Muslim because I love Kaiser and
my cat too. Sorry, John, I'm just And I'm thankful
for the three whiskey Happy Hour because I look forward
to it and seeing you guys every week. So there
you have it, and I'm thankful that I'm a better
cook than Steve.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
The Lucretia household is no doubt thankful for that as
a family, and we send our thoughts and good wishes
out to Alison Hayward, who has.
Speaker 1 (51:03):
To eat this god awful meal that Steve has it.
Speaker 3 (51:06):
I don't pop over its stuffing in flying turkeys rotating.
Speaker 1 (51:11):
God knows what else is going on there. So I thought.
Speaker 3 (51:16):
That I would for Thanksgiving read a small part of
President Washington's oh First Thanksgiving Proclamation of seventeen eighty nine,
and he said that we should join together in our
and to let's see, we should unite in giving thanks
(51:38):
to God for his care and kind care and protection
of the people of this country previous to their becoming
a nation, for this signal and manifold mercies, and the
favorable interpositions of His providence, which primes has really just
cost benefit analysis, which we experienced in the course and
conclusion of the late War, for the great degree of tranquility, union,
(52:01):
and plenty which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable
and rational, rational manner in which we have been enabled
to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness,
and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the
civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and
(52:22):
the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge,
and in general, for all the great and various favors
which he have been pleased to confer upon us.
Speaker 2 (52:32):
Amen, not bad.
Speaker 3 (52:34):
I'm not bad for a guy who didn't write all
that much.
Speaker 4 (52:39):
So I do have a few. I hate to change
the mood because that was very nice. A few Babylon
bees though, that are just absolutely perfect.
Speaker 2 (52:47):
One.
Speaker 4 (52:48):
Back to an earlier topic, This one's for you John
Trump's strategy of hiring lawyers based on bus sides not
working as well as anticipated.
Speaker 2 (52:57):
I wasn't going to say that about what's your name,
but yes.
Speaker 4 (53:00):
Hmm, sorry, family holding it. This one's for you, Steve,
family holding out hope. This will finally be Thanksgiving where
turkey explodes in epic fireball. By the way, we didn't
even mention. I got a good laugh out of it,
the whole joke that Trump made about he wasn't sure
(53:22):
that the the Biden's turkeys were truly pardoned because of
the autopan right. Yeah, however that went. That was so great.
Heaven confirms people who prefer ham at Thanksgiving will not
enter the kingdom.
Speaker 3 (53:40):
Sometimes, you know, I do like a good Virginia hand,
Yeah too.
Speaker 4 (53:45):
But Virginia ham, the salty one, Yeah, oh so good.
And then as I go off to my kitchen to
make my pumpkin pike, et cetera, and my my from
scratch cranberry sauce, Mom continues long stay tradition of making
cranberry sauce.
Speaker 2 (54:02):
For no one.
Speaker 1 (54:05):
That's true. I don't like to stop gap.
Speaker 3 (54:07):
Oh I love cranberry sauce, so only the kind of
comes out of the can into that weird cylindrical shape.
Speaker 4 (54:15):
I'll send you the meme I have on that one. John,
It's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
All right.
Speaker 4 (54:19):
Listen everyone, I hope you have an absolutely lovely before
he gets to it, lovely blessed Thanksgiving and that you're
grateful for all of the wonderful things that you have,
and we hope to see you maybe even this weekend.
Speaker 3 (54:34):
Yeah right, Well, always drink your whiskey meat, buy more books,
and Steve, what latest AI concoction do you have for us?
Speaker 2 (54:45):
I asked chat GPT to do a episode fitting with
today's themes about how the podcast would treat cooking Thanksgiving. Dinner.
I'll just give you the opening banter quite long, actually
the opening banner. Host one, Look, cooking a turkey.
Speaker 1 (54:59):
Is not complicated. People act like it's a geopolitical crisis.
Speaker 2 (55:03):
It's a bird, not a treaty negotiation. Host two, Well,
some people manage to turn it into a crisis, mostly
by refusing to use a thermometer, which is culinary malpractice
and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Speaker 1 (55:16):
Post three.
Speaker 2 (55:17):
I would just like to note before we begin that
all this goes more smoothly if you pour yourself a
whiskey and listeners can decide which host studio should be
assigned to which person because Chap GPT didn't do it
for us, but I can.
Speaker 1 (55:29):
I have my suggestions.
Speaker 2 (55:31):
So that's it for this episode. We'll be back over
the weekend. I think listeners with a regular episode all
the other podcasts on Ricochet, and that's where they take
this holiday weekend off, So we want to make sure
you are not without your current podcast fair So we'll.
Speaker 4 (55:44):
Be back this moaning when out both us it.
Speaker 1 (55:48):
I'm grateful for my tones great book Cality here I'm
reading and out of my nose this morning when I
set up said I'm grateful for my back, for full
and another nine without a heart attack. Was grateful for
my baby lying next to me, for the speaceful minning.
Speaker 2 (56:10):
Nowhere else to be.
Speaker 1 (56:13):
So grateful for the sausage.
Speaker 4 (56:15):
I'm grateful for the stone, for the coffee, for the cup.
The slimmers and the road by the
Speaker 2 (56:39):
Ricochet joined the conversation.
Whiskey coming, fake me, pay the money all right?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Why think alone when you can drink it all in
with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward,
John U and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Where the laptapping live.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
It ain't you easy on the should taps, gotta give
me and let that whiskey clone. Welcome everybody to a
special Thanksgiving Day episode of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour,
where we have decided to interrupt your viewing of the
Detroit Lions and the Dallas Cloud Cowbs losing their usual
(00:59):
Thanksgiving Day games, and we're gonna get straight to it
and find out what Our co hosts, Steve Hayward, Hey,
Steve Hi, and the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Lucretia who has a real kid, who has a real
name up in the panel, but maybe she'll fix well
they've got unfixed.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Wait by the way, John Krisha fixes her name. We
are going to find out what they're doing for Thanksgiving
because I know when everybody right now when you listen
to this is having Thanksgiving dinner, you're going to be
comparing the meal before you to what are too glamorous
philosopher slash cooks. And that's where Plato went wrong. He
should not have said philosopher king should run the world.
