How to pick a jury for Trump?

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal on the Trump jury issue.
• Alate Health's Dr. Doe on his practice and how it can help with prostate problems.

Episode Transcript

(00:02):
Well, what we need is morecommon sense, the youth coment breaking down
the world's nonsense about how American commonsense. We'll see this through with the
common sense of Houston. I'm justpro common sense for Houston from Houston dot
Com. This is the Jimmy BarrettShow, brought to you by viewind dot

(00:28):
Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.Well, hello, Happy Wednesday. Coming
up. In the third segment today, we're going to talk to attorney Jeremy
Rosenthal about the Trump trial. Youknow, jury selection. How do you
go about picking a jury and avenue where you know the vast majority of
the people are absolutely against you.It doesn't seem like a fair thing to

(00:50):
me that they're holding this trial inNew York City. But we'll get Jeremy
Rosenthal's thoughts on all that. Letme talk to him again in our third
segment. But I've got I've gota couple of other courtrooms to talk about
first. One of them is theSupreme Court of the United States and it
also relates to Donald Trump, andit revolves around January the sixth. There's

(01:11):
a guy being tried right now whohas been in jail pretty much since January
the sixth. They have thrown thebook at this guy and they have charged
him with the same charge that theywant to charge Donald Trump with and potentially
try Donald Trump with. So dependingon how the Supreme Court rules in this

(01:32):
particular case might have a whole lotto do with whether or not Trump ever
really gets prosecuted for what happened onJanuary the sixth. So Megan Kelly was
talking about this on her podcast yesterday. So here's Megan Kelly talking of and
some of her panel talking about thisJanuary of the sixth case and giving us
some background on the on the guywhose case is being heard down in front

(01:53):
of the US Supreme Court and howthe Supreme Court seems to be reacting to
it all. A small town cop, Joseph Fisher, spent about four minutes
inside the Capitol building joined the crowdbreaching the capital from the east side.
He yelled again and again, chargethe government says, before pushing forward toward
a cop toward a police line whileyelling mother efforts. He and other writers

(02:16):
fell to the ground after other writerslifted him up. Video disclosed as evidence
shows that he tried to appeal toofficers protecting the Capitol telling them that he
was an officer too. It's oureffing house brother. The video appears to
show Fisher saying that day. It'salso on his social media as of the

(02:37):
next day, January seventh, Fisherwriting that he had been pepperbald and Pepper
spreed, but entry into the Capitolwas needed to send a message that we
the people hold the real power.Okay. Not surprisingly, this guy got
charged. He was charged with sevencriminal counts, including a felon account of
obstructing an official proceeding. He alsogot charged with assaulting a cop and entering

(02:58):
restricted building, et cetera. Butthis whole case is about obstructing an official
proceeding, and it is also themain charge against Donald Trump. So we've
had a number of protests in thecourtroom. Let's say that today, while
you're arguing, or mister Green isarguing, five people get up, one

(03:21):
after the other, and they shalleither keep the January sixth insurrectionists in jail
or free the January six patriots.And as a results of this, our
police officers have to remove them forciblyfrom the courtroom. And let's say we
have to delays the proceeding for fiveminutes so would that be a violation of

(03:42):
fifteen twelve C. Two. Ithink it would be difficult for the government
to prove that. Why at theoutset, we don't think that fifteen twelve
C two picks up minimal to minimusminor interferences. We think that the term
obstruct on its face connotes a meaningfulinterference with the proceeding. Wells say I'm
sorry sorry. C two does notrefer just to obstruct. It says obstructs,

(04:06):
influences or impeas impedes is something lessthan obstructs. That's Samuel Alito raising
doubt about the case, and fromthe reaction of the justices, I would
say it's either seven to two orsix three at this point that the January
sixth defendant is going to win hiscase, which is the same charge they

(04:29):
were going to charge down Trump with, which would I would assume, would
mean that charge for that event wouldno longer exist. Of course I shouldn't.
I shouldn't assume, right, becausethat's never stopped the Left before.
They may very well do that anyway. All right, that's one court case.
Here's another court case or potential courtcase, or in this case,
in the Senate. It's it wouldbe a trial, a trial of impeachment

(04:51):
trial of Alejandro Menorcus. It wouldappear. However, Chuck Schumer is going
to try to deep sixth this thing, table it, and just make it
go away. If he did,he would be setting a precedent that has
never happened in the United States Senatehistory, which is to refuse to have
a trial of impeachment proceedings brought bythe US House of Representatives. Here is

