May 29, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Will The Biden's be subpoenaed for a House Hearing on Biden's use of the AutoPen?
- An outanding depiction of the new Tapper Book
- Elon Musk exits the Trump Administration...
- Mailbag (for real!!!)
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):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Jattie and he Armstrong and Hetty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
My new study has revealed that by quieting down certain
neuronal networks, bees sleep like humans, so they lie awake
until two am. Wondering if they said hi in a
weird way to Brenda from Accounting.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Yeah, I saw that study. The headline was intriguing, and
I haven't looked into it. Perhaps I will look into it.
That sounds like something we could talk about. The whole
bees sleep like humans thing. I'm blown away, and I
myself wondered if they wake up at two o'clock in
the morning, thinking, I just don't think I rank as
high in the high as I should.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Right right, Oh my god, the hive is leaking, and
I know I need to deal with it because it'll
just get worse, right or.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
All this buzzing, where is it getting me?
Speaker 4 (01:09):
I've got to admit I've invested far too little time
considering the sleep habits of bees.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Not to go back to the academic stuff, but I
was for some reason this popped into my mind.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
In this bee thing.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
I have known a number of people, like academics, PhD
type people who had such narrow areas of study, and
I'm amazed that you can focus on such a narrow
thing for your whole career and not go crazy or
lose interest. It's bees, yeah, or just bees in general,
(01:43):
I mean, yeah, AnyWho More importantly, Wow, this could be huge.
Just report here from Fox.
Speaker 5 (01:49):
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are ready in subpoenas
in case former President Biden's White House physician, doctor Kevin O'Connor,
and four Keystone offers don't agree to a request for
congressional interviews by the Thursday deadline. The committee is investigating
the Biden administration's use of the auto pen to sign
(02:10):
pardons and executive orders, some.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Still being challenged in court.
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Chairman James Comer tells Fox the committee could even call
in former First Lady Jill Biden, the president's son Hunter,
and former White House Press Secretary Kareem Jehan Pierre.
Speaker 6 (02:25):
If the trail leads us to the next step, which
many believe would be perhaps Joe Biden and Hunter Biden,
then we will go there.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
So James Comber's got a bit of Adam Schiff in
him in that he promises a number of things or
suggests a number of things that don't happen. I mean
he's done that in number quite a few times. Actually, yeah,
you got there before I did.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
You're right.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
But if for whatever reason, God, I gotta believe, Well,
it's the Trump White House. I was about to say,
I got to believe that there would be a certain
amount of.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Norm breaking.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
That quite a few people don't want to do in
terms of bringing up the former first Lady and growing
here about what happened in the White House, and then
that becoming a regular thing. After every president leaves, you
bring in their spouse and try to embarrass them. Did
he ever confide in you that he planned to bomb
that the weapons site?
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Right?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Yeah, I don't love it.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
But if they did, this is obviously in unique case,
there's a decent chance that well, let's listen to James Comer.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
He kind of explains it here.
Speaker 6 (03:38):
Someone got documents and manually placed them in the machine
and pressed the power button to sign Joe Biden's signature.
That was not Joe Biden. That was done by Staffords.
That would be done by any staffords. So we want
to ask them who gave you the authority to use
Joe Biden's signature, and we'll go from there. Obviously, we
(04:00):
believe that some of the names, the chief of staff
and perhaps the First Lady, were involved in a lot
of the decision making. If that's where the trail leads,
then we'll bring them in as well.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
As I said, this is mancuffs. This is a unique
situation here. We'll bring the first Lady in in manacles
if necessary. Did you see the hood over did you
see Hannibal elector? Yes, she'll have the hand of elector masks.
She'll be on a dolly from home Depot will rull
her a strap to a dolly, yes, if necessary, if
that's where the trail lead. But as I said, it's
a unique situation because of this, and I'll read from
(04:34):
the Jake Tapper book. We've mentioned this several times, but
I'm reading from it now. Five people were running the country.
Now this is quoting one of their high level democratic
sources in the Tapper Thompson book. Five people were running
the country and Joe Biden was at best a senior
member of the board. Said one person familiar with the
(04:55):
internal dynamic. A cabinet secretary. A cabinet secretary told them
that expressed a similar sentiment about that group. I've never
seen a situation like this before, with so few people
having so much power, they would make huge economic decisions
without calling the Treasury Secretary Yellen. That's worth investigating, isn't it. Yes,
(05:22):
I think so.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
And the question of the autopen as well, I think
is legitimate. I'd like to know more about the conventional
use of the autopen. But yeah, who was in charge?
To what extent were we not following the constitution?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
You know. The more I think about it and where Yet,
Tim the lawyer on later he would probably point this out.
Constitutionally speaking, those cabinet secretaries give advice to the president.
He still gets to do what he wants. So if
he decides to take his advice from that group of
five people instead of Secretary Yellen on an economic matter,
he gets to that's not unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It's not the way things are.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
We have a cabinet secretary, we don't know which one
saying I'd never seen anything like this before, major economic
decisions being made without even talking to.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
The Secretary of the Treasury, right, But you read my mind.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
Other than a couple of narrow questions that they might
be able to answer about either the autopen or something
like that. You're never going to get any satisfaction because
you can just go with no. Joe Biden preferred to
give his cabinet secretaries a more free hand, and.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
That's where the discussion ends. Well, no, he wasn't really
calling the shots.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
They were.
Speaker 7 (06:35):
No.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
He that's his management style. You'll never get any satisfaction.
You know, he's an oligator. He delegates. That makes him
a good leader. Yeah, knowing more is always better than
knowing less. But yeah, this trail, other than a couple
of fairly narrow questions, is not going to be satisfying.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
But you got to admit if they had doctor Jill.
First of all, doctor it hurts when to do this
fake doctors. They had doctor John, a doctor, and you
know the way these hearings go, where the whole point
is to you know, grandstand and make a moment that's
gonna get on the news or you can retweet. Uh,
it would be pretty it'd be pretty juicy, almost guaranteed.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
Oh to have doctor Jill in there, Oh my god,
I would cancel everything.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
I would cancel, like major heart surgery to watch that.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
He is known to have not recognized George Clooney, who
he knows very well, when he saw him at a fundraiser.
He did not recognize or remember the name of his
secretary of State, so ms Biden. Did he ever forget
who you are? Did he ever look at you and
seem to not recognize who you are? Hey?
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Those would be? My name is not Esther. Oh my god,
that's Fuddy Michael.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
She's a congenital liar in a in a nutshet. You
gotta admit that'd be. That'd be pretty good? Oh pretty
good again? Please birth of I'll see in a couple hours. Honey,
doctor Jill's getting grilled on TV. James Komer is really
sticking it to doctor Joe.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
So I keep promising that I'm done with discussing the
Tapper book.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
The Tapper Alex what's his name?
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Thompson? Who's the real reporter in this story? I really
ought to try to remember his name. I keep promising
I'm not going to talk about it anymore, But then
my favorite writers take their shot at it. For instance,
The Brilliant, the Hilarious Matt tyebe Fantastic headline Jake Tapper's
Biden book is hilarious and insane.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
After a quick word friends at.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Trustin Will, what's funny about that is that was the
first word I used after I got the book. I
stayed up late that last Tuesday night, and the first
thing I said about it was it's hilarious.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
So you work your life to build assets, build a life,
and you want to protect those and you want to
pass them on to posterity. Well, not having a trust
or not having a will is the worst way you
can do that. It all probably goes to probate, turns
into a nightmare for your airs.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
You don't want that.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
So this is a website you can go to and
create this on your own or with lots of help
live customer support through chat, phone email, you can jump
on the phone with an expert that sort of thing.