(01:46):
He should have said philosopher cooks should run. Well, what
are two resident philosopher kirks cooks are going to do
for Thanksgiving? Steve? What do you got going on that
immense barbecue of your sitting over the California Yeah cliffs
and the Pacific Ocean.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Well, actually I'm going over the hill to pass the
robles where I'm fighting with one of my best friends,
and we're gonna row tistrie a large turkey outdoors on
a grill. Uh, because it's warm weather. Yes, yes, a
rotiss turkey. The only thing is better than you've never
if you've never thought of such a thing, John, it's
a uh yeah, it's a great way to do it.
The only better way maybe is to deep fry a turkey,
(02:25):
which I have done a couple of times. But we're
gonna rotissriy uh.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
And uh.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Then I'm also because.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
The oven in the kitchen inside the house is going
to be busy with all the other vegetables and stuff
I'm gonna make, uh, I'm gonna attempt to make for
the first time popovers on a gas grill outside because
we you know, my friend has two grills, uh, and
we're gonna wash it all down with.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
What Joslaughlin with his TV show Steve raw please save
us for these monstrosities Thanksgiving.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
Over?
Speaker 1 (03:04):
What are you going to do?
Speaker 4 (03:06):
He sends me pictures, and they always burned. I bet
when they're not burned, they're good. Though. I'll give you that.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
You're not burned.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
I have a picture of it still in my photos, Steve,
don't you ever say that? Today? I am cooking, of course,
pumpkin pies from scratch, without any like nasty old evaporated
adulterated milk as they would say in uh caroline products
(03:35):
with real cream. But here's the big thing and that
and we're wiped cream, of course, is I make my
crust with vodka, and I don't you know, all of
that obviously cooks so you don't get any taste. But
it makes butter pie crust made with vodka. It's the flakiest.
I don't even eat crust. And I'll eat this and
then people fight over it and stab each other with
(03:57):
forks to try to get more of the crust so
pumpkin pie. And then for mister Lucretia and you know
his ongoing autoimmune issues with food, I am making a
honey cinnamon cheesecake so that he can actually have something
like dessert. But when Steve mentioned that thing about vegetables,
who on earth actually eats sorry, who on Earth eats vegetables?
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Well, I don't know, man, maybe sweet potatoes.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
I don't know what they're I.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Don't charge that part.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
But the last reason that you're wrong, yes, exactly so wrong,
is because if you put a turkey on the grill,
how do you make gravy? How do you make ky bravy?
And what are you going to put on top of
your mass potatoes? And what are you going to put
on top of the star at the Lucasia household? Is
(04:46):
my stuffing made from my home sour dough, sausage, apples, cranberries,
et cetera, et cetera, that you can eat. The gravy
just makes it better. And if you don't have bravy, you.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Your efforts and culture have failed. Again, you have no imaginations.
A good American tradition, look is the best part of
the best.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Person of all, you get better stuffing in things because
you bank the coals and you put a pan below
the turkey as it wrote, as it based as it
rotates self basting that way, and you get the most
wonderful juices out of it with a smoky barbecue flavor.
Then you have lots of juice for use on your
stuffing and other side dishes.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
So there, so can I say to resolve this, we
will be having a regular episode this weekend, and so
both Steve and Lucretia are invited to post pictures episode
of the final product. And Steve, no photoshopping, Steve, no
Ai Jen, no consulting AI to have it up, shoot up,
(05:50):
no bloat.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Your pictures has got to be a real picture.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Okay, But you know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna
fly my drone over it, over the mess.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yes that's right.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Well, now, any are you interview using any Campbell's soup
products to go along with you?
Speaker 3 (06:04):
No, this is an outrage and outrage another attacker. What
are they gonna do next? Go after the inventor of
the McRib This is an outrage. I don't know if
any of you saw this, but Campbell's soup a great
American institution was attacked by a whistleblower lawsuit someone who
worked at Campbell's assuing his boss, saying that the boss
(06:25):
said that the food was not fit except for poor
people and used genetically modified meat for the chicken.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
This isn't now.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
I consume massive quantities of campbell soups with my mcribs,
and this is just another blatant lie by the enemies
of the republic.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
Ingredient. Sometime, I can't even imagine actually putting something made
by Campbell's soup into my body. To be honest with you,
last night, I'll but not campbell soup last night. For years,
since I was a kid, I've made a beef strogan
off with you know, usually New York strip but and
(07:09):
the base of it was always Campbell's mushroom soup. Anyway,
I made it last night with entirely clean ingredients from scratch,
and it was wonderful. You don't need campbell soup. You
don't need Cambell soup in your green bean kass role. So,
just just in case anybody had any questions out there,
it's possible to do all of those things without buying
(07:31):
a can of poison.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
I have actually been in a Campbell soup factory. You know,
there was one John maybe it's still there in Oakland.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
What lucky meat they didn't give me.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
They didn't give me.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
And if you had my chicken soup, you'd never eat
another chicken soup again.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Mmm. Yeah, I make a pretty good chicky.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Was every house having chicken soup laced with vodka crust,
I would powerfully die of poison, for sure.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
I never thought of that. Vibe could get crust to
make a chicken pop pie. There you go.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
And by the way, while we're on the subject of cuisine,
before we get off of the something maybe more serious.
I think comment of the week Jon is from I
forget who was now, but somebody who said, why isn't
the McRib called the pig mac? Which I think it's
a we should agitate for that. I think the pig mac,
it should be the pig mac.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
But maybe they could just have a different pig product
and call it the pig mac because the McRib is
kind of iconic, you know, so they could maybe make
a pork well, they could call the the the breakfast sandwich.
What's is called mc riddled egg McMuffin. That's it. They
could make the egg McMuffin a pig McMuffin.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah, okay, it's not bad. The sausage and the egg
McMuffin is really good.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Hey, I got something to show. Sorry, John, you have
an itinerary, itinerary, an agenda for us. But but go
ahead and you have something to show if I can
find it here?
Speaker 1 (09:01):
What did I do?
Speaker 4 (09:01):
Well, you're looking. I want to point out to all
of our listeners that some of us take seriously the
fact that this is a three whiskey happy hour and
are actually in the middle of the afternoon when we're
actually taping this drinking whiskey in the form of an
Irish whiskey.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
So yeah, okay, apprecia.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
So you know we're going to talk more about them. Well,
this is I'll ascribe it for listeners, and I think
I think our livestream viewers.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Can see this.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
You know I talked about I think I mentioned briefly
in passing in our discussion of the you know a
few days ago, if Gordon would the declaration all the
rest of that that in nineteen seventy six you had
the People's Bicentennial Commission, which is this left wing effort
to attack the bi centennial.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Of the Declaration.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
And you know back then, Lo and behold, I discovered
this morning trolling around looking for something that is Senate
Judiciary Committee, and that's what you see on the screen
here held hearings. Actually was there subcommittee on Internal Security,
which I love. It was later abolished under President Carter.
