May 20, 2024 • 35 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- A sickening & significant SCOTUS decision...
- Jack's youth sports spectacular...
- Can we turn around our culture?
- The Trump Trial,
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. Oh
my god, Joe just got all excited. We've got breaking news.
Excited is one word for it. Horrified is another. I'm
(00:29):
so discouraged by this. I'm not sure I can utter
the words.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Let me just say, for since we're on news stations,
that sound you just heard was the breaking news donkey.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Oh that's right. When news breaks, the donkey brays for
Armstrong and Getty Show for some reason. I don't know.
We've been doing it so long. I don't even remember Naya,
neither do I. This is so sickening. The Supreme Court
today declined to weigh in on a school policy of
not disclosing a student's gender identity of parents two parents
(01:02):
rather if there are worries among school administrators that the
parents would not be supportive. The Court rejected an appeal
from three parents who challenged a gender support plan adopted
in Maryland's largest school district in twenty twenty. That move
by the Court listen to this now left in place,
and decision from the Virginia based Fourth Circuit Court of
(01:23):
Appeals very liberal that the parents could not sue the
Montgomery County Public School System because they had not shown
they'd been harmed by the policy. So radical gender theorist
activists working in your local schools can encourage, indoctrinate, convince
your kid their transgender and then withhold it from you,
(01:47):
and you can't sue because you can't prove that them perverting, confusing,
and alienating your child from you did you any harm.
And this is the radical maga out of con court.
I've got to believe it's that the Soups still don't
get what's happening with critical race theory, radical gender theory,
(02:10):
the rest of it. They don't get that this is
not some sort of innocent mental health problem like anxiety.
It's a deliberate plot by neo Marxists to pry kids
away from their parents. I'm just so discouraged by that.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
We'll have to talk about this more as a analysis
comes in on that ruling, because not taking up the
case is a very big deal.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
It's like a ruling, Yeah, let's stand the Fourth Circuit
Court's ruling. Yeah, so our our culture is screwed.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
As we've talked about too many times on this show,
and I saw an example of that in youth sports
yesterday with my own eyes. Is the sort of thing
I've seen in YouTube videos for many years now, parents
going nuts at kids sporting events, but I'd never seen
it in person until yesterday. And it came just short
of becoming a national video. Just this close to punches
(03:09):
being thrown, lots of people had their phones out, including
my kid's mom, because she thought, man, when punches fly,
I want to get this on video, and it had
been a big deal. So, uh, executive producer hands and
joins us, are you well, are you comfortable talking about this,
Hanson since you've been coaching and stuff.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Sure, I mean I'm in I'm still in the midst
of it too, so so.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Yeah, I want to start here before I get to
the end of the game and what happened with the
parents and everything like that. I was commenting to a
couple of people I was sitting with about the kids showboating,
which I think plays a role in how hot it
gets with the parents. Is that something you see you're
in you're in baseball mostly.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
Uh, yeah, there's there's a lot more of that than
now than ever before it's acceptable to you know, you
see a lot like in Major League Baseball, the bat
flip is a real big thing, so the kids can't
do that in Little league, but you see a lot
of that sort of wanting to have fun and always
show your excitement at every different.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Play, right, and they see it on TV and sports
on television is as Joe and I always point out,
it's entertainment. It's a TV show, so they're trying to
make it as entertaining as possible, which I was so
I was always fine that with that at the professional level.
But the kids all replicate it now and every play
has some showboating involved in it, practically every play and
(04:30):
certainly every big play, and I think it gets people
more riled up and gets the parents hotter. For instance,
kid catches a ball running in for a touchdown, turns around,
does the wave at the guy behind him as a oh,
I mean, it's just twelve year olds. Or you intercept
the ball and you turn in and you're in your
face and you know, doing all kinds of gestures and
stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Pull their flag. You're just supposed to draw.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
It's flag football, for crying out out, it's the twelve
year old flag football. You pull their flag, you're supposed
to just drop it where it is before their flag,
and you kind of stick it in their face.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
And everybody's doing that. And I would throw a flag
every time for that fifteen yards for taunting. That's me.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Well they but they don't. And again, it's a cultural
thing that I don't know what to do about. I'm
the oldest dad there, so I mean, I'd come from
a completely different era.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
But the coaches don't do anything about the showboarding, and
the parents don't seem to care.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
My dad would have never allowed us to act like
that right different time, but no parents seem to care.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Does anybody police it? For your experience? I gotta say,
I think.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
Your league has a problem because that in my son's leagues,
his flag football leagues, they would have never let that
fly there. There's penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, and that sounds
like they're way too permissive with all the celebrations.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
I don't have any idea, you know, I only see
the one the one league, the one games and that
sort of stuff, and I just I was amazed that
kids get to act that way.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
And so is that an officiating thing. Is that a
parent's thing, Is that a coaching thing?
Speaker 3 (06:00):
All of the above, because I guess the parents would
push the coaches or push the referees to not allow
that sort of thing to happen. Again, this might be
a go ahead, I would say, having coached US sports
for years and years and years, leagues have cultures, and
parents generally will accept that culture if it is uniformly
(06:20):
described and enforced and it makes the.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Games more exciting.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I will say that the show voting the showboat because
everybody gets so riled up.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
But it's not good. It's not not in a good way,
not in a good way whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
So anyway, I wanted to bring that up because I
think that leads to the outcome you get at the
end of the game. So you got the two undefeated
teams playing each other in the flag football tournament yesterday,
and it's so it's it's the who's going to be
the best team? And my son's on one of the teams,
and it ends up being a incredibly close game, and
it comes down to the last play of the game,
(07:00):
close enough, it's fourth down. They're either gonna score on
this play and win, or the other team wins. I mean,
it's very clear to everyone this is a one play deal.
We got eight seconds left. Whole ball of axes right here,
after all the screaming and yelling and all the excitement
everything like that. Quite a ball of axe we're talking
about too. Yes, So for those of you who are
a wax ball enthusiasts, guy drops back, and I don't
(07:23):
want to get into the specific of the game. I
think they got job. But none of that matters. That
doesn't matter at all. That's got nothing to do with it.
But anyway, guy for a guy for the other team
drops back to pass, runs around, runs rounds, getting chased,
almost gets its flag yanked, throws a crazy hil mary.
It gets tipped, bounces through two guys hands, one guy
catches it from that team comes down, scores, but there's
a flag on the play back at the quarterback, so
(07:45):
they the referee through a flag. They call it a touchdown.
That other team jumps around because they just won the championship.
The other team where the flag?
Speaker 4 (07:53):
You throw a flag?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
What's with the flag?
Speaker 3 (07:56):
So the referees and then then the parents start going crazy.
So when the other team wins, immediately the parents, which
I gotta say this is absolutely true, and I'm not
just biased here. The parents on the other team behaved
incredibly poorly. The parents on our side of the aisle
did not do any of this, But the parents on
the other side of the team are the other.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Side of the field.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
They were in kids' faces doing the bye bye bye
bye bye to all these twelve year old children. Twelve
year olds were right in their faces, oh, because they
just won and it was unbelievable, which obviously made things
ramp things up and made it hotter with the well,
what's it the flag?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
You threw a flag?
Speaker 3 (08:34):
How's that a touchdown?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
You threw a flag? Blah blah blah, Bye bye, bye bye.
