The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Trump—A New Columbus?

The week ended with President Trump issuing a proclamation celebrating Columbus Day, rather than Indigenous People's Day as the identitarians and western-guilt mongers have crammed down on us for the last generation, and it put us in the frame of mind of Leo Strauss, who called Machiavelli "that greater Columbus." Maybe Trump is a Columbus of sorts, sailing precariously into the Blue State oceans to drain swamps, etc. It's worth a shot.

But much of the show revolves around discussion of why so many leftists (like Katie Porter and Jay Jones) are such horrible people, whether we are in fact much closer to a civil war that we could have conceived, but also saving time to console John over the ignominious loss of his beloved Phillies, and—being certified dog lovers—honoring the passing of Lily, the beloved pet of one of our faithful listeners whose dog literally ate up one of our books.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well whiskey, come and take my pain. The honeys all right,
oh whiskey.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Don't why think alone when you can drink it all
in with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour. Join your bartenders
Steve Hayward, John You and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
Where they slapped it.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Up and David Hain't you easy on the soud tap
you got to give me and let that whiskey.

Speaker 4 (00:32):
Flo Welcome everyone to the three Whiskey Happy Hour. It's
a really great three whiskey happy hour because we are
all home, not in each other's home, in our own homes,
but it's eight o'clock PM, and we're all drinking whiskey.
Yeah right, right exactly, and I am drinking a fifteen

(00:53):
year old McAllen. It's very nice.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
That's pretty young. That's pretty young for you, is he is?

Speaker 4 (00:58):
But you know, as I got fired from all my
different jobs, I can't really afford the eighteen year old anymore,
so you know, it's it's it's kind of popping.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
What do you mean to start a go fundme page
for the three so you can buy three more years
and make it an eighteen year old?

Speaker 2 (01:17):
I know, if Lucretia does an online page that starts
with go and an f ho it, it's going to
be a different something.

Speaker 3 (01:29):
My browser doesn't let me see Lucretia's web pages for that.
What are you drinking, John, I've got a wild turkey
oh rare breed right ry?

Speaker 2 (01:41):
Yeah, yes, and I always do.

Speaker 3 (01:43):
I'm going to pour it. I don't know if you
can hear it, actually.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yeah, that's always fun. While you're doing that.

Speaker 4 (01:51):
You can hear it from the will it bottle.

Speaker 3 (01:52):
Always I do the willet bottle.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
Yeah, I'm just doing my I know, I'm doing my
old standby because I haven't had time to go to
make it the good liquor store tomorrow in Fas.

Speaker 3 (02:04):
Just throw this out and drink the will it.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
This is how I have it.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
I have it there like this.

Speaker 4 (02:10):
Why do you have a hat on it? Okay?

Speaker 2 (02:16):
All right?

Speaker 4 (02:16):
Well, I hope that any listeners live out there are
joining us in tipping a host a toast to all
of you. Thank you for joining us, And if you're
watching this later on or listening later on, thank you
again for joining us. We very much appreciate the support.
Uh So, first we've been including speaking of support, we're

(02:40):
going to start by asking Steve why it is that
dogs have a thing for his books.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Well, I should laugh, Yeah, a toast tonight's a lily.
And so we have a long time reader and listener
who've never met named Tom Steaky. I'm not even sure
where he lives, but not five years ago, he sent
me photos of his dog Lily. You know how authors
like to say my book was so good, people just

(03:08):
ate it up. Well, his dog literally ate my book.
And about a second here, if I can find the
pictures he sent me, there we go. For people who
are watching the live stream. There is Lily looking at
my book. And there on the right side is Lily
after after the book had been fairly masticated, and good girl.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
Did he only eat the books that talked about Strauss
too long?

Speaker 4 (03:31):
So John, So I had this lovely first edition of
the Constitution produced in like eighteen sixty that was the
publication date on it. And it was the Constitution and
some of the other founding documents, and it was this
lovely old book and it was about eye level on

(03:52):
one of my bookshelves, and one of my dogs, my
German Shepherd's not little rat dog Skink. You about that,
Oh my god, anyway, actually got up somehow. There must
have been something in the pages of the book. I
mean it was, you know, one hundred and fifty years
old at least, and chewed it to smithereens, not even

(04:16):
like half of it. That Lily only ate half of
Steve's book. This one was just destroyed. And I write
what it was, But I guess it's because dogs like good,
good books. Steve.

Speaker 2 (04:27):
Well, that's what I was going to say, but I'm
not sure I got to the not a punchline. But
the reason it's timely this week is that this week
Lily came to her last days, and so we drink
to Lily, who's obviously has good tasted books, and thank
Tom Steaky for being a loyal reader, and also he
buying a replacement copy of the book. This now suggests
a new strategy. You put a milk bone or something

(04:49):
along with every book so that you sell every book
twice to dog owners. Something like that.

Speaker 4 (04:53):
I would tell you, Tom, close your ears on this, John.
My my mother died when I was very very young.
I remember sitting next to my father at the funeral
and kind of watching his chin quiver a little bit
but when our family dog died at seventeen, he bawled

(05:15):
like a baby. That's how dogs affect you. So my
condolences to you dogs.

Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, little dogs. I just don't like rat dogs. I
don't feel them to be real dogs. God anyway that
they walk around with him everything hills.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
Now, finally, can I just do before you start us
into our line of serious subject of creatia. I cannot resist.
And you shouldn't eat because you grew up in La.
You're a Dodgers fan. We went to a Dodger came
together once.

Speaker 4 (05:46):
One quite the most memorable one ever.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah that's because John, I threw a friend scored. I
think it was like Budweiser's seats on the first row
the dugout level, right behind home plate. But you can
believe it right when yeah see, and Lucretia spent the
whole game ogling Steve Yegger's there here. I remember that,
and the Dodgers.

Speaker 3 (06:10):
Got crushed by It's just like you guys, like on
a date or something. That's why she was staring at
that guy rather than you, Steve.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
Uh Anyway, John, Now, now I don't feel so bad
about humiliating you over the Phillies doing a face plant
worse than a Brown Jackson.

Speaker 3 (06:30):
I can't believe they lost on a fource ole error
and the extra innings on a tap back to the picture. Yeah,
and the picture over threw it to the wrong base
and then overthrew it. Oh my god.

Speaker 2 (06:43):
Yeah, but you know who feels good about that today?

Speaker 5 (06:46):
I know.

Speaker 2 (06:46):
But you know who feels good about that today besides
Dodger fans Bill Buckner. He's no longer He's no longer
the greatest goat of the postseason.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
Well, I don't know. That was still pretty bad.

Speaker 4 (06:58):
Yeah, I know, right, don't mean that we're about to
start the World Series or something.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
There's one more round of playoffs, one more round, all right,
I'll try to when the I mean when the Japanese
All Star League team, I mean the Dodgers are gonna play,
but probably the Brewers I assume.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
Yeah, it could be what the Milwaukee Brewers.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
Yeah, they're really good.