So this hearings from nineth teen seventy six in March,
and I've just skimmed through it, but it looks delicious
(10:04):
because it's a sustained attack by the committee on this
left wing group, and it talks about all the propaganda
they're putting out, all the distortions that they're making of
the Declaration in the American Founding. And the point is,
and I think I will write this up and maybe
more than once, the point is is that almost everything
that they say in this hearing, this is a Democratic Senate.
Right Democrats ran the Senate in that year. All the
(10:26):
things they're saying now are artificial policy of America's public
schools and the theme of the New York Times sixteen
nineteen project, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
So the point is, at least.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Back in nineteen seventy six, even Democrats still have their
heads on straight about left winging attacks on the founding
of the country. And now we're going to sit back
and listen to all the Democrats spout the stuff that
once upon it to Okay, you get the point. I
think this is going to be fun. Maybe after I
find some excerpts, we can bring it up in the
future episodes. But that's my discovery of the day.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
So Johnson, since we're now jolly co authors, we should
actually write a paper on the history of that subcommittee,
because there's this long, sort of tumultuous back and forth
between the Executive and the Congress about the kinds of
(11:16):
about money that was appropriated for the executive branch to
carry out internal security operations, including about the Pinkertons, and
it's just crazy how they go back and forth. And
it is true that Carter finally abolished it, and now
of course nobody watches over any of our internal security apparatus.
But anyway, sorry, I know that's a topic near and
(11:39):
dear to.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Your heart, internal security or committee. But Lucretian I did
do a piece together that was up on the Civitas
website on Monday where we tried to in the course
of answering a article by Richard Epstein tried to draw
distinction between conservative and role or leftist brands of populism.
(12:04):
And I hope everybody had a chance to read it,
and we can.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
I think we can.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Discuss it further if people wish to. But why don't
we turn to the first topic at him? The news
just broke this afternoon that the prosecutor, a prosecutor in Georgia,
decided to dismiss the case. That it seems like so
long ago, but it was just really a year ago,
(12:30):
just a little bit over a year ago. Last summer,
we were riveted by the trial testimony involving Fanny Willis,
Lucretia's favorite prosecutor, into her into a claim that that
President Trump and his advisors, including one John Eastman, a
(12:53):
friend of ours, had tried to steal the twenty twenty
election and violation of Georgia law. And you might remember
that it turned out that this special prosecutor, who was
brought in by Fanny Willis, who is the district attorney
in the Atlanta area, had had or was having some
(13:15):
kind of personal relationship with the DA. This was used
as grounds to try to disqualify the whole investigation. The
case was taken away from Fanny Willis by a Georgia
body that oversees prosecutions and reassigned to this prosecutor, who
issued today the declaration that the case should be dismissed.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
He gave two.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Reasons, One that reasonable minds could differ over the infamous
phone call between candidate Trump and Georgia Secretary of State
Brad Raefisberger that said something along the lines of if
you've got to find me one hundred and ten thousand votes,
and then second that President Trump won the election in
twenty twenty four, is now the president and any prosper
(14:00):
acution would be unsuccessful. One step in there, I wonder,
why don't you begin?
Speaker 4 (14:06):
No, I just have a question for you, John. One
step in there that you didn't mention, and I wonder
if it's significant. So that guy whose name I cannot remember.
Of course, the current prosecutor dismiss the case, ended up
with the case and was actually tasked with finding another
prosecutor to take on the case, and when he couldn't
(14:27):
buy the deadline, he said, Okay, I'll take it, and
then decided that was about a week ago. If I'm
not mistaken, he said, Look, I tried, I asked everybody
I knew, and nobody wanted to take it on, and
so I'll take it on. And then about a week
later he decided there was nothing, he was not going
to go forward with it.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Which the prosecutor's name is Peter Scandalacus, Yes, with.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
A great name, Scandalacus.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
But it also seems to be, at least in my mind,
a humiliation for your favorite prosecutor, Lucretia, because she sort
of staked her whole career on this.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Thing, it seemed to me.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
And there's I would think that even though the court,
the court or the prosecutor has to say anything about this,
it seems that this personal relationship completely tubed the case.
It was remarkable if you remember last summer's trial proceedings where,
(15:31):
for example, President Trump's lawyer said something along the lines of, well,
we have the locational data from your cell phone showing
you outside her house at two a m.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
And he said something along the line what were you doing?
Speaker 3 (15:45):
And he says, I don't remember what you might have
been doing. I like to drive around at night, so.
Speaker 4 (15:53):
Let me just one off kind of topic that we've
discussed once or twice before. At the risk, at the
risk of sounding i'll be honest with you racist, I'm
going to say this anyway, that there seems to be
among a very small subset of blacks in public service
(16:13):
this this attitude of entitlement that and we've just seen
about four or five different examples of it in the
last week or so. You know, the congresswoman who accepted
five million dollars and the stuff going on in Minnesota,
and there's just this sense and I blame I blame
(16:35):
Black Lives Matters, who's also the leaders of which are
also accused of quite a bit of wrongdoing and fraud
and so forth, that the pendulum swung so far in
the direction of we're not going to be racist, We're
not going to look twice at somebody who's you know,
(16:57):
who's black and and in a position of power, that
there was a sense of entitlement. You see it in
Jasmine Crockett all the time. What's the reason that X happened?
It's racism, you know, And she can just be an
idiot day after day after day, but if you say
anything about it's racism. So I actually think that the
best thing that could happen would be for some of
(17:17):
these people who carried on in ways that were fraudulent
or betrayed the public trust really to get the book
thrown at them, so that the good people out there,
of any race or color will understand that the laws
apply equally, and they won't be you know, they won't
be Fanny Willis thinking she can sleep with her chief prosecutor,
(17:39):
go on vacation, spend, you know, do all the things
that she's accused of doing, and still get away with
it and still be a you know, a public Official's
that's my takeaway from that. To believe it or not,
she went after Trump, I get it, and that makes
it important. But she's one of a kind out there
that just seems to be popping up everywhere. I don't know,
(18:00):
am I going to get us kicked off the the Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:04):
I mean, because I don't know whether the rate of
dumb corrupt politicians is higher among blacks than whites. I mean,
there's plenty of dumb white corrupt politicians too great.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
I don't know if it's anything.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Now you could say which I would, I would say
about Asian politicians as I would hold people from my
own culture to a higher standard than dumb white politicians.