Create and manage a custom of state plan starting at
one hundred and ninety nine dollars. Manage your trust or
will online with they're easy to use website.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Trust and Will has made a state planning accessible and affordable.
They're simple, step by step process guides you from start
to finish with ease. You can save loved ones time
and stress by having all of your documents in one
place with bank level encryption. This is seriously, seriously protected.
Get the peace of mind you deserve by creating your
own plan with trust and Will. You get twenty percent
(09:54):
off by using our code Armstrong. Go to trust and
will dot com slash armstrong. Secure your assets, protect your
loved ones with trust and will twenty percent off trustendwill
dot com slash Armstrong.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Next segment.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
I want you to have plenty of time to read
Matt Tybe because I find he's writing really really good man.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
He is, he is. He is a talented dude.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Even when I disagree with him, his writing is so
good it's entertaining.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Plus some bonus mailbag.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
And I want to talk about Elon leaving Doge in
the way that's being treated in how We're doomed because
of the way people look at that whole project.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Things are getting weird, and they getting weird fast.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
We have him been to that. We have listener favorite
Tim M. Lawyer on this hour. It's gonna be good
at gour stay here.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Armstrong.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
Kamala Harris recently told a crowd in Orange County that
I'm not going anywhere that's because she was too drunk
to drive.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
That ongoing theme, continue to read the Jake Tapper Alex
Thompson book at night. I haven't gotten any stuff about
Kamala yet.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
I'm not that far into the book.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
That has to be one of the driving forces is
that they didn't trust Kamala being president.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Right, has to be. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
I've seen quotes to that effect from the book, so
I believe them to be there. So, as I said earlier,
I keep saying, Okay, that's the end of this discussion
about the book and Biden being seen island the rest
of it. But the continued attempt to spin it by
the authors is just too delicious to pass up. And
the particularly Jake Tapper Alex Thompson, I think is a
(11:38):
pretty straight shooter. But my favorite writers keep engaging and
I can't pass it up. Like the brilliant Matt Tayebe,
Jake Tapper's Biden book is hilarious and insane is his headline.
Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's mass media apologia is leaps
and bounds more demented than.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
The book subject Joe Biden. And then he talked about
how he wasn't gonna do it.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
He wasn't gonna do it, but in the moment of
late night weakness, he was reading from chapter one and
talking about how is all Joe Biden's fault. He screwed
Kamala Harrison, the Democratic Party and David Pluff is all
mad and the rest of them He.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Totally afked us. Holy catfish Tye, he writes.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
I thought from online buzz that original Sin was a
Mia Koppa. It would own the press's failures to cover
Joe Biden's infirmity in a super belated blah blah blah.
But original Sin isn't that as you indicate, Jack. It's
much crazier. Instead of a dreary and predictable book length
excuse for thousands of media professionals simultaneously whiffing on the
(12:41):
most obvious story in history. It's an ambitious book length
effort to absolve all concerned pin and industry's coverage mistake
on its president drool cup subject, all while additionally swirling
a new storm system of bull less storylines key part
to lay more serious questions about things like who was
(13:03):
president for four years?
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Yeah, the excellent point.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
It's the opposite of a mea culpa, and the literary
degree of difficulty is awesome, equivalent to a blind unicyclist
trying to juggle six chains.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
To Jake and Alex pull it off.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
They don't, but they sure leave a hell of a
lot of blood on stage.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
It's probably that it struck him the same way from
page one. It's like, it's it's it's dizzying that what
is happening here?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
What is this book right right right? Trying to thread
that needle?
Speaker 4 (13:41):
The book's opening lines tell us we're supposed to be
shocked by Biden's delusional state, and then he gets into
some quotes from the book. Reading this, you may experience
a memory double take. Wasn't the public told repeatedly after
that after last year's infamous debate that very little had
changed And these are all quotes from the mainstream media.
There was less polling damage than expected, and few of
(14:02):
the results reflected or radically altered race.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
As NBC put it.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
Didn't we see high profile polls telling us that it's
a dead heat Biden than the lead. Blah blah blah.
There are less optimistic takes, but the idea that Joe
Biden may have thought he had a chance is not
that insane right after the debate, because the polls had
not really changed. Let's see, in the introduction, Tapper and
(14:32):
Thompson explained, there's is a literary porridge not too old
and hot, not too cold, but just right. Those who
were convinced that Joe Biden was little more than a
husk from the beginning, barely capable of stringing two sentences together,
will not find support for that view here, they write.
Those who assist he was unaddled to the end are
also just as wrong. And then he goes into his
(14:53):
own history, writing for Rolling Stone, among others before the election,
that Biden quote, on multiple occasions look close to grabbing
prospective voters by their ears and speed eating their faces off.
And often he looks around like he expects this a
thumb up for giving into his rage response just just
(15:13):
his terrible and we we described this at the time.
He would go off on angry, red faced rants at voters,
or hold women's arms and pull them close for way
too long. Just a mess anyway, Let's see. Uh, anyone
(15:33):
who recalls this will find it very hard to take
the Tap for Thompson line that Biden was fine at
the start, but not at the end. And at some
point in between his incapacity became obvious enough to be
melting before our eyes, not only so obvious that anyone
but Biden could be blamed for lying about it. It
hurts my brain to think about the math of that one.
And anyway, he goes into some detail on that. There
(15:55):
was one more.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Well, like I said, the page before chapter one, whatever
you call that page, had some long Latin quote and
then a big quote from Shakespeare like this was some
sort of deep, interesting psychological who saw this coming part
of history and human nature? It's like, get over yourself important,
(16:17):
Explain to me why you didn't report on what everybody
knew but they don't yew that no, no, and then
you know final note, And this is in Matt's style,
quite long, but he talks about in the Dean Phillips
chapter they blame Biden entirely for running again and they're
(16:37):
not being a primary. But Taivi writes, Thompson and Tapper
know well that the entire party vetoed the idea of
an open primary. There's a long chapter titled Dean Phillips.
The Chronicles Weirdly and incompetently the abject process by which
challenge were excluded from any kind of primary process, though
a lot of the worst shenanigans are left out. The
(16:58):
two authors less note it was quote it was machine
style politics to ensure that Biden would be the nominee
if the entire Democratic Party apparatus went along with spiking
a robust primary. How can it be all Biden who
fed us by refusing to acknowledge his decay and quit. Yeah,
it's it is a fake job of accounting. It is
(17:24):
going an inch toward accounting to avoid having to go
the next eleven inches.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
That would would really, you know, show the deal.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Uh coming up on a talk a little bit about
Elon and the coverage and how angering it is. You
said it a week ago, Michael, Nobody is going to
beat the Oklahoma City Thunder. Nobody They moved on to
the NBA Finals. They're just awaiting their opponent with a
win by thirty points last night, and they are unstoppable.