Speaker 4 (07:23):
They're a real team.

Speaker 3 (07:24):
Yeah, they're the best team. They had the best record
in the league.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (07:31):
Things So so, John, you know what I'm gonna do
next week.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
I'm going to do an AI animation of Steve Yeager
calling the games. And see if I can full into watching.

Speaker 4 (07:44):
It was a long time ago. I know, I have
no interest in sports figures anymore. I'd be much more
excited probably about I don't know, Thomas soul or you know,
somebody could intellectually engage me.

Speaker 3 (07:59):
I don't even know. She would get hot and bothered
by the idea of Harry Jaffer doing jumping checks or something.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
Okay, it's time to change. Yeah, all right. Big news
this week that made a lot of a lot of
headlines in the right media, probably not the media that you, uh,
inter interact with. John. Have you heard of this guy
named Jay Jones running for Attorney general in Virginia?

Speaker 3 (08:29):
Oh yeah, I heard about this. Yes, I think it
was actually in the Washington Post.

Speaker 4 (08:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (08:35):
Really, Well, they're doing well, they're doing the season and
pouncing thing. No, there's one headline I forget which paper.
You know, Republicans sees on comments by attorney general candidate. Right,
it's always the reaction of Republicans. That's the media, the
mainstream media coverage. Okay, sorry, this session is great to me, right, awesome?

Speaker 4 (08:54):
Yeah, yeah, but you know that they've got nothing else
they can say about it because the guy, you know,
it really it. It wasn't as if it was something
that you know, the three of us in deep in
the back of a bar somewhere, trusting each other's promise
to keep everything secret, made some offhand, off color remarks

(09:18):
about something. This was a text message the guy sent
to a Republican and he it was just vile what
he said.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
Yeah, I mean, it's not it's not like some podcast
hosts we know has ever said that somebody should be
executed or something.

Speaker 4 (09:33):
That's just that's just an offhand remark.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
He met it. Yeah, yeah, that's right. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (09:39):
And and mostly because not because of anything that that
guy had ever done wrong, but because he held policy
views different from Jay Jones. And the way that you
get people to change their policies is you shoot them
while they're in their mother's arms, make them watch and
so they feel pain, and then they'll change their policies.
How sick do you have to? And then not one,

(10:03):
not one, not one Democrat. I take that back. John
Fetterman is the only one I know of is willing
to even tell the guy. Look, somebody who has these
views is not fit by character, by lack of integrity,
whatever you want to say to be the chief law

(10:24):
enforcement officer of the state of Virginia. That's easy, in
my opinion. Go ahead, I'm done pontificate.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
Oh, I mean, well, let's get back to a conversation
you and I had. I'm not sure you were on
this episode, John, It's a while ago now, but we
had an extensive discussion of why are so many leftists?
It's not all of them, but it certainly seems to
be a high number really horrible people. So, you know,
never mind the assassin of Charlie Cook, think about the
I think it's probably numbers in the thousands, certainly hundreds

(10:53):
of people on the left who declared publicly how happy
they were that Charlie Kirk was shot. Right, So you
know what can explain this? And you know, I've given
my philosophical explanation because that's what I run to. There
may be a psychological explanation to go with it too.

Speaker 4 (11:11):
There's the bubble explanation that, yes, the practical matter, which
you should probably.

Speaker 2 (11:16):
Mention, Well, that gets to the Katie Porter story, which
maybe you want to hold for a moment. But people too,
I mean.

Speaker 4 (11:25):
One would you cannot know that talking about shooting your
opponent's children in the the while they're in the arms
of your wife. To cause him pain is an inappropriate
thing to say. You have to know that. And if
you don't know that, you live in such a bubble

(11:47):
that any any morality has been sucked out of it.
And it's you know, the whatever, whatever it is, the
left things is important. That's all that matters.

Speaker 2 (11:59):
Yeah, Actually there's a question for you, John Well, I
don't know. Go ahead, John, if you have a general observation.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
I mean you don't You guys don't really think that
liberals are worse people in general than conservatives. Don't just
think being good or bad people would just be evenly
distributed amongst I mean there's very bad conservatives too. Well, look,
I mean saying think terrible things. Also.

Speaker 4 (12:23):
I think it's a little bit like men and women. John,
here's the point. There are there are women who could
kick butt against either one of you two.

Speaker 3 (12:37):
Who would that be? Come on, bring them on? Who
is AMMO girl person I keep hearing.

Speaker 4 (12:44):
About she could definitely destroy you with with her humor.
I'll leave it at that. My point is is that, uh,
this strength, why why why are we complaining about women
men and women's sports? Because the average man is much
stronger physically speaking, and has great biological physical advantages over women.

(13:09):
I say that the same phenomenon is actually, for some
reason manifest in the left versus right, that most leftists
are horrible people Jay Jones or Katie Porter, or or
Amy Klobuchar or Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, who just

(13:32):
treats the people around them as if there's scum.

Speaker 3 (13:35):
I mean, President Trump says lots of bad things about people,
but people just don't think he means it.

Speaker 2 (13:42):
Yeah, well he does.

Speaker 3 (13:45):
That's part of his appeal. That's part of his appeal
is that he says terrible things.

Speaker 2 (13:50):
But look, John, well, look, I want to hold this.

Speaker 3 (13:54):
I find that interesting about him, that he says terrible
things about people and the audience loves it. I don't
don't quite understand why.

Speaker 4 (14:01):
But I don't think he's ever said that they should
have to watch their children being shot in the head
while their wife was holding them so that they can
feel pain. He's never said anything.

Speaker 2 (14:11):
But I think most people, most people like working well, look,
I mean I just pick one thing. When you see
high staff turnover, it's usually a bad sign. By the way,
you know, you used to have high staff turnover because
he was a jerk. Was John McCain of course, But you.

Speaker 3 (14:25):
Know El says high staff turnover. Yeah, Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (14:29):
Well, but that's not because he fires them and they
you know, well, hold on, I want to ask you
a specific question about getting back to Jay Jones. You know,
as a lawyer.

Speaker 5 (14:39):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (14:40):
You know, people who are replying to the bar, who
take exam and they apply for their bar license, they
usually have to pass what it's an ethics or morals
and fitness review.

Speaker 3 (14:50):
And moral fitness qualification.

Speaker 4 (14:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
Now do you think if Jay Jones was coming out
of law school, passed the bar and was then reached
that review stage, those tweets would not raise some eyebrows
at the state bar about his fitness to be granted
a law license.

Speaker 3 (15:07):
You know, that's interesting. I don't think it would stop
you because they would just say this is which I
think he's saying, is this is just you know, locker
room type humor.

Speaker 4 (15:19):
He didn't say that, He just said it was wrong.
He didn't.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
Oh really he didn't. Because I've heard people in politics
say very mean things. They don't really mean they want
to shoot someone or kill someone, but they use this language.
Of warfare all the time.

