April 19, 2024 • 34 mins
We engage in a rigorous examination of the legal landscape following Clarence Thomas's mysterious hiatus from the Supreme Court and the potential precedent a pivotal case might set for January 6 insurrectionists. The term "otherwise obstructs" is scrutinized, raising questions about the interpretation of obstruction in the context of the Capitol riot. We also shine a light on possible conflicts of interest at the highest court, questioning the implications for justice and fairness.
The Trump Organization finds itself in hot water, with Don Jr.'s signatures on key documents under a legal microscope. We dissect Letitia James's actions and the implications for the financial dealings within Trump's empire. With Barbara Jones's oversight, we're left wondering what skeletons might tumble out of the organization's closet. Tune in as we also reveal the dubious honor of our 'Shithole of the Week' – a title bestowed upon those whose actions have been less than exemplary.
Finally, we grapple with the weighty issues of international conflict, advocacy for jury nullification, and witness tampering. Our conversation challenges listeners to differentiate between government actions and the will of the people, drawing poignant examples from around the globe. We delve into the sincerity of protests, especially in support of the Palestinian cause, and the inconsistent international response to crises. With a look at the U.S. political landscape, we analyze recent polling trends and the significance of continued activism as the nation approaches key elections. Join us for a deep and critical assessment of the state of our world and the role of justice within it.
Support the show:
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2003879/support
Follow our show's hosts on
Twitter:
twitter.com/@CoolTXchick
twitter.com/@Caroldedwine
twitter.com/taradublinrocks
twitter.com/blackknight10k
twitter.com/@pardonpod
Find Tara's book here:
Taradublinrocks.com
Find Ty's book here:
Consequence of Choice
Subscribe to Tara's substack:
taradublin.substack.com
Subscribe to Ty's substack:
https://theworldasiseeit.substack.com/
Support Our Sponsor: Sheets & Giggles
Eucalyptus Sheets (Recommended):
Sleep Mask (I use this every night)
Eucalyptus Comfortor
...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Thank you, apologies to you know.
I know all the family of NicoleBrown are listening.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
I yeah, look, and I hate to be insensitive.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
And the Goldman's sorry.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yeah, like people did die and their families Well
look, families you got.
You finally got justice.
The real killer is dead, soearlier on Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Talking about other hated black men.
Transition Carol Salad.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Nice job, carol.
After his absence at theSupreme Court oral arguments on
Monday, clarence Thomas waspresent and participating in
oral arguments here on Tuesdayfor this case that could decide
the fate of a number of january6 insurrectionists.
He didn't give any explanationfor his absence on monday,
(01:31):
although, given that he's 75years old, maybe he might have
had some health issues that havegone on unreported.
But typically when, whenjustices are absent, they
participate remotely in oralarguments or um well, yeah, I
don't know what the fuck.
I don't know what was going onmonday.
(01:52):
Like, again, it was thebeginning of trump's trial, so
maybe he was heartbroken thathis best friend was was facing
or he had to take jenny to thespa after her meltdown because
her Lord and Savior was on trial.
Maybe that was it she had toescort her to the spa.
(02:16):
Well, he was back in action andready to go on these January 6th
charges.
This is basically about aninstance in which one of the
insurrectionists were chargedwith well, a number of them were
charged with the obstruction ofofficial proceeding, but the
judge overseeing this oneparticular case decided that the
(02:36):
obstruction charges had beentoo broad and that they
shouldn't apply in this instance.
And we'll talk about it furtherin a second.
But we'll get into the text ofthe statutes, that's US Code
1512C1 and C2.
And it states whoever corruptlyone alters, destroys, mutilates
(02:59):
or conceals a record, documentor other object, or attempts to
do so with the intent to impairthe object's integrity or
availability for use in anofficial proceeding, or two
otherwise obstructs, influencesor impedes any official
proceeding or attempts to do so.
So the argument here is in thedefendant's case that statute
(03:22):
refers to.
Well, in C1, it says a record,document or object, and that is
the focus of the obstruction ofan official proceeding.
And even though it says in C2that or otherwise obstructs,
influences or impedes anofficial proceeding, it has to
relate to some kind of documentor some kind of object or some
(03:46):
kind of form of evidence that'sintended to obstruct the
official proceeding, even though, like clearly, part two is a
catch-all and it's totallyseparate from the idea of, like
you know, evidence in part one,but, of course, during the oral
arguments, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Did they record document or other object?
Would Mike Pence count asanother object Because they
tried to remove him from theproceeding for the purpose of?
Speaker 2 (04:18):
obstructing, influencing or impeding.
You know, I wish someone hadmade the oral, made the argument
in front of the Supreme Courtthat Mike Pence was an object
but no like of the justices.
The person who seemed mostskeptical of the idea that the
(04:38):
DOJ was right to bring thesecharges in such a fashion was,
of course, clarence Thomas,whose wife is a unindicted
co-conspirator and in theattempt to overturn the 2016 or
2020 election rather so.
Of course, he's going to dowhatever he can to bail the
insurrectionists out and, likeobviously, some of the more
conservative justices wereskeptical of DOJ's arguments
(05:02):
here that these were, um, youknow, proper charges and you
can't really necessarily counton Trump appointed justices to
do the right thing.
Um, who knows how the decisionwill turn out, but the arguments
were very interesting.
If you have the opportunity, goback and read up on those.
Uh, one of the things I was itclearly says or sorry.
(05:24):
Yeah, there's a big giantfucking or right there that
delineates between objects,documents or attempts to do so,
like as far as obstructing anofficial proceeding.
And then it's clear it says orotherwise obstructs, influences
or impedes any officialproceeding or attempts to do so.
And violence is clearly acorrupt attempt to obstruct,
(05:47):
influence or impede theprocessional.
Like storming the fuckingCapitol to stop the peaceful
transfer of power is fairlyfucking obvious.
Putting their bodies physicallyin the way and causing security
to insist that the Like Congresscowering and hiding for their
lives.
I think that that's prettyclear that they obstructed an
official proceeding.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
The fact that it had to stop meant it was disrupted.
I mean, they weren't standingthere going through the
proceedings while people werebanging down, trying to bang
through the door and stirringthe Capitol and beating cops.
It wasn't like nothing to seehere.
Y'all, what's your vote?
Electors?
No People had to be taken tofucking safe rooms and off-site
(06:33):
areas and things barricaded.
The fact that it was halted isthe disruption, the obstruction.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Ty, they had to shoot a motherfucker.
Yes, to make sure Congressdidn't die.
They called the goddamn army.
Ty, carol, they called the army.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Ooh, the mental gymnastics coming out of this
court.
I don't know what the fuck isgoing on.
I don't know, maybe Clarencedidn't come yesterday or go
yesterday because he had to gethis orders going on.