You're not undefeated anymore.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
Bye bye.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
I like, what are you grown ups?
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Are you actual grown ups saying this to twelve year
olds and screaming across the field?
Speaker 2 (08:47):
You have a comment ansling, Oh, I mean I've seen
stuff like that. Not that's the worst.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
I've seen a few things so as similar, but you've
eclipsed and anything that I've read.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
So the referees who are in a difficult spot always
with these things because they're amateurs, they're young. Sometimes they're
just volunteers. I think in this case they might have
been getting a couple of bucks. But either way, and
I think what ultimately happened to skip to the punchline.
I think they ultimately decided the direction that was going
(09:16):
to make it least likely that they got punched in
the face. I think the scariest, loudest parents one purely
out of fear and intimidation. But anyway, these poor referees,
after the whole flag thing, they went back and they
said flag on the play, not a touchdown. The other
our team are erupts and excited. The kids are jumping around,
high five and everything. The parents on the other side,
(09:37):
af you, daffy. They're just screaming and yelling, screaming at
the refs. Everybody's in a round round. All of a sudden,
there's some hubbub. The referees get together.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
They said, after looking it over, the flag was thrown
in inadvertently.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
It was not a flag on the play. The other
team wins, goes back to the other team. If they
start jumping around pointing everybody's faces. The parents are back
to the bye bye af you. The coach on our
side now that it's gone back and forth three times.
I think it ends up going back in total of
three times. He starts screaming at the referees in a
(10:12):
way that was a little over the top, but anyway,
one of the referees got so hot started to run
across the field screaming f you at him.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
The other referees had to get in front.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Of him and restrain him, actually restraining the referee from
the coach from fighting the guy just and I was
standing there watching my mouth open, like I can't believe
this is actually happening again, with the parents specifically on
the other side, just behaving as awful as you could
possibly imagine. Somehow, in all this madness, a decision has
(10:42):
made the redo the play.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
So they bring the ball out.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
They bring the ball out and they set it on
the yard marker and they start messing with the clock
and everything like that, and our team is like, okay,
that sounds cool, and I think most of the parent
at least on arts I thought this might be the
best way to settle it.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Let's just do the play again and see what happens
and then we'll just call it good.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
But somehow, in that the other team parents, who were
scary looking people started screaming you fu at the referees,
and the referee said, no more play, We're gonna give
it to you. So that was their I think, fourth
different decision at the end of this game. And the
coach on our side actually got kicked off of the
(11:22):
field told he had to leave the field because he
was so hot. And I really think what actually ultimately
happened was the referees gave in to the side that
was the scariest, which might happen a lot like it.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
It might be what I would do. I might do
the same thing.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
You're a psycho. You go ahead, you won. It's twelve
year old flag football.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I don't care. I'm going to my car and going home,
and I'm not doing this anymore. I would have been tempted,
as the head referee to say, we're gonna call the
league office. We'll be right back. Cotten in my car
and gone home. Hey guys, we're out of here. We'll
let these maniacs kill each other whatever they want to
do over some stupid little kids football game.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
That would be a great idea. Get all the referees together.
We're gonna have a big meaning right over there behind
the building. We'll be back in two minutes.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Two minutes, everybody, two minutes, start counting. Now, get in
your cars and leave a bunch of sickohs. That's what
I'd have been saying.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
My ultimate point being, this sort of thing happens regularly. Now,
it didn't used to ever happen. Why don't more people
recognize that as a problem. Something has happened in our culture?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, I mean, obviously one could write a four hundred
and fifty page book answering here implied question what's happened
and what can be done about it? Is the ultimate problem,
and that it's so hard to change culture.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
I mean, it's not like you can come up with
a simple answer where blah blah, you know, you raise
the age of this or increase the price of that
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
There's no quick fixing this. Yeah, I would agree completely.
I mean, it's very difficult, and it's simple and yet difficult.
I almost said, but it's not in a way traditional
American values, and among them sportsmanship, you know, contributing to
(13:10):
your community, you know, duty before selfishness, et cetera. They
have been shamed by thinkers, primarily on the left. The
idea that you can stand up for traditional American values
and say, hey, these are better values. We have a
better society when these are our values. People have been
(13:30):
shamed out of saying that because it's been called racist
or whatever, pobe or what have you. Here's some sort
of you know, Christian theocracy insisting on that sort of behavior.
I think that's ridiculous. Some values work way better than others.
Some societies are much more healthy, productive, and successful than others.
(13:55):
And I think the values that lead to healthy, successful
and happy are better values than your craphole country values,
for instance, or your rougher, nastier parts of our country values.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
All right, i'd be interesting what some of you all
think about this, That the degradation of culture, not the
specific game. Text line four one five two nine five
KF Tctty.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
House Oversight hearing devolved into chaos after Marjorie Taylor Green
and Democrat Jasmine Crockett traded insults.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Yeah, I think your fake eyelashes are messing up somebody's leash. Blind,
bad built, good body.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Control. Jerry, Jerry.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Real like I'm watching the waffle House of Representatives.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
That's a good joke.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
I thought I heard a good joke when I heard that,
I thought, why didn't I think of that the waffle
House of representatives. But he gets to the conversation we're
just having about culture and the youth sports and the
parents acting that. I mean, it's at all levels. So
I mean, if they're doing that in Congress, and your
professional athletes are doing it, and it's happening in the
school board meetings, it's just everywhere. And I don't know
(15:15):
how we turn this around. We got a couple of
texts about my story of having witnessed one of these
in person. Yesterday with my kid's twelve year old flag
football game. We got this text my kid youth soccer.
I have seen them stop have to stop the games
because of parents twice in the last three years, stop
(15:35):
the game. And Hanson was just mentioning to us a
couple of places where they handled it by no more
parents next game.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
You can't have the parents here.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
So maybe that's the direction we go, where the kids
just get together and play and at least you can
kind of police that with the referees and the coaches
keep the parents out of there so it doesn't get
so hot.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
One thing that I think is completely under disgust when
you talk about people self selecting where they live. Is
cultural issues like this, and I realize people have complicated lives,
they have commitments and the needs to be in one
place or not another, and not everybody can pick up
and move. But there are plenty of places that don't
(16:15):
tolerate that, or there aren't people who would tend to
do that. I'm picturing you know, some of our many
many listeners are now in Nashville, for instance, or wherever else.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
You see a lot less of that in some places
than others. And we also got the text good luck
getting referees in the future. That's going to become a
national crisis. People who are willing to already a crisis
referee youth sports. Why would you ever take that on?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
It's a huge crisis. I refereed to youth sports for decades,
and I wouldn't even think of doing it now. I've
got a neighbor, a good guy who's a soccer ref
and he said it's gotten to the point where he
he doesn't want to anymore.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Well, when you refereed for decades back in the day,
how often did you get screamed at, yelled at whatever?
Speaker 2 (16:57):
How often did that happen almost never, And it happened
once or twice, and I ejected parents from the ballpark,
and the rest of the parents said, nice job. There
was cultural agreement, man, And this is like his a
fourteen year old, fourteen year old kick the parent. Oh yeah, yeah,
I did it once or twice.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
I had to Trump trial back in session today. We
got a little analysis and a bunch of other stuff
on the way Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (17:25):
Donald Trump said that at the debates he wants both
of them to stand instead of sit. So that's the
status of our presidency.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Standing is a feat of strength.