Speaker 4 (15:34):
He doubled.

Speaker 3 (15:37):
But yeah, but they don't mean it like they don't.
They don't mean it right like you. But they Well,
but you know, people in electoral politics often talk this way.
I mean, when I read it, I was like, yeah,
he's a bad fellow, but there's a lot of bad
people in electoral politics.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
But you know, he did double down on it. There's
a I mean, now maybe it's contested, but he did
say to someone this is a you know, what you
say here say we'd say these days, but persons thinking
with a story, and it certainly sounds in characters saying gosh,
maybe you know, it wouldn't be bad if a few
more policemen were shot, because then they'd be shooting fewer
black people, you know, the whole sort of black lives matter?

(16:11):
What's it, George Floyd Nonsense. It sounds to me like
this guy's pretty out there wacko. But I mean, I'll
just restate briefly what I've said before.

Speaker 3 (16:20):
Why do you guys think that liberals are worse people
than conservatives? This is what I want to know.

Speaker 2 (16:25):
So well, first of all, I'll give you two data points.
One well, one's my an interpretation and the data point
the interpretation is when you believe as a philosophical premise
that you were on the side of history. As they
never stop saying it's that lazy progressivism that they can't
stand to be challenged. They think that what's the Charles
Crowdhammer line is that conservatives think liberals are stupid, Liberals

(16:47):
think conservatives are evil. And you know, he was a
psychiatrist Ride and I think he was onto something there.
And then take I don't remember how they work, but
you know, Jonathan Height did based on some really good
survey work, you know, about how conservatives actually he has
five different points in the moral compass. I everget how
he puts it, and he says liberals only get three

(17:09):
of them, Conservatives get all five. And that's why Jonathan
moved from pretty far left being sort of centrist, or
i'd argue even sort of center right, and he says
liberals are much more narrow. Add to that the media bubble,
which I think is really the subtext of the Katie
portrait story. The liberals are always reinforced on college campuses,

(17:30):
in the media, and of course amongst each other. I quoted, Sorry,
I'm Rambling. I did quote on substack here a week
or two ago, someone writing to the ethicist at the
New York Times saying, we have these new neighbors. I
don't know what their politics are. We can't possibly associate
with someone who has different views from ours, And the
New York Times printed this. That's how liberals think, and

(17:51):
that's why I think they think it's not remarkable to
say something really outrageous, to.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
Take crowdhammers quote. It's think. I actually think liberals are
often more misguided than evil. Liberals think conservatives are evil,
but you guys think liberals are evil, right.

Speaker 4 (18:14):
Not not unqualifiably so. But I do think that what
fills the empty souls in liberals when they reject nature,
they reject God, they reject religion, they reject good and evil,
that what fills their souls is is demonic and satanic.
And I think there's ample proof of that.

Speaker 3 (18:35):
In Yes, I think they're like agents of the devil.

Speaker 4 (18:40):
Yeah. Not I don't think that every democratic or liberal
politician is. But certainly the the push for transgenderism, the
push especially amongst vulnerable populations, to turn them into transgenders,
that's evil. There's just no way around it. The push
to mutilate children in the name of some ridiculously stupid

(19:05):
idea that you know, you're not the sex you were
born into, and pushing that on them. That's evil. That's
not just you know, bad policy or stupid decision making.
It's evil, And or they wouldn't be going after the
most vulnerable to make it happen. So yes, I do
believe that I don't believe every liberal is evil, certainly not,

(19:27):
not by a long shot. I also think that this
has been a theory of mine and I'm not gonna
harp on this. Steve's gonna get mad at me if
we don't move on. But for the longest time, John,
my belief is that the extreme far left gets away
with as much as they do because the average you know,

(19:50):
decent suburban soccer mom, college professor, mayle whatever, they really
shut their eyes to the evil that is the far left,
you know, the transgenderism, the satanic worship, the you know,
the worst of antify. I could go on and on,

(20:10):
and I think that part of the reason why Democrats
continue to be successful in the electoral arena is because
so many liberals turn don't believe that what the far
left is doing, is even possible. I've had that experience
with professors in my college over and over again. You
give them examples and they accuse me of lying because

(20:34):
they can't believe that anybody on their side would.

Speaker 2 (20:36):
Be so awful.

Speaker 4 (20:38):
And I think that's so they're I want to qualify
if I agree to your characterization of me. I want
you to understand what I mean when I say, yes,
I do think that someone on the left are actually evil.
So there you have it. Like Katie Porter, they just
don't make a more. What I don't understand and is

(21:00):
if you are fat and ugly, why would you be
mean that?

Speaker 2 (21:05):
Wait a minute, I just the mynuscription. Okay. My description
of her is that she's like a well marbled Porterhouse steak,
and Porterhouse steak, isn't there is? That doesn't work? Okay, Sorry,
I couldn't help it. But look, people have known in
California for a long time that she's a pretty horrible person,
and they vote for her. Well they didn't. You know,

(21:26):
she ran for Senate and lost to Adam Shift, right,
I mean, you've got to be pretty bad to lose
to Adam Shift, even in California. And she did. But
you know, there's one of the divorce filing claims from
her ex husband is that she dumped hot, massed potatoes
on his head. And I think, yeah, well, I mean

(21:47):
that made me.

Speaker 3 (21:48):
I mean, if there was gravy on it, that'd be
fine with me.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
Yeah you can. Yeah, well well well well we'll poke
you with a hot corn dog, John, That's what we'll do.

Speaker 3 (22:02):
But I mean, you know, like you were saying, but
they're but there were Republican politicians who are mean to
their staff too, like you mentioned McCain. Yeah, you know,
Arn Actually mar Arlen Specter was voted I think the
worst boss on Capitol Hill at the time because he was.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
Yeah, I was used to call him on the hill. Yeah,
I always called him Arland's sphincter.

Speaker 3 (22:28):
Sorry, but I mean it's not just but I don't
think it's their staff.

Speaker 2 (22:33):
Yeah, but never mind that for the moment. Look, I
mean I think there's a spectrum. John. So some of
the really smart left of center people we know at Berkeley,
I'll use his name. I wasn't gonna name names. So
Dan Farber, right, he's sort of a he's not a
far lefty, but smart guy he's not evil, he's interesting
to talk to, a lot of give and takes, so
you know, we we tend to see the best of them.
I think in a place like Berkeley for the most part,

(22:54):
they're really crazy people there avoid us, of course, as
we know, and and uh. But when you get to
the political class, some of the journalists class, I think
it's a different story. And then you know, down to
the people on social media who decide it just be awful.
Look the Porter story. Aside from the fact that you
know she's an awful, horrible person, what you really saw
there was is her shock that the media wasn't treating

(23:18):
this as a pr event for her. They're just used
to the right. And there have been a couple other
episodes of this here in the last couple of days.
Actually the debate that you referenced Lucretia between Spanberger and
the Winsome Seers. The moderator of the debate three times
when after Spanberger's saying, so you're not disavowing the guy,

(23:39):
you're not retracting your endorsement, and she do a word
cloud and the person would repeat it. Democrats are not
used to that. I am wondering if things like the
Washington Post trying to turn over a new leaf, which
they're really taking serious steps finally to do. Barry Weiss,
the Rye Fagetts CBS News. I wonder if some people
in the media are starting to say, god, you know what,

(24:00):
we actually do have to step up our game and
be a little more even handed, even if they don't
think that way, even if they don't change their bias,
and it's maybe happening too late. Right, yes, they kill
the I mean.