I want them to be better, not worse or the same.
And I would every ethnic I would, I would.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I would think.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Black voters want the black officials to hold themselves to
a higher ethical standard than what they see.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
And but I think the opposite has been true.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
I just don't know if it's factually true. You have
a different rate.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Well, well, so, first of all, I mean I always
thought the Willis prosecution, even if you even if you
knew there wasn't succeed if it kept Donald Trump from
running again and re being re elected to the presidency,
Wills could reasonably assume that she'd be rewarded by Biden
or a successor Kambala Harris with a judge ship or something,
(19:12):
a federal judge ship or some federal job. So I think,
you know, just being part of a political machine can
explain why she went about it. Now, Lucretia's point, I mean,
we have heard over the years a parallel argument that
you know, when during some of the Black Lives Matter riot,
it's only riots before that you've heard. Well, actually, Maxine
Waters in LA in nineteen ninety two, saying this is
(19:34):
an insurrection against the oppressive regime and be you know,
any looting, Well, that's just reparations, you know, defact of reparations.
So you can find that mentality out there. And by
the way, Maxine Waters implicated many times in you know
sweetheart deals for certain kinds of bank treatment for her husband.
I forget the exact details, but the question you don't
want to ask. I think lucretia is I would want
(19:54):
to have some. And I'm surprised somebody like Steve Saylor
hasn't done this, is find some actual statistic so we know.
For example, John mentions why politicians Lyndon Johnson got a
lot of sweetheart radio licenses he ended up with very
rich man having only been in elected office his whole life.
How did that happen? Well, the usual kinds of favoritism
and you know, petty corruption that goes on in politics
(20:15):
on a wide scale. Is the proportion higher among black politicians?
I don't know. I mean, you know, I could think
of all kinds of examples long before Black Lives Matter
comes along five years ago. Like I just spad a
long review of a biography of why he goes Charles Diggs,
wasn't he the congressman from Detroit, well regarded for having
(20:36):
actually being a real legislator. You know, he actually worked
on passing laws, unlike a lot of grand standing politicians do.
And yet he ended up going to prisident because he
was exacting kickbacks from his office staff. Right, he'd spend
his whole budget on you know, hiring staff and then
require them all to kick back a portion of their
salaries to him personally. Right, So you know, I don't know.
(20:56):
It does seem that there are among some people who
were in resentful ideologies who think that the political process
is something to be exploited. Does that make it worse
than the mafia?
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Or at least defend myself for a second, I'm just
saying throwing let's throw in hispanics too. Let's listen to
forget Sener to mean Mendez. Oh my god, yes, let's
get the Hispanics.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
I am actually not making a fame of numbers.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
Do they violate the Declaration of Independence? Promise that all
men are created equal and all politicians are equally corrupt
without regard to their that I would.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Be very willing to say, but it does all I'm
saying is since the Black Liudge Matters movement, I'm not
looking past away because you can find corruption now and
everywhere in the past. What I'm saying is in the
last call it six months, Lisa Cook, Fanny Willis, Letitia James,
(21:51):
the again the Black Lives Matters, a woman who I
can't be bothered to remember her name, the congresswoman who
took you know, got five million dollars instead of fifty
thousand dollars and and spent and hit it all. And
you know there's there's actually but they've all been recent,
like in the last few months. Is it because Trump is?
(22:12):
This is why I was thinking about it. There was
an article about how Trump is going after black women,
but every single one of the black women that this
you know, sympathetic to them article pulled up was actually,
you know, pretty much clearly guilty, just like you know,
Letitia James seems to be because I know we're going
to get to her, clearly guilty of committing mortgage fraud.
(22:33):
Yet it's all being they're they're hoping that the entire
thing can be overlooked and that all the case is
ultimately dismissed by the left. Because you can't go after
women like that. You can't go after people who are
persecuted by Donald Trump, you know, And so that that
was my point. I'm really not accusing blacks or black
(22:56):
women or anybody else of being more corrupt simply speaking
than anybody else. Like you say, John, we should hold
them all to a higher standard, not just your Asian buddies.
It's not a comment about some genetic makeup. It's a
comment about the environment that has allowed a certain licentiousness
(23:18):
to happen among certain politicians who think that they will
not be held to account. Right, that's what and that
includes Menendez. Of course he never think the argument anybody
get in the argument you could make is that.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Because of the way the Voting Rights Act has been
used to create, right the black safe seats, that you
have a situation where several many of these congressmen and
are not in competitive districts, and they seem to have
their seats for decades, and then they abuse their power
because they don't have to run competitive elections. And maybe
that's going to end after the Supreme Court term in
(23:55):
the Calilite case, when the Court starts to say you
can't use racial trying to districts. Maybe that's really I
think that's going rather than anything about race per se.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Actually, go ahead, Steve so got to say, there actually
is pretty good data that shows that one party rule
or you know, safe seats like you put in John,
you can't have a statistically higher rate of corruption. Precisely
for the way you put it, it doesn't matter where
Chicago or wats or wherever, right, and that.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
The Voting Rights Act has been used by both parties
to try to create a lot of safe seats for
black politicians. It could have been white politicians who are
at the advantage of the v r A two and
that would have had the same effect.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
But it's the misuse of civil rights law that produces this.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
It sometimes does actually white politicians, because in order to
draw safe black seats, you end up drawing safe white
seats and whatever whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Well, what I thought you were going to say, Lucretia,
was that this case shows the final failure of the
law fair campaign against President Trump, because I believe this
is the latter, this was the last ongoing case against
President Trump. All it just shows their complete failure.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
And I have to say.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
I'm thinking about the New York case is not really over.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
I think the New York case was ended by the judge.
There's still I think there was still this lingering question
whether it could be restarted after he left office.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
But we're talking about the prosecution by Alvin Bragg.
Speaker 4 (25:29):
The felonies.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Ye, yeah, it has been was dismissed.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
The civil cases are still going on, the defamation cases
and the civil judgments.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
There's still the case about the.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
Alleged mortgage civil mortgage fraud that Leticia James brought that's
still going on at the damages stage on appeal.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
That's not over.
Speaker 3 (25:51):
But the appeals Court made it seem quite strongly that
they are going to reduce, if not reverse the damages
award entirely. But the one point is going to make
was that this really showed that these criminal cases were
deeply flawed and everybody knew it at the time. And still,
as Steve was saying, they were used to try to
(26:12):
drive Trump out of the election, try to drive them out.
