May 21, 2024 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Our guest, retired Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman, on the Trump Hush Money Trial...
- Under-guessing the gluttony of America...
- Biden playing defense & Trump playing offense in their campaigns.
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty show.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Defense has tried to make Michael Cohne the accused is
it just doesn't matter whether Michael Cohne wanted to make
money or whether he's believable. The document speaks for itself,
and Hope Hicks, a loyalist to Donald Trump, said it
was politically motivated.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
So did David Peckerck. The case has been made.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
This judge has allowed the jury to hear falsely that
there was there were campaign violations, and there were not.
And so I'm quite convinced that this jury thinks that
there was a verified and established campaign violation committed and.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Connected to Trump. That's just not the case. I've been
saying for a while.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Just from a media standpoint, MSNBC's their view of the trial.
Fox has their view of the trial, and I feel
like the people on CNN, basically you get a couple
of different views. They don't seem to be shading it
one way or the other near as much. But I
don't know what the point is of even even taking
in any of these legal pundits because they're all over
(01:17):
the place, and of course, you know, there's an outcome
I want, so I tend to agree with the ones that,
you know, talk about it the way I want it
to turn out. But there's a lot of really experienced lawyers,
former prosecutors, blah blah blah, that have one hundred and
eighty degree different opinions where we are on this thing. Yeah, yeah, well, okay,
And how honest are they being?
Speaker 1 (01:38):
I don't have any idea.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
Yeah, I would say several of them, including one we
just heard, is so transparently full of crap and so
clearly pandering that they need not be taken seriously. But
to discuss the chaos, especially yesterday in the Trump trial,
great to welcome back retired Superior Court judge Larry Goodman,
(02:01):
former attorney elevate in the Supreme Court or at the
Superior Court in the eighties. Retired after thirty one years,
handled many many murder trials in Alameda County in the
Bay Area, among other things, and is now interestingly started
the Cross Crossroads program to help rehab felons and give
them a second chance, which I think is a fabulous
and worthy endeavor.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Larry, good to have you back.
Speaker 6 (02:22):
How are you thanks for having me. I'm doing great.
We're sitting here in Alameda on the back of our boat,
just taking in the morning sunshine.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Wow. Why should mine?
Speaker 2 (02:36):
So there was a guy on the stand yesterday, this
Costello guy who kept rolling his eyes at the judge
or saying ah geez after the judge would say sustained
or whatever, and at one point was trying to stare
the judge down.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
How do you have you.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Ever had that happen to you and how are you
supposed to handle it as a judge?
Speaker 6 (02:54):
Well, it starts the way before that witness is about
controlling the courtroom. I mean, I did cases where I
had people charged with murder sitting next to me on
the witness stand, and they weren't always agreeable to what
I was doing. But you don't just start getting mad
and start yelling back at the witness. There are ways
to do it, and sometimes it's better, I know, he
(03:14):
closed the courtroom and shoot on Costello for a little bit.
It's usually a lot more effective to stop the witness,
look at the jury, and then scold the witness while
you're looking at the jury, to let the jury know
that you really disapprove of what this witness is doing
to get into an ego match with Costello by closing
the courtroom and yelling at each other. I don't think
(03:36):
accomplished as much.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Interesting.
Speaker 5 (03:38):
Yeah, indeed, so Andy McCarthy suggested Andy McCarthy in a National
Review that the judge had been wildly inconsistent in overruling
or allowing objections to Costello's testimony, and that it just
wasn't even handed and it was frustrating to Cassello, who's
(04:00):
an experienced attorney. How aware of you aware of the
testimony are you? And does that ring true toy at all?
Speaker 6 (04:07):
Yes, I mean I unfortunately, I'm one of these news junkies,
so I follow this stuff pretty closely. And it's almost
like I think Trey Goudi described it as, there's this
different strike zone when the defense is asking questions versus
when the prosecution is asking questions. And I've never heard
of a judge normally there's a question that's a yes
(04:27):
or no question and the person starts to explain. The
response from the judge will be you have to answer
it yes or no, then you can explain your answer.
This judge said answer it yes or no, and didn't
let the witness explain his answer at all. So that's
just it's almost like a parallel universe. What's going on
in that court.
Speaker 5 (04:47):
Last time you were on, we asked you, you know
what percentage of judges shouldn't probably be judges and whether
this guy was on the list. And my recollection is
is you're not impressed by Wan merchand.
Speaker 6 (05:00):
Him less than impressed. Less than not impressed, I guess
would be the appropriate way. I mean, as rulings just
they don't make any sense. The ruling he made about
the expert FEC witness, that makes no sense. He said, well,
you have two experts that will confuse the jury. That's
what witnesses do. That's what experts men, and give an opinion.
(05:21):
The jury decides which one's believable. It's not up to
him to limit what the jury hears. When there are
competing points of view about a particular point of law
or a particular fact.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I guess it's a different philosophy. And I don't know
how many judges have the philosophy that this guy might have,
that his job as a judge is to have a
view of the world and try to push court cases
the direction of his view of the world to make
the world a better place, as opposed to just applying
the law in a dispassionate way.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Is that the way you're say in, well.
Speaker 6 (05:57):
Then he should run for Congress and not be a judge.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Me.
Speaker 6 (06:00):
You're supposed to be on the bench, and you're you're
supposed to let your call balls and strikes, basically, And
I had trials where the outcome was anything but, you know,
totally opposite of what I wanted to happen. But it happened,
and we just try to give people a fair trial.
He obviously has a bias. He's not even trying to
hide the bias. Maybe that's the way it works in
(06:22):
certain courts in New York, but it's so obvious that
it's it's troubling almost.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
And I'm assuming you've talked to fellow judges, retired judges
about this case at least a little bit.
Speaker 6 (06:34):
Oh yeah, yeah, a couple of my friends, we stay
in touch. We don't, you know, just hey, what do
you think about this? And then it's I don't think
you'll find anybody that's really being honest. The universally won't
say this judge has done a really poor job of
presiding over this trial.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
Retired Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman on the line, So
let's talk about some of the explosive developments of the
other day in which Michael Cohen allowed it.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Yeah, yeah, I stole like, what was it.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Jack, fifty thousand dollars from the twenty five I think, yeah,
from the Trump organization while he was spreading money around
to various fixers and hoods and porn stars and the
rest of it.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
What do you think the jury made of that, Larry.
Speaker 6 (07:18):
Well, I mean, he admitted to a felony, understand, So
you know, it goes to credibility. It's it's it's very
strange to have a witness confess to a crime that's
of a higher quality than the crime for which the
defendants on trial. You know, it's, wow, you just admitted
(07:39):
stealing all this money, so we already know you're a liar,
and now we know you're a crook. So it should
it should affect the credibility of the way the jury
tests his testimony or reacts to his testimony.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
I would think, I know, it's an old tired question
of what judges wear under their robes. But as you
got later in your career, did you move away from
dress pants and closer to pajamas?