I don't know, maybe clarencedidn't come by come yesterday or
go yesterday, or because he hadto get his orders and maybe
meet harlan down in some secretbunker he had to get his
marching orders to get hisorders, so on how he's supposed
(07:15):
to rule maybe you know, becausehe didn't want nobody knowing
like, oh he's, he called out,what's he up to?
we need to follow him.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
So he's like I'm just not gonna show up yeah, he had
the nerve to even bring up thatsome of the january 6 defendants
were overly charged and likethis is rich coming.
I think one of the problemswith these supreme court oral
arguments is that the lawyerspresenting in front of the
supreme court are mistakenlyrespecting the construct as if
these are independent jurors andthey're just calling, calling
(07:46):
ball and strikes.
These are bad faith actorsexactly, and they know, clarence
thomas's wife was at thefucking capitol on january 6th
sending him fucking emails.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
He knows if he rules against the january 6th people
he can't go home and if he does,it's one eye open.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Sleep time like period yeah, but what I'm saying
is, is these lawyers makingthese arguments?
They need to call out the factthat, hey, you bringing up
january 6th, clarence thomas,your wife was sending emails
trying to overturn the electiontoo.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Like the fact that they're respecting this as
though these are normal peopleis fucking insane and that's
like this is third goodmarshall's court yeah or the
court that existed when clarencethomas didn't say a word for 10
years and it still had somesemblance of credibility respect
and credibility, exactly thesame as the media treating trump
(08:40):
like he's a normal fuckingpresidential candidate, and not
one that tried to to stage acoup like if this is ridiculous,
the air and oxygen and thefaith that they have it's.
It's no more.
You have to treat these foolslike they are yeah, you gotta,
you gotta be.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
I mean, you basically got a shit post in your oral
arguments, otherwise you'regonna get much you're gonna get
a fucked up ruling, like you didwith, you know, the 14th
amendment make some ridiculousass argument, some ridiculous
shit.
You don't have to be ridiculous.
But I'm saying, like you gottacall out this hypocrisy.
Yeah well, you gotta call outthis hypocrisy to their faces
and make them like wallow inshame, otherwise you're gonna
(09:19):
get a fucking ridiculous assjudgment, like with the
insurrection is, being put onthe ballot again Cause they, you
know, read, read theconstitution in a way that was
insane, but in a way that wasmostly convenient for the
insurance.
Like you, you can't let themget away with it.
You got to call it out,otherwise they're going to screw
you over and you're going toget decisions made that don't
(09:42):
make any sense.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
That could potentially affect them Well and
shaming them in court, as theum, as the attorney is.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
that's the plan yeah, because you have you not
realized, carol?
They're going to lose?
Like if they're doomed they'regoing to lose.
And then your only shot like ifyou play it straight, you're
going to lose the only shot isto like if you're going to go
down, go down on the record withcalling those motherfuckers out
(10:14):
yeah, yeah, they can't hidefrom that.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
That shit is that that court.
That's on the record.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Right.
That no one is willing to sayit to them is the reason why
they keep getting the skate.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
I'm just saying I could see why an attorney
wouldn't want to say that incourt.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
I'm going to come up with some crazy case and file it
, and then I'm going to try toget it to the Supreme Court and
then, when I get there, I'mgoing to say I want to be my own
attorney.
Can I do that?
Speaker 2 (10:45):
No, carol, I understand what you're saying,
but, like see, what I'm sayingis is the process is already
rigged and if you don't go tothe extreme of calling them out
on their hypocrisy, you're goingto lose and there's going to be
no media coverage of it.
They're going to treat it asthough they came to a rational
decision, even though it wastotally irrational, and that's
why you like yeah, but um, solate monday night, uh, the
(11:07):
surety and the civil fraudjudgment that was supposed to be
responsible for trump's bond,the night insurance company.
They posted a filing latemonday, right before the
deadline, and the documentsstate that the bond is backed by
a Charles Schwab account with$175 million in cash and this is
important in cash or cashequivalents.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Sneakers don't count.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
We'll get back to that in a second.
The makers don't count.
We'll get back to that in asecond.
The documents appear to besigned by Don Jr, but the
documents also state that it isfor a subsidy of the Chubb
Insurance Group and not KnightInsurance, which means these
(11:53):
documents could be related tothe Chubb surety in the E Jean
Carroll judgment in the filingof that bond.
So it appears as though theymight be trying to pull a fast
one over on Judge and Gorin'scourt, which is fucking insane.
This is wild to me it's wild,like in a case about fraud where
you were found guilty andyou're trying to appeal that and
(12:16):
post a bond that appears toalso be fraudulent be fraud.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
So he's like trying to double dip the bond for the
Eugene Carroll.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
That's what it looks like yes, in this one instance,
but there's also there's so manythings about it that are
fucking suspicious that it'sreally even hard to point out
one thing in particular, butanother thing.
So back to this Charles Schwabaccount with $175 million in
cash or cash equivalents.
So, first of all, the documentsays, well, it notes the amount
(12:49):
in the account on a particularday, april fit, or rather April
15th of 2014, 2014, april 15thof 2024.
And you might know, that day.
Well, yeah, not 20, 20, 24.
That day might be familiar toyou because that is the date of
(13:10):
the live golf tournament makingits arrival to Trump's golf
course in dural, florida, april15th.
So they held the live golftournament there.
And miraculously, on the sameday is that?
Uh, night insurance knows thatthat trump has a shrub account
with 175 million dollars,exactly the amount of money
(13:31):
needed to cover the reduced bond.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
And that is so funny.
Also, it's because Knightturned over all of their
financials.
But they're like oh my God, Iwent home, I started vacuuming,
I lifted up the couch cushionsVoila.
Maybe, I don't know, maybe theywent to the fucking school of
Bob Melendez.
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Well, it's also a lot going on with Knight's claims
of being able to you know theirfinancial solvency in terms of
covering the bond.
It appears as though they don'thave enough money, but they
keep pointing to their parentcompany having the funds, but
like the whole point of the bond, is Janky Hanky.
Yeah, mr Hanky, janky hanky.
Yeah, mr hanky.
Uh, just, we're, we're going toget enough of weird strange
names making their appearancesover the course of the next
(14:23):
couple of weeks, uh, especiallywith like david pecker and now
mr hanky.
But yeah, they keep pointingout how the parent company has
the money to cover the thejudgment.
Uh, should trump lose hisappeal?
But like, the whole point ofthe bond is, so the money is
there, because whoever won thejudgment, in this case leticia
james's office, if you post thebond, that saves, you know, her
(14:47):
office from having to collect oror having to seize assets or
properties, like the moneyshould be there and that this
company doesn't seem to have themoney.
But they're like, oh, you canjust get it from my parents.
Like that's the whole purposeof the bond is to avoid that, so
it just it seems sketch.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Don Jr Is in enough fucking trouble.
He was what him and Eric bothgot a couple million dollar fund
and, uh, banned for what?