And so now people are complaining about Trump's use of
prosecution to strike back at these people. I agree several
of these cases have a lot of problems. We're going
to talk about a second. But again, how do you
get lawfare to stop if you're not willing to retaliate
(26:33):
against its originators?
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Right?
Speaker 3 (26:36):
The Republicans did not start this, The Democrats started in
cases what exactly like this case, like Fanny Willis's case,
And so how do you get them to stop the
next Fanny Willis could come along? What are we going
to do to stop her from ever bringing a case like.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
If the next Fanny Willis came along and didn't didn't
commit all of those you know, outside ethical problems, how
would this turned out? That's I mean, based on the
way you described the judge's ruling, it seems as if
just based on the facts, the facts themselves are somewhat ambiguous,
(27:12):
shall we say, But still, what if it had been
a really good, solid prosecutor who didn't fool around and
didn't do any of those other things, didn't make comments
about I'm going to get Trump no matter, you know,
all of those things. And like the way that presumably
the Justice Department is having to go after Trump's enemies,
(27:32):
they're having to be a little bit less open about
how much they're going after Trump's enemies, I would think
because anyway that's my question. Do you think it would
have gone forward or is his explanation controlling here about
why he didn't push it.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
I mean, ultimately, I thought that the case should have
been preempted because it's an obvious effort to interfere with
a federal election. But they never got to that stage
because of the disqualification.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Of Fenny Well.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
There as a series of other issues that would have
come up, and one of them would have been, can
you use state prosecution basically try to affect a federal
election with the outcome of the federal election?
Speaker 4 (28:12):
Remember how many of those.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Biggership it would just din't get to it.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
I'm sorry, I'm just going to say. I was thinking
about Colorado and how many attempts there were at the
state level, and we did get a ruling from the
Supreme Court overturning the Colorado case, which might have been
somewhat applicable to sign a.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Sign of what the Supreme Court might have defended in
this case.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Okay, So, Steve, did you want to make a.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Still thinking about the popovers you're going to stuff into
your god for saken Turkey.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Presidents. I had to put up with you cretins and
Philistines about everything donut.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
So let's turn to Steve. I mean for your thoughts
on the other prosecution and indictments that were dismissed, which
was we just had news of the Komy prosecution and
the prosecution of lets James being dismissed. In this case,
the court never reached them bar Remember Jim Comy is
(29:18):
being prosecuted for lying to Congress about whether he authorized
the leak of the whole investigation into Hillary Clinton. This
said involves back obviously in the twenty sixteen election. The
same prosecutor also brought the mortgage fraud my mortgage fraud.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Case against Letitia James.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
The reason they're connected is that's the same US attorney,
Lindsay Halligan, who was one of President Trump's personal attorneys,
was appointed to be the US attorney, that's the top
federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia to bring these cases, which
she did. She went to the grand jury, got them
only after the previous US attorney who have been appointed
(30:04):
by Trump had refused.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
And there's this statue. I'm sorry if it's complicated, because
it is complicated.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
But the statute says that someone can be put into
the job temporarily for one hundred and twenty days, and
then after that time lapses, the district court.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
Just gets to appoint the US attorney.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
So the person Halligan replaced went through that process, had
been temporarily appointed, did the hundred twenty days appointed? And
so so the question really was could Halligan be appointed
for a new one hundred and twenty days? And the
court here said no, you can't, and so anything. Now,
(30:46):
the thing is that this isn't, weirdly a creative problem
of Halligan's creation, because she chose herself to bring the charges.
She's the one who signed the indictment. There's no other
prosecutors who sign the dictment. So her legality, you know,
whether rises or falls, the prosecution follows. And then second,
(31:07):
she did it on I think the day before the
statute of limitations had run on Comey's conduct, which means
that you're gambling if her, if there was some flaw
in what she did, he might get off completely, because
now recharging him at this point might be outside the
statute of limitations. Steve, let me ask you, does this
(31:29):
sound like the adults are running are in the room here?
This sounds like some kind of Keystone Coppish running of
prosecutions against some pretty serious major figures. And does this
harm Donald Trump by seeing these two efforts to get
two of his pursuers.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
Fail this way.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Well, see, now I get to use the line lucretia
usually uses, John John, you're reading too much from the
Washington Post and National Review, which I did a National
Review in an article saying, you know, the gang couldn't
indict straight our pal Anie McCarthy.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
I think, right.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
I love Andy, but you know he's too conventional for
my take, wrong on everything.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
So no, I won't say that.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Let's leave that as well. Now, now let's stay on
point here. I shouldn't have said that I knew. I
knew that was lucretie of bait. Look, I mean, yeah,
it would be better if they had gotten her properly confirmed.
It sounds like this is a technicality. Really that doesn't.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
All right?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
So I want to show you one more thing that
I'll explain to listeners. I think the broader story here
is democratic obstructionism is succeeding, and that is why this
has happened. So here's a chart that'll describe it for listeners.
This is a chart of confirmation delays going back to
Reagan for the first two hundred days. We're beyond twohundred
(32:46):
days now. But the point is is that, uh, the
obstruction of a prompt executive branch nomination executive branch nominations, right,
and you know, you see a few delays from Reagan
through Obama and Trump one it starts to take off.
The Republicans did it some to Biden, but Trump too.
Democrats are blocking and slowing down everything as much as
(33:07):
they possibly can, and that means confirmations.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
For all kinds of jobs.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
I'll bet the Justice Department is high on that list,
by the way. You know, on the Ricochet podcast a
week ago, we had Harme Dilon on who said two
thirds of the career lawyers and the Civil Rights Division
have quit. I say, congratulations, When are you gonna get
the other third to quit? But then she said, but
we're shorthanded throughout the entire Justice Department, right, And so
I think that's the story that's not being reported.
Speaker 4 (33:34):
People. Sorry, Steve, Do all those people have to be
confirmed at the lower levels that she's talking about?
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Yeah, I think so, well, not the career people. No,
that's true, ye defin, but you know a lot of
throughout the the schedule see appointees, which you know, John,
you were right, and when you're a legal counsel, right,
that's all Senate confirmation and you need those people too
because you don't just hire lawyers off the street and
so forth. Anyway, So anyway, I think that is the
(34:01):
subtext here is that this is all part of a
plan of Democrats that is joined considerable success. And the
way the meeting he's going to report it as well, Gosh,
I just can't think do things right. I think you
mentioned a key point, John, I think, which is there's
a statute of limitations running on these things, so they
need to get these cases filed. And so that's another
reason why maybe you cut corners if you think that's
(34:23):
what's happening.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
So plus the I mean Trump made a mistake. I'll
accuse him of Keystone coppery with the appointing of the
Eric guy to begin with, because that guy is just
you know, deep in the swamp. And it turns out
I'm going to forget what it is, but it's like
his father in law is or mother whoever it was,
he's related to the judge that decided that the prosecutor
(34:49):
was not duly appointed. I have a deeper question for you.