Speaker 6 (08:03):
Pretty well, I never wore I think my first five
years I wore tie in a regular dress shirt and
from then on it was Levi's and golf shirts.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
There you go, Yeah, that's good enough, just to justice
deserves a non sweaty neck per something. Larry Goodman, retired
judges on the line, Larry, I realize, Oh that's right,
I know what I want to ask. So the prosecution
has not yet made clear the underlying crime that turns
(08:33):
the paperwork errors or deliberate omissions into a felony. Don't
they have to say what crime he's charged with at
some point?
Speaker 6 (08:44):
Well, they do, and they should have been made to
do that before they ever put on their first witness.
They certainly should have been required to do that through
an expert witness, to which then the defense could have
had their own expert witness. But now it looks like
they're not going to find out until closing argument. And
the interesting thing about a closing argument is the jury
(09:05):
is instructed that what did lawyers say during argument is
not evidence. So there's a definition of a crime from
somebody who's giving an argument that they can't consider it
is a factual statement.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Interesting, All right, go ahead, Jack, How often were you wrong?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Do you think about what direction you thought the jury
was going to go? Since you all heard the same thing.
Speaker 6 (09:37):
Probably, you know, maybe less than five percent, and some.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Time you had an idea how you thought the jury
was going to go.
Speaker 6 (09:45):
Yeah, And there was only a couple of cases where
the jury came back not guilty on a couple of
multiple homicide cases that the whole courtroom was just shocked.
One time it was because of jury misconduct and the
other time. But I think the jury was just scared
to death. They wanted to just get out of Oakland
without getting Okay.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Well, then that's interesting then, So practically all the time,
since those are two outlier situations, practically all the time
you knew how the jury was going to go. Why
do I keep hearing on cable news there's no predicting
a jury. You never have any idea how a jury
is going to react. Those seem to be in conflict.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
Well, because where I was practicing or where I was
sitting as a judge, by the time we got to trial,
things have been patched out pretty well, everybody kind of
knew what was going on. I mean, jurys did crazy things,
don't get me wrong, But most of the time, by
the time you go through a preliminary hearing, you go
through pre trial hearings, you kind of know where the
(10:44):
evidence is going to lie. Unless somebody does something crazy
during the trial, everybody kind of knows how it's going
to come out.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Interesting.
Speaker 5 (10:54):
So back to Jack's question, how surprised would you be
scale of one to ten if the jury came back
with a conviction of Trump on one or more of
the felon accounts.
Speaker 6 (11:05):
Not surprised at all.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Oh really, I mean.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
It's because the way the trial's gone. I mean again,
I don't know what this jury. I haven't seen the jury.
I don't know what they look like. I'm a little
concerned that they now have eight days to find the
ways to get in trouble between now when they come
back to hear arguments and instructions game, what do.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
You mean by getting trouble?
Speaker 6 (11:28):
They go back to work and their coworker says, hey,
did you hear about that? I understand you guys weren't
in the courtroom when that happened or oh okay, so
they've got all this time to go back to their
regular lives and have people interact with them. And even
if they try to adhere to the admonition, you're not
to discuss this case, so let anybody discuss it with you.
It's pretty hard to live by those rules for eight
(11:49):
days when you're back to your normal life.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
How about over Memorial Day weekend there's a little drinking
pooing folved.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Perhaps.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
Why do you think they're taking such a long break
before the closing arguments?
Speaker 6 (12:00):
I have no idea. I mean it's unheard of. I mean, well,
even on death penalty cases, we wouldn't let the jury
wander around for eight days before we get closing arguments
and instructions. That just makes And they're going to do
instructions I guess this afternoon. So then what's the what's
the hang up? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Okay, So this this seems to be like an untapped
scandal here because I didn't hear anybody explain why it
was going to be a week.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Want to get back in there?
Speaker 5 (12:30):
Well, and I speaking as a several time juror, the
idea that you'd get your jury instructions and then go
home for a week before you come back.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
That's idiotic. Those instructions are important.
Speaker 6 (12:42):
Yeah though they're No, they're not going to be instructed.
They're just going to hammer out the instruction. So I'm
my understanding is the judge likes have closing arguments, go
right into instructions and then start deliberations. And that's all
well and good, but you don't by the time you
get back next Tuesdays are going to have forgotten things.
They're not going to be in the same mindset, like
(13:04):
I said, They're going to go back to their regular
lives and maybe been infected by some piece of information
that they're not supposed to know about, or they may
get curious and go google, you know, FBC Laws or
someone who knows what they're gonna do.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
So what a dumpster fire it really is.
Speaker 6 (13:23):
Jonathan Turley said it best when he said it's like
a parallel universe of the trial. It just makes no
sense in so many different different aspects.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
Retired Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman, Larry, great to talk
to you, Thanks again for the insight and happy sailing.
Speaker 6 (13:38):
Thanks Bill very much. Calculator, Bye bye all.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Right, sounds good.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Well, there's some interesting stuff there. No rhyme or reason
for why they're taking a week off, and I hadn't
even thought about that, but hell yeah, over Memorial Day
weekend they're going to be out there. So anything they
haven't heard yet of the punditry of the world about
this thing, they're gonna absorb. And you know, in a
part of the country where ninety percent of people hate Trump,
(14:03):
why is that happening?
Speaker 1 (14:05):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
It's just yet another misstep by this crappy judge.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Yet he thinks the jury will bring back a felony conviction.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Wow. Trump Along the way stare army.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Target dropping prices on five thousand products, trying to win
back customers and compete with Walmart lowering prices on many
household items, groceries and baby products.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Yeah, I mean I like lower prices, But on the
other hand, I don't want I don't want Walmart people
in my Target. Ohautism, elitism, elitism because they shop at Target.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
That's hilarious.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
But that's what you're gonna get if you have the
same prices. I'm gonna get Walmart people over at the Target.
Come on, we have better carts, the wheel don't wobble.
Speaker 6 (14:56):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
So there's that economic story. And then the fact that
Red Slops is closing up all across the country because
they underguessed the gluttony of America.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
I think that's so hilarious. So it turns out.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
The whole twenty dollars all you can eat shrimp deal
in June cost them eleven million dollars that they lost
for the quarter.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
And I'm sure they did the math on that.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
They had some sort of projection over how many shrimp
they thought people would eat, and they're all you could
eat shrimp deal, and they came up way short of
the average gluttonous customer who came in and ate way
more than they thought.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
They were already in trouble.
Speaker 5 (15:39):
Red Lobster and they took a swing for the fences,
and anybody who's played the great game of baseball nose.
Sometimes when you swing for the vences, you really know
it's in the catcher's mitt.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
But I wonder if when they started getting the returns back,
you know, night by night, week by week, they're like, good.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
God, we knew Americans were gluttons, but this is this
is shocking.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
He plates did that guy at table six seat last night.
We finally when we closed the I walked to the
car with the lights off and he was still sitting
in there eating.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
I don't know, we need to harvest more shrimp, sir.
There are no more shrimp anywhere on Earth.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
I also like the fact that people are trying to
buy memorabilia from Red Lobsters because they have great childhood
memories and all that sort of stuff. You talked about
taking your kids to Red Lobster. People want the fish tank,
or they want the big fake steering wheel from a
ship that they have hanging on the wall.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You know, you put that on your wall and say, hey,
it was from the Red Lobster.
Speaker 5 (16:35):
Downtown chy Red Lobster T shirts the thing of the future.