Speaker 3 (24:11):
Nobody's watching Broke broadcast news anymore. They're all watching Fox.

Speaker 2 (24:16):
Right right. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (24:18):
I don't even think they're doing that. John, I think
that people younger than us get all of their news
from uh social media.

Speaker 2 (24:28):
From online sources.

Speaker 4 (24:29):
Yet, TikTok, I don't think it's just social media.

Speaker 3 (24:32):
And YouTube live streams of podcasts.

Speaker 4 (24:35):
Yes, yep, absolutely, Okay. I still think that if you
are fat and ugly, you should be nice. That's just
my my advice to Katie Porter, you should be a
nicer person. But she seems to double down on being

(24:56):
all together horrible. So moving on, we are going to
discuss just for a minute, because Steve says says, we
have I have too many topics, but I do want
to tie them all together at the end in an
interesting way. But I want to quickly talk about retribution
and political law fair by Trump against his political enemies,

(25:19):
and wonder if you guys when you're you know, I heard,
oh god, I heard fat tush Tish out there.

Speaker 2 (25:29):
Now I'm gonna I'm gonna cut you off from the bar.

Speaker 3 (25:32):
But Lucretia does not mean she says this in the
most loving way.

Speaker 4 (25:42):
Here's the problem. If you are an ugly person, then
I see you as an ugly then lookism takes over.
If you are a great person, I don't care how
deformed you are or any of those other things. I'll
think you're beautiful. So the problem with fat tush Tish
is she's just an awful person, just like Big Fanny
Willis and all those other people. I'm sorry, it's just

(26:06):
it's the truth. And Katie, okay, move along, move okay. Anyway, anyway,
Koby got indicted, Tish got indicted. Maybe maybe what's her
name from the fed or get indicted. Maybe more people
will get indicted. Is this what you my friend John
way back when when you were actually you went to

(26:28):
a conference as I recall and debated a liberal Oh yeah,
said that it's okay, you know, we can do all
of these things to Trump because there's no way that
they're going to do it back to us. And you said, oh,
yes we.

Speaker 3 (26:41):
Are, and yeah, you know, yeah, I mean it's one. Uh,
the case against Kobe is going to be hard to
win is that. You know we talked about that, right,
That's just it's you know, he says he didn't say something,
someone else says he did say something. Jury has to
decide who's more credible. The Justice Department doesn't like to
bring cases like that when it's a fifty to fifty

(27:02):
coin flip. Letitia James is an easier case, I would
think to win because it's just a matter of you
said this on your mortgage application, is it true or not?
And it was obviously not true. It wasn't her primary residence.
And the delicious part of it is that it is
exactly the same thing that she used Donald Trump of
doing of you right, misrepresenting his his assets on his

(27:26):
mortgage application. So look, I would love to live in
a world where there was no law fair. But they
started it right. This is Letitia James started it Komey
tried to entrap the President himself in an obstruction of
justice investigation, which he succeeded in doing. And I don't
see how this can be brought to an end unless

(27:48):
both sides are willing to retaliate. And so I don't think,
I mean, I wish that these lawsuits were not necessary,
but I don't see how to stop the future. Letitia
Grahames and Alvin Braggs and your friend Fanny Willis and
Jim Comey's from ever doing this again unless they suffer
at the hands of it. Unfortunately, I mean, I used

(28:09):
I use this example. The Special Council of the Special
Council was used exclusively against Republicans and it wasn't dropped
by Congress until Bill Clinton suffered at the hands of
Kent Starr.

Speaker 2 (28:20):
And I said, oh wait a minute, and that Linda Greenhouse,
the Greenhouse effect is always called at the Times, right, said,
oh you know what Scalia was right after all? And
Morrison versus Olsen, who knew. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (28:30):
So I have one, just minor point to bring up
with both of you guys, what you think about I
read the funniest article today about fat Tish picking Abby
Abby Abby the lawyer Abby Lowell.

Speaker 3 (28:47):
Oh, yeah, he's a very he's a very good best
criminal defense.

Speaker 4 (28:52):
The interesting thing was is that they outlined all of
the famous Democrats that he'd taken their case, and he's
lost big on all of them. And the upshot of
the article was he's such a good lawyer that his
reputation doesn't suffer from the fact that he's willing to

(29:13):
take cases that he has no chance of winning, like
the Hunter Biden case and so on. And I just
wonder what you thought about that.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
Oh interesting?

Speaker 3 (29:22):
And when you're I mean, if you're a federal criminal
defense lawyer, you know, just to get the sentence reduced,
our charge dropped as a major victory, because to get
acquitted is you know, I think there's some statistic like
a conviction rate in federal court is like way is
over ninety percent. You just don't have a chance of winning. Absolutely.

(29:42):
The best you can do is limit the DAMAGEA.

Speaker 4 (29:45):
Sorry sorry before you go on. Is that because it
takes so much to get an indictment in the first place.

Speaker 3 (29:51):
Or what it's because usually the Justice Department does not
bring a case unless they think they're going to win.
If you have evidence, but you don't think you're not
sure you're going to win, And usually the prosecutors will say,
we're not going to bring the case. That's why it
was so outrageous. What you know Jack Smith did and
the special counsel did and what Komi did is they,

(30:12):
like I said, where they violated core principles that the
Justice warn't bringing these made up charges you know, first
in their time arguments about statutes, applying to the president
so on. They I mean, they were the ones who
violated Justice Department procedure. But I actually say, I mean,
I don't know if that's actually true. What the Times
are people saying about Lowell. I mean, I don't like

(30:34):
Hunter Biden. I think he should not have been anywhere
near guns, drugs, or public power. But Lowell actually got
him off pretty well. I mean, the guy is not
going to do much jail time for all the terrible
things he did, but he had before that, but he
had him down to like very I think very little

(30:54):
jail time, like he was probably gonna do like a year.
I mean that was and getting the pardon was also
right Lowell at work because Biden had remembered previously promised
he wouldn't do it.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
I have a simpler theory about Lowell, which is, I
remember that guy from the Iran Contra hearings. He was
one of the chief councils for that joint committee. That
was what nineteen eighty seven, so nearly forty years ago now,
and I thought he was horrible. The other council was
Arthur Lyman, who he goes way back to the McCarthy era.
He must be dead by now, but he was quite good. Yeah,

(31:26):
he yeah. But the point is is, you know Lowell
is one of the insiders. I'll bet he shows up
at all the parties at Georgetown. There is that's having
lived in Washington, and you'll know these names. To John
there is this small circle of people, and of course
you know they do sort of lean one way or
the other to the parties that you go to and
you have these problems. So I think Lowell's at the
top of the speed dialists along with the other guy

(31:47):
I always said I would hire if I got in
trouble in Washington. Plaano cacheris just because of miss right,
can I say he was Montica Lewinski's lawyer, but he's.