Speaker 5 (17:37):
I didn't need to learn a lot more watching them
both try to get out of a beanbag chair.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Wow, that was pretty funny.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
If you have a couple of forty two year olds,
you don't have a you have to stand the whole time, all.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Right, okay whatever. Yeah. Even at my advanced age, I'd
be like, that's fine. Whatever you want is that's fine. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
So a couple of notes on the ongoing Trump trial
in Manhattan. The fixer congenital liar would be mobster just
really said human being. Michael Cohen's cross examination is continuing today.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
That's the description I'm trying to avoid in life, said
human being Jack Armstrong.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Boy. So that unfortunate show will be continuing a couple
of bits of perspective that I think you might find
interesting about the trial the Was this an interview, Yeah,
Jacob Gershman writing in the Wall Street Journal, reminding us
all of something you've probably heard before, but it's worth repeating,
(18:48):
and that is that a Trump conviction depends on proving
more than a hush money cover up. The prosecution's case
hangs on an allegend second crime that has not even
been named for the jury yet, right, well, yeah, which
is astounding.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
I know you've got a lot more on this, but
I was listening to Jonathan Hurley Turtley not Hurley Turtlely
on Fox this morning, and he agreed with something I've
been saying.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
So it made me feel smart. It's always exciting.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
But he said, the jury's hearing a different thing than
what actually exists. And he said, I'm just not sure
if the jury instructions or the defense is going to
be able to make it clear to the jury that
this supposed crime they keep talking.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
About never happened.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
And that's what I've been wondering if you're a juror,
have you concluded figured out that they.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Haven't explained this crime yet, just in case he explains
what I was about to go into. I love a
clip sixty one Jonathan Turley, Why don't we just roll that.
Speaker 6 (19:52):
I think the defense has done a very good job.
You know, with someone like Michael Cohen, you have someone
who has a pathological of to the truth, and so
one of your strategies is to keep him on the
stand as long as possible, just to wait for him
to spontaneously combust. And that's what happened, that is they
kept them on long enough. And you know, with regard
(20:14):
to this phone call, which was not just any phone call,
it was the call that he had testified earlier, he
broke apart on the stand.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Now they're going to try to rehabilitate.
Speaker 6 (20:23):
They may come back and say, well, did you really
mean this call? To try to bring him back for
the jury's trust, But at some point, the risk here
is that you've got a New York jury that is
being treated like chumps, and some of them are going
to realize that and go, you know what, don't play
us like a mark. You haven't even stated what this
(20:45):
second crime was that the record's violation was supposed to conceal.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Yeah, he finally got to it at the end there,
But yeah, New York juries don't. New Yorkers in general
tend to resent being treated like chumps, since not being
a chump is a rather important survival skill in Gotham.
But back to the main threat of it. Manhattan prosecutors
have framed their case against Donald Jay as a simple
story about a criminal cover up of sex scannal. Of
(21:11):
course that's not what it is at all. But to
win a conviction, they'd have to convince jures that Trump
orchestrated the cover up with the intent of concealing another crime.
Closing variments probably tomorrow, Jerry deliberations, certainly Wednesday, I would think.
But and they go into the paying of the hush money,
blah blah. We're all up on that. The thirty four
(21:35):
felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree
depend on each one of those invoices, ledger, entries and
checks paying back Cohen to be in concealment of another crime.
And in a shocking and according to some people on
constitutional development, Bragg's indictment doesn't say what the other crime was,
(21:59):
and prosecutors still haven't identified the specific offense to jurors.
Now here's one thing I don't know, because I almost
went to law school, but I didn't. Actually, if you
are essentially charging a felony because of a chain of
crimes as just described, wouldn't you have to prove them
both beyond a reasonable doubt? What do you think?
Speaker 4 (22:19):
So?
Speaker 2 (22:20):
I would think that would have to be part of it. Yeah. Yeah,
But the fact that they haven't even solidified up and anyway,
so Michael, thanks Michael for testifying. Good job there. Anyway,
ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all this crap we've
been boring here with this was all to cover up
the murder of Arts too for not or the taking
(22:41):
of the gold from Fart Knox or whatever it is.
You gotta have a second crime eventually, And the fact
that they haven't gotten there yet and the judges said, oh,
we'll wrap it up tomorrow is shocking. But this I
thought was even more interesting because I haven't heard it
anywhere else. Ethan Greenberger is another one of the legal
(23:01):
writers for the Journal, points out that there's going to
be a decision. Before the decision that's going to be
incredibly important. Will the jury consider only thirty four felony
counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, that's
what we've been talking about, or will they also consider
thirty four misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records in the
(23:24):
second degree. The misdemeanor charges are what are known in
the legal world as a lesser included defense orioos, less
serious crime, lower penalties. It's included within the definition of
the more serious crime. But maybe he didn't go all
the way and commit the more serious crime anyway. In
Trump's trial, the misdemeanor charges require proof that he deliberately
(23:46):
falsified business records, but the whole in commission of another
crime thing, let's leave that out of it. The trial
judge must submit theo the lesser offenses to the jury
if either the prosecution or the defense requests it. Now,
if neither does, the judge himself might say, hey, you
(24:06):
know what, we ought to include this, so if any
party asks for it, it's included. So here's the question
for the Trump team, do you head your bets with
the misdemeanor and demand that that be given to the
jury as a as an option, or do you go
for broke and say no, no, no, no, no, you
charged a felony. Let's ask the jury whether he committed
(24:29):
these felonies. You think you're so smart. Well, as I.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Always say, I keep looking at this only through the
political lens, not the legal. How much trouble he gets
in lens what is best for him in terms of
running for president?
Speaker 2 (24:47):
What a great question.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
I think being convicted of a misdemeanor would leave no
mark whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
No, No, that would be a non event. Nobody would
care at all. And I think anybody with even a
light lean toward I was going to say supporting Trump,
but toward the notion that this has been a railroad job,
would say, Okay, after all of that, you got them
for something the finest four hundred and fifty exactly. Yeah,
(25:15):
that would be pretty good political spin. I think the
chances of getting getting convicted of all those felonies are
it's incredibly slim. But as the defense team, so what
do you what do you go with? Do you go
with no, come on, tough guy, you brought felonies. Through
of the felonies, I wonder is the defense team.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
Did they feel their job is to just handle it
like they would any client, get you the best situation
in the court room, or are they thinking about the
politics of this.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Well, you got to go with what the boss thinks.
I don't know. I think Trump. I think me too, Yeah,
me too.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
So Mark alpertnon his newsletter, and he talks to a
lot of people. He has a lot of connections. He
wrote today, whereas before the trial was fully underw the
conventional wisdom in my world was that a conviction on
the felony charges was the most likely outcome. Now hung
jury and acquittal have both surged up the probability charts
to the point where I would say many are currently
betting against a conviction.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
So that's what he says.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
The smart people around him are saying currently, I'm just
surprised by the first part Ykayver in the other place,
I don't get it right. And then this story from
the Washington Post that I thought was good on the
importance of jury instructions. Jury instructions do have an outsized
impact on a trial. They quote somebody, because the jury
is going to look at the evidence, and then they're
going to map that evidence to the instructions. Trials are
(26:37):
won and lost in the word of specific jury instructions,
and that comes from the judge. Yes, well, the judge
hates Trump, correct, so his jury instructions might be worded
in such a way that makes it more difficult for
the jury to understand. You realize this isn't about having
sex with the port star. Don't you mean he's not
(26:58):
going to say that, right, Yeah, well, we'll have to see.