Red Lobster ought to go with the memorabilia with the merch.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
You're right, you're right. It is kind of campy cool, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
That is so interesting that they had a prediction how
much they thought people would eat and came and they
were way off.
Speaker 5 (17:01):
So coming up next segment, certain rumblings about a certain
politician who may or may not be old enough to
have played handball with Alexander Hamilton and Scranton. Certain rumblings
about whether he should be the nominee or getting louder.
What mainstream baby, that's exciting.
Speaker 7 (17:22):
Armstrong And and anti semitism is discrimination for hibbit on
our Title six in the Civil Rights Act period, and
the Department has to investigate discriminately and aggressively discrimination aggressively.
That's my special envoy to Monarch Cabinet and anta Semitism. Deborah, Deborah,
(17:45):
you are? Where is it Debora here? Debora? Thank you,
Jack said for furthering our effortshow all around the world.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
It matters people clapping when you can't have no idea.
Speaker 5 (18:00):
What he said it was closed captioning, like you're watching Netflix.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
And then here's some other event he was at.
Speaker 7 (18:09):
And when I was vice president, things were kind of
bad during the pandemic.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
And what happened was Rock.
Speaker 7 (18:17):
Said to me, go to Detroit and help fix it. Well,
poor Mary, he spend more time with me than he
ever thought. He's going to have to God love you.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Yeah, and that guy's laughing thinking, yeah, you weren't vice
president during the pandemic. Trump was president for part of it,
and you were a president for part of it. But
Brock didn't send you anywhere during the pandemic. But anyway, wow, wow, wow,
that's not normal confusing things in your head. That's a
(18:48):
different kind correct. Yeah, yeah, that's something bad anyway. So
one of my favorite newsletters to read is The Wide
World of News from Mark Halpern. Every day is the
better political pundits out there, I believe, And he every
once in a while just does a general state of
the race newsletter, just kind of where things are now.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
And he was talking today about how.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Generally the person that wins the presidency was playing offense
and the person that loses was playing defense. It's just
the way things shook out during the campaign. And he
goes through all kinds of examples of Clinton and Bush
and Obama and Trump, and currently what's going on is
that Biden is playing pure defense and Trump is on
(19:32):
offense in a lot of places.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
To that point, there's.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Not a single state that Biden lost in twenty twenty
that he has a legit shot to win this time around,
whereas Trump is trying to reverse the results in a
whole bunch of different states Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and the
Big three of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where the polls
show him ahead or even, so he's on full offense.
(19:56):
Plus he's putting up resources in Minnesota and Virginia where
they must think they've got a shot at it based
on their internal polling. So he's on offense in a
whole bunch of states. Biden is in defense at best.
And that rings true to me that because Hillary was
(20:19):
playing defense trying to go around and show up various
states that like Oh and he also makes a point I.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Thought this was a good one.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
How about the fact that Trump is playing offense in
other geographic ways with his recent rally in Blue New
Jersey where he got nearly one hundred thousand people and
this week's event in the Bronx that he's got planned
for Thursday that he'll probably get a big crowd. Imagine
Biden doing a big rally in Birmingham, Alabama, or holding
an offense event in.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Utah and getting a crowd. Not a chance. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
absolutely true.
Speaker 5 (20:52):
I am virtually the only pundit I've heard I hate
to refer to myself as a pundit that is talking
about Biden's mental decline.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
As a trajectory.
Speaker 5 (21:07):
It seems like everybody else who even if they concede that, alright,
he's lost his stab, he's not very sharp, he's mumbley,
he forgets things, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
They seem to be ignoring.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
The fact that that is not a that is not
a static measure that.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Will continue to decline.
Speaker 5 (21:24):
It will either decline a little bit in the next
three or four months, maybe even imperceptibly little I doubt it,
or it will decline a lot. Anybody who's ever seen
the advance of dementia or other age related problems knows
some three months periods went pretty well, some are terrible,
(21:44):
and the decline is rapid. But I think people are
ignoring the fact that this guy continues to get even older.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Having said that, Trump.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
Absolutely had a great fundraising couple of weeks off of
the trial. The trial in Manhattan, as we speculated, has
been a positive for him. Folks who would tend to
support him, or even just hold their nose and support him,
are saying, man, this is a railroad job and they're
kicking in money. So sure enough. But back to Biden
and his mental state. I thought this was notable. Not
(22:17):
it doesn't win the case, but it was notable that
the USA Today, which is a lefty, dopey publication, ran
an opinion piece today from Jeremy Meyer, who's an associate
professor in the Scar School of actually a Sclar School
of Policy and Government at George Mason University, where one
of my children may or may not have a degree
(22:39):
from that very program. In that very school, he also
directs the master's and PhD programs in political science. And
actually he says some stuff in this opinion piece that
I found pretty loopy, but his main premise is this
The headline, actually, how can Biden save America from Trump's
return to the White House?
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Drop out of the race? The November election is the rematch.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
America doesn't want the two oldest and among the most
unpopular candidates in our history. It doesn't have to be
that way. Republicans are stuck with Trump for obvious reasons.
But there's a way for President Joe Biden to step aside,
to voluntarily remove himself for the good of the nation.
He told announce it any time this summer that he's out.
If I'm a Democrat, that is clearly true.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
The number one top of the list best way to
stop Trump if I'm a Democrat, would be get a
different candidate.
Speaker 5 (23:30):
Yeah, yeah, And actually, mister Meyer points out that he
could use the same logic that got him the nomination
in twenty twenty. He sincerely inaccurately believed he was the
Democrat with the best chance to beat Trump. Now he
is one of the few national Democrats who could get
Trump re elected. Right goes into the sum of the polling,
which is is terrible. Biden seen is too old to
(23:50):
serve a second term by many voters. Some perceptions of
candidates can be changed, but voters are unlikely. He writes
to decide that Biden is younger and more vigorous. Then
I thought, yeah, that is not going to be a thing. Right, Right,
if Democrats were to nominate Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, he'd
(24:11):
beat Trump like Lebron James posting up Kevin.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Hart, I think that might be true.
Speaker 5 (24:16):
An excellent multidisciplined comparison. Whatever you think of the accuracy,
Kevin Heart's like four foot ten.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
The poor guy referenced against Lebron.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
Named Kevin Hart has got my anyway. But there are
many others, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. Well, if
she can ride to DC on her broin, I don't
think she'd win. Yeah, she's awful. Senator Amy Klobucher, Minnesota,
sennity is Senator Corey Spartacus Booker of New Jersey.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Really now wow?
Speaker 5 (24:45):
And then then I shouldn't This undermines my point because
I think Meyer's absolutely right. And I think it's notable
that a publication as lefty and anodyne, kind of boring
and dopey as the USA T today would publish this
opinion piece and and and and and uh, pretty prominently.