(05:15):
rand Paul with these thoughts on allthis and also his concerns about renewing visive,
and I think what's going to happenis something unprecedented. We've never had
the impeachment of a president or theimpeachment of a cabinet member that is simply
sent over and summarily dismissed, withno discussion, no debate. What we're
hearing is that Chuck Schumer is goingto move to table, which means he

(05:36):
would nullify the whole results without anytrial, no trial, no discussion,
no discussion or presentation of the charges. This has never happened in the history
of the Senate. It's unprecedented,and I think it's a dereliction of duty.
I don't think this is what theConstitution intended. When something serious happens,
like an impeachment, there should bea trial. If the Senate Republicans

(05:58):
had the guts, the stamin know, the integrity, the wherewithal to stay
together, forty one of us canstop anything in the Senate. In fact,
forty one of us could have madethem compromise on spending. But every
time spending comes up, we couldpitch a labor like, oh no,
they say it's going to be usshutting down the governments. We have to
give the Democrats everything we want.No, we should say they're not doing

(06:19):
their constitutional duty. So guess what, nothing happens in the Senate. But
see already the next thing they haveup after this is spying on Americans through
FISO, the way they spight onTrump. That comes up at the end
of this week, and they're allfreaking out. So instead of standing together
and telling Schumer you have to dothe impeachment, they're all going to freak
out and say how quickly can wedispense of this? So some Republicans are

(06:42):
secretly saying, let's get this doneso we can do a whitewash on PISA
and let them continue to have allthe power in the world to spy on
Americans. But I can tell youI for one, am not going to
let them do this easily, andI am going to do everything I can
to make sure there's a debate onFISA, because I don't think our intelligence
agencies should be allowed to spy onAmericans without a warrant. And we just
heard a perfect example of what's wrongwith many Republicans. They don't stick together,

(07:10):
They have no kejones, none whatsoeverthey did. What do they stand
for? What do these rhinos standfor? They just stand for their own
power. That's it. That's allthey seem to care about, remaining in
office, retaining their benefits, andhaving power. I don't know why they're
so eager to have power though theydon't seem to want to do anything with
it. All. Right, backwith Ball in a moment, Jimmy Barrett
Show. Here an AM nine fiftyKPRC. Paulus Bill. Here, we're

(07:47):
gonna talk to one of our goodfriends, also a sponsor of the show,
doctor Andrew do MD, founder ofa Late Health. You've heard me
talk about a Late Health and aboutthe PAE procedure here in the show.
So we like to check in,you know, every year or so our
yearly checkup, who was doctor Doeand see how things are going. Welcome
to the show, sir. Howhave you been good? Good you guys?

(08:11):
We're fine. Yep, everybody's healthyhere. I want to I want
to ask you a little bit becauseI know you're your practice is not combined
to men. We talk about prostatecancer, we talk about the PAE procedure.
Uh, but you also see femalepatients. Correct right here elaborates sir,
what what what? What sort ofproblems do you generally see female patients

(08:35):
for? So female patients, Actually, the female of the uterist is the
same as the prostate, and thetreatment for the prostate came from the treatment
for the benign tumors, non cancers, tumors in the uterus, which is
called the fibroid embalization. And becauseit's the thing tissue, they can get
issues with that with heavy cycles,long cycles, paining, all that stuff,

(09:01):
and we can successfully treat those justlike we treat the prostate, by
going in and shipping off the bloodsupply to those tumors. That is interesting.
I had no idea that it's kindof like biagura, right. It
was created originally to to treat heartcondition, but they found out the side
effect of it was something rather goodfor men in a completely different area exactly.

(09:28):
So just one of those you know, serendipitous findings. Now, one
of the things I get asked aboutall the time is what are the dangers
if any, for cutting off theblood supply to the prostate? And do
you cut off the entire blood supply? You just called at a part of
the blood supply to the prostate.That's how that's how we're getting the prostate
to shrink, correct, correct,And we try to cut off all the

(09:52):
blood supply, but we never reallydo it. There's always going to be
some small artery we can't see.So our intention is to cut off all
the blood supply. If we couldactually do that, then that would cause
the entire prostate to die and youwould be like the patient without a prostate.
But fortunately that never happens. Andbasically what we're doing is getting the

(10:16):
balance of prostate growth in prostate decay, I guess because it kind of falls
apart and it's reabsorbed, kind ofgetting that balance set back in our favor,
so it isn't too big. Whatis the purpose does the prostate have?
Is it like the appendix where itis just something that was used maybe
a million years ago but is nolonger needed or does it serve a purpose?