There's also the case where.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
And again, I've been on a handful of juris, but
I'm by no means an expert in this. The instructions
can sometimes be so long and convoluted, and some states
have really made strides in making that not so, because
you can't lay twenty five minutes of legal ease on
a bunch of jurors. Who are, you know, greengrocers and
insurance salesmen and housewives and the rest of it. It
(27:33):
also is frequently not important, especially if the jury's leaning
toward an acquittal. They think, all right, this is all
a croc.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Oh yeah in the acquittal. Yeah, if I've already determined
sitting there as a juror what this is nothing. I'm
not going to listen all those instructions.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
In order to find him guilty, you must find be
on a reasonable doubt that he violated Section one h
three point five. Remember, violation does not mean breaking. It
merely means blah blah blah blah blah. And you're thinking, oh,
it's lunch. So when you were on a jury couple
of times, what do you get for lunch? Ah? As
(28:13):
I recall a couple of times we just went to
like the courthouse lunch area cafeteria. But we're told don't
discuss the case, that if you see any of the
the people involved, don't talk to him, blah blah blah.
And during deliberations they bring you like sandwiches, at least
they did for us. They were like really good Deli sandwiches.
(28:36):
Woner if you can door dash into the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
Don't know that people were doing that at the flag
football tournament yesterday, parents, because if your team one, you
had to play another game. People were just door dashing
to the full stadium. Well that's awesome, What a time
to be alive. Maybe the jury can do that, yeah,
jury number six, Yeah, yeah, that's me. The pizza exactly.
You excuse me, your honor right there in the jury box.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Yeah sure, why why not? It's like watching TV to
eat a pizza while you watched be sure. I like
the idea of it.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
So I wonder how quick the jury will turn this around.
It wouldn't be shocking, would it that it's like a
really short one.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Yeah, it could literally be. Let's go ahead and eat lunch,
then bring back the verdict. If say, bring him food,
we find the accused of rental, James Simpson not guilty. Yeah, well,
I think it'll be a similar outcome in this one.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Wow, awesome, that'll be fun this week. It's gonna happen
this week. We had a lot more on the way.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Stay here.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
The first person implanted with Elon Musk's experimental brain chip, Neuralink,
sharing his remarkable story. Thirty year old Nolan Darbas is
paralyzed from the shoulders down. Now he can play music
or chess, use a smartphone, all with just his thoughts.
The chip connects to his brain with threads than a
human hair. Well, the Neuralink device won't impact any of
(30:03):
Nolan's physical ability. He tells me it has improved his
quality of life lightly, and Neuralink tells me that they
plan to implant their next two participants in their trial
in the coming months.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Are you looking to win the Emmy and understatement there, dude? Yeah,
I would say it would change your life quite a bit.
You're paralyzed from the shoulders down, and now you can
access your iPhone and search the net, or watch Netflix,
or call people or text.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
What it would be? It would be? It'd be it
take me.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
Days to stop crying with happiness. If it can be
cruel for no good reason on social media, right, what
if it turns out to be a really mean, snarky person.
That's absolutely unbelievable that this can happen. Now, Yeah, it's
it's amazing.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
It's you know, humanity, even as we're ugly, rotten beasts,
are capable of amazing things. Well, yeah, which which is
gonna went out in the end?
Speaker 5 (31:01):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (31:02):
I got my bet made. Yeah, came across this. We're
just talking about the Trump trial.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
This is an article in the New York Times today,
Outside the Trump Trial sock puppets, sex pills and smutty balloons.
It's the outside of the courtroom has become a stage
for random acts of oddness.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
At the Donald J. Trump trial. Thought that was kind
of funny. I don't know what the sock puppet thing is.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
There's some people there with sock puppets that look like Trump,
and then the various witness's witnesses, and then they reenact
what happened in the courtroom based.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
On the reports throughout the day. Wow, how New York
is that?
Speaker 1 (31:36):
For?
Speaker 3 (31:36):
Ye?
Speaker 2 (31:37):
For for anybody who needs that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
Also, an interesting article in the New York Times about
this Russian woman who's become very popular in social media,
particularly in China. This Russian woman loves China too bad.
Sheese not real. It's an AI creation. AI manipulated videos
on Chinese sites. He was young, supposedly Russian women to
promote a Russia ties and stoke patriotism. We have so
(32:07):
much trouble in this country or going to have trouble
with you know, fake news, misinformation and AI fakes and
all that sort of stuff. How about in countries where
they control the media completely, Right, everything you take in
will be a fake soldier talking about how the war went,
or a fake voter talking about how great the economy
(32:27):
is or whatever.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
It'll all be phony, right, No dissent to call them
on it. Even if it, you know, it wasn't one
hundred percent convincing, and it probably will be. There will
be nobody to say, hey, hey, that bears the ear
marks and blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
I hadn't even let my mind wander on the idea
of how this AI stuff can be used in a
country where they control the media like China. Wow, every
news story will be fake, and why wouldn't it be
Why would you have any real human being on your
evening newscast?
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Ever? In China? Right right. My favorite China story over
the weekend was that vlad Putin went hat in hand
to beg for whatever he gets from China, which is
all sorts of support and trade and financing the rest
of it. And he had evidently been contemplating going from
China to North Korea, and Shi Jinping said, no, why
(33:17):
don't you not do that? And Vlad said, well, wait
a minute, we're friends with you, we're friends with them,
you're friends with them, why don't I go up there?
And she said no, no, no, no, no no, why
did you not do that? We'll manage that friendship. So
China didn't like the idea of Russia getting too close
to North Korea independently of China. Interesting, China being the
(33:39):
big dog in that pack for sure, and definitely you know,
calling the tune for Putin to dance to.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
I'm still making my way through the book The New
Cold Wars by David Sanger of the New York Times
and really into the China portion of it now. And
some credit was given by I forget what partisan trumpey
and Democrat who said Trump gets all the credit for
being the first to really tell everybody, Hey, China is
(34:09):
our enemy.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
They're nothing but our enemy.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
Let's wake up to that fact, and was quoted in
the book, which I thought was pretty interesting. And how
both parties very quickly, well, the entire foreign policy establishment
grasped it fairly quickly, well after decades of not grasping it,
but once it was pointed out, grasped it and everybody
got on board, both parties. And the main reason they
(34:33):
think that China didn't mess with us in the last
presidential election is that they realized it doesn't make any
difference to whose president or which party is in control.
They both hate us now, so there's no point. How interesting, Yeah, yeah,
which is actually I think a good thing.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
Old old saying in politics, only Nixon could go to China.
Of course, that was part of the whole misunderstanding of
China's quote unquote coming out. But the idea was Nixon
was such a committed anti communist that he could extend
the hand of friendship to China and not be looked
at suspiciously. Well, only Nixon could go to China. Only
Trump could give China the finger, right, and it was
(35:09):
long overdue.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Yeah, but everybody's on board now that that was all
a ruse and they are our enemy, everybody but our corporations.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Yeah. Well, and we are intertwined with them, like it
or not in significant ways. It's a hell of a
puzzle to solve. What do we got coming up? All
sorts of great stuff, Jack, including campus madness and update
on our I know they're emptying, but they're still important.