(25:07):
I think he's right. But then he says and while
President Vice President Kamala Harris, who pulls worse against Trump
than Biden does, would have been a serious threat to
take the nomination in open primaries, No, she wasn't.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
No, No, America is not that stupid.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
No people, Oh, you got to get out of the
classroom and onto the streets.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Dude. She's a broad and everybody knows it.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
She dropped out before Iowa when she wasn't as well
known as she is now, and the more people know her,
the less they like her.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
She dropped out before Iowa.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
She didn't even run in the contest, she was so unlike,
So that's hilarious.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
And then this academic says Biden has had, by most
standard measures, a pretty successful presidency. So a guy who
is that clearly a Democrat, who's that dewey eyed and
unrealistic in his estimates, still believes Biden really needs to
get out.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
I don't understand that last sentence. There is a rating,
it's called the approval rating for how you've done. You've
got the lowest one in like eighty years, so by definition,
people do not think you've had a successful presidency.
Speaker 5 (26:27):
But he's being blamed for high inflation, the US troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Israel Hamas war in Gaza.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Well, the first of that is more.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
Yeah, some of those are more compelling than others in
terms of placing blame on Biden. But Jeremy, dude, my brother,
my brother man. How about his constant race baiting and
trying to pit Americans against each other? How about is
trying to smear all Republicans with the not picking example
of the very few. He's an awful device of indecisive,
(27:02):
senile jackass. But you're right about your premise. He needs
to get out a senile jackass. Do you want him
to get out? I don't want him to get out.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
I do act. Look at you, Look at you putting
America over your personal needs.
Speaker 5 (27:20):
Well as you know, I'm not entirely comfortable with Trump
as president, and just I think Biden as president would
be a nightmare. There are a couple of fairly moderate
Democrats I could deal with.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Man Hanson put the title on this hour, Joseph Democrat.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
Oh no, I'd rather see Trump win, no question. But
if he doesn't, what's the alternate? What's the alternative Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris Again, good god, because that means
president Kamala Harris. And I also think no, seriously, seriously, now,
I think that would be a terrible, terrible.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Threat to our national security. You're right, And I just
realized something about myself. I must I've just been I've
been operating on the assumption that that can't happen. Another
Biden Harris term. I just kind of assume that can't happen.
It can It's not likely, but it could happen, and
that would be a disaster.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Oh my god, that would be a disaster.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
And the situation the world's in right now, to have
Joe Biden still calling the shots. Oh and then of
course the unthinkable if Kambla.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Harris becomes president.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
I mean, oh my god, it is time for us
to do what we have been doing in that time.
As every day I've I just I just realized that
about myself. I'm assuming that can't happen, and that's not true,
that's not accurate.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
It could happen.
Speaker 5 (28:45):
Yeah, I honestly think it would be a potential horrifying disaster.
And even if the Republicans got both houses and staved
off the truly miserable on the domestic side, the international
the potential for international disaster, it's just huge.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
And honestly, now.
Speaker 5 (29:03):
That I think about it, with the executive branch's horrific
unconstitutional power to rule through FIAT and executive Order and
regulations through the various regulatory agencies and cabinet posts, I
just know we.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
Can't have Biden Harris again. Anyway. What a weird situation
where this country's in.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
It's almost surreal that we got here, it is, And
then you put it in the context of the timing
of the world. If this were you know, that period
after the Cold War ended, where were we the hyper
power and felt like we had no threats and that
sort of thing. But that's not where we are at all,
the exact opposite, more threats than we've had in well,
(29:52):
who is Henry Kissinger? Lots of people have said this
is the most unsettled the world order has been since
World War Two, and now is when we're having this
crisis of leadership.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
Wow, this is the most election of our lifetime. It
is the most election of our lifetimes. You twit. Here's
the terrible question. Do we need to endure an.
Speaker 5 (30:13):
Awful blow as a country before we get serious?
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Can we can we handle it?
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Can we survive it? What do you mean?
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Can we survive a really bad, awful term to then
get serious?
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Yeah? Oh yeah, yeah, we'll never be brought down from outside.
Do we still have.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
The resilience to endure that blow and reform what we're doing?
Speaker 1 (30:51):
I'm a little bit.
Speaker 5 (30:53):
Hesitant to say yes to that question. I certainly hope
so we always have them.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
I hadn't seen it put that starkly. It's pretty obvious,
I guess when you read it in black and white.
But Biden has no chance of picking up any states.
He merely trying to hang on to what he won before.
And Trump has got, at least, according to the polling,
an opportunity to pick up half dozen or more states
that he didn't win last time.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
But can he stay out of his own way? No,
he can't. But we'll have to see it unfold in
real time. Down this road lies madness.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
We write so many texts about the whole great inflation
thing and teachers and why maybe I'll hit a few
of those, among other things on the way.
Speaker 8 (31:47):
Jakita, name another banana company.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
We'll wait.
Speaker 8 (31:58):
CNN, Sorry, you're stuck in the airport right now.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Would it help if we shouted about.
Speaker 8 (32:02):
The same story for forty five minutes?
Speaker 1 (32:08):
History Channel? Guess we ran out of history time for aliens? Yeah, no, kidding,
baked laze.
Speaker 8 (32:16):
Everyone to eat a FedEx envelope.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
I think we cut off the premise there, but we
caught on quickly.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Why is CNN on in every airport in America?
Speaker 1 (32:34):
You got a contract of some sort, did they?
Speaker 5 (32:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (32:39):
I can't remember. I've read once how that worked. But
it wasn't that interesting. Not interesting story, I know it.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
Your cable news channels make most of their money from
the carriage fees, not from advertising like most by I
mean practically all, and it's a ton of money. But
so MSNBC for instance, and Fox, although Fox has much
(33:06):
bigger ratings, but MSNBC. You can't make the argument that
they have those shows on there with those wild opinions
because it makes them money. It wouldn't make any difference really,
because the carriage fees are the same whether you if
you're on various cable packages. They make hundreds of millions
of dollars off of being part of these packages, and
(33:31):
so they're not just serving their viewer with some of
this outlandish, you know analysis.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
I found that interesting. Soeah, I don't know much about that.
I don't know what.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Drives these things. I guess it's just management in their
personal points of view. AnyWho, we got a couple of
texts about great inflation because we got on that topic
last hour. I'm horrified by the state's schooling right now,
and my kids are right in the midst of it,
and I don't know what to do. But anyway, regarding
(34:04):
your topic on great inflation, it's front and center, and
my son's teachers are way too lenient on his work.
His grades fell off the cliff during COVID and it
has never come back.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
But I know other parents that like me, you're being
too easy.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
Why I don't want you to be this easy? But
I guess a lot of parents aren't that way. Teachers
inflate grades to keep the parents off their back. In
some cases, if you give the grade the student earned,
you will spend hours and meetings with the parents fighting it.
I guess that's if you're like super duper into the
college track and you got to have a certain grade
point average, that's when you're making that argument.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
I just I don't know.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
I want to be good at math and science and reading,
and don't give them an A if they don't if
they're not equality. Also, those parents that want to fight
the ref at the flag football game you're talking about
it are the same parents that abuse the teachers when
they try to discipline kids in school. YEP, it's quite
possibly true. I would rather my kid is good at math,
(35:07):
getting and you're giving them b's and c's, then you
give them a's and they're not good at math.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
But that's just me. I guess I'm an outlier. I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
It's one of the great lies of modern society. That
the discipline and the drive and the education that kids
get at school is supposed to come from the teachers.