(17:55):
They might be the first NBA champion that practically nobody
could name a player on in NBA history at the
end of this although there was an article the other
day that the ratings are up quite a bit with
the smaller markets.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
That defies logic. I don't know if that will last
or not.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7 (18:16):
Elon Musk roll as a special government employee coming to
an end, posting on AX, I would like to thank
President Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. In
his last hours working for the Trump administration, Musk breaking
with the President on his massive spending bill, arguing it
would undo their own efforts to shrink the federal government.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
The reporting around Elon Musk stepping away from government and
going back to his old wife, which is incredible. His
old life was incredible. It's amazing that he took on
this giant task for a while. But the reporting on
this has been driving me crazy. The combination of a
(18:58):
gloating over how little he accomplished, like that's something to
be happy about, right, But you're happy about it because
it was somebody in Trump's orbit failing, even though it's
going to ruin your kids' lives.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Correct. That combination of that and UH and the.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Dismissing, the dismissing the effort or what was accomplished, just
it makes me insane.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
And still to be accomplished.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Yeah, First of all, here's Elon talking about the big
beautiful bill.
Speaker 8 (19:32):
You know, I was like disappointed to see the massive
spending bill, frankly, which increases the bunch deps that not
does decrease it, and that reminds the work that the
Noche team is doing.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along.
I mean, like everything he's done on Dose gets wiped
out in the first year.
Speaker 8 (19:53):
I think, I think a bill can be can be
can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I
don't know if it could be both.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
So that clip struck me as while he you know,
he was disappointed in the bill, not nearly the way
it was portrayed all day long yesterday before I finally
heard it his.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Last Trump or Musk breaks with Trump right criticize it.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Finally the bromance is over.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Yeah, it doesn't exactly sound like it to me, especially
considering the fact that Elon tweeted out I really will.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
I can read the tweet to you if you want.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
As my scheduled time as special government employee comes to
an end, I would like to thank President Trump for
the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. The DOGE mission will
only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of
life throughout the government, which is true to a certain extent,
as they've put a number of things in place. For instance,
he mentions in that same interview from Sunday morning, there
(20:47):
were all kinds of places in the government where spending
automatically got signed off without any review whatsoever. You just
submitted a bill and said, yeah, I need five million
dollars for this, and somebody just signed whatever I had
to be signed, and he got it without any thinking
about it whatsoever. And that's why there's a long list
(21:07):
of crazy crap. I almost dropped it as bumb crazy
grap that money gets spent on and that is now
in place and will continue. Is it well short of
the two trillion dollars he was hoping to cut? Hell, Yeah,
which is very disappointing to me, should be disappointing to everyone.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Yeah, I know it.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
And what especially annoys me about the media and which
is ninety percent half wits and liars anyway, and we
all know it. But they criticize DOGE bitterly, the activities
of DOGE, which is ongoing again bitterly for oh, this
single mom is gonna lose her job, or these cuts
could hurt people, blah blah blah. But then when Elon
(21:45):
Musk breaks with Trump and criticizes the bill as not
cutting enough spending. Now, Elon Musk the great truth teller.
We should listen to him. I mean, my god, he's
on the same side of the issue. But now you
like him because he's quote unquote broken with Trump, and
I don't think we have Trump's sound. We should, but
it's not here. He was asked about that Elon Musk
(22:09):
criticized the bill. He said, look, there's some stuff in
the bill I love. There's some stuff I don't like
so much. That's what happens with bills.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
So Jonathan Turley tweeted out, now that Elon Musk has
returned to his businesses, that it's time to acknowledge his
legacy in advancing space exploration, electric vehicles, free speech, and
other public service. Trump should award him the Presidential Medal
of Freedom. That's funny, I thought that driving to work today.
He should absolutely give Elon the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
If Obama gave it to Biden for being a vice president,
(22:38):
then yeah, Elon, can we wait for.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
A couple of days after the pardoning of various scumbags
that Trump did just to give it a little more luster.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
Sorry, Jonathan Turley goes on to say Elon has been
targeted and threatened for his work in the executive branch.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
That service cost him a fortune.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
It is time for the American people to express our
gratitude for his contributions to our country and economy. He
put a lot on the line and literally cost him
a lot to try to take this on because he
thought it was the right thing to do, because he
thinks debt is such a threat. And they didn't carve
out several hundred billion dollars. Again, it's a tiny amount
(23:15):
compared to what we need to do, but that's not.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Worth the effort.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I mean, I just don't even understand the reasoning behind
the attack.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Trump derangement syndrome.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
There is no reasoning, except in as much as the
emotional reasoning that most lefty journalists engage in is there.
Oh my god, so you got a thousand unnecessary jobs.
Cutting those jobs made people sad. Therefore it is bad
because I don't have the capacity for logic. I think
emotionally all the time.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Mark Halprin points out that the New York Times assigned
five reporters to write about Elon's departure yesterday, and as
he as Halprin says, to try to drive a wedge
between Trump and Elon because they love that for some reason.
How many reporters do they have on the absolutely brilliant
guys who are continuing the doge work, the guys who
(24:11):
Brett Bear famously interviewed, We ran a bunch of audio
from it, who are doing God's work in your children
and grandchildren's work too, trying to reign in, profligate government spending.
New York Times no interest in that course, They're terrible.
Five reporters on that, as Halpin writes, it reads more
like a daily mail piece than something serious. For one thing,
(24:33):
but also points out there's not an insignificant number of
size of relief from colleagues in the White House about
Elon's departure, which I don't doubt a bit from a
combination of he was getting more attention than me, just
that sort of jealousy or making my department more difficult,
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
Turns all change all.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
He also has a very forceful, energetic way of going
about his business, which is probably tough to take sometimes
and also pretty incompatible with some of the realities of government.
All right, So I understand it was an uncomfortable fit,
that's true, But I don't understand the glee about that.
So I'm watching MSNBC this morning.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
I flip it on, and they're just once again, a
businessman thinks he can come into Washington, d C. And
treat it like a business and Washington always wins, and
Elon learned a lesson.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
Are you you're so you're happy about that?
Speaker 1 (25:25):
You're joyful about the fact that businessmen can't make a
dent in the fact that we spend so much more
money than we take in and we're gonna become insolvent.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
That makes you happy?
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Somehow?
Speaker 4 (25:35):
I don't get it, cause they're stupid, idiots and liars.
What's not to get? Seriously, what's that you don't get it?
What's not to get? No, I understand, it's just a
rhetorical way of pointing that out. Yeah, they're they're Yeah,
My contempt for them grows every day. It's you know what,
It's like a redwood tree. Just when I think it's
as big as it could possibly get, I look out
and it's five feet high.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
I I hope, I really hope that I do this
most of the time, in that I have some things
I care about and believe and like when those causes
get advanced, and hate when they get set back, regardless
of who's involved. I hope because watching other people take
glee in the destruction of the country, if it's the
(26:19):
other team or or helps my team, I don't understand
that way of looking at the world.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Yay, we're gonna go and solvent.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
They're stupid liars, he says again, They're unwise, they're fools,
They're dumb bastards. They're beneath your contempt. That's why they
think that way.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Maybe to uh and I hate them Bolsters's not already, Clark.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
I just want to.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Make surelier you said you want to pound on their
stupid heads that's correct.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yes, I remain desirous of that.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Yes, I want to pound on the stupid heads, just
to show that I'm not a Trump honk and supporting
everything that is in the Trump orbit. I think it's
great that a court says the president can't stretch some
emergency power and change the tariff structure of the entire
world on his own right.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
Of course, he didn't hear this the Court of International Trade,
which is a fairly obscure three judge court in America.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Here's how obscure. This is the reason I brought it
back up. Yeah, byron Yorke of the Examiner Rights. Prior
to today, the Court of International Trade's greatest tariff ruling
was that the Snuggie is a blanket.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Yes, remember when they ruled on that the Snuggie is
a blanket? Right?