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. Oh
my god, Joe just got all excited. We've got breaking news.
Excited is one word for it. Horrified is another. I'm
(00:29):
so discouraged by this. I'm not sure I can utter
the words.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Let me just say, for since we're on news stations,
that sound you just heard was the breaking news donkey.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Oh that's right. When news breaks, the donkey brays for
Armstrong and Getty Show for some reason. I don't know.
We've been doing it so long. I don't even remember Naya,
neither do I. This is so sickening. The Supreme Court
today declined to weigh in on a school policy of
not disclosing a student's gender identity of parents two parents
(01:02):
rather if there are worries among school administrators that the
parents would not be supportive. The Court rejected an appeal
from three parents who challenged a gender support plan adopted
in Maryland's largest school district in twenty twenty. That move
by the Court listen to this now left in place,
and decision from the Virginia based Fourth Circuit Court of
(01:23):
Appeals very liberal that the parents could not sue the
Montgomery County Public School System because they had not shown
they'd been harmed by the policy. So radical gender theorist
activists working in your local schools can encourage, indoctrinate, convince
your kid their transgender and then withhold it from you,
(01:47):
and you can't sue because you can't prove that them perverting, confusing,
and alienating your child from you did you any harm.
And this is the radical maga out of con court.
I've got to believe it's that the Soups still don't
get what's happening with critical race theory, radical gender theory,
(02:10):
the rest of it. They don't get that this is
not some sort of innocent mental health problem like anxiety.
It's a deliberate plot by neo Marxists to pry kids
away from their parents. I'm just so discouraged by that.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
We'll have to talk about this more as a analysis
comes in on that ruling, because not taking up the
case is a very big deal.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
It's like a ruling, Yeah, let's stand the Fourth Circuit
Court's ruling. Yeah, so our our culture is screwed.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
As we've talked about too many times on this show,
and I saw an example of that in youth sports
yesterday with my own eyes. Is the sort of thing
I've seen in YouTube videos for many years now, parents
going nuts at kids sporting events, but I'd never seen
it in person until yesterday. And it came just short
of becoming a national video. Just this close to punches
(03:09):
being thrown, lots of people had their phones out, including
my kid's mom, because she thought, man, when punches fly,
I want to get this on video, and it had
been a big deal. So, uh, executive producer hands and
joins us, are you well, are you comfortable talking about this,
Hanson since you've been coaching and stuff.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Sure, I mean I'm in I'm still in the midst
of it too, so so.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Yeah, I want to start here before I get to
the end of the game and what happened with the
parents and everything like that. I was commenting to a
couple of people I was sitting with about the kids showboating,
which I think plays a role in how hot it
gets with the parents. Is that something you see you're
in you're in baseball mostly.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
Uh, yeah, there's there's a lot more of that than
now than ever before it's acceptable to you know, you
see a lot like in Major League Baseball, the bat
flip is a real big thing, so the kids can't
do that in Little league, but you see a lot
of that sort of wanting to have fun and always
show your excitement at every different.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Play, right, and they see it on TV and sports
on television is as Joe and I always point out,
it's entertainment. It's a TV show, so they're trying to
make it as entertaining as possible, which I was so
I was always fine that with that at the professional level.
But the kids all replicate it now and every play
has some showboating involved in it, practically every play and
(04:30):
certainly every big play, and I think it gets people
more riled up and gets the parents hotter. For instance,
kid catches a ball running in for a touchdown, turns around,
does the wave at the guy behind him as a oh,
I mean, it's just twelve year olds. Or you intercept
the ball and you turn in and you're in your
face and you know, doing all kinds of gestures and
stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Pull their flag. You're just supposed to draw.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
It's flag football, for crying out out, it's the twelve
year old flag football. You pull their flag, you're supposed
to just drop it where it is before their flag,
and you kind of stick it in their face.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
And everybody's doing that. And I would throw a flag
every time for that fifteen yards for taunting. That's me.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Well they but they don't. And again, it's a cultural
thing that I don't know what to do about. I'm
the oldest dad there, so I mean, I'd come from
a completely different era.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
But the coaches don't do anything about the showboarding, and
the parents don't seem to care.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
My dad would have never allowed us to act like
that right different time, but no parents seem to care.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Does anybody police it? For your experience? I gotta say,
I think.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
Your league has a problem because that in my son's leagues,
his flag football leagues, they would have never let that
fly there. There's penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, and that sounds
like they're way too permissive with all the celebrations.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
I don't have any idea, you know, I only see
the one the one league, the one games and that
sort of stuff, and I just I was amazed that
kids get to act that way.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
And so is that an officiating thing. Is that a
parent's thing, Is that a coaching thing?
Speaker 3 (06:00):
All of the above, because I guess the parents would
push the coaches or push the referees to not allow
that sort of thing to happen. Again, this might be
a go ahead, I would say, having coached US sports
for years and years and years, leagues have cultures, and
parents generally will accept that culture if it is uniformly
(06:20):
described and enforced and it makes the.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Games more exciting.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I will say that the show voting the showboat because
everybody gets so riled up.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
But it's not good. It's not not in a good way,
not in a good way whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
So anyway, I wanted to bring that up because I
think that leads to the outcome you get at the
end of the game. So you got the two undefeated
teams playing each other in the flag football tournament yesterday,
and it's so it's it's the who's going to be
the best team? And my son's on one of the teams,
and it ends up being a incredibly close game, and
it comes down to the last play of the game,
(07:00):
close enough, it's fourth down. They're either gonna score on
this play and win, or the other team wins. I mean,
it's very clear to everyone this is a one play deal.
We got eight seconds left. Whole ball of axes right here,
after all the screaming and yelling and all the excitement
everything like that. Quite a ball of axe we're talking
about too. Yes, So for those of you who are
a wax ball enthusiasts, guy drops back, and I don't
(07:23):
want to get into the specific of the game. I
think they got job. But none of that matters. That
doesn't matter at all. That's got nothing to do with it.
But anyway, guy for a guy for the other team
drops back to pass, runs around, runs rounds, getting chased,
almost gets its flag yanked, throws a crazy hil mary.
It gets tipped, bounces through two guys hands, one guy
catches it from that team comes down, scores, but there's
a flag on the play back at the quarterback, so
(07:45):
they the referee through a flag. They call it a touchdown.
That other team jumps around because they just won the championship.
The other team where the flag?
Speaker 4 (07:53):
You throw a flag?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
What's with the flag?
Speaker 3 (07:56):
So the referees and then then the parents start going crazy.
So when the other team wins, immediately the parents, which
I gotta say this is absolutely true, and I'm not
just biased here. The parents on the other team behaved
incredibly poorly. The parents on our side of the aisle
did not do any of this, But the parents on
the other side of the team are the other.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Side of the field.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
They were in kids' faces doing the bye bye bye
bye bye to all these twelve year old children. Twelve
year olds were right in their faces, oh, because they
just won and it was unbelievable, which obviously made things
ramp things up and made it hotter with the well,
what's it the flag?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
You threw a flag?
Speaker 3 (08:34):
How's that a touchdown?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
You threw a flag? Blah blah blah, Bye bye, bye bye.
You're not undefeated anymore.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
Bye bye.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
I like, what are you grown ups?