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Two years from doing business, yeah, but that don jr
is signing shit and that thiswhole this all of this is well
that look, that's another thing,and I just wanted to point out
that's probably why daddy's nameain't on that shit, because
they're like we can't have himout here with a target on his
back signing on these documentsand sending him to court.
So Don Jr Is probably going totake some heat from this Cause.
(15:40):
I'm sure Letitia James's officeis going to ask for more.
We'll further clarify, likewhen they hold this hearing
about approving this bond.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Letitia James's office is going to ask all the
questions and I'm sure if thisis some kind of fucking around
like Letitia James' office isgoing to ask all the questions
and I'm sure if this is somekind of they keep fucking around
like Letitia James is stupid orsomething Right, they really do
.
This isn't what she fuckingdoes.
She's brought in billions ofdollars from New York.
She has taken down traffickingring.
She has went after cryptoopioids Tish don't play that,
(16:15):
Homie don't play that and theyare fucking with the wrong one.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah.
So if this is some kind ofscheme to get Trump out of the
bond or some kind of delaytactic while the delay has been
effective, she's going to hammerthem, and Judge and Goran
probably will too.
And another thing will too, andanother thing.
So, of note, barbara Jones, thecourt-appointed monitor, is
(16:40):
still at her position overseeingTrump Organization finances,
and so she is supposed to benotified of any transactions of
more than $5 million.
So if there's anything sketchyabout the way this money got
into this account, that Knightthat, uh, night insurance is
using as collateral, uh, shewill be able to have access to
those documents and we'll beable to present them in court.
(17:01):
So I mean again, like, if thisis the saudis funneling money
into the trump, uh, trumporganization, uh, we're gonna
know about it, we're gonna aboutit, I would count that money
again because it might be, youknow, about $50,000 short, if
Julian is in charge ofit because.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
I'm sure he owes some people Cash equivalents could
have been the DJ.
When they say cash equivalent,I'm assuming that the bricks of
cocaine don't count.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
No, all right, carol, what were you saying?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
I was saying you think the cash equivalent.
That's how they valued the DJTstock and notice it was April
5th.
So is that before it crashed?
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Okay, so here's the thing.
I don't know necessarily, thearrangements of whether or not
Trump can.
I'm actually, I'm actuallypretty sure that he's not
supposed to be able to use anyof the stock as collateral yeah
not even selling it off but evenusing it as collateral.
But again, if he does um, sofirst of all, night insurance.
(18:09):
They have like a clause whereif the value of the funds in the
account dips below a certainamount, trump has to top it off
to get it back to the $175million.
So if he's using some of the,the stock is collateral.
Well, given that the value ofthe shares have dropped
massively over the course of thepast couple of weeks, like he's
(18:29):
going to have to continuouslykeep adding stock to get the
balance above $175 million.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Maybe he was able to get the ball.
Maybe he offered them somestock for the ball.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Well, who knows, it's worth?
Speaker 3 (18:43):
13 cents.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yeah, Well, I mean it's worth.
Well, here's the thing If hekeeps dropping, it's going to
take the entirety of his stockoptions in the company to cover
the 175 million dollars, andthen he won't be able to cash
out at all so I mean I'msurprised they haven't suspended
trading.
(19:05):
Uh, it'll have to get it'll haveto get a lot lower and
supposedly they're planning onissuing some new shares, which
which will pump cash into.
Yeah well, that'll pump cashinto the company, but it'll also
like water down the the valueof the stock price even more so
which is what he was sued for,what the guys, what they were
(19:27):
saying.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
it's like they.
It's like watching, like the,the barnum and Bailey of
financial transactions, and Ijust see this clown car in the
middle.
I hear this music, yeah and thisis what this looks like to me,
(19:48):
and I'm like, how did any ofthese people amass any kind of
wealth at all, because they arebumbling morons and the shit
that they're doing seems soreckless to me and I don't
understand how anybody with amodicum of business sense would
not just walk the fuck away well, ty, they are walking away
(20:11):
because again, if you haven'tnoticed, the stock peaked at
like $70-something per share.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
It's now down in the 20s, the low 20s, and look at
this rate.
It could be below $20 per shareby Friday and again, I think
once it hits that point,everybody's going to abandon
ship.
It'll be a penny stock beforethe end of the month.
If that's the case, and youknow, kudos to whoever shorted
(20:38):
the stock at its high.
You, a fucking legend.
You about to get, you know, ahundred times worth your money
here pretty soon.
So congratulations on makingbank by betting against an
obvious pump and dump scheme.
You, a genius.
Congratulations, bro.
All right, so it's time for ourshithole of the week award.
(21:02):
I myself have a particularnominee, but if there's anyone
that you two wanted to putforward, by all means.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
I mean, I'm all for Mike Johnson, but we need some
fresh blood, we need some newmeat.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Well, mike Johnson is trying to balance the fact that
he is controlled by an insaneclown caucus but also needs to
be semi-responsible, so I'm notnecessarily going to nominate
him this week, even though he isset to lose his job fairly soon
here.
I think they're going to moveto vacate the speaker.
(21:40):
Well, the Republicans are goingto move to vacate fairly soon,
and then Trump doesn't seem tobe too intent on protecting him
at the moment.
But my personal nomination forthe Shithole of the Week award
is none other than Clay Travis.
He is the host of Outkick, thethat kicked off.
Clay Travis posted on theinterwebs that quote If you're a
(22:23):
Trump supporter in New YorkCity who was part of the jury
pool, do everything you can toget seated on the jury and then
refuse to convict as a matter ofprinciple, do them in the case
via hung jury.
It's the most patriotic thingyou could possibly do Him.
Suggesting that in public,suggesting that the jury should
engage in jury nullificationthat is actually a crime.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
And then explaining to him how to do it on top of
that.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Yeah, that is witness tampering.
That is a felony.
He could spend, you know, sixmonths in jail and up to you
know a ridiculous amount ofmoney in fines.
So hopefully the FBI.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
It's got to be like per witness right.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Hopefully the FBI gets a hold of him.
And look.
So I live in Nashville, he'sfrom here.
He wasn't always like this andhe's actually a lawyer.
So the fact that he has liketaken the position of like
outright committing crimes infavor of supporting Donald Trump
(23:29):
, I hereby award this shit stainthe shithole of the week award.
Congratulations, you werejackass.
You fucking deserve it.
All right kids.
Closing thoughts Any anyonewant to step up to the plate?
Speaker 1 (23:42):
No, no matter.
I just want to say a quickthing about war.
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.
That is not the thought.
Cool, Cool.
I just want to remind everyoneabout the humanity of others.
We shouldn't have to like havea whole topic about it, but like
(24:03):
celebrating humanity, anyonelike blowing up people because
you don't like their leaders,like really fucked up.
Like remember your enemies arehuman and everyone's human, and
don't don't be fucking simpingfor the Islamic Republic in Iran
.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Fuck Long story short .