The truth is the kids are supposed to walk in
with a lot of it, the drive and the discipline,
the ability to behave, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
We're lying to ourselves, armstrong and getty,
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty show.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Defense has tried to make Michael Cohne the accused is
it just doesn't matter whether Michael Cohne wanted to make
money or whether he's believable. The document speaks for itself,
and Hope Hicks, a loyalist to Donald Trump, said it
was politically motivated.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
So did David Peckerck. The case has been made.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
This judge has allowed the jury to hear falsely that
there was there were campaign violations, and there were not.
And so I'm quite convinced that this jury thinks that
there was a verified and established campaign violation committed and.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Connected to Trump. That's just not the case. I've been
saying for a while.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Just from a media standpoint, MSNBC's their view of the trial.
Fox has their view of the trial, and I feel
like the people on CNN, basically you get a couple
of different views. They don't seem to be shading it
one way or the other near as much. But I
don't know what the point is of even even taking
in any of these legal pundits because they're all over
(01:17):
the place, and of course, you know, there's an outcome
I want, so I tend to agree with the ones that,
you know, talk about it the way I want it
to turn out. But there's a lot of really experienced lawyers,
former prosecutors, blah blah blah, that have one hundred and
eighty degree different opinions where we are on this thing. Yeah, yeah, well, okay,
And how honest are they being?
Speaker 1 (01:38):
I don't have any idea.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
Yeah, I would say several of them, including one we
just heard, is so transparently full of crap and so
clearly pandering that they need not be taken seriously. But
to discuss the chaos, especially yesterday in the Trump trial,
great to welcome back retired Superior Court judge Larry Goodman,
(02:01):
former attorney elevate in the Supreme Court or at the
Superior Court in the eighties. Retired after thirty one years,
handled many many murder trials in Alameda County in the
Bay Area, among other things, and is now interestingly started
the Cross Crossroads program to help rehab felons and give
them a second chance, which I think is a fabulous
and worthy endeavor.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Larry, good to have you back.
Speaker 6 (02:22):
How are you thanks for having me. I'm doing great.
We're sitting here in Alameda on the back of our boat,
just taking in the morning sunshine.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Wow. Why should mine?
Speaker 2 (02:36):
So there was a guy on the stand yesterday, this
Costello guy who kept rolling his eyes at the judge
or saying ah geez after the judge would say sustained
or whatever, and at one point was trying to stare
the judge down.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
How do you have you.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Ever had that happen to you and how are you
supposed to handle it as a judge?
Speaker 6 (02:54):
Well, it starts the way before that witness is about
controlling the courtroom. I mean, I did cases where I
had people charged with murder sitting next to me on
the witness stand, and they weren't always agreeable to what
I was doing. But you don't just start getting mad
and start yelling back at the witness. There are ways
to do it, and sometimes it's better, I know, he
(03:14):
closed the courtroom and shoot on Costello for a little bit.
It's usually a lot more effective to stop the witness,
look at the jury, and then scold the witness while
you're looking at the jury, to let the jury know
that you really disapprove of what this witness is doing
to get into an ego match with Costello by closing
the courtroom and yelling at each other. I don't think
(03:36):
accomplished as much.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Interesting.
Speaker 5 (03:38):
Yeah, indeed, so Andy McCarthy suggested Andy McCarthy in a National
Review that the judge had been wildly inconsistent in overruling
or allowing objections to Costello's testimony, and that it just
wasn't even handed and it was frustrating to Cassello, who's
(04:00):
an experienced attorney. How aware of you aware of the
testimony are you? And does that ring true toy at all?
Speaker 6 (04:07):
Yes, I mean I unfortunately, I'm one of these news junkies,
so I follow this stuff pretty closely. And it's almost
like I think Trey Goudi described it as, there's this
different strike zone when the defense is asking questions versus
when the prosecution is asking questions. And I've never heard
of a judge normally there's a question that's a yes
(04:27):
or no question and the person starts to explain. The
response from the judge will be you have to answer
it yes or no, then you can explain your answer.
This judge said answer it yes or no, and didn't
let the witness explain his answer at all. So that's
just it's almost like a parallel universe. What's going on
in that court.
Speaker 5 (04:47):
Last time you were on, we asked you, you know
what percentage of judges shouldn't probably be judges and whether
this guy was on the list. And my recollection is
is you're not impressed by Wan merchand.
Speaker 6 (05:00):
Him less than impressed. Less than not impressed, I guess
would be the appropriate way. I mean, as rulings just
they don't make any sense. The ruling he made about
the expert FEC witness, that makes no sense. He said, well,
you have two experts that will confuse the jury. That's
what witnesses do. That's what experts men, and give an opinion.
(05:21):
The jury decides which one's believable. It's not up to
him to limit what the jury hears. When there are
competing points of view about a particular point of law
or a particular fact.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I guess it's a different philosophy. And I don't know
how many judges have the philosophy that this guy might have,
that his job as a judge is to have a
view of the world and try to push court cases
the direction of his view of the world to make
the world a better place, as opposed to just applying
the law in a dispassionate way.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Is that the way you're say in, well.
Speaker 6 (05:57):
Then he should run for Congress and not be a judge.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Me.
Speaker 6 (06:00):
You're supposed to be on the bench, and you're you're
supposed to let your call balls and strikes, basically, And
I had trials where the outcome was anything but, you know,
totally opposite of what I wanted to happen. But it happened,
and we just try to give people a fair trial.
He obviously has a bias. He's not even trying to
hide the bias. Maybe that's the way it works in
(06:22):
certain courts in New York, but it's so obvious that
it's it's troubling almost.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
And I'm assuming you've talked to fellow judges, retired judges
about this case at least a little bit.
Speaker 6 (06:34):
Oh yeah, yeah, a couple of my friends, we stay
in touch. We don't, you know, just hey, what do
you think about this? And then it's I don't think
you'll find anybody that's really being honest. The universally won't
say this judge has done a really poor job of
presiding over this trial.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
Retired Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman on the line, So
let's talk about some of the explosive developments of the
other day in which Michael Cohen allowed it.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Yeah, yeah, I stole like, what was it.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Jack, fifty thousand dollars from the twenty five I think, yeah,
from the Trump organization while he was spreading money around
to various fixers and hoods and porn stars and the
rest of it.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
What do you think the jury made of that, Larry.
Speaker 6 (07:18):
Well, I mean, he admitted to a felony, understand, So
you know, it goes to credibility. It's it's it's very
strange to have a witness confess to a crime that's
of a higher quality than the crime for which the
defendants on trial. You know, it's, wow, you just admitted
(07:39):
stealing all this money, so we already know you're a liar,
and now we know you're a crook. So it should
it should affect the credibility of the way the jury
tests his testimony or reacts to his testimony.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
I would think, I know, it's an old tired question
of what judges wear under their robes. But as you
got later in your career, did you move away from
dress pants and closer to pajamas?
Speaker 6 (08:03):
Pretty well, I never wore I think my first five
years I wore tie in a regular dress shirt and
from then on it was Levi's and golf shirts.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
There you go, Yeah, that's good enough, just to justice
deserves a non sweaty neck per something. Larry Goodman, retired
judges on the line, Larry, I realize, Oh that's right,
I know what I want to ask. So the prosecution
has not yet made clear the underlying crime that turns
(08:33):
the paperwork errors or deliberate omissions into a felony. Don't
they have to say what crime he's charged with at
some point?