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Are you actual grown ups saying this to twelve year
olds and screaming across the field?
Speaker 2 (08:47):
You have a comment ansling, Oh, I mean I've seen
stuff like that. Not that's the worst.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
I've seen a few things so as similar, but you've
eclipsed and anything that I've read.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
So the referees who are in a difficult spot always
with these things because they're amateurs, they're young. Sometimes they're
just volunteers. I think in this case they might have
been getting a couple of bucks. But either way, and
I think what ultimately happened to skip to the punchline.
I think they ultimately decided the direction that was going
(09:16):
to make it least likely that they got punched in
the face. I think the scariest, loudest parents one purely
out of fear and intimidation. But anyway, these poor referees,
after the whole flag thing, they went back and they
said flag on the play, not a touchdown. The other
our team are erupts and excited. The kids are jumping around,
high five and everything. The parents on the other side,
(09:37):
af you, daffy. They're just screaming and yelling, screaming at
the refs. Everybody's in a round round. All of a sudden,
there's some hubbub. The referees get together.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
They said, after looking it over, the flag was thrown
in inadvertently.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
It was not a flag on the play. The other
team wins, goes back to the other team. If they
start jumping around pointing everybody's faces. The parents are back
to the bye bye af you. The coach on our
side now that it's gone back and forth three times.
I think it ends up going back in total of
three times. He starts screaming at the referees in a
(10:12):
way that was a little over the top, but anyway,
one of the referees got so hot started to run
across the field screaming f you at him.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
The other referees had to get in front.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Of him and restrain him, actually restraining the referee from
the coach from fighting the guy just and I was
standing there watching my mouth open, like I can't believe
this is actually happening again, with the parents specifically on
the other side, just behaving as awful as you could
possibly imagine. Somehow, in all this madness, a decision has
(10:42):
made the redo the play.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
So they bring the ball out.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
They bring the ball out and they set it on
the yard marker and they start messing with the clock
and everything like that, and our team is like, okay,
that sounds cool, and I think most of the parent
at least on arts I thought this might be the
best way to settle it.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Let's just do the play again and see what happens
and then we'll just call it good.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
But somehow, in that the other team parents, who were
scary looking people started screaming you fu at the referees,
and the referee said, no more play, We're gonna give
it to you. So that was their I think, fourth
different decision at the end of this game. And the
coach on our side actually got kicked off of the
(11:22):
field told he had to leave the field because he
was so hot. And I really think what actually ultimately
happened was the referees gave in to the side that
was the scariest, which might happen a lot like it.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
It might be what I would do. I might do
the same thing.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
You're a psycho. You go ahead, you won. It's twelve
year old flag football.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I don't care. I'm going to my car and going home,
and I'm not doing this anymore. I would have been tempted,
as the head referee to say, we're gonna call the
league office. We'll be right back. Cotten in my car
and gone home. Hey guys, we're out of here. We'll
let these maniacs kill each other whatever they want to
do over some stupid little kids football game.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
That would be a great idea. Get all the referees together.
We're gonna have a big meaning right over there behind
the building. We'll be back in two minutes.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Two minutes, everybody, two minutes, start counting. Now, get in
your cars and leave a bunch of sickohs. That's what
I'd have been saying.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
My ultimate point being, this sort of thing happens regularly. Now,
it didn't used to ever happen. Why don't more people
recognize that as a problem. Something has happened in our culture?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, I mean, obviously one could write a four hundred
and fifty page book answering here implied question what's happened
and what can be done about it? Is the ultimate problem,
and that it's so hard to change culture.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
I mean, it's not like you can come up with
a simple answer where blah blah, you know, you raise
the age of this or increase the price of that
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
There's no quick fixing this. Yeah, I would agree completely.
I mean, it's very difficult, and it's simple and yet difficult.
I almost said, but it's not in a way traditional
American values, and among them sportsmanship, you know, contributing to
(13:10):
your community, you know, duty before selfishness, et cetera. They
have been shamed by thinkers, primarily on the left. The
idea that you can stand up for traditional American values
and say, hey, these are better values. We have a
better society when these are our values. People have been
(13:30):
shamed out of saying that because it's been called racist
or whatever, pobe or what have you. Here's some sort
of you know, Christian theocracy insisting on that sort of behavior.
I think that's ridiculous. Some values work way better than others.
Some societies are much more healthy, productive, and successful than others.
(13:55):
And I think the values that lead to healthy, successful
and happy are better values than your craphole country values,
for instance, or your rougher, nastier parts of our country values.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
All right, i'd be interesting what some of you all
think about this, That the degradation of culture, not the
specific game. Text line four one five two nine five
KF Tctty.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
House Oversight hearing devolved into chaos after Marjorie Taylor Green
and Democrat Jasmine Crockett traded insults.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Yeah, I think your fake eyelashes are messing up somebody's leash. Blind,
bad built, good body.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Control. Jerry, Jerry.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Real like I'm watching the waffle House of Representatives.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
That's a good joke.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
I thought I heard a good joke when I heard that,
I thought, why didn't I think of that the waffle
House of representatives. But he gets to the conversation we're
just having about culture and the youth sports and the
parents acting that. I mean, it's at all levels. So
I mean, if they're doing that in Congress, and your
professional athletes are doing it, and it's happening in the
school board meetings, it's just everywhere. And I don't know
(15:15):
how we turn this around. We got a couple of
texts about my story of having witnessed one of these
in person. Yesterday with my kid's twelve year old flag
football game. We got this text my kid youth soccer.
I have seen them stop have to stop the games
because of parents twice in the last three years, stop
(15:35):
the game. And Hanson was just mentioning to us a
couple of places where they handled it by no more
parents next game.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
You can't have the parents here.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
So maybe that's the direction we go, where the kids
just get together and play and at least you can
kind of police that with the referees and the coaches
keep the parents out of there so it doesn't get
so hot.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
One thing that I think is completely under disgust when
you talk about people self selecting where they live. Is
cultural issues like this, and I realize people have complicated lives,
they have commitments and the needs to be in one
place or not another, and not everybody can pick up
and move. But there are plenty of places that don't
(16:15):
tolerate that, or there aren't people who would tend to
do that. I'm picturing you know, some of our many
many listeners are now in Nashville, for instance, or wherever else.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
You see a lot less of that in some places
than others. And we also got the text good luck
getting referees in the future. That's going to become a
national crisis. People who are willing to already a crisis
referee youth sports. Why would you ever take that on?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
It's a huge crisis. I refereed to youth sports for decades,
and I wouldn't even think of doing it now. I've
got a neighbor, a good guy who's a soccer ref
and he said it's gotten to the point where he
he doesn't want to anymore.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Well, when you refereed for decades back in the day,
how often did you get screamed at, yelled at whatever?
Speaker 2 (16:57):
How often did that happen almost never, And it happened
once or twice, and I ejected parents from the ballpark,
and the rest of the parents said, nice job. There
was cultural agreement, man, And this is like his a
fourteen year old, fourteen year old kick the parent. Oh yeah, yeah,
I did it once or twice.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
I had to Trump trial back in session today. We
got a little analysis and a bunch of other stuff
on the way Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (17:25):
Donald Trump said that at the debates he wants both
of them to stand instead of sit. So that's the
status of our presidency.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Standing is a feat of strength.