Speaker 4 (27:44):
The debate was is it a blanket or merely a
backward robe anyway, So this court has said, no, you
don't have emergency powers to just unilaterally declare all these tariffs.
Now it goes to the Circuit Court of Appeals, then
to the Supreme Court. So we'll have to see how
it shakes out. But it's it's a major development.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Oh god, I remember this Snuggy phenomenon because my brother
got one.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
He ordered one for someone, And do you remember the
ads for the Snuggy.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
What was funny about it is it's a blanket with
a hole in it so you can put your head
through it. So is it a blanket or a pon
show or whatever? I don't know why that became a
point of contention for.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
The armholes too, right. I remember that the line was
it was a backward robe, right anyway.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
So their ad was, you know, satisfaction guaranteed, money back
guaranteed if you're not satisfied. But we learned this when
my brother got for someone for Christmas. It shows up
to your house in a box with nothing but the
snuggy in a box.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
There's no like return address, no information, no phone, no
no nothing. So hell are you going to return?
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Right?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Right? Exactly?
Speaker 4 (28:58):
You'd have to spend hours and hours figuring out how
to return your fifty eight dollars. I don't remember what
that costs the snuggie. I'll tell you what it was
worth it for our family Christmas that year. Everybody put
it on and took a picture, and you know, great
social media moment.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
That's beautiful, the snuggy and all the people sitting on
the couch looking so happy in it. In the commercials
still to come here clever emails including we asked for
are we wrong about backing Ukraine?
Speaker 4 (29:28):
Are we wrong about Russia? Should not be our buddy,
I'm not We got some intriguing replies to that plus
a Tim Sanderfer from the Goldwater Foundation. Indeed, next hour
to discuss various cases and causes for liberty.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Wow, this is quite an episode. Some episodes are, but
this one very very good.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
We got a lot of good stuff coming up an
hour three, including fan favorite to Tim the Lawyer, So
stay tuned looking forward to that.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Here's a little mail bag.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
Now.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
Normally you do this in our one of the show,
but we didn't have time, so we thought we would
do it now.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
You can drop us a line.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
If you'd like, you'd like to register your opinion there's
something we ought to be talking about. Send us an
email mail bag at Armstrong egidi dot com.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Likewise, if you'd.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
Like immediate brief input, you can text us four one
five two nine five kftc. That's four one five two
ninety five kftc. But to the email we go. First
of all, I predicted cannibalism is right around the corner.
AI and other factors. Oh oh, it was, because when.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
China feels free or feels it necessary, they will turn
off the power and the cell phone system and water
and god knows what else because they have implanted their
evil software and so many of our systems and then
inevitably cannibalism. My poor OCD thirteen year old can't sleep
(30:58):
at night sometimes because he's worried about it.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
So I have to keep this talk to a minimum
at home.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
Yeah, plus AI anyway, So budding funniest emailer Sean Rights
on the topic of cannibalism, guys, I had twenty middle
schoolers on a hiking field trip. He's a teacher, obviously,
and I told him, quote, if I get the inkling,
were lost, just a very hint, We're lost. I start
eating you, guys, like right away. I can't afford to
(31:24):
wait to eat anyone because I'm only going to get
weaker from that point on. Trew.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
I mean, hey, that's fair warning. And the union is
like super strong. That's pretty fun. That's brilliant.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Yeah, based on the things we've talked about in the past,
I think you could eat a child and not lose
your job as a teacher.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Certainly in blue state school districts. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
Well, you can rape a child in New York, for instance,
or molest them or what have you, and you're merely
put in this weird limbo room. Anyway, on the top
of your world wore three decay rights. Guys, what will
happen if we initiate the military? How many men will
declare that they are trans females and therefore not eligible
to be drafted? Is it kind of like having bone
(32:06):
spurs or asthma. It can get you out of this
commitment now, but you may not have to suffer the
consequences of your illness for your entire life because poof,
it's gone.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Change my mind, zero chance of a draft. So that
helps eliminate the concern.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
I should mention that we got a bunch of really interesting,
serious emails on the topic of Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Gonna hit those hour three, hour four of the show.
Love that topic.
Speaker 4 (32:33):
Yeah, so stay tuned for that. This is a lighter
far indeed, But nitpicking, writes John, How ironic that I
choose you. I chastise you for saying nutpicking instead of nitpicking.
I guess he had in a previous email which I
couldn't find, since quibbling over such minute in the English
language practically defines what nitpicking is. But you, sir, an
(32:56):
authority in future, AI will pick up your mistakes and
magnify them. Be therefore justly diligent unless you intended that
malapropism ironically, in which case never mind. Well, no, you're misunderstanding.
Nutpicking is a very different concept from nitpicking. Nitpicking is
worrying about tiny little details that are not significant. Jack,
would you like to explain what nutpicking is?
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Nutpicking is taking somebody, usually from social media, but not always,
but you take an extreme example of the other side
that you don't like and hold them up as this
is what everybody on the other side is like, and
it's not completely fair. You take the craziest transactivist twenty
three year old video on Twitter and say, see, these
(33:38):
people are nuts, that most people are nuts. That's picking
a nut right and using it to a blanket coverage
of everyone with.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
It right exactly. That's nut picking. Anyway. Pam Wright's woke
is not over. Don't be fooled. I grew up in the.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
East Bay, that's the San Francisco Barrier, went to Chico State,
currently live in Vacaville, California. Have many liberal friends all
over the Bay Area and Sacramento, the capital, who are
absolutely still woke. In particular some friends of mine who
live in She mentions another suburb whose daughter decided to
go by they them when she is about ten years old.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Oh whenever, I, of course they did. Nobody nobody told them.
They completely came to that conclusion on their own. Oh yeah,
And whenever I refer to her, my friends correct me
to refer to her as they. All My liberal friends
still sign off their emails with she her hers, or
he him his or they them. I wish Woke was
over tired of walking on hl's around my friends who
(34:34):
explode if I miss gender someone God, when I run
into pronouns, I just shake my head while you're still
doing that.
Speaker 4 (34:41):
Yeah, I can't decide whether I admire your loyalty to
your friends still being friends with him, Pam, or as
a bit of a misanthrope. I think you need better friends,
but that's up to you, certainly. Uh And then how
much time do we have?
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Got A minute thirty? A minute thirty?
Speaker 4 (34:57):
Yeah, We've gotten a handful of peace people who love
a lot of what Trump's doing. Pissed off and disappointed
by the various pardons lately, like these Krisly reality TV
fraud merchant tax cheats.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Why did he pardon them?
Speaker 4 (35:16):
Because their daughter is super maga and she and others
donate a ton of money to Trump's packs and campaigns.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
So an incredibly hot blonde who spoken to.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
That's the kind of the Trump or thing right, you
know that she's got the look should be in the
cabinet someday.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
So Anita writes, why on earth is Trump? Pardon the krizlies?
They're stupid so called reality stars who an intelligent jury
found guilty of bank fraud and tax evasion. The husband
should be the poster child for avoiding botox and plastic surgery.
They've never expressed any remorse, maintained that they did not
do it, but an intelligent jury did not believe them.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
I agree with your being upset with this one. The
Gretchen Whitmer napping plot not as clear cut. There was
a fair amount of leading drunken idiots along by the FBI.
A little entrappy for your taste. Yeah, I'm not sure,
but it's it's it's it's more interesting than the one
you just mentioned. Certainly pros and cons for continuing to
(36:18):
support Ukraine. Plus Tim Sanderfer from the Goldwater Foundation Next Hour.