(10:41):
Yes? Yes, it terms ofpurpose, it actually adds all the
volume to the ejaculate that we have, so the testicles that ad the sperm,
and the prostate adds all the fluidpart and the volume. Okay,
so it's part of the reproductive systemas far as that goes. Yeah,
when you lose your prostate, arethere any side effects or any problems that

(11:05):
are caused by no longer having enactiveprostate? Well, so, traditionally,
if you have the entire prostate removed, there's lots of side effects like impidence
and leakage of ural and depression thingslike that. With the PAE we don't
see any of those because again we'renot should off the entire prostate. But

(11:26):
those are things that could happen now. Fortunately, with this procedure you wouldn't
see a lot of those because we'renot actually cutting anything or taking anything out.
Okay, I see, I knowthat PEE is just one of the
procedures you offer as far as treatingthe prostate, is this sort of like
the end procedure when we've tried everythingelse, This is where we go This

(11:50):
is the final thing that we goto. Or is this the first choice
in some cases? Actually, soyou're starting to see a shift. The
first choice, unfortunately still in theUS is what's called the turf, the
rotor router. And but we're seeingcountries like twitching the first one. So
far, they're making me prostate embolizationthe gold standard. Now, okay,

(12:13):
so it's kind of moving up thelist. And what did you mean,
What did you mean when you saidrotor ruter? Somehow a rotor ruter my
body? Does that sound pleasant?Yeah? So the traditional treatment for in
large prostate was to put basically likea scalpel or a drill bit up the
man part and to basically cut outthe prostate. Nowadays that now that we

(12:39):
have the embolization, most men willread about it and say, just like
you did, now, I don'treally like that idea. I'd rather get
the embolization. I I don't thinkthere's enough drugs on the planet to get
me to go through that. I'mpretty sure as far as the other thing
I get asked all the time,doctor Doe, is about the recovery from
this, and we we always talkabout it being a relatively fast process,

(13:01):
maybe a day or two in mostcases. Is that generally the case?
Absolutely, there's more precaution taken becausewe puncture the artery with a needle than
there is because of the actual procedureitself. So you just need to have
about three days where you don't tryto whift anything over twenty pounds and that's
really the only restriction. Okay.And how long does the procedure take?

(13:26):
I know it's done in your office. Is is there something an old day
kind of thing? Is this afew hours kind of thing? So the
procedure itself will take anywhere from fortyfive to ninety minutes. You'll end up
being in the office for maybe halfa day. Okay. And when I'm
done, will I be in anysort of pain? Will I notice anything?
Typically you're not in any pain.We make sure you can go to

(13:50):
the bathroom before you leave, sowe don't have to. You know,
patients don't leave with a captain likethey would with the other treatment. But
typically the most common thing we hereis a little burning when you're urine a
after the procedure. All right,Okay, that seems relatively easy to take
now, I know you've been,you've been. I don't know what year
you founded of Late Help. Whatyear did you found the Late Help?

(14:11):
When when did the business start?So it was founded in twenty twelve and
we open our doors just shortly beforetwenty thirteen, December of twenty and twelve.
I know you've been doing some ofwhat you do anyway for what thirty
plus years now is as a doctor? Are you as amazed as I think
most of us are at the medicalprogress that's been made over the course of

(14:33):
those thirty years. I mean,it really is a different world than it
was thirty years ago. Oh absolutely, And you know it's it's it's in
every aspect of how the understanding ofdiseases have really changed now that we're able
to look right down to the DNA, you know, the procedures that we
have have changed, the way wetreat you know, even straightforward stuffs have

(14:56):
changed. So it's an amazing kindof be alive and it's also very humbling
if it tells you we really don'tknow as much as we thought we did.
No, no, i'd be It'samazing to me how much things have
changed. Well, sir, it'salways a pleasure to talk to you.
I feel like I've got my yearlycheckup now. The pros state, the
prostate is something. Is there anythingyou can do? One last question for

(15:20):
you. Is there anything you cando from a preventative maintenance standpoint? In
other words, we always hear aboutdiet and other things that we could or
should do to make our heart healthier, in other parts of our body healthier.
Is there anything you can do aboutthe prostate to prevent some of the
symptoms or some of the problems youget later on in life. Or is
this just something that happens. Unfortunately, it's something that happens. But I

(15:41):
will say that do not wait toolong because what we see in some of
our patients that have had a bigprostate for a very long time and just
kind of suffered through it. Nowthat the prostate we get them in,
we treat them, we shrink theprostate, but unfortunately the bladder of now
kind of stop work correctly, andthat comes about from just waiting too long.