Speaker 5 (17:37):
I didn't need to learn a lot more watching them
both try to get out of a beanbag chair.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Wow, that was pretty funny.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
If you have a couple of forty two year olds,
you don't have a you have to stand the whole time, all.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Right, okay whatever. Yeah. Even at my advanced age, I'd
be like, that's fine. Whatever you want is that's fine. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
So a couple of notes on the ongoing Trump trial
in Manhattan. The fixer congenital liar would be mobster just
really said human being. Michael Cohen's cross examination is continuing today.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
That's the description I'm trying to avoid in life, said
human being Jack Armstrong.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Boy. So that unfortunate show will be continuing a couple
of bits of perspective that I think you might find
interesting about the trial the Was this an interview, Yeah,
Jacob Gershman writing in the Wall Street Journal, reminding us
all of something you've probably heard before, but it's worth repeating,
(18:48):
and that is that a Trump conviction depends on proving
more than a hush money cover up. The prosecution's case
hangs on an allegend second crime that has not even
been named for the jury yet, right, well, yeah, which
is astounding.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
I know you've got a lot more on this, but
I was listening to Jonathan Hurley Turtley not Hurley Turtlely
on Fox this morning, and he agreed with something I've
been saying.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
So it made me feel smart. It's always exciting.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
But he said, the jury's hearing a different thing than
what actually exists. And he said, I'm just not sure
if the jury instructions or the defense is going to
be able to make it clear to the jury that
this supposed crime they keep talking.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
About never happened.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
And that's what I've been wondering if you're a juror,
have you concluded figured out that they.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Haven't explained this crime yet, just in case he explains
what I was about to go into. I love a
clip sixty one Jonathan Turley, Why don't we just roll that.
Speaker 6 (19:52):
I think the defense has done a very good job.
You know, with someone like Michael Cohen, you have someone
who has a pathological of to the truth, and so
one of your strategies is to keep him on the
stand as long as possible, just to wait for him
to spontaneously combust. And that's what happened, that is they
kept them on long enough. And you know, with regard
(20:14):
to this phone call, which was not just any phone call,
it was the call that he had testified earlier, he
broke apart on the stand.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Now they're going to try to rehabilitate.
Speaker 6 (20:23):
They may come back and say, well, did you really
mean this call? To try to bring him back for
the jury's trust, But at some point, the risk here
is that you've got a New York jury that is
being treated like chumps, and some of them are going
to realize that and go, you know what, don't play
us like a mark. You haven't even stated what this
(20:45):
second crime was that the record's violation was supposed to conceal.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Yeah, he finally got to it at the end there,
But yeah, New York juries don't. New Yorkers in general
tend to resent being treated like chumps, since not being
a chump is a rather important survival skill in Gotham.
But back to the main threat of it. Manhattan prosecutors
have framed their case against Donald Jay as a simple
story about a criminal cover up of sex scannal. Of
(21:11):
course that's not what it is at all. But to
win a conviction, they'd have to convince jures that Trump
orchestrated the cover up with the intent of concealing another crime.
Closing variments probably tomorrow, Jerry deliberations, certainly Wednesday, I would think.
But and they go into the paying of the hush money,
blah blah. We're all up on that. The thirty four
(21:35):
felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree
depend on each one of those invoices, ledger, entries and
checks paying back Cohen to be in concealment of another crime.
And in a shocking and according to some people on
constitutional development, Bragg's indictment doesn't say what the other crime was,
(21:59):
and prosecutors still haven't identified the specific offense to jurors.
Now here's one thing I don't know, because I almost
went to law school, but I didn't. Actually, if you
are essentially charging a felony because of a chain of
crimes as just described, wouldn't you have to prove them
both beyond a reasonable doubt? What do you think?
Speaker 4 (22:19):
So?
Speaker 2 (22:20):
I would think that would have to be part of it. Yeah. Yeah,
But the fact that they haven't even solidified up and anyway,
so Michael, thanks Michael for testifying. Good job there. Anyway,
ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all this crap we've
been boring here with this was all to cover up
the murder of Arts too for not or the taking
(22:41):
of the gold from Fart Knox or whatever it is.
You gotta have a second crime eventually, And the fact
that they haven't gotten there yet and the judges said, oh,
we'll wrap it up tomorrow is shocking. But this I
thought was even more interesting because I haven't heard it
anywhere else. Ethan Greenberger is another one of the legal
(23:01):
writers for the Journal, points out that there's going to
be a decision. Before the decision that's going to be
incredibly important. Will the jury consider only thirty four felony
counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, that's
what we've been talking about, or will they also consider
thirty four misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records in the
(23:24):
second degree. The misdemeanor charges are what are known in
the legal world as a lesser included defense orioos, less
serious crime, lower penalties. It's included within the definition of
the more serious crime. But maybe he didn't go all
the way and commit the more serious crime anyway. In
Trump's trial, the misdemeanor charges require proof that he deliberately
(23:46):
falsified business records, but the whole in commission of another
crime thing, let's leave that out of it. The trial
judge must submit theo the lesser offenses to the jury
if either the prosecution or the defense requests it. Now,
if neither does, the judge himself might say, hey, you
(24:06):
know what, we ought to include this, so if any
party asks for it, it's included. So here's the question
for the Trump team, do you head your bets with
the misdemeanor and demand that that be given to the
jury as a as an option, or do you go
for broke and say no, no, no, no, no, you
charged a felony. Let's ask the jury whether he committed
(24:29):
these felonies. You think you're so smart. Well, as I.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Always say, I keep looking at this only through the
political lens, not the legal. How much trouble he gets
in lens what is best for him in terms of
running for president?
Speaker 2 (24:47):
What a great question.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
I think being convicted of a misdemeanor would leave no
mark whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
No, No, that would be a non event. Nobody would
care at all. And I think anybody with even a
light lean toward I was going to say supporting Trump,
but toward the notion that this has been a railroad job,
would say, Okay, after all of that, you got them
for something the finest four hundred and fifty exactly. Yeah,
(25:15):
that would be pretty good political spin. I think the
chances of getting getting convicted of all those felonies are
it's incredibly slim. But as the defense team, so what
do you what do you go with? Do you go
with no, come on, tough guy, you brought felonies. Through
of the felonies, I wonder is the defense team.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
Did they feel their job is to just handle it
like they would any client, get you the best situation
in the court room, or are they thinking about the
politics of this.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Well, you got to go with what the boss thinks.
I don't know. I think Trump. I think me too, Yeah,
me too.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
So Mark alpertnon his newsletter, and he talks to a
lot of people. He has a lot of connections. He
wrote today, whereas before the trial was fully underw the
conventional wisdom in my world was that a conviction on
the felony charges was the most likely outcome. Now hung
jury and acquittal have both surged up the probability charts
to the point where I would say many are currently
betting against a conviction.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
So that's what he says.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
The smart people around him are saying currently, I'm just
surprised by the first part Ykayver in the other place,
I don't get it right. And then this story from
the Washington Post that I thought was good on the
importance of jury instructions. Jury instructions do have an outsized
impact on a trial. They quote somebody, because the jury
is going to look at the evidence, and then they're
going to map that evidence to the instructions. Trials are
(26:37):
won and lost in the word of specific jury instructions,
and that comes from the judge. Yes, well, the judge
hates Trump, correct, so his jury instructions might be worded
in such a way that makes it more difficult for
the jury to understand. You realize this isn't about having
sex with the port star. Don't you mean he's not
(26:58):
going to say that, right, Yeah, well, we'll have to see.