If you don't get Next Hour, grab the podcast Armstrong
you Getty on demand. Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Jattie and he Armstrong and Hetty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
My new study has revealed that by quieting down certain
neuronal networks, bees sleep like humans, so they lie awake
until two am. Wondering if they said hi in a
weird way to Brenda from Accounting.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Yeah, I saw that study. The headline was intriguing, and
I haven't looked into it. Perhaps I will look into it.
That sounds like something we could talk about. The whole
bees sleep like humans thing. I'm blown away, and I
myself wondered if they wake up at two o'clock in
the morning, thinking, I just don't think I rank as
high in the high as I should.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Right right, Oh my god, the hive is leaking, and
I know I need to deal with it because it'll
just get worse, right or.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
All this buzzing, where is it getting me?
Speaker 4 (01:09):
I've got to admit I've invested far too little time
considering the sleep habits of bees.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Not to go back to the academic stuff, but I
was for some reason this popped into my mind.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
In this bee thing.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
I have known a number of people, like academics, PhD
type people who had such narrow areas of study, and
I'm amazed that you can focus on such a narrow
thing for your whole career and not go crazy or
lose interest. It's bees, yeah, or just bees in general,
(01:43):
I mean, yeah, AnyWho More importantly, Wow, this could be huge.
Just report here from Fox.
Speaker 5 (01:49):
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are ready in subpoenas
in case former President Biden's White House physician, doctor Kevin O'Connor,
and four Keystone offers don't agree to a request for
congressional interviews by the Thursday deadline. The committee is investigating
the Biden administration's use of the auto pen to sign
(02:10):
pardons and executive orders, some.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Still being challenged in court.
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Chairman James Comer tells Fox the committee could even call
in former First Lady Jill Biden, the president's son Hunter,
and former White House Press Secretary Kareem Jehan Pierre.
Speaker 6 (02:25):
If the trail leads us to the next step, which
many believe would be perhaps Joe Biden and Hunter Biden,
then we will go there.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
So James Comber's got a bit of Adam Schiff in
him in that he promises a number of things or
suggests a number of things that don't happen. I mean
he's done that in number quite a few times. Actually, yeah,
you got there before I did.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
You're right.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
But if for whatever reason, God, I gotta believe, Well,
it's the Trump White House. I was about to say,
I got to believe that there would be a certain
amount of.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Norm breaking.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
That quite a few people don't want to do in
terms of bringing up the former first Lady and growing
here about what happened in the White House, and then
that becoming a regular thing. After every president leaves, you
bring in their spouse and try to embarrass them. Did
he ever confide in you that he planned to bomb
that the weapons site?
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Right?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Yeah, I don't love it.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
But if they did, this is obviously in unique case,
there's a decent chance that well, let's listen to James Comer.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
He kind of explains it here.
Speaker 6 (03:38):
Someone got documents and manually placed them in the machine
and pressed the power button to sign Joe Biden's signature.
That was not Joe Biden. That was done by Staffords.
That would be done by any staffords. So we want
to ask them who gave you the authority to use
Joe Biden's signature, and we'll go from there. Obviously, we
(04:00):
believe that some of the names, the chief of staff
and perhaps the First Lady, were involved in a lot
of the decision making. If that's where the trail leads,
then we'll bring them in as well.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
As I said, this is mancuffs. This is a unique
situation here. We'll bring the first Lady in in manacles
if necessary. Did you see the hood over did you
see Hannibal elector? Yes, she'll have the hand of elector masks.
She'll be on a dolly from home Depot will rull
her a strap to a dolly, yes, if necessary, if
that's where the trail lead. But as I said, it's
a unique situation because of this, and I'll read from
(04:34):
the Jake Tapper book. We've mentioned this several times, but
I'm reading from it now. Five people were running the country.
Now this is quoting one of their high level democratic
sources in the Tapper Thompson book. Five people were running
the country and Joe Biden was at best a senior
member of the board. Said one person familiar with the
(04:55):
internal dynamic. A cabinet secretary. A cabinet secretary told them
that expressed a similar sentiment about that group. I've never
seen a situation like this before, with so few people
having so much power, they would make huge economic decisions
without calling the Treasury Secretary Yellen. That's worth investigating, isn't it. Yes,
(05:22):
I think so.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
And the question of the autopen as well, I think
is legitimate. I'd like to know more about the conventional
use of the autopen. But yeah, who was in charge?
To what extent were we not following the constitution?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
You know. The more I think about it and where Yet,
Tim the lawyer on later he would probably point this out.
Constitutionally speaking, those cabinet secretaries give advice to the president.
He still gets to do what he wants. So if
he decides to take his advice from that group of
five people instead of Secretary Yellen on an economic matter,
he gets to that's not unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It's not the way things are.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
We have a cabinet secretary, we don't know which one
saying I'd never seen anything like this before, major economic
decisions being made without even talking to.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
The Secretary of the Treasury, right, But you read my mind.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
Other than a couple of narrow questions that they might
be able to answer about either the autopen or something
like that. You're never going to get any satisfaction because
you can just go with no. Joe Biden preferred to
give his cabinet secretaries a more free hand, and.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
That's where the discussion ends. Well, no, he wasn't really
calling the shots.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
They were.
Speaker 7 (06:35):
No.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
He that's his management style. You'll never get any satisfaction.
You know, he's an oligator. He delegates. That makes him
a good leader. Yeah, knowing more is always better than
knowing less. But yeah, this trail, other than a couple
of fairly narrow questions, is not going to be satisfying.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
But you got to admit if they had doctor Jill.
First of all, doctor it hurts when to do this
fake doctors. They had doctor John, a doctor, and you
know the way these hearings go, where the whole point
is to you know, grandstand and make a moment that's
gonna get on the news or you can retweet. Uh,
it would be pretty it'd be pretty juicy, almost guaranteed.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
Oh to have doctor Jill in there, Oh my god,
I would cancel everything.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
I would cancel, like major heart surgery to watch that.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
He is known to have not recognized George Clooney, who
he knows very well, when he saw him at a fundraiser.
He did not recognize or remember the name of his
secretary of State, so ms Biden. Did he ever forget
who you are? Did he ever look at you and
seem to not recognize who you are? Hey?
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Those would be? My name is not Esther. Oh my god,
that's Fuddy Michael.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
She's a congenital liar in a in a nutshet. You
gotta admit that'd be. That'd be pretty good? Oh pretty
good again? Please birth of I'll see in a couple hours. Honey,
doctor Jill's getting grilled on TV. James Komer is really
sticking it to doctor Joe.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
So I keep promising that I'm done with discussing the
Tapper book.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
The Tapper Alex what's his name?
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Thompson? Who's the real reporter in this story? I really
ought to try to remember his name. I keep promising
I'm not going to talk about it anymore, But then
my favorite writers take their shot at it. For instance,
The Brilliant, the Hilarious Matt tyebe Fantastic headline Jake Tapper's
Biden book is hilarious and insane.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
After a quick word friends at.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Trustin Will, what's funny about that is that was the
first word I used after I got the book. I
stayed up late that last Tuesday night, and the first
thing I said about it was it's hilarious.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
So you work your life to build assets, build a life,
and you want to protect those and you want to
pass them on to posterity. Well, not having a trust
or not having a will is the worst way you
can do that. It all probably goes to probate, turns
into a nightmare for your airs.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
You don't want that.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
So this is a website you can go to and
create this on your own or with lots of help
live customer support through chat, phone email, you can jump
on the phone with an expert that sort of thing.