Yes, If you're, if you findyourself supporting Iran,
regardless of how you feel aboutthe conflict the leadership,
not the people.
No, look, isn't that?
I know I guess people tend toconflate those.
But yes, when we talk about theRussians or the Chinese or the
Iranians or even Hamas, we'renot talking about innocent
(24:43):
citizens.
We're talking about theparticular organizations in
charge of these decisions, theparticular organizations in
charge of these decisions andeveryone should remember that
when you're like laughing aboutpeople being killed, In case of
point.
I met a nice Iranian woman at arestaurant sometime last year,
(25:08):
very kind, thoughtful,insightful, educated, like even
the Iranian people are peoplejust like you and me.
But again, if you find yourselfrooting for the government or
Iran, you the asshole.
In that situation, there's justno, it's just unacceptable to
be rooting for the bad guys.
In that case, uh Ty.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Closing thoughts uh, no, what are you saying?
Like here, there's an Iranianrestaurant here and the lady is,
she's so amazing and Iabsolutely love it and and I
really.
We have so such a problem withconflating things that shouldn't
be lumped together.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Like oh, especially people in their governments.
Because again I'm American.
We had Trump in charge here.
Do I seem like a trumpsupporter to you?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
exactly, and so it's like to lump, you know, the
palestinian people in with hamas, or the jewish people, the
israeli people with nanyahu, or,to, you know, lump in any any
people, like, of course, all.
Of course all Russians aren'tPutin supporters.
I mean, you can see that by theturnout that Novani had.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
And then, at the end of the day, these warring
leaders have more in common witheach other than they do with
their people.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
With their people.
That's a very good point.
That's absolutely it, carol,you nailed it.
They have more in common witheach other than they do with the
people they're supposed to berepresenting.
And but, yeah, it's the peoplethat they are representing who
are taking the heat and bearingthe brunt of the backlash, not
(26:44):
those who really deserve it,those who really deserve it.
And you know, I have no problemwith people standing with the
Palestinian people.
But my issue with thesepro-Palestinian protests and
these marches and shutting downbridges what is your end game?
What do you want?
What do you think is going tohappen by this?
Because you're not shuttingdown a bridge in Gaza or you're
(27:07):
not shutting down a bridge inIsrael, you're not standing
outside of the Israeli embassy,you're keeping parents from
taking their kids to school,you're keeping people from
getting to the hospital, you'rekeeping people from getting
their jobs Everyday, people whohave nothing to do with what is
going on.
And so what is your end game?
I don't get it, I don'tunderstand it, and all it does
(27:29):
is it detracts away from thewhat is really going on and how
the Palestinian people arereally suffering.
And I also get upset is becauseif you really really give a
fuck.
Then where were you when Assadwas bombing Palestinian refugee
camps and displacing them withRussia's help in Syria?
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Okay, it's really difficult to get everyone
involved on every cause, but yes, point taken.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
But if your thing is about the Palestinian people,
well, there were Palestinianpeople in refugee camps in Syria
that were bombed, that weredisplaced, that were killed,
that were starved out.
Those were Palestinians.
But I heard high and low airfrom you about that, about them.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
And in that case it's not like Hamas went over there
and raped and murdered a bunchof Syrians.
Speaker 3 (28:18):
No, it was just the leader of the country just
killing his own people.
But point well made, I feellike you can't no, you can't
take up every cause, but if youare this, this, this passionate
(28:39):
about it, then you are this.
Then you would be taking it onin the interest of anyone in
that situation and in my mind,you can't be anti-Ukraine and
pro-Palestinian.
I don't see that.
I don't think that is a sincerepoint of view.
(29:01):
I don't think that's a sinceretake.
And I'm using those twoexamples because they are the
most prominent, but there areseveral around the world that
can be used and as far as likeput in and the same
circumstances, but what is theend game?
What is it that they want?
(29:24):
They just keep saying, using aphrase, without saying how they
think that it's going to happen,how they want it to happen and
what do they think is going tohappen after it happens?
Or what is it that they want tohappen after it happens?
Speaker 2 (29:39):
And here let me save you from having to go on even
further Like, if you're,obviously, if you're protesting
for the Palestinians, how areyou not protesting against Hamas
?
Anyway, as for my closingthoughts, I'm going to stay away
from the charged subject ofwhether or not the it's Carol's
(30:00):
fault.
I'm going to stay away from thecharged debate about whether or
not the phrase those people areuttering is even accurate or
fitting.
I mean, you can?
This is one of those timeswhere I sound like a right or
white wing a white wing, damn it, I did it again a right wing
nut job, where you know, do yourown research about the veracity
(30:26):
of the numbers that the badguys are putting out, about
casualties and such.
But what I will say is that,horrific situation aside, we are
reaching a point where thingsare starting to swing in terms
of the polling in the election,and I know you're all going to
(30:46):
say the polling is bullshit, itdoesn't matter.
Ok, well, it matters in thesense that maybe the methodology
used by the polls isn't comingsee a wild swing from one
direction to the other.
That is the way in which pollingcan be particularly valuable,
(31:18):
because, while the numbers mightnot accurately reflect how the
election ends in November, whatit does show is that election
sentiment is moving onedirection, and Trump here is
moving in the wrong direction,and ever since the State of the
Union address, where Biden putto bed this idea that he was
(31:43):
suffering from some sort ofcognitive decline or wasn't fit
to hold office, which wasadmittedly extraordinarily easy
to do when you set the barextremely low and then he can
just get on TV and talk for anhour.
Ace job there.
Republicans, that was a geniusmove.
You set up Joe Biden to surpassyour results immeasurably by
(32:04):
doing the easiest thing in theworld talking for an hour.
We're fucking idiots with thepodcast.
We do that every week.
So even in republicland look,even in a republican- you're
sounding like trump look it'slate.
Um, we do this at night when I'mexhausted and english is harder
and fucking harder.
But even in a republicanleaning poll that just dropped
(32:28):
uh, I think it's from EchelonInsights it has Biden up three,
now leading 49 to 46.
It has Democrats in the genericup by three points and over the
last two months that is a sevenpoint swing.
So, as I've been telling you,while I am extraordinarily
(32:48):
concerned about the outcome ofthe election and the
consequences that we might befacing if Trump wins, I've also
been telling you that if youshow up to vote, Trump will lose
and that the polls arereflecting that and like, just
instead of focusing on whetheror not the polling is favorable
to Biden.
(33:09):
You know it's a landmark.
It's a sign to show that maybeyou need to do in the future how
he saved the country from whatseemed like an inevitably
(33:36):
terrible conclusion in 2020,where we were set to die from
COVID because Trump.
Even when the vaccines weremade available, Trump couldn't
get them out to the people.
He didn't leave a pandemicresponse plan.
Once he left the White House,the economy was in tatters.
We thought the global economywas going to collapse.
Biden saved us from all thatand the only real consequence is
(34:00):
that prices of some items are alittle bit higher, even though
inflation went down because ofprice gaps.