Speaker 3 (31:57):
A famous solicited of is So I needed to hire
a lawyer, and I, you know, I would not hire
a connected lawyer or anything like that.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
What I want? What I chose.

Speaker 3 (32:09):
I wanted the meanest son of a bitch that you
could get, and so I picked Miguelistrata. Oh yeah, he's
not only smart and you know, both argue the Supreme
Court and try cases. But he'd been screwed over by
the Democrats, right, they held up his confirmation in the
DC Circuit and then there's this outrageous hearings where he

(32:31):
got screwed over by Schumer. That's the kind of guy
I want to be my criminal defense lawyer. And he
just kicked the crap out of everybody. That's what that's
the kind of guy. You don't want someone who's, you know,
glad having a party. You want someone who's pissed off.

Speaker 4 (32:43):
Smith get.

Speaker 3 (32:47):
If he's smart, he would call it Miguelistrada Lucretia. That's
the thing. Like Lucretia. If you ever have more legal problems,
because god, you must get so many defamation lawsuits, you
should hire me. I would, you know, you know me,
I would, I would leave. I would burn down everything
to win.

Speaker 4 (33:07):
And remember, so the funniest thing is is that you know,
John has this photographic memory. If you want to ask
him about some obscure case from the eighteen twenties, he
will name of it and all the important legal theories
in it, but he won't remember what we discussed a
month ago. I think that's a guy thing too. But

(33:28):
here's the interesting thing. At what point Lucretia was being
persecuted brought up on charges being threatened at her university
Because in a debate before the twenty twenty four election,
I had made the comment when somebody started namming Mam
and mam and man insurrection, I said, well, that was

(33:49):
a really lousy insurrection as insurrections go, I said, because
nobody brought any guns and they didn't accomplish anything, and
blah blah blah. Anyway, that I guess was very triggering.
And so you know, complaints were lodged with the provost
and with the oie what's that called the title nine?
And you know, just on and on and so I

(34:12):
mentioned it to John, and John says, oh, if they
do anything, I'll take your case. I'll take your case
for free. So the next opportunity I had, I said,
maybe you just want to talk to my lawyer about this. John, you,
I'm sure you've heard of him, not a word since
In fact.

Speaker 3 (34:28):
Oh I love it. I didn't know this. I forgot this.
This is great you forgot.

Speaker 4 (34:32):
But here's the even funnier thing. So they said that
they were going to send General Counsel, someone from the
General Counsel's office to the college to give a talk
on appropriate uses of academic freedom in a political setting
by university employees. And it was all set up, and

(34:55):
then John Hugh's name came up as my personal attorney
and alone and behold, they didn't have time.

Speaker 3 (35:04):
Oh that's awesome.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
I love it.

Speaker 3 (35:06):
Yeah, you know I'm talking right. We're talking about me
coming to your campus to do a lecture. So you
should tell them. I want to stop by and say
hi to these guys. I was just I know, I
want to let's add that to the schedule. I want
to introduce myself to the German council down there and
just let them know that you know, I'm watching.

Speaker 4 (35:26):
Speaking of Steve wanted to mention this. I didn't. I
didn't put it on our list, but I do want
to mention it quickly because just to see what you guys,
think about it. My university is actually one of the
nine on Trump's list.

Speaker 2 (35:41):
And wait list for what I am.

Speaker 4 (35:44):
Okay, well, I'm getting to it on Trump's list of
universities that, for some reason, the some people in the
Trump administration have determined are open to the idea of,
how shall we say, removing the leftist orthodoxy that has

(36:07):
been so dominant for the last fifty sixty years in
our universities. It's either because the president and the senior
leadership at the universities are open to it, or perhaps
the governing board.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
But there's a compact, right, yeah, I've got it right here.

Speaker 4 (36:21):
Okay, you tell them you could go from here, Steve.

Speaker 2 (36:24):
Well, yeah, I mean it's been in the news and
mit I think yesterday or today said no, we're not
for it. But the compact for academic excells and higher education,
and it's got always conditions in it, and it's a
mixed bag of things. Just pick on one number two
of all the different conditions of the marketplace of ideas.
They want no single ideology dominant. I'm quoting here both

(36:47):
along political and other relevant lines. Signatories commit themselves to
revising government structures as necessary to create such environment. So
it goes on from there. Lots of pretty formal, well
thought through languae which and it does.

Speaker 4 (37:02):
Controversial students.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
Yeah, limit the number of band your national students, Oh,
limit your tuition increases. That's some of the business side
of it. It's the content side that's the most I
think important of it.

Speaker 4 (37:13):
Actually, that's because you're not you've never been an administrator
at the universe.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
Well, no, I understand all that. I'm for all that.
I mean, what's his name in Indiana, Mitch Daniels. He
proved that you can prol costs and still run a
first class university. That's all very corrupt. But the bigger
problem I think would interests us is how corrupt they
are intellectually right, all other stuff they look, if Harvard

(37:40):
tomorrow cut their tuition in half and got rid of administrators,
we'd still be mad at it for their intellectual content
wouldn't be right. That's why that's more important.

Speaker 4 (37:48):
Yea.

Speaker 2 (37:48):
I mean, I do care about all the other stuff,
but that's the easy stuff. It's creating intellectual balance. It's
the harder part.

Speaker 4 (37:55):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (37:55):
And I was, well, I'll stop there. I'm not sure
what else you wanted to say of several observations about it.
But I think I don't think it was pick picked.
I don't think they picked those people of those universities
because they're indicated a willingness. I mean, MIT has already
said a hard No. I think it's because they want
to pick on some of them and target them.

Speaker 4 (38:13):
That's not what they said. You're probably right, see, but
they did say that there had to be some there
had to be some sense that either the leadership or
the governing board was open to having these kinds of
discussions in the first place.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
Yeah, that was no.

Speaker 4 (38:35):
Maybe that was just fluff.

Speaker 3 (38:37):
I don't know, But do you think I read that
the chairman of the Border Regents in the University of
Texas said that he was honored that University of Texas
was on the list and that he intended to reach
the agreement with the administration about it.