Create and manage a custom of state plan starting at
one hundred and ninety nine dollars. Manage your trust or
will online with they're easy to use website.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Trust and Will has made a state planning accessible and affordable.
They're simple, step by step process guides you from start
to finish with ease. You can save loved ones time
and stress by having all of your documents in one
place with bank level encryption. This is seriously, seriously protected.
Get the peace of mind you deserve by creating your
own plan with trust and Will. You get twenty percent
(09:54):
off by using our code Armstrong. Go to trust and
will dot com slash armstrong. Secure your assets, protect your
loved ones with trust and will twenty percent off trustendwill
dot com slash Armstrong.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Next segment.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
I want you to have plenty of time to read
Matt Tybe because I find he's writing really really good man.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
He is, he is. He is a talented dude.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Even when I disagree with him, his writing is so
good it's entertaining.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Plus some bonus mailbag.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
And I want to talk about Elon leaving Doge in
the way that's being treated in how We're doomed because
of the way people look at that whole project.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Things are getting weird, and they getting weird fast.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
We have him been to that. We have listener favorite
Tim M. Lawyer on this hour. It's gonna be good
at gour stay here.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Armstrong.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
Kamala Harris recently told a crowd in Orange County that
I'm not going anywhere that's because she was too drunk
to drive.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
That ongoing theme, continue to read the Jake Tapper Alex
Thompson book at night. I haven't gotten any stuff about
Kamala yet.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
I'm not that far into the book.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
That has to be one of the driving forces is
that they didn't trust Kamala being president.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Right, has to be. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
I've seen quotes to that effect from the book, so
I believe them to be there. So, as I said earlier,
I keep saying, Okay, that's the end of this discussion
about the book and Biden being seen island the rest
of it. But the continued attempt to spin it by
the authors is just too delicious to pass up. And
the particularly Jake Tapper Alex Thompson, I think is a
(11:38):
pretty straight shooter. But my favorite writers keep engaging and
I can't pass it up. Like the brilliant Matt Tayebe,
Jake Tapper's Biden book is hilarious and insane is his headline.
Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's mass media apologia is leaps
and bounds more demented than.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
The book subject Joe Biden. And then he talked about
how he wasn't gonna do it.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
He wasn't gonna do it, but in the moment of
late night weakness, he was reading from chapter one and
talking about how is all Joe Biden's fault. He screwed
Kamala Harrison, the Democratic Party and David Pluff is all
mad and the rest of them He.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Totally afked us. Holy catfish Tye, he writes.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
I thought from online buzz that original Sin was a
Mia Koppa. It would own the press's failures to cover
Joe Biden's infirmity in a super belated blah blah blah.
But original Sin isn't that as you indicate, Jack. It's
much crazier. Instead of a dreary and predictable book length
excuse for thousands of media professionals simultaneously whiffing on the
(12:41):
most obvious story in history. It's an ambitious book length
effort to absolve all concerned pin and industry's coverage mistake
on its president drool cup subject, all while additionally swirling
a new storm system of bull less storylines key part
to lay more serious questions about things like who was
(13:03):
president for four years?
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Yeah, the excellent point.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
It's the opposite of a mea culpa, and the literary
degree of difficulty is awesome, equivalent to a blind unicyclist
trying to juggle six chains.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
To Jake and Alex pull it off.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
They don't, but they sure leave a hell of a
lot of blood on stage.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
It's probably that it struck him the same way from
page one. It's like, it's it's it's dizzying that what
is happening here?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
What is this book right right right? Trying to thread
that needle?
Speaker 4 (13:41):
The book's opening lines tell us we're supposed to be
shocked by Biden's delusional state, and then he gets into
some quotes from the book. Reading this, you may experience
a memory double take. Wasn't the public told repeatedly after
that after last year's infamous debate that very little had
changed And these are all quotes from the mainstream media.
There was less polling damage than expected, and few of
(14:02):
the results reflected or radically altered race.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
As NBC put it.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
Didn't we see high profile polls telling us that it's
a dead heat Biden than the lead. Blah blah blah.
There are less optimistic takes, but the idea that Joe
Biden may have thought he had a chance is not
that insane right after the debate, because the polls had
not really changed. Let's see, in the introduction, Tapper and
(14:32):
Thompson explained, there's is a literary porridge not too old
and hot, not too cold, but just right. Those who
were convinced that Joe Biden was little more than a
husk from the beginning, barely capable of stringing two sentences together,
will not find support for that view here, they write.
Those who assist he was unaddled to the end are
also just as wrong. And then he goes into his
(14:53):
own history, writing for Rolling Stone, among others before the election,
that Biden quote, on multiple occasions look close to grabbing
prospective voters by their ears and speed eating their faces off.
And often he looks around like he expects this a
thumb up for giving into his rage response just just
(15:13):
his terrible and we we described this at the time.
He would go off on angry, red faced rants at voters,
or hold women's arms and pull them close for way
too long. Just a mess anyway, Let's see. Uh, anyone
(15:33):
who recalls this will find it very hard to take
the Tap for Thompson line that Biden was fine at
the start, but not at the end. And at some
point in between his incapacity became obvious enough to be
melting before our eyes, not only so obvious that anyone
but Biden could be blamed for lying about it. It
hurts my brain to think about the math of that one.
And anyway, he goes into some detail on that. There
(15:55):
was one more.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Well, like I said, the page before chapter one, whatever
you call that page, had some long Latin quote and
then a big quote from Shakespeare like this was some
sort of deep, interesting psychological who saw this coming part
of history and human nature? It's like, get over yourself important,
(16:17):
Explain to me why you didn't report on what everybody
knew but they don't yew that no, no, and then
you know final note, And this is in Matt's style,
quite long, but he talks about in the Dean Phillips
chapter they blame Biden entirely for running again and they're
(16:37):
not being a primary. But Taivi writes, Thompson and Tapper
know well that the entire party vetoed the idea of
an open primary. There's a long chapter titled Dean Phillips.
The Chronicles Weirdly and incompetently the abject process by which
challenge were excluded from any kind of primary process, though
a lot of the worst shenanigans are left out. The
(16:58):
two authors less note it was quote it was machine
style politics to ensure that Biden would be the nominee
if the entire Democratic Party apparatus went along with spiking
a robust primary. How can it be all Biden who
fed us by refusing to acknowledge his decay and quit. Yeah,
it's it is a fake job of accounting. It is
(17:24):
going an inch toward accounting to avoid having to go
the next eleven inches.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
That would would really, you know, show the deal.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Uh coming up on a talk a little bit about
Elon and the coverage and how angering it is. You
said it a week ago, Michael, Nobody is going to
beat the Oklahoma City Thunder. Nobody They moved on to
the NBA Finals. They're just awaiting their opponent with a
win by thirty points last night, and they are unstoppable.
(17:55):
They might be the first NBA champion that practically nobody
could name a player on in NBA history at the
end of this although there was an article the other
day that the ratings are up quite a bit with
the smaller markets.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
That defies logic. I don't know if that will last
or not.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7 (18:16):
Elon Musk roll as a special government employee coming to
an end, posting on AX, I would like to thank
President Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. In
his last hours working for the Trump administration, Musk breaking
with the President on his massive spending bill, arguing it
would undo their own efforts to shrink the federal government.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
The reporting around Elon Musk stepping away from government and
going back to his old wife, which is incredible. His
old life was incredible. It's amazing that he took on
this giant task for a while. But the reporting on
this has been driving me crazy. The combination of a
(18:58):
gloating over how little he accomplished, like that's something to
be happy about, right, But you're happy about it because
it was somebody in Trump's orbit failing, even though it's
going to ruin your kids' lives.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Correct. That combination of that and UH and the.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Dismissing, the dismissing the effort or what was accomplished, just
it makes me insane.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
And still to be accomplished.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Yeah, First of all, here's Elon talking about the big
beautiful bill.