Share this information withpeople.
Let them know about the jobBiden is doing.
Like.
Once people are aware of thetruth and they hear it, their
opinions change.
The republican party is that'sgoing to continue to deter
(34:33):
supporters away from their partyand towards biden, like they're
.
Again.
They're talking about removingthe speaker of the house.
Republicans are doing that.
Their speaker of the house is arepublican.
That's fucking insane.
Like it's an election year.
Clearly their party's notunified.
That doesn't bode well for them.
Trump is is going on trial hereagain.
Trial of the century, at leastuntil the next Trump trial and
(34:56):
then the Trump trial after thatand then possibly the Trump
trial after that.
That's not going to do him anyfavors in terms of public
support is moving in ourdirection and instead of like
obsessing over the possibilitythat it could go all wrong,
focus on being productive, doingwhat you can do to ensure we
(35:17):
don't lose our democracy.
And that concludes this episodeof Pardon the Insurrection.
Thank you, apologies to you know.
I know all the family of NicoleBrown are listening.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
I yeah, look, and I hate to be insensitive.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
And the Goldman's sorry.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yeah, like people did die and their families Well
look, families you got.
You finally got justice.
The real killer is dead, soearlier on Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Talking about other hated black men.
Transition Carol Salad.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Nice job, carol.
After his absence at theSupreme Court oral arguments on
Monday, clarence Thomas waspresent and participating in
oral arguments here on Tuesdayfor this case that could decide
the fate of a number of january6 insurrectionists.
He didn't give any explanationfor his absence on monday,
(01:31):
although, given that he's 75years old, maybe he might have
had some health issues that havegone on unreported.
But typically when, whenjustices are absent, they
participate remotely in oralarguments or um well, yeah, I
don't know what the fuck.
I don't know what was going onmonday.
(01:52):
Like, again, it was thebeginning of trump's trial, so
maybe he was heartbroken thathis best friend was was facing
or he had to take jenny to thespa after her meltdown because
her Lord and Savior was on trial.
Maybe that was it she had toescort her to the spa.
(02:16):
Well, he was back in action andready to go on these January 6th
charges.
This is basically about aninstance in which one of the
insurrectionists were chargedwith well, a number of them were
charged with the obstruction ofofficial proceeding, but the
judge overseeing this oneparticular case decided that the
(02:36):
obstruction charges had beentoo broad and that they
shouldn't apply in this instance.
And we'll talk about it furtherin a second.
But we'll get into the text ofthe statutes, that's US Code
1512C1 and C2.
And it states whoever corruptlyone alters, destroys, mutilates
(02:59):
or conceals a record, documentor other object, or attempts to
do so with the intent to impairthe object's integrity or
availability for use in anofficial proceeding, or two
otherwise obstructs, influencesor impedes any official
proceeding or attempts to do so.
So the argument here is in thedefendant's case that statute
(03:22):
refers to.
Well, in C1, it says a record,document or object, and that is
the focus of the obstruction ofan official proceeding.
And even though it says in C2that or otherwise obstructs,
influences or impedes anofficial proceeding, it has to
relate to some kind of documentor some kind of object or some
(03:46):
kind of form of evidence that'sintended to obstruct the
official proceeding, even though, like clearly, part two is a
catch-all and it's totallyseparate from the idea of, like
you know, evidence in part one,but, of course, during the oral
arguments, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Did they record document or other object?
Would Mike Pence count asanother object Because they
tried to remove him from theproceeding for the purpose of?
Speaker 2 (04:18):
obstructing, influencing or impeding.
You know, I wish someone hadmade the oral, made the argument
in front of the Supreme Courtthat Mike Pence was an object
but no like of the justices.
The person who seemed mostskeptical of the idea that the
(04:38):
DOJ was right to bring thesecharges in such a fashion was,
of course, clarence Thomas,whose wife is a unindicted
co-conspirator and in theattempt to overturn the 2016 or
2020 election rather so.
Of course, he's going to dowhatever he can to bail the
insurrectionists out and, likeobviously, some of the more
conservative justices wereskeptical of DOJ's arguments
(05:02):
here that these were, um, youknow, proper charges and you
can't really necessarily counton Trump appointed justices to
do the right thing.
Um, who knows how the decisionwill turn out, but the arguments
were very interesting.
If you have the opportunity, goback and read up on those.
Uh, one of the things I was itclearly says or sorry.
(05:24):
Yeah, there's a big giantfucking or right there that
delineates between objects,documents or attempts to do so,
like as far as obstructing anofficial proceeding.
And then it's clear it says orotherwise obstructs, influences
or impedes any officialproceeding or attempts to do so.
And violence is clearly acorrupt attempt to obstruct,
(05:47):
influence or impede theprocessional.
Like storming the fuckingCapitol to stop the peaceful
transfer of power is fairlyfucking obvious.
Putting their bodies physicallyin the way and causing security
to insist that the Like Congresscowering and hiding for their
lives.
I think that that's prettyclear that they obstructed an
official proceeding.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
The fact that it had to stop meant it was disrupted.
I mean, they weren't standingthere going through the
proceedings while people werebanging down, trying to bang
through the door and stirringthe Capitol and beating cops.
It wasn't like nothing to seehere.
Y'all, what's your vote?
Electors?
No People had to be taken tofucking safe rooms and off-site
(06:33):
areas and things barricaded.
The fact that it was halted isthe disruption, the obstruction.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Ty, they had to shoot a motherfucker.
Yes, to make sure Congressdidn't die.
They called the goddamn army.
Ty, carol, they called the army.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Ooh, the mental gymnastics coming out of this
court.
I don't know what the fuck isgoing on.
I don't know, maybe Clarencedidn't come yesterday or go
yesterday because he had to gethis orders going on.
I don't know, maybe clarencedidn't come by come yesterday or
go yesterday, or because he hadto get his orders and maybe
meet harlan down in some secretbunker he had to get his
marching orders to get hisorders, so on how he's supposed
(07:15):
to rule maybe you know, becausehe didn't want nobody knowing
like, oh he's, he called out,what's he up to?
we need to follow him.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
So he's like I'm just not gonna show up yeah, he had
the nerve to even bring up thatsome of the january 6 defendants
were overly charged and likethis is rich coming.
I think one of the problemswith these supreme court oral
arguments is that the lawyerspresenting in front of the
supreme court are mistakenlyrespecting the construct as if
these are independent jurors andthey're just calling, calling
(07:46):
ball and strikes.
These are bad faith actorsexactly, and they know, clarence
thomas's wife was at thefucking capitol on january 6th
sending him fucking emails.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
He knows if he rules against the january 6th people
he can't go home and if he does,it's one eye open.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Sleep time like period yeah, but what I'm saying
is, is these lawyers makingthese arguments?