There's also the case where.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
And again, I've been on a handful of juris, but
I'm by no means an expert in this. The instructions
can sometimes be so long and convoluted, and some states
have really made strides in making that not so, because
you can't lay twenty five minutes of legal ease on
a bunch of jurors. Who are, you know, greengrocers and
insurance salesmen and housewives and the rest of it. It
(27:33):
also is frequently not important, especially if the jury's leaning
toward an acquittal. They think, all right, this is all
a croc.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Oh yeah in the acquittal. Yeah, if I've already determined
sitting there as a juror what this is nothing. I'm
not going to listen all those instructions.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
In order to find him guilty, you must find be
on a reasonable doubt that he violated Section one h
three point five. Remember, violation does not mean breaking. It
merely means blah blah blah blah blah. And you're thinking, oh,
it's lunch. So when you were on a jury couple
of times, what do you get for lunch? Ah? As
(28:13):
I recall a couple of times we just went to
like the courthouse lunch area cafeteria. But we're told don't
discuss the case, that if you see any of the
the people involved, don't talk to him, blah blah blah.
And during deliberations they bring you like sandwiches, at least
they did for us. They were like really good Deli sandwiches.
(28:36):
Woner if you can door dash into the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
Don't know that people were doing that at the flag
football tournament yesterday, parents, because if your team one, you
had to play another game. People were just door dashing
to the full stadium. Well that's awesome, What a time
to be alive. Maybe the jury can do that, yeah,
jury number six, Yeah, yeah, that's me. The pizza exactly.
You excuse me, your honor right there in the jury box.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Yeah sure, why why not? It's like watching TV to
eat a pizza while you watched be sure. I like
the idea of it.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
So I wonder how quick the jury will turn this around.
It wouldn't be shocking, would it that it's like a
really short one.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Yeah, it could literally be. Let's go ahead and eat lunch,
then bring back the verdict. If say, bring him food,
we find the accused of rental, James Simpson not guilty. Yeah, well,
I think it'll be a similar outcome in this one.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Wow, awesome, that'll be fun this week. It's gonna happen
this week. We had a lot more on the way.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Stay here.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
The first person implanted with Elon Musk's experimental brain chip, Neuralink,
sharing his remarkable story. Thirty year old Nolan Darbas is
paralyzed from the shoulders down. Now he can play music
or chess, use a smartphone, all with just his thoughts.
The chip connects to his brain with threads than a
human hair. Well, the Neuralink device won't impact any of
(30:03):
Nolan's physical ability. He tells me it has improved his
quality of life lightly, and Neuralink tells me that they
plan to implant their next two participants in their trial
in the coming months.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Are you looking to win the Emmy and understatement there, dude? Yeah,
I would say it would change your life quite a bit.
You're paralyzed from the shoulders down, and now you can
access your iPhone and search the net, or watch Netflix,
or call people or text.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
What it would be? It would be? It'd be it
take me.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
Days to stop crying with happiness. If it can be
cruel for no good reason on social media, right, what
if it turns out to be a really mean, snarky person.
That's absolutely unbelievable that this can happen. Now, Yeah, it's
it's amazing.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
It's you know, humanity, even as we're ugly, rotten beasts,
are capable of amazing things. Well, yeah, which which is
gonna went out in the end?
Speaker 5 (31:01):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (31:02):
I got my bet made. Yeah, came across this. We're
just talking about the Trump trial.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
This is an article in the New York Times today,
Outside the Trump Trial sock puppets, sex pills and smutty balloons.
It's the outside of the courtroom has become a stage
for random acts of oddness.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
At the Donald J. Trump trial. Thought that was kind
of funny. I don't know what the sock puppet thing is.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
There's some people there with sock puppets that look like Trump,
and then the various witness's witnesses, and then they reenact
what happened in the courtroom based.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
On the reports throughout the day. Wow, how New York
is that?
Speaker 1 (31:36):
For?
Speaker 3 (31:36):
Ye?
Speaker 2 (31:37):
For for anybody who needs that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
Also, an interesting article in the New York Times about
this Russian woman who's become very popular in social media,
particularly in China. This Russian woman loves China too bad.
Sheese not real. It's an AI creation. AI manipulated videos
on Chinese sites. He was young, supposedly Russian women to
promote a Russia ties and stoke patriotism. We have so
(32:07):
much trouble in this country or going to have trouble
with you know, fake news, misinformation and AI fakes and
all that sort of stuff. How about in countries where
they control the media completely, Right, everything you take in
will be a fake soldier talking about how the war went,
or a fake voter talking about how great the economy
(32:27):
is or whatever.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
It'll all be phony, right, No dissent to call them
on it. Even if it, you know, it wasn't one
hundred percent convincing, and it probably will be. There will
be nobody to say, hey, hey, that bears the ear
marks and blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
I hadn't even let my mind wander on the idea
of how this AI stuff can be used in a
country where they control the media like China. Wow, every
news story will be fake, and why wouldn't it be
Why would you have any real human being on your
evening newscast?
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Ever? In China? Right right. My favorite China story over
the weekend was that vlad Putin went hat in hand
to beg for whatever he gets from China, which is
all sorts of support and trade and financing the rest
of it. And he had evidently been contemplating going from
China to North Korea, and Shi Jinping said, no, why
(33:17):
don't you not do that? And Vlad said, well, wait
a minute, we're friends with you, we're friends with them,
you're friends with them, why don't I go up there?
And she said no, no, no, no, no no, why
did you not do that? We'll manage that friendship. So
China didn't like the idea of Russia getting too close
to North Korea independently of China. Interesting, China being the
(33:39):
big dog in that pack for sure, and definitely you know,
calling the tune for Putin to dance to.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
I'm still making my way through the book The New
Cold Wars by David Sanger of the New York Times
and really into the China portion of it now. And
some credit was given by I forget what partisan trumpey
and Democrat who said Trump gets all the credit for
being the first to really tell everybody, Hey, China is
(34:09):
our enemy.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
They're nothing but our enemy.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
Let's wake up to that fact, and was quoted in
the book, which I thought was pretty interesting. And how
both parties very quickly, well, the entire foreign policy establishment
grasped it fairly quickly, well after decades of not grasping it,
but once it was pointed out, grasped it and everybody
got on board, both parties. And the main reason they
(34:33):
think that China didn't mess with us in the last
presidential election is that they realized it doesn't make any
difference to whose president or which party is in control.
They both hate us now, so there's no point. How interesting, Yeah, yeah,
which is actually I think a good thing.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
Old old saying in politics, only Nixon could go to China.
Of course, that was part of the whole misunderstanding of
China's quote unquote coming out. But the idea was Nixon
was such a committed anti communist that he could extend
the hand of friendship to China and not be looked
at suspiciously. Well, only Nixon could go to China. Only
Trump could give China the finger, right, and it was
(35:09):
long overdue.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Yeah, but everybody's on board now that that was all
a ruse and they are our enemy, everybody but our corporations.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Yeah. Well, and we are intertwined with them, like it
or not in significant ways. It's a hell of a
puzzle to solve. What do we got coming up? All
sorts of great stuff, Jack, including campus madness and update
on our I know they're emptying, but they're still important.
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.