Speaker 6 (08:44):
Well, they do, and they should have been made to
do that before they ever put on their first witness.
They certainly should have been required to do that through
an expert witness, to which then the defense could have
had their own expert witness. But now it looks like
they're not going to find out until closing argument. And
the interesting thing about a closing argument is the jury
(09:05):
is instructed that what did lawyers say during argument is
not evidence. So there's a definition of a crime from
somebody who's giving an argument that they can't consider it
is a factual statement.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Interesting, All right, go ahead, Jack, How often were you wrong?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Do you think about what direction you thought the jury
was going to go? Since you all heard the same thing.
Speaker 6 (09:37):
Probably, you know, maybe less than five percent, and some.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Time you had an idea how you thought the jury
was going to go.
Speaker 6 (09:45):
Yeah, And there was only a couple of cases where
the jury came back not guilty on a couple of
multiple homicide cases that the whole courtroom was just shocked.
One time it was because of jury misconduct and the
other time. But I think the jury was just scared
to death. They wanted to just get out of Oakland
without getting Okay.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Well, then that's interesting then, So practically all the time,
since those are two outlier situations, practically all the time
you knew how the jury was going to go. Why
do I keep hearing on cable news there's no predicting
a jury. You never have any idea how a jury
is going to react. Those seem to be in conflict.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
Well, because where I was practicing or where I was
sitting as a judge, by the time we got to trial,
things have been patched out pretty well, everybody kind of
knew what was going on. I mean, jurys did crazy things,
don't get me wrong, But most of the time, by
the time you go through a preliminary hearing, you go
through pre trial hearings, you kind of know where the
(10:44):
evidence is going to lie. Unless somebody does something crazy
during the trial, everybody kind of knows how it's going
to come out.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Interesting.
Speaker 5 (10:54):
So back to Jack's question, how surprised would you be
scale of one to ten if the jury came back
with a conviction of Trump on one or more of
the felon accounts.
Speaker 6 (11:05):
Not surprised at all.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Oh really, I mean.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
It's because the way the trial's gone. I mean again,
I don't know what this jury. I haven't seen the jury.
I don't know what they look like. I'm a little
concerned that they now have eight days to find the
ways to get in trouble between now when they come
back to hear arguments and instructions game, what do.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
You mean by getting trouble?
Speaker 6 (11:28):
They go back to work and their coworker says, hey,
did you hear about that? I understand you guys weren't
in the courtroom when that happened or oh okay, so
they've got all this time to go back to their
regular lives and have people interact with them. And even
if they try to adhere to the admonition, you're not
to discuss this case, so let anybody discuss it with you.
It's pretty hard to live by those rules for eight
(11:49):
days when you're back to your normal life.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
How about over Memorial Day weekend there's a little drinking
pooing folved.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Perhaps.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
Why do you think they're taking such a long break
before the closing arguments?
Speaker 6 (12:00):
I have no idea. I mean it's unheard of. I mean, well,
even on death penalty cases, we wouldn't let the jury
wander around for eight days before we get closing arguments
and instructions. That just makes And they're going to do
instructions I guess this afternoon. So then what's the what's
the hang up? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Okay, So this this seems to be like an untapped
scandal here because I didn't hear anybody explain why it
was going to be a week.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Want to get back in there?
Speaker 5 (12:30):
Well, and I speaking as a several time juror, the
idea that you'd get your jury instructions and then go
home for a week before you come back.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
That's idiotic. Those instructions are important.
Speaker 6 (12:42):
Yeah though they're No, they're not going to be instructed.
They're just going to hammer out the instruction. So I'm
my understanding is the judge likes have closing arguments, go
right into instructions and then start deliberations. And that's all
well and good, but you don't by the time you
get back next Tuesdays are going to have forgotten things.
They're not going to be in the same mindset, like
(13:04):
I said, They're going to go back to their regular
lives and maybe been infected by some piece of information
that they're not supposed to know about, or they may
get curious and go google, you know, FBC Laws or
someone who knows what they're gonna do.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
So what a dumpster fire it really is.
Speaker 6 (13:23):
Jonathan Turley said it best when he said it's like
a parallel universe of the trial. It just makes no
sense in so many different different aspects.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
Retired Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman, Larry, great to talk
to you, Thanks again for the insight and happy sailing.
Speaker 6 (13:38):
Thanks Bill very much. Calculator, Bye bye all.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Right, sounds good.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Well, there's some interesting stuff there. No rhyme or reason
for why they're taking a week off, and I hadn't
even thought about that, but hell yeah, over Memorial Day
weekend they're going to be out there. So anything they
haven't heard yet of the punditry of the world about
this thing, they're gonna absorb. And you know, in a
part of the country where ninety percent of people hate Trump,
(14:03):
why is that happening?
Speaker 1 (14:05):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
It's just yet another misstep by this crappy judge.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Yet he thinks the jury will bring back a felony conviction.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Wow. Trump Along the way stare army.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Target dropping prices on five thousand products, trying to win
back customers and compete with Walmart lowering prices on many
household items, groceries and baby products.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Yeah, I mean I like lower prices, But on the
other hand, I don't want I don't want Walmart people
in my Target. Ohautism, elitism, elitism because they shop at Target.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
That's hilarious.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
But that's what you're gonna get if you have the
same prices. I'm gonna get Walmart people over at the Target.
Come on, we have better carts, the wheel don't wobble.
Speaker 6 (14:56):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
So there's that economic story. And then the fact that
Red Slops is closing up all across the country because
they underguessed the gluttony of America.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
I think that's so hilarious. So it turns out.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
The whole twenty dollars all you can eat shrimp deal
in June cost them eleven million dollars that they lost
for the quarter.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
And I'm sure they did the math on that.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
They had some sort of projection over how many shrimp
they thought people would eat, and they're all you could
eat shrimp deal, and they came up way short of
the average gluttonous customer who came in and ate way
more than they thought.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
They were already in trouble.
Speaker 5 (15:39):
Red Lobster and they took a swing for the fences,
and anybody who's played the great game of baseball nose.
Sometimes when you swing for the vences, you really know
it's in the catcher's mitt.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
But I wonder if when they started getting the returns back,
you know, night by night, week by week, they're like, good.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
God, we knew Americans were gluttons, but this is this
is shocking.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
He plates did that guy at table six seat last night.
We finally when we closed the I walked to the
car with the lights off and he was still sitting
in there eating.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
I don't know, we need to harvest more shrimp, sir.
There are no more shrimp anywhere on Earth.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
I also like the fact that people are trying to
buy memorabilia from Red Lobsters because they have great childhood
memories and all that sort of stuff. You talked about
taking your kids to Red Lobster. People want the fish tank,
or they want the big fake steering wheel from a
ship that they have hanging on the wall.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You know, you put that on your wall and say, hey,
it was from the Red Lobster.
Speaker 5 (16:35):
Downtown chy Red Lobster T shirts the thing of the future.