(16:03):
So don't wait too long if youdo have symptoms. Okay, how
do you know what symptoms would yoube exhibiting that would tell you that this
is I'm developing or I have developeda prostate issue. So the biggest ones
will be it takes me longer tostart going when I do go, it
doesn't feel if I get it allout, or if you start getting up
at night more than usual to go. Okay, keep an eye off for

(16:27):
all that, Doctor Doe, goodto talk to you, sir, Thank
you very much. Thank you forhaving me. Take care now you too.
That's doctor Andrew Doe from a latehelp back with More than Mom with
Jimmy Fair Show. You're an AMnine fifty KPRC. By the way,
you can go to their website ifyou want to find out more. Choose
PAE dot com. Let's choose EAEdot com. We'll be right back.

(16:57):
All right, you're back and we'regoing to talk a bit about the Trump
trial today. It's an off day. They're not in court today. That
we've had two days so far juryselection. I want to say they picked
seven jurors so far, so theyhave a wayte to go. I'm very
interested in the entire process here andsomebody who can take kind of behind the
scenes is a guy who's been botha prosecutor and a defense attorney. Prosecutor

(17:19):
first then a defense attorney. He'sthe founder in Texas defense firm dot Com
based out of Dallas Fort Worth.That would be Jeremy Rosenthal. Jeremy,
welcome back to AM nine to fiftyKPRC. Thank you. Let's talk about
jury selection in this particular case.We're talking about a defendant who is not

(17:41):
really highly popular in New York City, at least not at this point in
time. How difficult is it tofined to pair a fair and impartial jury
when you've got somebody who's so wellknown and so let's just call it disliked
in this particular venue, this isthe hardest jury to pick in American history.
Uh. I mean, let's justlet's just be honest. You've got

(18:04):
you've got somebody who is really polarizing, and when we're picking a jury,
even in Texas, even when we'renot talking about a political case at all,
we don't want to talk about presidentialpolitics, we don't want to talk
about religion. We don't even wantto talk about how the Rangers beat the
Astros in the playoffs last year.Because we're going to hurt somebody's feelings and

(18:26):
polarize them. Right, So whatwe want to do is we want to
we want to take topics that aresafe that kind of diagnose that bias.
But here it's the nerve center,right, it's the very topic of this
case. So, uh, it'sit's absolutely a kryptonite issue normally, but

(18:48):
here it's front and center, andto diagnose those biases and make sure that
you don't have If you're the prosecution, you don't want somebody to sneak on
the panel just to acquit the guyI lie their way onto the jury.
And Donald Trump doesn't want somebody whojust doesn't like him to get on the
jury, sneak their way on andblow the whole thing up. He just

(19:10):
doesn't want that. So it isan extraordinary challenge really for everybody involved.
You only get to have so manyobjections to certain juris, right, the
defense can only disqualify so many.Is that how that works? That's correct.
So the way the jury selection worksis it's not like picking a kickball

(19:30):
team. Okay, you're not chosenfor your talents or your mental toughness or
things like that, right, youare not chosen, you are left over,
meaning that you go through the processand if nobody eliminates you or strikes
you, then you serve on thepanel. The judge can strike you if
you can't follow the law, andto what you're referring to are called peremptory

(19:53):
strikes. That means the defense hasin New York State, for a case
like this, has ten, theprosecution also has ten. The judge can
expand that and give you more.Probably, I would think the judge would
just because again it's such an exceptionalset of circumstances. But you get those

(20:14):
people, and you can strike thosepeople because they look at you funny,
because you don't like what they dofor a living, or you don't like
anything about them. So that's whatthose are for. But you're right,
those are limited, and in certaininstances it's not uncommon for a party to
not have enough of those to strikeall the people you want to strike.