Speaker 4 (38:51):
So I was I was listening to an earlier podcast
that we had done where we actually discussed when Trump
first went after Harvard and John kept John kept coming
up with, aren't you guys worried that in the future,
you know, when the Democrats get back in power, if

(39:13):
and you know, that's always a worry, but it brings
me to a deeper question. I'm not sure how well
this compact proposal is going to work, But how else
would you would you ferret out the absolute orthodoxy? You
know that that is rampant across almost every university and

(39:38):
almost even even into the stem fields. Not so much
that they're grabbed ideologue's there, but they don't have a
choice but to go along with it. How would you
do that otherwise?

Speaker 3 (39:49):
So well, so, I do think the federal government's allowed
to fund the things that wants to fund. I don't
think they have an obligation to, you know, distribute money
even to different universities. But I think the only way
to beat them is what you're starting to see with
these civic schools. You know, there's one at Arizona, there's
one at Texas. There will never be one in Berkeley,

(40:11):
but you know that's going to provide competition.

Speaker 4 (40:15):
You know.

Speaker 3 (40:15):
I've heard stories from friends of mine who are shocked,
shocked that their children want to go to big state schools,
who want to go to big SEC schools in particular
because they think they're going to be treated more fairly
there and that they're going to have access to more
right even you know, fair ideological classes. And now that

(40:36):
may not be true, but that's what these kids in
the Northeast and in California all things. So, I think
that people are onto something with these civics programs. You
start offering just alternatives and competition. It can't just be
Hillsdale that's the only competition. Yeah, So I think you're
going to see students and faculty flock to these other

(40:57):
these new programs.

Speaker 2 (40:58):
That's a lot of way to beat. I think we
should do a whole separate segment on an episode someday
about some of these schools. I'll be visiting some here
next semester. I don't want to go off on it
now because it'll take us too far afield. I have
a somewhat simpler suggestion for public universities. So look, you know,
I got curious some years ago about provost. I mean,

(41:20):
know what a dean is, what's a provost? And it's
kind of murky, but in my sort of practical business,
private sector mind, provost, to my mind, is the chief
quality control officer of a university. All the hirings have
to go through a provost. Right, Lucretia and tenure promotion decisions,
and a lot of curriculum stuff, including I think even

(41:41):
course approval. The provost has a say, but not so
much as that.

Speaker 4 (41:45):
Okay at big universities, no, but but program approval, program
changes except yes, okay.

Speaker 2 (41:51):
I think that for public universities, the legislature and governors
ought to say, we are going to pass a law
if you have to saying we're going to approve the
selection provosts, and here are the kind of people we
want as provosts. You want provosts at these universities who say, no, sorry,
gender studies, you have to shrink by half and then
another half next year or something like that. No, you

(42:12):
cannot promote this lunatic who publishes all this crap. No
you cannot have a course in why Christopher Columbus is
the greatest general silent whatever you pick, the politically incorrect stuff.
That's what provosts ought to be doing at these universities.
They could actually make real changes into the intellectual climate.
And you know they ought to say. What's Thomas Soul's
great line is, next time you hear a university boast

(42:33):
about his diversity, ask how many Republicans they have in
the sociology department. So without doing that, I don't think
you should have a partisan test. But I do think
you could say to the political science department, history department,
do you have any military historians, history department, diplomatic historians?
Do you have anybody who studies, you know, American history
from the traditional point of view? You don't think that works?

Speaker 4 (42:56):
No, I don't. I will tell you that I know
too many military historian Well, okay, I get that.

Speaker 2 (43:02):
But in political science you could say, no, we don't
want a political theorist as all as crap. We want
somebody who oh well, I'll just in the.

Speaker 4 (43:10):
Same way stup for a second, in the same I mean,
on the one hand, I wanted to dismiss what you're saying,
but then I think about the kinds of job postings
that have been out there for faculty over the last
few years, and you have to be you know, you're
an English teacher who teaches critical race theory and transgender
empathy studies, and you know, and progress.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
Promost to be saying I'm sorry, you may not post
that advertisement period. And the story right, that's what now, look,
that's you know, sort of hardcore. But you know, as
you know, John, the new provost in Harvard is John Manning,
who is not as conservative as say Lucretia, but who
is and you know he's not a wild eye leftist, right.
I actually I think the real subtext here is well,

(43:55):
back up. There was a story in the Wall Street
Journal a month or two ago that Harvard's been thinking
about a center for you know, some conservative thought or
something like that, or you know, a civics program like
the other places have. And everyone said, oh, that's a
response to Trump. I happen to know from insight sources,
Harvard was thinking about this a year ago, months before
the election. I actually think that Garber, the new president,

(44:17):
and Manning and a few other people they know they
have a problem. I actually think they have the intentions
to try and fix it. But it's really hard to do.
That's why you need mean you need mean so ob
John Wayne style provosts. That's what we need. You'd have
to post.

Speaker 3 (44:36):
You're the kind of character provosts are generally mealy mouth balancer.

Speaker 2 (44:41):
Right, That's how they get the job, trying to please.

Speaker 3 (44:43):
Every exactly, trying to please everybody. Yeah, very hard to
have actually any real like who's haying actually what you
think is even academic leader. Well, you know, the president.

Speaker 4 (44:53):
I do want you to know that the provosts long
gone who hired me as dean, invited Harvey Mansfield, Yeah,
to speak at our university.

Speaker 2 (45:02):
There, there's a there's a few here and there. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (45:08):
Become a university president generally by being you know, sort
of nailing mouth, a little worm who doesn't want to
actually take a strong stand on any right.

Speaker 2 (45:15):
Raise money. Yeah, the right. You have to have a
spinal removal surgery before you can be a college president. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (45:21):
I have this great story my friend does Jesse Choper,
who was a great professor at Berkeley. He was dean
at Berkeley for ten years, and he said, being the
dean is like, hey, this goes to your you know,
the the toast we had at the beginning of the show,
he said, being the dean is like being the fire
hydrant at a dog convention.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
Yeah. And he was kind of out on the left,
but a serious guy, an interesting guys in academics. He
was a conservative, Like he didn't was affirmative action. Oh
I didn't know that.

Speaker 3 (45:53):
Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean that's but sadly that's
how you define what's conservative.

Speaker 4 (45:59):
Right, We tie this all together in a funny way
and just say that it so. The Trump administration is
going after universities because that is a you know, the
bulwark of the left. They've gone after entertainment if you
think about it. By the way, Milania Trump has a

(46:20):
documentary coming out and that's and she's a co producer
of it. It's supposedly a very big deal. They're going
after the leftist under what would you call them shadowy
networks that that are funding Antifa and a lot of

(46:43):
you know, radical leftist causes. They're going after them a
little bit untouchable style, you know, going after the actual
money behind it and looking for violations of tax law
and other things like that. Among the things. They're going
after Jack Smith and the people that were subjecting Trump

(47:07):
and and Maga people the law fair. They're going after
crime in the cities, especially in now. We could say
that there are cities because Trump is a racist, and
there are cities that are led by blacks.

Speaker 2 (47:24):
Or an organism. The whitest city in America is nine white.
So you can't say that about Portland. Yes, it's Stockholm?