It goes back to something we keep talking about, John.
How is it that it's not a violation of the
separation of powers to have a statute whereby the judge's
name the prosecutor.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Yeah, you would think it was, But there's this. It
is in the appointments clause. Strangely really, Yeah, if you
go look, if you look at an article two, look
at the appointment's clause. It allows for the appointment of
inferior The listeners can't see this, but Steve and are
early looking for their costal test.
Speaker 4 (35:31):
Well, it's not that I don't believe you. I just
wanted to see exactly how said he.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Was shuffling with various popover recipes and can't find his
But it says it's an article too, and I'm and listeners,
I'm just quoting from memory.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
So this is the most impressive.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
But I believe it says that inferior officers can be
appointed by the heads of departments, by the President, heads
of departments, or by the courts, as.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
Directed by law. And this came up.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
And the reason I remember this is because it came
up in Morrison versus Olsen, because recall that the Special
Council of the Old Days who prosecuted ted Olsen and
who investigated reg and investigative Bush, was appointed by a
special court, and the Supreme Court upheld that in Morrison
versus Olsen. So it's a weird. Otherwise, you're quite right, Lucreti.
(36:23):
Your instinct was, or how can the courts be involved
at all with appointing a prosecutor?
Speaker 1 (36:28):
Seems wrong?
Speaker 3 (36:29):
But actually the Constitution would allow Congress to vest the
appointment of lots of inferior officers into the courts, which
actually the nice thing I always say about this, It
really shows how the Framers did not expect there to
be large federal bureaucracies.
Speaker 4 (36:46):
Because is that an element Let me put you on
the spot, John, can you give me a check and
balance element to why they would have done that? In
other words, you know, thinking about why would they do that?
But Hamilton says that this is a changerous branch.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
Yeah, I mean this is discussed just a little bit
in this Morrison versus also in case which I think
was generally wrong because it upheld the DC Circuit appointing
the special prosecutor but I think the idea was with
the transportation and communications back then being so slow that
you would need to have the federal prosecutor appointed, and
(37:25):
suppose someone died or resigned, you couldn't have like a
month while the news went to Washington and then the
president reappointed and then another month back. So it was
a provision to allow the district courts to keep the
criminal justice system at work.
Speaker 1 (37:39):
That's the I think that's the reason.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
Yeah, that makes sense, but I don't think it takes
away from your basic point, Lucretia, was that the problem
was all the appointment of the predecessor to Halligan, and
that was a big mess. And then this guy Siebert
is his name, refused to indict who the President ordered
him to.
Speaker 1 (37:59):
Indict, and he was removed from office.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
I don't know if Halligan was the best choice. She
She's never done criminal law, never done indictment, never done
a criminal trial. As far as I I mean, I
think the last time I heard he of her was
when she screwed up the search of mar A Lago
and was the personal Trump's personal lawyer on the scene
for that. So it's not a distinguished career. And I
(38:21):
do think It's an example of incompetence by the Trump
Justice Department to have had this time.
Speaker 1 (38:27):
It's embarrassing. Well, let me just let me all kinds
of other problems.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
Even beyond this, Remember, I mean there you could go on.
There's apparently the grand jury didn't sign the final docum,
the grand jury didn't actually see the final indictment, which
is also what it could result in being thrown now
and then. I don't think you can win the case
against Komy. It's just too hard. You're not supposed to
indict people where you can't. You don't, you don't believe
you're gonna win the case.
Speaker 4 (38:50):
But all I'll say in Trump's defense for just a moment,
is that he the first term, he surrounded himself with
very well respected establishment types who knew the ropes and
did all of those things, and they turned out to
be massively disloyal to him. And I guess, if you know,
(39:14):
I'm not really making excuses so much as maybe just
an explanation. If I'm Trump, maybe I'd just rather put
people in the office that I know are going to
be loyal to me, rather than that are you know,
the as you put it, I would hire Miguel Estrata
or Abby Lowell to be my attorney because but but
if you're Trump, maybe you just want people who will
(39:36):
who will be loyal And I'm just throwing it out there.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
Sorry, Well, I think, well, it's not it's not so
much like Steve well It. Loyalty is one thing, and
that's important. I mean, you know, Nixon said that was
his big mistake in the point loyalists. But I think
there's another reason, which is the people Lucretian mentions were
in the first term were very conventional Republican, and so
many the people he appointed where people you'd expect any
Republican presidency. So I'm thinking when Churchill became Prime Minister
(40:03):
in you know, May nineteen forty, he was pretty disgusted
with the government establishment that had been sluggish about prosecuting
the war that had been going on for what eight
months to no effect, and then plus getting him to
that point, and you know, building supplies very slowly, and
so he said he put on a memo saying, I
want unconventional people appointed as senior positions, people who would
(40:26):
normally not be part of the British establishment. I want
odd balls. And he got some odd balls too. They
weren't all successful appointees. But the point is if you
want to shake if you really want to shake things up,
which Trump clearly wants to do more so than ever,
you can't use the conventional people. You're going to have
to appoint a lot. That's why you have hag Seth
at the Defense Department instead of the people he had
(40:47):
the first term, exapt Kennedy instead of what Price and
and alex As are at HHS. So you know, he's
doing that model, and I think that makes some sense
as a general matter, even though in our government it's
going to lead to a lot of i'll say disasters,
like we see this not a disaster, but it is
embarrassing and it is a problem.
Speaker 3 (41:05):
Yeah, well it's I think you're of course, the president
has the right to appoint loyalists, but at some point
loyalty bumps up against what can be done, like we'll
connect and when a prosecutor tells Trump, look, we can't
indict them, we can't.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Win the case. Yes, but it's not just I would
think it would go on with.