(20:34):
Yeah, you know, it seemsto me that in a case like this,
this is if ever there were acase for a change of venue,
this would be it. So whyis there no change of venue when you've
got this situation where you would seedecas is stacked against the defense in this
particular case, I don't know why. I don't know if mister Trump's team

(20:56):
moved to have it changed, thevenue changed or not. In this instance,
I mean New York State's you've gotto have it. Anywhere that you're
going to put this trial, youhave to have a really really deep pool
of jurors. Okay, the jurypool in this case is several thousand people,

(21:17):
meaning that the that that and ina typical case, in a typical
felony case in Harris County, inDallas County, uh in Collin County where
I am, you're looking at maybefour hundred people for a capital type case
or just a really bad felony withwith kind of facts that sort of unnerved
people. You're you're talking about maybeone hundred potential jurors. So if you

(21:41):
were going to transfer it somewhere elsein New York State, you really can't
transfer it somewhere where they don't havethe capacity to have that many jurors.
Right, maybe Buffalo would probably beokay, or or some other venues.
But I'm not a whether or nothis team moved to transfer the venue somewhere

(22:03):
within New York State. Obviously,you would think they would, but you're
right, I don't know for afact that they did. Either. Let's
talk a little bit about how yougo about prosecuting and defending a case like
this, because it is it's notexactly cut and dry. For one thing,

(22:25):
I think there's a there's shock thatthis is a felony case. And
there's also, you know, shockthat that this guy is in trouble for
basically writing a check you know,a non disclosure agreement and in handing a
checkover that is standard operating procedure ina lot of places. Why is this
become a problem in your estimation inNew York other than the fact that clearly

(22:45):
they have an extra grind with hisclient. Ye a lot. You'll be
stunned to find out that a lotof criminal prosecutions originate because well, we
think you're a criminal, and wethink you're guilty. Now we're going to
go find proof of that that thathappens. So I can't you know,

(23:07):
being a former prosecutor, you knowyou can't dismiss offhand things like that.
You would hate to think that biasand prejudice from the prosecuting agencies is a
factor, but it certainly is you'vewatched that movie Catch Me if you can
Leonardo DiCaprio. Very good costumes.Okay, good. There's a saying in
there from I think it's Christopher Walkin, right the dad. He says,

(23:32):
why do the Yankees? Why can'tyou beat the Yankees? Because you can't
take the eyes off the stripes?Right if you if you remember, you
know if I'm getting a line correct, But that's sort of how what happens
in a lot of prosecutions. Ifthey're prosecuting a guy who is tatted from
head to toe, they can't taketheir eyes off the tattoos a lot of

(23:53):
times. And that doesn't mean theguy's guilty of what they're charging them with,
right, they can't. They cannot. They fixate on the fact that
this person has a criminal record incertain instances, or they fixate on just
well, they just don't like theguy, and then they kind of go
and they find things then and maybemaybe there's a crime there, and maybe

(24:14):
there's not, But that can certainlybe the impetus. I think legal professionals
would tell you of the four prosecutionsthat Donald Trump is facing. Uh,
every lawyer I've talked to thinks thatthis one, the one in New York
States, the weakest. So fromthat standpoint, whether it's luck or whether
it's just skill, this is theone that Donald Trump wants to fight first.

(24:37):
I mean, I don't think hewants to fight any of them.
But if you if you're gonna fightone first, this is gonna be the
This is gonna be the weakest one, and gonna be the one that you
had that's chance of putting this casetogether. It's a paper case, if
you will. This is all moneymoving hands, it's all you know.
So you're gonna have transactions, You'regonna have logs, You're gonna be able

(25:00):
to prove things without necessarily testimony.But the intent behind what you meant the
money to do, that's got tocome through witnesses. And if I'm Donald
Trump and I'm his team, I'mtrying to win this case by beating up
on Michael Cohen because he's the starwitness here. Right, And let's face
it, that that guy's you gotta, you gotta there's a couple of ways

(25:22):
you can cross examine that guy,right. I mean that that guy's got
some holes in his credibility, presence, he's so if I'm the prosecution,
I'm making it. If I'm defendingit, I'm making it as human as
I can, and I make itas human as I can. Again through
Michael Cohen, he is gonna beHe's gonna be my bad guy in this

(25:45):
case. If I'm defending Trump.I find the in both the Trump cases
we've seen so far, I findthe judges demeanor and behavior very very interesting
to me. They seem to be, for whatever reason, they seem to
be highly sensitive anything that Donald Trumphas to say. They're all about giving
him a gag order or or tellinghim he has to be quiet or he

(26:06):
can't talk about it in the inthe In this particular case that we're talking
about, we have a judge whobasically said, no, you have to
be here every day. You can'tleave, you can't go to your son's
high school graduation, you can't goto the Supreme Court. You have to
be here every day. I findthat a bit unusual, don't you.
Uh, that's that's actually a goodpoint. And I'll tell you this much.