Speaker 4 (47:32):
Well can It's just not true? Which is pretty much
them o. The modus operandi of the left these days.
You say what you want, regardless of whether or not
it's true. But I want to know. I looked up,
just for the fun of it, I put civil war
into Google and got literally thousands of hits about all

(47:55):
of these people that says that say, we're on the
brink of civil war.

Speaker 3 (47:59):
What do you guys think that's crazy?

Speaker 4 (48:02):
What?

Speaker 3 (48:04):
Oh, I don't think so crazy. Why why are we
on the brink of a civil war?

Speaker 2 (48:08):
That's crazy? Well, I think we are. Well, well, look
we discussed this what a year ago or a year
and a half ago, and it was all kind of
as crazy then too well, but look, I mean I
could My thought was it could start. Actually, this may
get misinterpreted. It could happen from the right where if
you had a rebel administration did something really egregious, you

(48:28):
would see, you know, tea party types or whatever. You'd say,
you're surrounding federal buildings in Saint Louis and Milwaukee and
places like that. Now, let's choose. On the other foot,
I think Chicago blinked in the last forty eight hours.
The news out Friday is that Chicago's police are now
arresting and interposing themselves between protesters and federal buildings and

(48:49):
you know, ICE officers and ICE operations and so forth,
because there was loose talk earlier in the week from
Mayor Johnson saying I am going to order my police
to protect the protesters from the National Guard troops that
Trump may decide to send in. Now, that's all I
guess in limbo. I don't keep up from hour to hour.
But the point is that starts to look like a
Fort Sumter moment to me. Uh, you know, if you

(49:11):
actually have there and.

Speaker 3 (49:12):
Some other states, there's no serious no serious state is
going to try to secede. I mean, no state's going
to actually.

Speaker 2 (49:19):
Put But it.

Speaker 3 (49:22):
Doesn't resource.

Speaker 2 (49:23):
It doesn't have to be secession, john It only needs
to be you know, actual shooting violence between two units
of government in our country, and then we have a crisis.

Speaker 3 (49:33):
I mean, if if the Chicago police would be ordered
to attack the National Guard, they'd be squashed like bugs.
I mean, well, military so has so much more firepower
police police officers, and I don't think the police officers
would obey. You're really doesn't.

Speaker 2 (49:49):
Assume well maybe not, but the fact the fact that
we're even being told even have people in public office
in Illinois talking this way is a moment that I
don't think John, you would ever anticipated.

Speaker 3 (50:01):
Oh, I mean we I mean it was much worse
in reaction to Brown in the South. I mean, that's
real defiance federal law. You really had governors and trying
to write in.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
I like to say, at least democrats have been consistent.
They opposed troops and now they opposed Trump, so at
least they're consistent.

Speaker 4 (50:23):
Dichotomy, John, for you to come in upon Trump is
claiming the power to send either to nationalize state National
Guard troops or uh yeah, to do that, but send
them elsewhere and use them to protect federal property and

(50:45):
to ensure that the operations of the federal government. All
of this under the Insurrection Act, which was passed originally
I believe in the Jefferson years in eighteen o seven,
and then it was amended in actually earlier he won,
and then again in the in the nineteen fifties to
do exactly what you were talking about, which is to

(51:05):
protect desegregation against Democrats. Of course, of course democrats. So
you have the Insurrection Act, and what do you have
on the left people screaming the problem with the use
of the Insurrection Act is posse commatatis.

Speaker 3 (51:25):
Yeah, they don't understand the law.

Speaker 4 (51:27):
They don't understand the law.

Speaker 3 (51:28):
I get that, but.

Speaker 4 (51:31):
Don't you also find a little bit of irony in
the fact that the Insurrection Act, in its eighteen sixty
one amendments, at least was designed to protect the newly
freed slaves, to enforce civil rights law in the reconstruction
period in the South, and so on, and that posse
commatatis was actually agreed to so that the federal government

(51:57):
would stop using federal troops to protect newly freed slaves.

Speaker 3 (52:03):
No, I mean, I think you and Steve are both
right in pointing out the parallels of how Southerners pre
you know, pre Civil War, Southerners after the Civil War,
Southerners after Brown versus Board of Education, and now Democrats
today all want to oppose the valid enforcement of federal
law when they just happen to disagree with it. Yeah, well,

(52:25):
you know, I mean, I don't the laws. I don't
think the law is even close on this one. Trump
definitely has the power to deploy troops to protect federal funks. Actually,
you don't even need This is the interesting thing. You
don't even need the Insurrection Act or any law. The president,
under the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has said several times,
has the power to protect federal agents, federal property, and

(52:48):
to protect the agents when they go out and force
the law. All these other statutes you're talking about give
the president broader powers in that. Well, and Trump's not
really going as he's not claimed the Insurrection Act. He's
not going out actually as far as he could go.
I mean, he's just saying her modest role is to
protect federal officers. The federal officers are the one who
are enforcing the law, not the military.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
Well, isn't it amusing that Trump, in his typical genius,
is making Democrats come out for states rights and the
Tenth Amendment. They they don't actually cite the Tenth Amendment
because they don't know it, but still it's kind of
funny to watch.

Speaker 3 (53:21):
But this is interesting thing that judges who have been stopping,
you know, trying to enjoin the deployment. I think they're
all going to be overturned on appeal. They've all been
suddenly discovering the Tenth Amendment right over. But I don't
know what the tenth Amendment here actually provides the right
of states to prevent the enforcement of valid federal law.

Speaker 2 (53:38):
That's not in the tenth Well, you know what I mean.
Another term for what's going on is the states are
attempting nullification.

Speaker 4 (53:46):
Right.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
It looks very much like nullification to me. And we
remember what Jackson Andrew Jackson threatened South Carolina in eighteen
twenty nine or whatever.

Speaker 3 (53:54):
It was just teaching this in classes. Well, he said, right,
he was going to lead an army they have ten
thousand they called up ten thousand right militia to invade
South Carolina. And he said he would hang the governor
of South Carolina from the tallest tree he could find. Yeah,
so you know Trump, oh, personally, jack is going to

(54:16):
do it. And I believe he would have done it
in person too.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
But you know, the nullification business, I I take. I
have taken pictures over the years of those signs on
you drive into Berkeley City City Live at saying Berkeley
is a nuclear free zone. And of course up on
the hill is the Lawrence Livermore Lab where they develop
nuclear weapons and have a working nuclear reactor. But of
course it's a federal facility. But there haven't been. I

(54:38):
don't know there've been pro Maybe there have been forty
fifty years ago protests about it that you know. The
federal government just said that's cute now, you know, go
away while we do our work, right, but this is
more serious.

Speaker 3 (54:50):
No, Actually, the protesters don't go up there because it's
up a hill and protesters are all usually out of
shape and don't like to walk up.