Speaker 3 (41:30):
Science or mediciner engineering. They're just the presidence, of course
wants some political outcome, but some of them are not possible. Right,
Like you met John officials Deember.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
You're going to lose the case. You cannot win a prosecution.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Well, hold on a minute, John, and I'm going to
be the cynical bare knuckle Paul here and say that
may be true, uh is considered in the abstract. On
the other hand, what's the old saying about how the
process is the punishment? And if you're an advocate of
game theory, as you are in these matters, then you're
gonna want to die anyway because you want him have
to spend a million dollars on legal feasts to get
(42:03):
back at him for his bad behavior, which is.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
Why the judge's decision was such a victory for him,
because he didn't have to do any of that by
dismissing the case. One last question, because I know you
want to move on, but I do want to ask
my resident expert. I listened to Jonathan Turley on this
subject and really was probably more confused after it than
I was before.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
So this makes you the average response.
Speaker 1 (42:29):
Because I only.
Speaker 4 (42:30):
Listened to Jonathan truly when I don't have access direct
access to you, John Sue. But his argument was this
doesn't mean the end of the case. But he didn't provide,
in my opinion, the really solid explanation.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
There is a maybe I didn't get it.
Speaker 3 (42:47):
No, no, no, no, he should have mentioned there's a
statute which says that if you if indictment is dismissed
essentially for procedural faults, not because of the substance of
the charges for proceding regions, that the test Department I
think has sixty days or maybe it's six months. I
think it's six months to seek a new indictment, even
(43:08):
if the statute of limitations would have otherwise run. So
there's a statute that Congress has passed to take care
of examples exactly like this.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
So they can reindict.
Speaker 3 (43:19):
They have to go back to a grand jury, get
a grand jury to agree, but it's still going to
be tough to get any prosecutor to do it. And
just having looked at it closely, I don't think the case.
I don't think the department can win, and so they
normally as a matter of policy, wouldn't bring the case.
Speaker 4 (43:37):
And then we go back to you can beat the
rap that you can't beat the ride, right, Steve, Yeah,
something like that. Yeah, So I have one quick question.
It's not on the agenda, but it came up since
and I have to ask about it. Really is, It's
all along the same line. So another judge, yet another judge.
At the local level. In Minneapolis, a jury unanimously convicted
(43:58):
a Somali man of stealing seven point two million dollars
worth of taxpayer money. The jury deliberated, et cetera, and
the judge overturned their verdict.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
Really, yeah, and almost impossible.
Speaker 4 (44:14):
That's what that's that's what I thought. She said something
I was looking for. Sorry, I was looking forward. I
won't waste any more time with it, but I wanted
to hear that because jurors are furious.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
No, So a judge is only that I don't know
this case.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
I've heard about your broader issue of fraud, fraud in
the Somali immigrant community of welfare programs that are taking
place in Minnesota, and I imagine I assumed that Department
of Justice and h is launching investigation.
Speaker 1 (44:45):
But a judge is.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
Only allowed to override the verdict of a jury if
the judge finds that no reasonable juror could have concluded
guilt based on all the evidence.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
That is such.
Speaker 3 (45:00):
I mean, I don't even I can't remember recently ever
reading of a judge reaching out to find because it means,
like the finding is every single juror had to be
irration totally irrational to find that this person was guilty.
It is very, very It happens a lot more on
TV in the movies than ever in real life. Now
(45:21):
you see more often judges changing, you know, giving narrow
sentences things like that if they really disagreed with the
jury's verdict, but to actually override the verdict is almost
unheard of.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Yeah, so that's amazing.
Speaker 3 (45:34):
But anyway, we'll figure out more about that and report
back on the next episode where don't want to tax
our listeners too much. On Thanksgiving Day, I hope all
of you have been listening to this while you've been
cooking your turkey, which means that if you're following Steve's example,
you've got another four or five hours ahead of you,
so you're listening to other podcasts. But if you're finding
(45:57):
the Lucretia example, you're probably just about finished. And so
let's go to our final Thanksgiving question, which is, uh, Steve.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
What do you have to be thankful for?
Speaker 3 (46:10):
Well?
Speaker 2 (46:10):
I have two things I'm thankful for. First of all, John,
I am thankful for the Clean Air Act because.
Speaker 3 (46:15):
Oh my god, oh my god, you have ruined Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
America has been ruined.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
Well, this is why. This is why I am thankful for.
It gives me an easy way to annoy you unfailingly
every time works every time. And we do have a
couple of listeners who every week say they want more
Cleaner Act content.
Speaker 1 (46:37):
So now I am obliged.
Speaker 4 (46:39):
But he doesn't understand sarcasm.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
We now know, because of the the Twitter locational feature
that both of these people who ask for this information
are from Russia but run Indonesia.
Speaker 2 (46:51):
I said, I am too. The serious thing. This is
a serious point that we don't need to spend time
getting into. But I am thankful that the United States
still has trial by jury. I've just been reading the
news the last few days that Britain wants to get
rid of trial by jury for a clubs of the
lower level of crimes. They say, but you can see
where this is going, and you know, jury's get things
(47:13):
wrong in this country, especially a DC jury is going
to rule against the Republican and rule in favor of
a Democrat. Every time.
Speaker 1 (47:19):
It seems like.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
But I think it's not a bad thing that prosecutors
have to say, you know, well the jury by this
or that argument. It is I've kind of forgotten now
about you know, how juris arose but doesn't go back
seven eight hundred years and more, John to check, you're
right to you know, it's against the arbitrary power of
the nobles.
Speaker 1 (47:39):
In the crown.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
It was, you know, one of the long chain of
things that lead us to democracy. And so when you
have things like the International Criminal Court that has no
trial by jury, or lots of these international bodies, to
hear that Britain is thinking of getting rid of jury
trials for any class of crime as anything, a very
bad sign of many bad signs coming out of England.
And thank goodness that we are not following that bad idea.
Speaker 4 (48:01):
And thank goodness that we decided not to continue to
do that in seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 2 (48:06):
Right, Yeah, well it was one of the bill and
it was one of the bill of particulars against the
King in the enumeration. The declaration was denying us to
mine a trial by jury. It's obviously very important to uh,
the you know that was in that document that that
particular right was enshrined and included.
Speaker 3 (48:24):
So so for the listeners like me who still wonder
how Steeves's brain works. The two things he's thankful for
are trial by jury and the Clean Air Act. Explained
to me how those two things in one brain at
the same time. Macritia, what are you thankful for this?
Speaker 4 (48:40):
I'm gonna be serious for a moment, to try not
to choke or anything. I you know, I'm Catholic. I
have a wonderful senior pastor at my parish who gives
an a case this homily occasionally about how if you
live where I live in Coaches County, he said, you
(49:01):
have so much to be thankful for. And the way
he would describe it in the Humley as he would say,
imagine that you put every person in the world and
all the blessings that they enjoyed in a big, long line.