They need to call out the factthat, hey, you bringing up
january 6th, clarence thomas,your wife was sending emails
trying to overturn the electiontoo.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Like the fact that they're respecting this as
though these are normal peopleis fucking insane and that's
like this is third goodmarshall's court yeah or the
court that existed when clarencethomas didn't say a word for 10
years and it still had somesemblance of credibility respect
and credibility, exactly thesame as the media treating trump
(08:40):
like he's a normal fuckingpresidential candidate, and not
one that tried to to stage acoup like if this is ridiculous,
the air and oxygen and thefaith that they have it's.
It's no more.
You have to treat these foolslike they are yeah, you gotta,
you gotta be.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
I mean, you basically got a shit post in your oral
arguments, otherwise you'regonna get much you're gonna get
a fucked up ruling, like you didwith, you know, the 14th
amendment make some ridiculousass argument, some ridiculous
shit.
You don't have to be ridiculous.
But I'm saying, like you gottacall out this hypocrisy.
Yeah well, you gotta call outthis hypocrisy to their faces
and make them like wallow inshame, otherwise you're gonna
(09:19):
get a fucking ridiculous assjudgment, like with the
insurrection is, being put onthe ballot again Cause they, you
know, read, read theconstitution in a way that was
insane, but in a way that wasmostly convenient for the
insurance.
Like you, you can't let themget away with it.
You got to call it out,otherwise they're going to screw
you over and you're going toget decisions made that don't
(09:42):
make any sense.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
That could potentially affect them Well and
shaming them in court, as theum, as the attorney is.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
that's the plan yeah, because you have you not
realized, carol?
They're going to lose?
Like if they're doomed they'regoing to lose.
And then your only shot like ifyou play it straight, you're
going to lose the only shot isto like if you're going to go
down, go down on the record withcalling those motherfuckers out
(10:14):
yeah, yeah, they can't hidefrom that.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
That shit is that that court.
That's on the record.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Right.
That no one is willing to sayit to them is the reason why
they keep getting the skate.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
I'm just saying I could see why an attorney
wouldn't want to say that incourt.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
I'm going to come up with some crazy case and file it
, and then I'm going to try toget it to the Supreme Court and
then, when I get there, I'mgoing to say I want to be my own
attorney.
Can I do that?
Speaker 2 (10:45):
No, carol, I understand what you're saying,
but, like see, what I'm sayingis is the process is already
rigged and if you don't go tothe extreme of calling them out
on their hypocrisy, you're goingto lose and there's going to be
no media coverage of it.
They're going to treat it asthough they came to a rational
decision, even though it wastotally irrational, and that's
why you like yeah, but um, solate monday night, uh, the
(11:07):
surety and the civil fraudjudgment that was supposed to be
responsible for trump's bond,the night insurance company.
They posted a filing latemonday, right before the
deadline, and the documentsstate that the bond is backed by
a Charles Schwab account with$175 million in cash and this is
important in cash or cashequivalents.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Sneakers don't count.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
We'll get back to that in a second.
The makers don't count.
We'll get back to that in asecond.
The documents appear to besigned by Don Jr, but the
documents also state that it isfor a subsidy of the Chubb
Insurance Group and not KnightInsurance, which means these
(11:53):
documents could be related tothe Chubb surety in the E Jean
Carroll judgment in the filingof that bond.
So it appears as though theymight be trying to pull a fast
one over on Judge and Gorin'scourt, which is fucking insane.
This is wild to me it's wild,like in a case about fraud where
you were found guilty andyou're trying to appeal that and
(12:16):
post a bond that appears toalso be fraudulent be fraud.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
So he's like trying to double dip the bond for the
Eugene Carroll.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
That's what it looks like yes, in this one instance,
but there's also there's so manythings about it that are
fucking suspicious that it'sreally even hard to point out
one thing in particular, butanother thing.
So back to this Charles Schwabaccount with $175 million in
cash or cash equivalents.
So, first of all, the documentsays, well, it notes the amount
(12:49):
in the account on a particularday, april fit, or rather April
15th of 2014, 2014, april 15thof 2024.
And you might know, that day.
Well, yeah, not 20, 20, 24.
That day might be familiar toyou because that is the date of
(13:10):
the live golf tournament makingits arrival to Trump's golf
course in dural, florida, april15th.
So they held the live golftournament there.
And miraculously, on the sameday is that?
Uh, night insurance knows thatthat trump has a shrub account
with 175 million dollars,exactly the amount of money
(13:31):
needed to cover the reduced bond.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
And that is so funny.
Also, it's because Knightturned over all of their
financials.
But they're like oh my God, Iwent home, I started vacuuming,
I lifted up the couch cushionsVoila.
Maybe, I don't know, maybe theywent to the fucking school of
Bob Melendez.
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Well, it's also a lot going on with Knight's claims
of being able to you know theirfinancial solvency in terms of
covering the bond.
It appears as though they don'thave enough money, but they
keep pointing to their parentcompany having the funds, but
like the whole point of the bond, is Janky Hanky.
Yeah, mr Hanky, janky hanky.
Yeah, mr hanky.
Uh, just, we're, we're going toget enough of weird strange
names making their appearancesover the course of the next
(14:23):
couple of weeks, uh, especiallywith like david pecker and now
mr hanky.
But yeah, they keep pointingout how the parent company has
the money to cover the thejudgment.
Uh, should trump lose hisappeal?
But like, the whole point ofthe bond is, so the money is
there, because whoever won thejudgment, in this case leticia
james's office, if you post thebond, that saves, you know, her
(14:47):
office from having to collect oror having to seize assets or
properties, like the moneyshould be there and that this
company doesn't seem to have themoney.
But they're like, oh, you canjust get it from my parents.
Like that's the whole purposeof the bond is to avoid that, so
it just it seems sketch.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Don Jr Is in enough fucking trouble.
He was what him and Eric bothgot a couple million dollar fund
and, uh, banned for what?
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Two years from doing business, yeah, but that don jr
is signing shit and that thiswhole this all of this is well
that look, that's another thing,and I just wanted to point out
that's probably why daddy's nameain't on that shit, because
they're like we can't have himout here with a target on his
back signing on these documentsand sending him to court.
So Don Jr Is probably going totake some heat from this Cause.
(15:40):
I'm sure Letitia James's officeis going to ask for more.
We'll further clarify, likewhen they hold this hearing
about approving this bond.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Letitia James's office is going to ask all the
questions and I'm sure if thisis some kind of fucking around
like Letitia James' office isgoing to ask all the questions
and I'm sure if this is somekind of they keep fucking around
like Letitia James is stupid orsomething Right, they really do
.
This isn't what she fuckingdoes.
She's brought in billions ofdollars from New York.
She has taken down traffickingring.
She has went after cryptoopioids Tish don't play that,
(16:15):
Homie don't play that and theyare fucking with the wrong one.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah.
So if this is some kind ofscheme to get Trump out of the
bond or some kind of delaytactic while the delay has been
effective, she's going to hammerthem, and Judge and Goran
probably will too.