Speaker 2 (54:56):
That's right, right, right. Well, oh oh man.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
By the way, I did tell you when I used
to get protested on a weekly basis, there was this
old guy would protest me in a you know, one
of those like electric scooters because he was so out
of shape he couldn't actually walk back and forth with
a sign. So he got like one of those scooters
from Costco and would go back and forth.

Speaker 4 (55:21):
Have you seen, oh, yeah, video of the protest in Portland. Yeah,
of these these uh septagenarian a little bit of them. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
Well, so here's the thing. Look, remember I've spent lots
of time in Portland over the years. The great cliche
that well that's where Lewis and Clark College was, and
my best friend until he died, it was there a
lot I'd go there two three times a year, and
I was there a year or two ago to speak
at a black tied dinner. Anyway, the Clicheva Partland is
Partland is where young people go to retire. And so
my joke is, all those people look like they're seventy.

(55:57):
They're actually thirty five.

Speaker 4 (55:59):
Okay, but but they're they're they're share they're pathetic, they're
cringe and they're standing there with their little ukuleles seeing
these protest songs on behalf of all of the illegal immigrants.
Not one single person in the entire crowd had a

(56:20):
tan as good as mine. Never mind, were any of
them Hispanic or black or anything else. They were all
lily white liberal. What are they called they call him?
There's a there's a term. I forget it right now,
but anyway, anyway, sorry, okay. Steve says that he has
something really great for the end of the show, so

(56:41):
I give him enough time, not that.

Speaker 3 (56:46):
Much time, but anyway, the standard an he's pulling out
vinyl records and some kind of thing that looks like
playing let.

Speaker 4 (56:52):
Me let me give you just a few I want
time for Steve's latest.

Speaker 2 (56:58):
Uh, it's pretty go ahead, go go go flng to me.

Speaker 4 (57:01):
Okay, all right, uh bablon b. Trump retaliates for Peace
prize snub with picture of the Nobel Committee in sombreros.
Tell me that wasn't the Oh my god, that was
so great. And the worst thing about it is is

(57:23):
that left has no sense of humor.

Speaker 2 (57:25):
Oh right, yes, Oh, I thought you're talking about the
woman who did get the Nobel Prize giving full credit
to Trump forgetting it, which.

Speaker 4 (57:33):
Yeah, right, yeah, yeah, because I think that the Nobel
Committee probably thought that they were really tweaking Trump, right,
and instead it really backfired on him. But anyway, Federal
court overturns Israel Hamas peace.

Speaker 2 (57:50):
Deal, right of course. Well Judge Moosemark orders Hamas and
Israel to keep fighting. Right, that was the other one, right, James.

Speaker 4 (58:00):
Call me produces letters signed by fifty one former intelligence
official sayings totally innocent. Yeah, and then this is the
we didn't talk about it, but Steve is right. We
don't have that much to say right now until we
figure out how it all happens. But it's a picture
of Trump, but the caption underneath it is Hitler brings

(58:23):
peace to Israel exactly, John, that's true.

Speaker 3 (58:32):
Okay, always drink your whiskey meat, buy more books and Steve,
what ai travesty do you have for us today where
they're throwing even more people out of work?

Speaker 2 (58:42):
Oh? I have so much fun. I asked chat GBT
to give us a parody of a John U op
ed and it gave me. I got several versions. I'm
just going to give you a couple of very short excerpts.
It gave me The Constitution empowers the President to control
the weather by Professor John Yu the Manual Kant Distinguished
Professor of Original Intent at the University of California, Berkeley.

(59:05):
And another one is like, this doesn't sound like a
parody yet, yeah, right, and senior fellow at the Center
for Atmospheric Originalism. All right, just a couple of variants.
I've got five pages, but I'm gonna give you just
three short paragraphs which worked pretty well. Okay, cut one.
James Madison did not spend a human Philadelphia summer crafting
a week meteorologically impotent executive Keen his colleagues intended a

(59:30):
president capable of acting with decision activity, secrecy, and dispatch
quality is indispensable to weather modification. Federals Number seventy. See
also the Weather Channel versus Reality twenty twenty five. That
was the case citation. The other one is let's see
the way.

Speaker 4 (59:49):
The context is John arguing that the president has complete
and total authority under both Commander in Chief Article two
to stop her Cain's command the weather.

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
So that kind of okay? So cut two of three courts,
of course, should refrain from second guessing presidential weather decisions.
The judiciary lacks institutional competence in atmospheric science, as shown
in Marbury versus Monsoon, the US one Cranch.

Speaker 6 (01:00:19):
One thirty seven Judicial review over quents judicial review of
cumulus formation with risk, transforming the Supreme Court into a
kind of judicial Doppler radar, undermining the separation of barometers.

Speaker 2 (01:00:33):
And finally, the conclusion, as Hamilton wisely noted in Federal seventy,
energy and executive is a leading character in the definition
of good government. It is time we recognize that this
energy includes literally energy, thermodynamics, barometric pressure, and when necessary,

(01:00:54):
tactical cloud seating. In short, a timid president may surrender
to the whims of nature. A strong one commands the stormy.
I love that.

Speaker 3 (01:01:03):
That's a great last line, I'm going to use it.

Speaker 4 (01:01:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:01:07):
The problem is these things are getting almost good enough
to put us out of work.

Speaker 3 (01:01:11):
Right, oh, and this is great. I mean I'm going
to start using this thing right in my beds.

Speaker 4 (01:01:19):
All right, all right, you guys, have a wonderful week,
Happy Columbus Day. There was a great article I think
in the Spectator today about oh yeah, we ought to
stop shying away from celebrating everything great about Columbus hit
He I won't even use the term family show, but
he had very big kahons to be able to do

(01:01:40):
what he did across the Great Atlantic Ocean five hundred
years ago.

Speaker 2 (01:01:45):
Have you seen the size of the ships they sailed in?
Oh my god? Yeah? Yeah, right, okay, all right, you guys.
We had like fifteen people watching live, which isn't bad
for this late in the evening, and thank you listeners,
and everyone is.

Speaker 3 (01:01:59):
In night out of them really crecious dogs.

Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
Okay, bye, everybody, see you soon.

Speaker 5 (01:02:08):
Across the wide and rolling sea to a far and
distant shore. Then save three tiny wood and ships where
Nune had sailed before, and of the sailing tramite, all

(01:02:30):
the world.

Speaker 3 (01:02:31):
Would know the name.

Speaker 5 (01:02:34):
The Nuna, the Pinta, the Santa Maria and great would
be their thing.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
And great would be the thing.

Speaker 5 (01:02:50):
On the same the ocean wind to prove that the
world was round. It's my saving. To the west, lat
anew route could be found to the fable sanities of

(01:03:11):
the east.

Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
With a wondrous wealth, Untold.

Speaker 5 (01:03:16):
Evoldy would returned again with spice, silk and gold.

Speaker 2 (01:03:25):
With Ricochet join the conversation.