If you are from America, you are in the top
quarter of a percentile of the whole world in terms
(49:22):
of blessings material and otherwise. You know the fact that
you have freedom of religion. I for one, I'm not
really happy with my pope these days. I haven't been
for some time. But you know what, I haven't been
killed once for being Catholic, nor have I seen any
you know, in my classrooms where kids are kidnapped. So
freedom of religion is an amazing thing and we still
(49:44):
have it in the United States. I'm thankful for that.
Speaker 1 (49:47):
But I'm just.
Speaker 4 (49:47):
I'm thankful for all the blessings that we as Americans enjoy,
and I'm very fortunate. I'm thankful for my family. I'm
thankful I'm not a Muslim because I sure love my dog,
So you don't.
Speaker 3 (50:04):
Know, that's all.
Speaker 4 (50:08):
I don't eat my dog. No dogs are considered how
do you say it, harum something awful. And so this
has been all over social media lately, all of these ugly,
stupid barbarian and mom saying you need to get rid
(50:29):
of your dog, you need to beat your wife to death,
you know that sort of thing. Anyway, So I'm thankful
that I'm not a Muslim because I love Kaiser and
my cat too. Sorry, John, I'm just And I'm thankful
for the three whiskey Happy Hour because I look forward
to it and seeing you guys every week. So there
you have it, and I'm thankful that I'm a better
cook than Steve.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
The Lucretia household is no doubt thankful for that as
a family, and we send our thoughts and good wishes
out to Alison Hayward, who has.
Speaker 1 (51:03):
To eat this god awful meal that Steve has it.
Speaker 3 (51:06):
I don't pop over its stuffing in flying turkeys rotating.
Speaker 1 (51:11):
God knows what else is going on there. So I thought.
Speaker 3 (51:16):
That I would for Thanksgiving read a small part of
President Washington's oh First Thanksgiving Proclamation of seventeen eighty nine,
and he said that we should join together in our
and to let's see, we should unite in giving thanks
(51:38):
to God for his care and kind care and protection
of the people of this country previous to their becoming
a nation, for this signal and manifold mercies, and the
favorable interpositions of His providence, which primes has really just
cost benefit analysis, which we experienced in the course and
conclusion of the late War, for the great degree of tranquility, union,
(52:01):
and plenty which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable
and rational, rational manner in which we have been enabled
to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness,
and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the
civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and
(52:22):
the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge,
and in general, for all the great and various favors
which he have been pleased to confer upon us.
Speaker 2 (52:32):
Amen, not bad.
Speaker 3 (52:34):
I'm not bad for a guy who didn't write all
that much.
Speaker 4 (52:39):
So I do have a few. I hate to change
the mood because that was very nice. A few Babylon
bees though, that are just absolutely perfect.
Speaker 2 (52:47):
One.
Speaker 4 (52:48):
Back to an earlier topic, This one's for you John
Trump's strategy of hiring lawyers based on bus sides not
working as well as anticipated.
Speaker 2 (52:57):
I wasn't going to say that about what's your name,
but yes.
Speaker 4 (53:00):
Hmm, sorry, family holding it. This one's for you, Steve,
family holding out hope. This will finally be Thanksgiving where
turkey explodes in epic fireball. By the way, we didn't
even mention. I got a good laugh out of it,
the whole joke that Trump made about he wasn't sure
(53:22):
that the the Biden's turkeys were truly pardoned because of
the autopan right. Yeah, however that went. That was so great.
Heaven confirms people who prefer ham at Thanksgiving will not
enter the kingdom.
Speaker 3 (53:40):
Sometimes, you know, I do like a good Virginia hand,
Yeah too.
Speaker 4 (53:45):
But Virginia ham, the salty one, Yeah, oh so good.
And then as I go off to my kitchen to
make my pumpkin pike, et cetera, and my my from
scratch cranberry sauce, Mom continues long stay tradition of making
cranberry sauce.
Speaker 2 (54:02):
For no one.
Speaker 1 (54:05):
That's true. I don't like to stop gap.
Speaker 3 (54:07):
Oh I love cranberry sauce, so only the kind of
comes out of the can into that weird cylindrical shape.
Speaker 4 (54:15):
I'll send you the meme I have on that one. John,
It's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
All right.
Speaker 4 (54:19):
Listen everyone, I hope you have an absolutely lovely before
he gets to it, lovely blessed Thanksgiving and that you're
grateful for all of the wonderful things that you have,
and we hope to see you maybe even this weekend.
Speaker 3 (54:34):
Yeah right, Well, always drink your whiskey meat, buy more books,
and Steve, what latest AI concoction do you have for us?
Speaker 2 (54:45):
I asked chat GPT to do a episode fitting with
today's themes about how the podcast would treat cooking Thanksgiving. Dinner.
I'll just give you the opening banter quite long, actually
the opening banner. Host one, Look, cooking a turkey.
Speaker 1 (54:59):
Is not complicated. People act like it's a geopolitical crisis.
Speaker 2 (55:03):
It's a bird, not a treaty negotiation. Host two, Well,
some people manage to turn it into a crisis, mostly
by refusing to use a thermometer, which is culinary malpractice
and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Speaker 1 (55:16):
Post three.
Speaker 2 (55:17):
I would just like to note before we begin that
all this goes more smoothly if you pour yourself a
whiskey and listeners can decide which host studio should be
assigned to which person because Chap GPT didn't do it
for us, but I can.
Speaker 1 (55:29):
I have my suggestions.
Speaker 2 (55:31):
So that's it for this episode. We'll be back over
the weekend. I think listeners with a regular episode all
the other podcasts on Ricochet, and that's where they take
this holiday weekend off, So we want to make sure
you are not without your current podcast fair So we'll.
Speaker 4 (55:44):
Be back this moaning when out both us it.
Speaker 1 (55:48):
I'm grateful for my tones great book Cality here I'm
reading and out of my nose this morning when I
set up said I'm grateful for my back, for full
and another nine without a heart attack. Was grateful for
my baby lying next to me, for the speaceful minning.
Speaker 2 (56:10):
Nowhere else to be.
Speaker 1 (56:13):
So grateful for the sausage.
Speaker 4 (56:15):
I'm grateful for the stone, for the coffee, for the cup.
The slimmers and the road by the
Speaker 2 (56:39):
Ricochet joined the conversation.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.