And another thing will too, andanother thing.
So, of note, barbara Jones, thecourt-appointed monitor, is
(16:40):
still at her position overseeingTrump Organization finances,
and so she is supposed to benotified of any transactions of
more than $5 million.
So if there's anything sketchyabout the way this money got
into this account, that Knightthat, uh, night insurance is
using as collateral, uh, shewill be able to have access to
those documents and we'll beable to present them in court.
(17:01):
So I mean again, like, if thisis the saudis funneling money
into the trump, uh, trumporganization, uh, we're gonna
know about it, we're gonna aboutit, I would count that money
again because it might be, youknow, about $50,000 short, if
Julian is in charge ofit because.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
I'm sure he owes some people Cash equivalents could
have been the DJ.
When they say cash equivalent,I'm assuming that the bricks of
cocaine don't count.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
No, all right, carol, what were you saying?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
I was saying you think the cash equivalent.
That's how they valued the DJTstock and notice it was April
5th.
So is that before it crashed?
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Okay, so here's the thing.
I don't know necessarily, thearrangements of whether or not
Trump can.
I'm actually, I'm actuallypretty sure that he's not
supposed to be able to use anyof the stock as collateral yeah
not even selling it off but evenusing it as collateral.
But again, if he does um, sofirst of all, night insurance.
(18:09):
They have like a clause whereif the value of the funds in the
account dips below a certainamount, trump has to top it off
to get it back to the $175million.
So if he's using some of the,the stock is collateral.
Well, given that the value ofthe shares have dropped
massively over the course of thepast couple of weeks, like he's
(18:29):
going to have to continuouslykeep adding stock to get the
balance above $175 million.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Maybe he was able to get the ball.
Maybe he offered them somestock for the ball.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Well, who knows, it's worth?
Speaker 3 (18:43):
13 cents.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yeah, Well, I mean it's worth.
Well, here's the thing If hekeeps dropping, it's going to
take the entirety of his stockoptions in the company to cover
the 175 million dollars, andthen he won't be able to cash
out at all so I mean I'msurprised they haven't suspended
trading.
(19:05):
Uh, it'll have to get it'll haveto get a lot lower and
supposedly they're planning onissuing some new shares, which
which will pump cash into.
Yeah well, that'll pump cashinto the company, but it'll also
like water down the the valueof the stock price even more so
which is what he was sued for,what the guys, what they were
(19:27):
saying.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
it's like they.
It's like watching, like the,the barnum and Bailey of
financial transactions, and Ijust see this clown car in the
middle.
I hear this music, yeah and thisis what this looks like to me,
(19:48):
and I'm like, how did any ofthese people amass any kind of
wealth at all, because they arebumbling morons and the shit
that they're doing seems soreckless to me and I don't
understand how anybody with amodicum of business sense would
not just walk the fuck away well, ty, they are walking away
(20:11):
because again, if you haven'tnoticed, the stock peaked at
like $70-something per share.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
It's now down in the 20s, the low 20s, and look at
this rate.
It could be below $20 per shareby Friday and again, I think
once it hits that point,everybody's going to abandon
ship.
It'll be a penny stock beforethe end of the month.
If that's the case, and youknow, kudos to whoever shorted
(20:38):
the stock at its high.
You, a fucking legend.
You about to get, you know, ahundred times worth your money
here pretty soon.
So congratulations on makingbank by betting against an
obvious pump and dump scheme.
You, a genius.
Congratulations, bro.
All right, so it's time for ourshithole of the week award.
(21:02):
I myself have a particularnominee, but if there's anyone
that you two wanted to putforward, by all means.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
I mean, I'm all for Mike Johnson, but we need some
fresh blood, we need some newmeat.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Well, mike Johnson is trying to balance the fact that
he is controlled by an insaneclown caucus but also needs to
be semi-responsible, so I'm notnecessarily going to nominate
him this week, even though he isset to lose his job fairly soon
here.
I think they're going to moveto vacate the speaker.
(21:40):
Well, the Republicans are goingto move to vacate fairly soon,
and then Trump doesn't seem tobe too intent on protecting him
at the moment.
But my personal nomination forthe Shithole of the Week award
is none other than Clay Travis.
He is the host of Outkick, thethat kicked off.
Clay Travis posted on theinterwebs that quote If you're a
(22:23):
Trump supporter in New YorkCity who was part of the jury
pool, do everything you can toget seated on the jury and then
refuse to convict as a matter ofprinciple, do them in the case
via hung jury.
It's the most patriotic thingyou could possibly do Him.
Suggesting that in public,suggesting that the jury should
engage in jury nullificationthat is actually a crime.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
And then explaining to him how to do it on top of
that.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Yeah, that is witness tampering.
That is a felony.
He could spend, you know, sixmonths in jail and up to you
know a ridiculous amount ofmoney in fines.
So hopefully the FBI.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
It's got to be like per witness right.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Hopefully the FBI gets a hold of him.
And look.
So I live in Nashville, he'sfrom here.
He wasn't always like this andhe's actually a lawyer.
So the fact that he has liketaken the position of like
outright committing crimes infavor of supporting Donald Trump
(23:29):
, I hereby award this shit stainthe shithole of the week award.
Congratulations, you werejackass.
You fucking deserve it.
All right kids.
Closing thoughts Any anyonewant to step up to the plate?
Speaker 1 (23:42):
No, no matter.
I just want to say a quickthing about war.
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.
That is not the thought.
Cool, Cool.
I just want to remind everyoneabout the humanity of others.
We shouldn't have to like havea whole topic about it, but like
(24:03):
celebrating humanity, anyonelike blowing up people because
you don't like their leaders,like really fucked up.
Like remember your enemies arehuman and everyone's human, and
don't don't be fucking simpingfor the Islamic Republic in Iran
.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Fuck Long story short .
Yes, If you're, if you findyourself supporting Iran,
regardless of how you feel aboutthe conflict the leadership,
not the people.
No, look, isn't that?
I know I guess people tend toconflate those.
But yes, when we talk about theRussians or the Chinese or the
Iranians or even Hamas, we'renot talking about innocent
(24:43):
citizens.
We're talking about theparticular organizations in
charge of these decisions, theparticular organizations in
charge of these decisions andeveryone should remember that
when you're like laughing aboutpeople being killed, In case of
point.
I met a nice Iranian woman at arestaurant sometime last year,
(25:08):
very kind, thoughtful,insightful, educated, like even
the Iranian people are peoplejust like you and me.
But again, if you find yourselfrooting for the government or
Iran, you the asshole.
In that situation, there's justno, it's just unacceptable to
be rooting for the bad guys.
In that case, uh Ty.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Closing thoughts uh, no, what are you saying?
Like here, there's an Iranianrestaurant here and the lady is,
she's so amazing and Iabsolutely love it and and I
really.