Speaker 8 (19:32):
You know, I was like disappointed to see the massive
spending bill, frankly, which increases the bunch deps that not
does decrease it, and that reminds the work that the
Noche team is doing.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along.
I mean, like everything he's done on Dose gets wiped
out in the first year.
Speaker 8 (19:53):
I think, I think a bill can be can be
can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I
don't know if it could be both.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
So that clip struck me as while he you know,
he was disappointed in the bill, not nearly the way
it was portrayed all day long yesterday before I finally
heard it his.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Last Trump or Musk breaks with Trump right criticize it.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Finally the bromance is over.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Yeah, it doesn't exactly sound like it to me, especially
considering the fact that Elon tweeted out I really will.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
I can read the tweet to you if you want.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
As my scheduled time as special government employee comes to
an end, I would like to thank President Trump for
the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. The DOGE mission will
only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of
life throughout the government, which is true to a certain extent,
as they've put a number of things in place. For instance,
he mentions in that same interview from Sunday morning, there
(20:47):
were all kinds of places in the government where spending
automatically got signed off without any review whatsoever. You just
submitted a bill and said, yeah, I need five million
dollars for this, and somebody just signed whatever I had
to be signed, and he got it without any thinking
about it whatsoever. And that's why there's a long list
(21:07):
of crazy crap. I almost dropped it as bumb crazy
grap that money gets spent on and that is now
in place and will continue. Is it well short of
the two trillion dollars he was hoping to cut? Hell, Yeah,
which is very disappointing to me, should be disappointing to everyone.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Yeah, I know it.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
And what especially annoys me about the media and which
is ninety percent half wits and liars anyway, and we
all know it. But they criticize DOGE bitterly, the activities
of DOGE, which is ongoing again bitterly for oh, this
single mom is gonna lose her job, or these cuts
could hurt people, blah blah blah. But then when Elon
(21:45):
Musk breaks with Trump and criticizes the bill as not
cutting enough spending. Now, Elon Musk the great truth teller.
We should listen to him. I mean, my god, he's
on the same side of the issue. But now you
like him because he's quote unquote broken with Trump, and
I don't think we have Trump's sound. We should, but
it's not here. He was asked about that Elon Musk
(22:09):
criticized the bill. He said, look, there's some stuff in
the bill I love. There's some stuff I don't like
so much. That's what happens with bills.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
So Jonathan Turley tweeted out, now that Elon Musk has
returned to his businesses, that it's time to acknowledge his
legacy in advancing space exploration, electric vehicles, free speech, and
other public service. Trump should award him the Presidential Medal
of Freedom. That's funny, I thought that driving to work today.
He should absolutely give Elon the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
If Obama gave it to Biden for being a vice president,
(22:38):
then yeah, Elon, can we wait for.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
A couple of days after the pardoning of various scumbags
that Trump did just to give it a little more luster.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
Sorry, Jonathan Turley goes on to say Elon has been
targeted and threatened for his work in the executive branch.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
That service cost him a fortune.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
It is time for the American people to express our
gratitude for his contributions to our country and economy. He
put a lot on the line and literally cost him
a lot to try to take this on because he
thought it was the right thing to do, because he
thinks debt is such a threat. And they didn't carve
out several hundred billion dollars. Again, it's a tiny amount
(23:15):
compared to what we need to do, but that's not.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Worth the effort.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I mean, I just don't even understand the reasoning behind
the attack.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Trump derangement syndrome.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
There is no reasoning, except in as much as the
emotional reasoning that most lefty journalists engage in is there.
Oh my god, so you got a thousand unnecessary jobs.
Cutting those jobs made people sad. Therefore it is bad
because I don't have the capacity for logic. I think
emotionally all the time.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Mark Halprin points out that the New York Times assigned
five reporters to write about Elon's departure yesterday, and as
he as Halprin says, to try to drive a wedge
between Trump and Elon because they love that for some reason.
How many reporters do they have on the absolutely brilliant
guys who are continuing the doge work, the guys who
(24:11):
Brett Bear famously interviewed, We ran a bunch of audio
from it, who are doing God's work in your children
and grandchildren's work too, trying to reign in, profligate government spending.
New York Times no interest in that course, They're terrible.
Five reporters on that, as Halpin writes, it reads more
like a daily mail piece than something serious. For one thing,
(24:33):
but also points out there's not an insignificant number of
size of relief from colleagues in the White House about
Elon's departure, which I don't doubt a bit from a
combination of he was getting more attention than me, just
that sort of jealousy or making my department more difficult,
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
Turns all change all.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
He also has a very forceful, energetic way of going
about his business, which is probably tough to take sometimes
and also pretty incompatible with some of the realities of government.
All right, So I understand it was an uncomfortable fit,
that's true, But I don't understand the glee about that.
So I'm watching MSNBC this morning.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
I flip it on, and they're just once again, a
businessman thinks he can come into Washington, d C. And
treat it like a business and Washington always wins, and
Elon learned a lesson.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
Are you you're so you're happy about that?
Speaker 1 (25:25):
You're joyful about the fact that businessmen can't make a
dent in the fact that we spend so much more
money than we take in and we're gonna become insolvent.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
That makes you happy?
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Somehow?
Speaker 4 (25:35):
I don't get it, cause they're stupid, idiots and liars.
What's not to get? Seriously, what's that you don't get it?
What's not to get? No, I understand, it's just a
rhetorical way of pointing that out. Yeah, they're they're Yeah,
My contempt for them grows every day. It's you know what,
It's like a redwood tree. Just when I think it's
as big as it could possibly get, I look out
and it's five feet high.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
I I hope, I really hope that I do this
most of the time, in that I have some things
I care about and believe and like when those causes
get advanced, and hate when they get set back, regardless
of who's involved. I hope because watching other people take
glee in the destruction of the country, if it's the
(26:19):
other team or or helps my team, I don't understand
that way of looking at the world.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Yay, we're gonna go and solvent.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
They're stupid liars, he says again, They're unwise, they're fools,
They're dumb bastards. They're beneath your contempt. That's why they
think that way.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Maybe to uh and I hate them Bolsters's not already, Clark.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
I just want to.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Make surelier you said you want to pound on their
stupid heads that's correct.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yes, I remain desirous of that.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Yes, I want to pound on the stupid heads, just
to show that I'm not a Trump honk and supporting
everything that is in the Trump orbit. I think it's
great that a court says the president can't stretch some
emergency power and change the tariff structure of the entire
world on his own right.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
Of course, he didn't hear this the Court of International Trade,
which is a fairly obscure three judge court in America.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Here's how obscure. This is the reason I brought it
back up. Yeah, byron Yorke of the Examiner Rights. Prior
to today, the Court of International Trade's greatest tariff ruling
was that the Snuggie is a blanket.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Yes, remember when they ruled on that the Snuggie is
a blanket? Right?
Speaker 4 (27:44):
The debate was is it a blanket or merely a
backward robe anyway, So this court has said, no, you
don't have emergency powers to just unilaterally declare all these tariffs.