(26:26):
Okay, So again, this casebeing an extreme outlier, uh,
from every other trial that's ever happenedin the United States of America, most
of our laws are are really fundamentallydesigned to protect the person accused. In
Texas and in New York, youhave to be present during a criminal prosecution,

(26:49):
and that's to protect you. That'sbecause we don't want to find you
guilt. We don't want to inour country, you got to be present
to be to be convicted of acrime, to be jail, right,
we don't want to convict people inabsentia. So the law is written.
The law just wasn't written with DonaldTrump in mind. Now, can the
judge take a break for a day, Why why not recess for a day?

(27:11):
Let the guy go to the son'shigh school graduation, act like a
human being, some compassion. Theycan do that. Now that that they
can do so, so from thatstandpoint, they can recess for four things
Like that, they're taking one dayoff a week. I think it's Wednesdays.
That that standard in a case thatthat that that takes a couple months

(27:36):
to try, is that is thateverybody gets a day off. It's not
for the lawyers. You'll be happyto know that they're probably not on the
golf course. They're probably digging outand answering a bunch of other angry client
client emails and questions about well whatabout my case now? And I think
we've talked about it, you knowbefore, always pay your lawyer. Every

(27:56):
time a lawyer gets paid and angelgets their wing. These are facts,
right, I mean, I mean, it's just the truth. But why
wouldn't my my attorney. I wouldn'twant to be owing my attorney money.
I don't think that's probably a wayto build a good relationship with somebody who's
trying to get you off the hook, right, And you want you know,
let's be honest, you want yourlawyer driving up in a nice car

(28:17):
to the courthouse, don't you.I mean you don't of course. Yeah,
yeah, I want my lawyer tobe rich. That means he's I
want that too, Yeah, yes, I want that too. Yeah.
Hey, Jerry, it's always funto talk to you about all this stuff.
Jeremy, let's let's do this againa little bit further than the trial
process and get your opinion on what'sbeen going on up till that point.
But right now, we still gotto find a jury for this one.

(28:37):
Jeremy Rosenthal joining us here on amN I fifty kighth. Gercy thanks again,
sir. Talk to you soon.Back with more of the moment Jimmy
Barrett Show. All right, finalsegment coming up today. What should we

(28:59):
talk about? What should we talkabout? Man, We've talked about men's
health, We've talked about the Trumptrial, Let's talk about let's talk about
this particular little piece of info here. Senator Mike Lee, Jennifer Granholm moves.
Our Energy secretary put that in theirquotes, was testifying. Yeah,

(29:22):
I wonder how often do these capitivemembers come in front of Congress to testify.
It must be fairly frequently. Youknow. Every time they come in,
they pitch the same stuff, andevery time they come in they hear
the same things, depending upon whichside of the AIS was talking to them,
And it feels like, you know, we're not really getting anywhere.
But I thought I would share thiswith you because this, I think shows

(29:47):
the problem with what it is theleft wants to do involving the environment.
They are convinced that they need tocontrol our behavior, whether it's what kind
of a car we drive, orwhat have an appliance we have, or
whatever it may be. We allhave to get to the point of creating

(30:08):
something called net zero, And thequestion is what is the goal of net
zero? What is that going todo? If we go to net zero,
how is that going to positively impactthe planet? That would be the
question. That's the question Senator MikeLee has for Jennifer Granholme, the Energy
Secretary, and she seems to havea hard time answering his question. Here

(30:30):
we go, but let's get backto my question if we get to net
zero. When we get to netzero, should we get there at some
point? If we get there,what impact will that have on global temperatures?
As I say, the striving tonet zero is to prevent the temperatures
from rising more than one and ahalf to two degrees. Yes, it's

(30:55):
still not the answer to the question. The question is what impact is that
going to have? We just talkedabout the fact that it's going to cost
two hundred and seventy five trillion dollarsto get there, and we've talked about
the fact that it's going to costthe global economy, you know, nine
or ten trillion dollars a year inorder to get there. So what does