We have so such a problem withconflating things that shouldn't
be lumped together.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Like oh, especially people in their governments.
Because again I'm American.
We had Trump in charge here.
Do I seem like a trumpsupporter to you?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
exactly, and so it's like to lump, you know, the
palestinian people in with hamas, or the jewish people, the
israeli people with nanyahu, or,to, you know, lump in any any
people, like, of course, all.
Of course all Russians aren'tPutin supporters.
I mean, you can see that by theturnout that Novani had.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
And then, at the end of the day, these warring
leaders have more in common witheach other than they do with
their people.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
With their people.
That's a very good point.
That's absolutely it, carol,you nailed it.
They have more in common witheach other than they do with the
people they're supposed to berepresenting.
And but, yeah, it's the peoplethat they are representing who
are taking the heat and bearingthe brunt of the backlash, not
(26:44):
those who really deserve it,those who really deserve it.
And you know, I have no problemwith people standing with the
Palestinian people.
But my issue with thesepro-Palestinian protests and
these marches and shutting downbridges what is your end game?
What do you want?
What do you think is going tohappen by this?
Because you're not shuttingdown a bridge in Gaza or you're
(27:07):
not shutting down a bridge inIsrael, you're not standing
outside of the Israeli embassy,you're keeping parents from
taking their kids to school,you're keeping people from
getting to the hospital, you'rekeeping people from getting
their jobs Everyday, people whohave nothing to do with what is
going on.
And so what is your end game?
I don't get it, I don'tunderstand it, and all it does
(27:29):
is it detracts away from thewhat is really going on and how
the Palestinian people arereally suffering.
And I also get upset is becauseif you really really give a
fuck.
Then where were you when Assadwas bombing Palestinian refugee
camps and displacing them withRussia's help in Syria?
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Okay, it's really difficult to get everyone
involved on every cause, but yes, point taken.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
But if your thing is about the Palestinian people,
well, there were Palestinianpeople in refugee camps in Syria
that were bombed, that weredisplaced, that were killed,
that were starved out.
Those were Palestinians.
But I heard high and low airfrom you about that, about them.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
And in that case it's not like Hamas went over there
and raped and murdered a bunchof Syrians.
Speaker 3 (28:18):
No, it was just the leader of the country just
killing his own people.
But point well made, I feellike you can't no, you can't
take up every cause, but if youare this, this, this passionate
(28:39):
about it, then you are this.
Then you would be taking it onin the interest of anyone in
that situation and in my mind,you can't be anti-Ukraine and
pro-Palestinian.
I don't see that.
I don't think that is a sincerepoint of view.
(29:01):
I don't think that's a sinceretake.
And I'm using those twoexamples because they are the
most prominent, but there areseveral around the world that
can be used and as far as likeput in and the same
circumstances, but what is theend game?
What is it that they want?
(29:24):
They just keep saying, using aphrase, without saying how they
think that it's going to happen,how they want it to happen and
what do they think is going tohappen after it happens?
Or what is it that they want tohappen after it happens?
Speaker 2 (29:39):
And here let me save you from having to go on even
further Like, if you're,obviously, if you're protesting
for the Palestinians, how areyou not protesting against Hamas
?
Anyway, as for my closingthoughts, I'm going to stay away
from the charged subject ofwhether or not the it's Carol's
(30:00):
fault.
I'm going to stay away from thecharged debate about whether or
not the phrase those people areuttering is even accurate or
fitting.
I mean, you can?
This is one of those timeswhere I sound like a right or
white wing a white wing, damn it, I did it again a right wing
nut job, where you know, do yourown research about the veracity
(30:26):
of the numbers that the badguys are putting out, about
casualties and such.
But what I will say is that,horrific situation aside, we are
reaching a point where thingsare starting to swing in terms
of the polling in the election,and I know you're all going to
(30:46):
say the polling is bullshit, itdoesn't matter.
Ok, well, it matters in thesense that maybe the methodology
used by the polls isn't comingsee a wild swing from one
direction to the other.
That is the way in which pollingcan be particularly valuable,
(31:18):
because, while the numbers mightnot accurately reflect how the
election ends in November, whatit does show is that election
sentiment is moving onedirection, and Trump here is
moving in the wrong direction,and ever since the State of the
Union address, where Biden putto bed this idea that he was
(31:43):
suffering from some sort ofcognitive decline or wasn't fit
to hold office, which wasadmittedly extraordinarily easy
to do when you set the barextremely low and then he can
just get on TV and talk for anhour.
Ace job there.
Republicans, that was a geniusmove.
You set up Joe Biden to surpassyour results immeasurably by
(32:04):
doing the easiest thing in theworld talking for an hour.
We're fucking idiots with thepodcast.
We do that every week.
So even in republicland look,even in a republican- you're
sounding like trump look it'slate.
Um, we do this at night when I'mexhausted and english is harder
and fucking harder.
But even in a republicanleaning poll that just dropped
(32:28):
uh, I think it's from EchelonInsights it has Biden up three,
now leading 49 to 46.
It has Democrats in the genericup by three points and over the
last two months that is a sevenpoint swing.
So, as I've been telling you,while I am extraordinarily
(32:48):
concerned about the outcome ofthe election and the
consequences that we might befacing if Trump wins, I've also
been telling you that if youshow up to vote, Trump will lose
and that the polls arereflecting that and like, just
instead of focusing on whetheror not the polling is favorable
to Biden.
(33:09):
You know it's a landmark.
It's a sign to show that maybeyou need to do in the future how
he saved the country from whatseemed like an inevitably
(33:36):
terrible conclusion in 2020,where we were set to die from
COVID because Trump.
Even when the vaccines weremade available, Trump couldn't
get them out to the people.
He didn't leave a pandemicresponse plan.
Once he left the White House,the economy was in tatters.
We thought the global economywas going to collapse.
Biden saved us from all thatand the only real consequence is
(34:00):
that prices of some items are alittle bit higher, even though
inflation went down because ofprice gaps.
Share this information withpeople.
Let them know about the jobBiden is doing.
Like.
Once people are aware of thetruth and they hear it, their
opinions change.
The republican party is that'sgoing to continue to deter
(34:33):
supporters away from their partyand towards biden, like they're
.
Again.
They're talking about removingthe speaker of the house.
Republicans are doing that.
Their speaker of the house is arepublican.
That's fucking insane.
Like it's an election year.
Clearly their party's notunified.
That doesn't bode well for them.
Trump is is going on trial hereagain.
Trial of the century, at leastuntil the next Trump trial and
(34:56):
then the Trump trial after thatand then possibly the Trump
trial after that.
That's not going to do him anyfavors in terms of public
support is moving in ourdirection and instead of like
obsessing over the possibilitythat it could go all wrong,
focus on being productive, doingwhat you can do to ensure we
(35:17):
don't lose our democracy.
And that concludes this episodeof Pardon the Insurrection.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.