Red Lobster ought to go with the memorabilia with the merch.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
You're right, you're right. It is kind of campy cool, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
That is so interesting that they had a prediction how
much they thought people would eat and came and they
were way off.
Speaker 5 (17:01):
So coming up next segment, certain rumblings about a certain
politician who may or may not be old enough to
have played handball with Alexander Hamilton and Scranton. Certain rumblings
about whether he should be the nominee or getting louder.
What mainstream baby, that's exciting.
Speaker 7 (17:22):
Armstrong And and anti semitism is discrimination for hibbit on
our Title six in the Civil Rights Act period, and
the Department has to investigate discriminately and aggressively discrimination aggressively.
That's my special envoy to Monarch Cabinet and anta Semitism. Deborah, Deborah,
(17:45):
you are? Where is it Debora here? Debora? Thank you,
Jack said for furthering our effortshow all around the world.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
It matters people clapping when you can't have no idea.
Speaker 5 (18:00):
What he said it was closed captioning, like you're watching Netflix.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
And then here's some other event he was at.
Speaker 7 (18:09):
And when I was vice president, things were kind of
bad during the pandemic.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
And what happened was Rock.
Speaker 7 (18:17):
Said to me, go to Detroit and help fix it. Well,
poor Mary, he spend more time with me than he
ever thought. He's going to have to God love you.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Yeah, and that guy's laughing thinking, yeah, you weren't vice
president during the pandemic. Trump was president for part of it,
and you were a president for part of it. But
Brock didn't send you anywhere during the pandemic. But anyway, wow, wow, wow,
that's not normal confusing things in your head. That's a
(18:48):
different kind correct. Yeah, yeah, that's something bad anyway. So
one of my favorite newsletters to read is The Wide
World of News from Mark Halpern. Every day is the
better political pundits out there, I believe, And he every
once in a while just does a general state of
the race newsletter, just kind of where things are now.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
And he was talking today about how.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Generally the person that wins the presidency was playing offense
and the person that loses was playing defense. It's just
the way things shook out during the campaign. And he
goes through all kinds of examples of Clinton and Bush
and Obama and Trump, and currently what's going on is
that Biden is playing pure defense and Trump is on
(19:32):
offense in a lot of places.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
To that point, there's.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Not a single state that Biden lost in twenty twenty
that he has a legit shot to win this time around,
whereas Trump is trying to reverse the results in a
whole bunch of different states Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and the
Big three of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where the polls
show him ahead or even, so he's on full offense.
(19:56):
Plus he's putting up resources in Minnesota and Virginia where
they must think they've got a shot at it based
on their internal polling. So he's on offense in a
whole bunch of states. Biden is in defense at best.
And that rings true to me that because Hillary was
(20:19):
playing defense trying to go around and show up various
states that like Oh and he also makes a point I.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Thought this was a good one.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
How about the fact that Trump is playing offense in
other geographic ways with his recent rally in Blue New
Jersey where he got nearly one hundred thousand people and
this week's event in the Bronx that he's got planned
for Thursday that he'll probably get a big crowd. Imagine
Biden doing a big rally in Birmingham, Alabama, or holding
an offense event in.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Utah and getting a crowd. Not a chance. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
absolutely true.
Speaker 5 (20:52):
I am virtually the only pundit I've heard I hate
to refer to myself as a pundit that is talking
about Biden's mental decline.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
As a trajectory.
Speaker 5 (21:07):
It seems like everybody else who even if they concede that, alright,
he's lost his stab, he's not very sharp, he's mumbley,
he forgets things, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
They seem to be ignoring.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
The fact that that is not a that is not
a static measure that.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Will continue to decline.
Speaker 5 (21:24):
It will either decline a little bit in the next
three or four months, maybe even imperceptibly little I doubt it,
or it will decline a lot. Anybody who's ever seen
the advance of dementia or other age related problems knows
some three months periods went pretty well, some are terrible,
(21:44):
and the decline is rapid. But I think people are
ignoring the fact that this guy continues to get even older.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Having said that, Trump.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
Absolutely had a great fundraising couple of weeks off of
the trial. The trial in Manhattan, as we speculated, has
been a positive for him. Folks who would tend to
support him, or even just hold their nose and support him,
are saying, man, this is a railroad job and they're
kicking in money. So sure enough. But back to Biden
and his mental state. I thought this was notable. Not
(22:17):
it doesn't win the case, but it was notable that
the USA Today, which is a lefty, dopey publication, ran
an opinion piece today from Jeremy Meyer, who's an associate
professor in the Scar School of actually a Sclar School
of Policy and Government at George Mason University, where one
of my children may or may not have a degree
(22:39):
from that very program. In that very school, he also
directs the master's and PhD programs in political science. And
actually he says some stuff in this opinion piece that
I found pretty loopy, but his main premise is this
The headline, actually, how can Biden save America from Trump's
return to the White House?
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Drop out of the race? The November election is the rematch.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
America doesn't want the two oldest and among the most
unpopular candidates in our history. It doesn't have to be
that way. Republicans are stuck with Trump for obvious reasons.
But there's a way for President Joe Biden to step aside,
to voluntarily remove himself for the good of the nation.
He told announce it any time this summer that he's out.
If I'm a Democrat, that is clearly true.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
The number one top of the list best way to
stop Trump if I'm a Democrat, would be get a
different candidate.
Speaker 5 (23:30):
Yeah, yeah, And actually, mister Meyer points out that he
could use the same logic that got him the nomination
in twenty twenty. He sincerely inaccurately believed he was the
Democrat with the best chance to beat Trump. Now he
is one of the few national Democrats who could get
Trump re elected. Right goes into the sum of the polling,
which is is terrible. Biden seen is too old to
(23:50):
serve a second term by many voters. Some perceptions of
candidates can be changed, but voters are unlikely. He writes
to decide that Biden is younger and more vigorous. Then
I thought, yeah, that is not going to be a thing. Right, Right,
if Democrats were to nominate Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, he'd
(24:11):
beat Trump like Lebron James posting up Kevin.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Hart, I think that might be true.
Speaker 5 (24:16):
An excellent multidisciplined comparison. Whatever you think of the accuracy,
Kevin Heart's like four foot ten.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
The poor guy referenced against Lebron.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
Named Kevin Hart has got my anyway. But there are
many others, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. Well, if
she can ride to DC on her broin, I don't
think she'd win. Yeah, she's awful. Senator Amy Klobucher, Minnesota,
sennity is Senator Corey Spartacus Booker of New Jersey.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Really now wow?
Speaker 5 (24:45):
And then then I shouldn't This undermines my point because
I think Meyer's absolutely right. And I think it's notable
that a publication as lefty and anodyne, kind of boring
and dopey as the USA T today would publish this
opinion piece and and and and and uh, pretty prominently.
(25:07):
I think he's right. But then he says and while
President Vice President Kamala Harris, who pulls worse against Trump
than Biden does, would have been a serious threat to
take the nomination in open primaries, No, she wasn't.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
No, No, America is not that stupid.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
No people, Oh, you got to get out of the
classroom and onto the streets.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Dude. She's a broad and everybody knows it.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
She dropped out before Iowa when she wasn't as well
known as she is now, and the more people know her,
the less they like her.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
She dropped out before Iowa.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
She didn't even run in the contest, she was so unlike,
So that's hilarious.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
And then this academic says Biden has had, by most
standard measures, a pretty successful presidency. So a guy who
is that clearly a Democrat, who's that dewey eyed and
unrealistic in his estimates, still believes Biden really needs to
get out.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
I don't understand that last sentence. There is a rating,
it's called the approval rating for how you've done. You've
got the lowest one in like eighty years, so by definition,
people do not think you've had a successful presidency.