(31:15):
that bias? What does that do? Now you're saying, yes, we're
trying to not have temperatures increase morethan the defined amount that you just described.
But what impact does this have?What does it do for global temperatures
if we get to net zero?Perhaps I'm not understanding your question. I
think I have answered that, Andthe whole point is to prevent these extreme

(31:38):
and accelerating weather events. We havehad year after year of record heat.
We've had year after year of increasedextreme weather events just in this country.
Look, I understand the Biden administration'saffinity for blaming everything, including bad weather,
on Republicans and on climate change,which they always associate together. And

(32:00):
I fail to understand how you candefinitively say that a complete transition two net
zero is necessary when you don't evenknow the impact that it would have on
global temperatures. You can't tell me. I mean, that's a great point

(32:22):
two hundred and seventy five trillion,And what do we get for the two
hudreds? I mean, that's thisjust in that's a lot of money.
What do we get for two undredand seventy five trillion? Well, we
hope that it'll it'll keep the temperaturesfrom going more than one to two degrees
more on average, all right.So if we have, according to what

(32:45):
the Energy Secretary is saying, wehave extreme weather events. Now, so
if we don't cool the planet,right, if we don't, if we
don't lower the average temperatures, thenwe're still going to have the extreme weather.
Isn't that what you just said?I mean, if we don't go
to that zero, where's the proofthat the temperature is going to increase more

(33:09):
than one to two degrees, where'sthe proof that it is going to change
it all? I mean, itprobably will, because, as we've talked
many times, the planet goes throughcycles, and the sun goes through cycles,
and all those things have impact.They have no idea if what they're
doing would have any impact whatsoever,but they've convinced themselves that it will,

(33:30):
and they've convinced themselves that's the bestway in the world to get your hand
on all that money. That isa lot, a lot of money.
All right. One more here toshare with you before we call today,
and that is NPR. I toldyou last week about one of their well
they're all their reporters and their editorsor liberals, every single one of them,

(33:51):
but one of them, mister Berliner, came forward and did a little
whistle blow on the fact that thereare nothing but registered Democrats carrying the water
for the Democratic National Committee at MarkettMPR. He just got suspended for five

(34:13):
days without pay by the new headof NPR who came in last month.
Chris Rufo is going to describe herto you. She's a walking, talking
poster child for liberalism. And shehas absolutely zero journalism or broadcasting experience.
She has no experience in that.But she's the new CEO of NPR,

(34:38):
and she has written some amazing tweets. Here's Chris Ruffo. I've spent the
last day or two diggings for hertweets and to show people exactly what she
believes. It's actually incredible. Imean it is the most vapid left wing
propaganda imaginable. She's been added foryears. She's a supporter of BLM.
She believes in the pseudoscience of whiteprivilege and white agility. She criticizes her

(35:01):
own whiteness. I mean, it'slike mad libs for left wing women.
And she's doing it all in realtime. And somehow by showing what she
herself has written, I'm supposedly targetingher. I'm not exactly sure how that
works. If you were to setout to say we want a hyper left
wing female executive of NPR, andyou had a laboratory where you could create

(35:23):
such a person, it would turnout exactly like this. It's the golden
resume. It's the language, it'sthe concepts, it's everything. There's nothing
original here. It's really vapid ideologythat has passed around elite institutions. But
what's beautiful about this is that sheleft this paper trail for more than a
decade, so American taxpayers, whoare funding her salary in part, can

(35:47):
actually look to see what these peoplereally believe, to see what they're saying
when they believe that no one's looking. She's now being held to the fire.
She's losing even the support of theNew York Times, which has been
running critical story about her leadership atNPR. This is a tipping point.
I'm not sure how long she's gonnalast. Well, well, she'll probably

(36:07):
last a long time because she shefits right in. I mean, she's
typical NPR. And you get topay for some of MPR, and I
get to pay for some of MPR, and it is basically, you know,
a left wing ideology. At thispoint, there is no attempt at
fairness, There is no attempt atcovering both sides of the story. They

(36:29):
have, they have their agenda,and it is you know, taxpayer supported
at this point. And we hearpeople talk all the time about getting rid
of not getting rid of MPR,let them survive like a regular broadcaster does,
but getting rid of their you know, public funding. And somehow that
just never seems to happen. Allright, listen, You'll have a great

(36:51):
day. See you tomorrow morning.Right nearly five am, a shaa over
on news Radio seven forty ktr H. We are back here at four an
am, nine fifty k PRC