Now it goes to the Circuit Court of Appeals, then
to the Supreme Court. So we'll have to see how
it shakes out. But it's it's a major development.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Oh god, I remember this Snuggy phenomenon because my brother
got one.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
He ordered one for someone, And do you remember the
ads for the Snuggy.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
What was funny about it is it's a blanket with
a hole in it so you can put your head
through it. So is it a blanket or a pon
show or whatever? I don't know why that became a
point of contention for.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
The armholes too, right. I remember that the line was
it was a backward robe, right anyway.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
So their ad was, you know, satisfaction guaranteed, money back
guaranteed if you're not satisfied. But we learned this when
my brother got for someone for Christmas. It shows up
to your house in a box with nothing but the
snuggy in a box.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
There's no like return address, no information, no phone, no
no nothing. So hell are you going to return?
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Right?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Right? Exactly?
Speaker 4 (28:58):
You'd have to spend hours and hours figuring out how
to return your fifty eight dollars. I don't remember what
that costs the snuggie. I'll tell you what it was
worth it for our family Christmas that year. Everybody put
it on and took a picture, and you know, great
social media moment.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
That's beautiful, the snuggy and all the people sitting on
the couch looking so happy in it. In the commercials
still to come here clever emails including we asked for
are we wrong about backing Ukraine?
Speaker 4 (29:28):
Are we wrong about Russia? Should not be our buddy,
I'm not We got some intriguing replies to that plus
a Tim Sanderfer from the Goldwater Foundation. Indeed, next hour
to discuss various cases and causes for liberty.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Wow, this is quite an episode. Some episodes are, but
this one very very good.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
We got a lot of good stuff coming up an
hour three, including fan favorite to Tim the Lawyer, So
stay tuned looking forward to that.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Here's a little mail bag.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
Now.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
Normally you do this in our one of the show,
but we didn't have time, so we thought we would
do it now.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
You can drop us a line.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
If you'd like, you'd like to register your opinion there's
something we ought to be talking about. Send us an
email mail bag at Armstrong egidi dot com.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Likewise, if you'd.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
Like immediate brief input, you can text us four one
five two nine five kftc. That's four one five two
ninety five kftc. But to the email we go. First
of all, I predicted cannibalism is right around the corner.
AI and other factors. Oh oh, it was, because when.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
China feels free or feels it necessary, they will turn
off the power and the cell phone system and water
and god knows what else because they have implanted their
evil software and so many of our systems and then
inevitably cannibalism. My poor OCD thirteen year old can't sleep
(30:58):
at night sometimes because he's worried about it.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
So I have to keep this talk to a minimum
at home.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
Yeah, plus AI anyway, So budding funniest emailer Sean Rights
on the topic of cannibalism, guys, I had twenty middle
schoolers on a hiking field trip. He's a teacher, obviously,
and I told him, quote, if I get the inkling,
were lost, just a very hint, We're lost. I start
eating you, guys, like right away. I can't afford to
(31:24):
wait to eat anyone because I'm only going to get
weaker from that point on. Trew.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
I mean, hey, that's fair warning. And the union is
like super strong. That's pretty fun. That's brilliant.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Yeah, based on the things we've talked about in the past,
I think you could eat a child and not lose
your job as a teacher.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Certainly in blue state school districts. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
Well, you can rape a child in New York, for instance,
or molest them or what have you, and you're merely
put in this weird limbo room. Anyway, on the top
of your world wore three decay rights. Guys, what will
happen if we initiate the military? How many men will
declare that they are trans females and therefore not eligible
to be drafted? Is it kind of like having bone
(32:06):
spurs or asthma. It can get you out of this
commitment now, but you may not have to suffer the
consequences of your illness for your entire life because poof,
it's gone.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Change my mind, zero chance of a draft. So that
helps eliminate the concern.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
I should mention that we got a bunch of really interesting,
serious emails on the topic of Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Gonna hit those hour three, hour four of the show.
Love that topic.
Speaker 4 (32:33):
Yeah, so stay tuned for that. This is a lighter
far indeed, But nitpicking, writes John, How ironic that I
choose you. I chastise you for saying nutpicking instead of nitpicking.
I guess he had in a previous email which I
couldn't find, since quibbling over such minute in the English
language practically defines what nitpicking is. But you, sir, an
(32:56):
authority in future, AI will pick up your mistakes and
magnify them. Be therefore justly diligent unless you intended that
malapropism ironically, in which case never mind. Well, no, you're misunderstanding.
Nutpicking is a very different concept from nitpicking. Nitpicking is
worrying about tiny little details that are not significant. Jack,
would you like to explain what nutpicking is?
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Nutpicking is taking somebody, usually from social media, but not always,
but you take an extreme example of the other side
that you don't like and hold them up as this
is what everybody on the other side is like, and
it's not completely fair. You take the craziest transactivist twenty
three year old video on Twitter and say, see, these
(33:38):
people are nuts, that most people are nuts. That's picking
a nut right and using it to a blanket coverage
of everyone with.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
It right exactly. That's nut picking. Anyway. Pam Wright's woke
is not over. Don't be fooled. I grew up in the.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
East Bay, that's the San Francisco Barrier, went to Chico State,
currently live in Vacaville, California. Have many liberal friends all
over the Bay Area and Sacramento, the capital, who are
absolutely still woke. In particular some friends of mine who
live in She mentions another suburb whose daughter decided to
go by they them when she is about ten years old.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Oh whenever, I, of course they did. Nobody nobody told them.
They completely came to that conclusion on their own. Oh yeah,
And whenever I refer to her, my friends correct me
to refer to her as they. All My liberal friends
still sign off their emails with she her hers, or
he him his or they them. I wish Woke was
over tired of walking on hl's around my friends who
(34:34):
explode if I miss gender someone God, when I run
into pronouns, I just shake my head while you're still
doing that.
Speaker 4 (34:41):
Yeah, I can't decide whether I admire your loyalty to
your friends still being friends with him, Pam, or as
a bit of a misanthrope. I think you need better friends,
but that's up to you, certainly. Uh And then how
much time do we have?
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Got A minute thirty? A minute thirty?
Speaker 4 (34:57):
Yeah, We've gotten a handful of peace people who love
a lot of what Trump's doing. Pissed off and disappointed
by the various pardons lately, like these Krisly reality TV
fraud merchant tax cheats.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Why did he pardon them?
Speaker 4 (35:16):
Because their daughter is super maga and she and others
donate a ton of money to Trump's packs and campaigns.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
So an incredibly hot blonde who spoken to.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
That's the kind of the Trump or thing right, you
know that she's got the look should be in the
cabinet someday.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
So Anita writes, why on earth is Trump? Pardon the krizlies?
They're stupid so called reality stars who an intelligent jury
found guilty of bank fraud and tax evasion. The husband
should be the poster child for avoiding botox and plastic surgery.
They've never expressed any remorse, maintained that they did not
do it, but an intelligent jury did not believe them.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
I agree with your being upset with this one. The
Gretchen Whitmer napping plot not as clear cut. There was
a fair amount of leading drunken idiots along by the FBI.
A little entrappy for your taste. Yeah, I'm not sure,
but it's it's it's it's more interesting than the one
you just mentioned. Certainly pros and cons for continuing to
(36:18):
support Ukraine. Plus Tim Sanderfer from the Goldwater Foundation Next Hour.
If you don't get Next Hour, grab the podcast Armstrong
you Getty on demand. Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.