Speaker 5 (26:27):
But he's being blamed for high inflation, the US troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Israel Hamas war in Gaza.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Well, the first of that is more.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
Yeah, some of those are more compelling than others in
terms of placing blame on Biden. But Jeremy, dude, my brother,
my brother man. How about his constant race baiting and
trying to pit Americans against each other? How about is
trying to smear all Republicans with the not picking example
of the very few. He's an awful device of indecisive,
(27:02):
senile jackass. But you're right about your premise. He needs
to get out a senile jackass. Do you want him
to get out? I don't want him to get out.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
I do act. Look at you, Look at you putting
America over your personal needs.
Speaker 5 (27:20):
Well as you know, I'm not entirely comfortable with Trump
as president, and just I think Biden as president would
be a nightmare. There are a couple of fairly moderate
Democrats I could deal with.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Man Hanson put the title on this hour, Joseph Democrat.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
Oh no, I'd rather see Trump win, no question. But
if he doesn't, what's the alternate? What's the alternative Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris Again, good god, because that means
president Kamala Harris. And I also think no, seriously, seriously, now,
I think that would be a terrible, terrible.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Threat to our national security. You're right, And I just
realized something about myself. I must I've just been I've
been operating on the assumption that that can't happen. Another
Biden Harris term. I just kind of assume that can't happen.
It can It's not likely, but it could happen, and
that would be a disaster.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Oh my god, that would be a disaster.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
And the situation the world's in right now, to have
Joe Biden still calling the shots. Oh and then of
course the unthinkable if Kambla.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Harris becomes president.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
I mean, oh my god, it is time for us
to do what we have been doing in that time.
As every day I've I just I just realized that
about myself. I'm assuming that can't happen, and that's not true,
that's not accurate.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
It could happen.
Speaker 5 (28:45):
Yeah, I honestly think it would be a potential horrifying disaster.
And even if the Republicans got both houses and staved
off the truly miserable on the domestic side, the international
the potential for international disaster, it's just huge.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
And honestly, now.
Speaker 5 (29:03):
That I think about it, with the executive branch's horrific
unconstitutional power to rule through FIAT and executive Order and
regulations through the various regulatory agencies and cabinet posts, I
just know we.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
Can't have Biden Harris again. Anyway. What a weird situation
where this country's in.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
It's almost surreal that we got here, it is, And
then you put it in the context of the timing
of the world. If this were you know, that period
after the Cold War ended, where were we the hyper
power and felt like we had no threats and that
sort of thing. But that's not where we are at all,
the exact opposite, more threats than we've had in well,
(29:52):
who is Henry Kissinger? Lots of people have said this
is the most unsettled the world order has been since
World War Two, and now is when we're having this
crisis of leadership.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
Wow, this is the most election of our lifetime. It
is the most election of our lifetimes. You twit. Here's
the terrible question. Do we need to endure an.
Speaker 5 (30:13):
Awful blow as a country before we get serious?
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Can we can we handle it?
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Can we survive it? What do you mean?
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Can we survive a really bad, awful term to then
get serious?
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Yeah? Oh yeah, yeah, we'll never be brought down from outside.
Do we still have.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
The resilience to endure that blow and reform what we're doing?
Speaker 1 (30:51):
I'm a little bit.
Speaker 5 (30:53):
Hesitant to say yes to that question. I certainly hope
so we always have them.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
I hadn't seen it put that starkly. It's pretty obvious,
I guess when you read it in black and white.
But Biden has no chance of picking up any states.
He merely trying to hang on to what he won before.
And Trump has got, at least, according to the polling,
an opportunity to pick up half dozen or more states
that he didn't win last time.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
But can he stay out of his own way? No,
he can't. But we'll have to see it unfold in
real time. Down this road lies madness.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
We write so many texts about the whole great inflation
thing and teachers and why maybe I'll hit a few
of those, among other things on the way.
Speaker 8 (31:47):
Jakita, name another banana company.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
We'll wait.
Speaker 8 (31:58):
CNN, Sorry, you're stuck in the airport right now.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Would it help if we shouted about.
Speaker 8 (32:02):
The same story for forty five minutes?
Speaker 1 (32:08):
History Channel? Guess we ran out of history time for aliens? Yeah, no, kidding,
baked laze.
Speaker 8 (32:16):
Everyone to eat a FedEx envelope.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
I think we cut off the premise there, but we
caught on quickly.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Why is CNN on in every airport in America?
Speaker 1 (32:34):
You got a contract of some sort, did they?
Speaker 5 (32:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (32:39):
I can't remember. I've read once how that worked. But
it wasn't that interesting. Not interesting story, I know it.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
Your cable news channels make most of their money from
the carriage fees, not from advertising like most by I
mean practically all, and it's a ton of money. But
so MSNBC for instance, and Fox, although Fox has much
(33:06):
bigger ratings, but MSNBC. You can't make the argument that
they have those shows on there with those wild opinions
because it makes them money. It wouldn't make any difference really,
because the carriage fees are the same whether you if
you're on various cable packages. They make hundreds of millions
of dollars off of being part of these packages, and
(33:31):
so they're not just serving their viewer with some of
this outlandish, you know analysis.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
I found that interesting. Soeah, I don't know much about that.
I don't know what.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Drives these things. I guess it's just management in their
personal points of view. AnyWho, we got a couple of
texts about great inflation because we got on that topic
last hour. I'm horrified by the state's schooling right now,
and my kids are right in the midst of it,
and I don't know what to do. But anyway, regarding
(34:04):
your topic on great inflation, it's front and center, and
my son's teachers are way too lenient on his work.
His grades fell off the cliff during COVID and it
has never come back.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
But I know other parents that like me, you're being
too easy.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
Why I don't want you to be this easy? But
I guess a lot of parents aren't that way. Teachers
inflate grades to keep the parents off their back. In
some cases, if you give the grade the student earned,
you will spend hours and meetings with the parents fighting it.
I guess that's if you're like super duper into the
college track and you got to have a certain grade
point average, that's when you're making that argument.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
I just I don't know.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
I want to be good at math and science and reading,
and don't give them an A if they don't if
they're not equality. Also, those parents that want to fight
the ref at the flag football game you're talking about
it are the same parents that abuse the teachers when
they try to discipline kids in school. YEP, it's quite
possibly true. I would rather my kid is good at math,
(35:07):
getting and you're giving them b's and c's, then you
give them a's and they're not good at math.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
But that's just me. I guess I'm an outlier. I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
It's one of the great lies of modern society. That
the discipline and the drive and the education that kids
get at school is supposed to come from the teachers.
The truth is the kids are supposed to walk in
with a lot of it, the drive and the discipline,
the ability to behave, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
We're lying to ourselves, armstrong and getty,
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.