July 7, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour Four of A&G features...
- Our guest, Anastasia Boden (Pacific Legal Foundation) with analysis of the Supreme Courts' busy session...
- Observations from Jack's Vegas trip...
- Will the US increase support for Ukraine's war efforts...
- Maine's US Senate candidate Graham Platner is fried...
- Final Thoughts
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Jetty and Key Armstrong and Getty. Three rulings
came down while we were off last week that I'm
interested in from the Supreme Court, and then they high
(00:31):
tail it out of there and they go do whatever
they is they I don't know if they fish or
I don't know what Supreme Court justice is doing their
off time before they come back in October. But three
rulings came down that I'm particularly interested in. The trains ruling,
got a Fourth Amendment case, it's got to do with
your cell phones and stuff like that. And then the
birthright citizenship which Trump was really into. Anyway, we welcome
(00:53):
back to the show, Anastasia Boden, Senior Attorney, Equality and
Opportunity for the Pacific Legal Foundation. How are you today, Anaesthesia?
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Oh, doing great?
Speaker 4 (01:02):
Talking about my favorite thing with one of my favorite people.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Well, I believe it's one of your favorite things. I
don't believe in one of your favorite people. What are
these you most excited about?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
You know, it's funny.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
They were all big, They're so in the news everyone.
They were all supposed to be blockbusters, and everybody tells
you that if they don't get their way, it's going
to be the end of the world, and then the
term is over, and now everybody's forgotten about all three anyway.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
But I mean, we can start with the trans athletes one.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Okay, So first of all, oftentimes the headline of what
happened is incredibly misleading as to what was actually decided.
And I haven't looked into these because I was on vacation,
But so what did they rule around trans athletes? Particularly
the issue, as we all know, is boys competing in girls'
sports in high school.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
This is one of those cases where the headlines are
misleading because this case doesn't address whether states must separate
trans athletes from women's sports. It just says that states
can separate if they want to, and twenty seven states
have chosen to do so. They've said that women's sports
belong to women, and the majority, actually all nine justices,
(02:12):
all nine justices, said that separating transgender athletes does not
violate Title nine of our Siliites.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
I didn't realize that on that.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Issue, it was I know, the only place where there
was some descent was on the equal protection clause. Three
justices thought that maybe if trans athletes have mitigated in quotes,
mitigated their advantage by taking hormone therapy and whatnot, then
they should be able to challenge that ban and say
(02:43):
that they get to compete too with women.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
But the majority held, no, it.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Doesn't matter if you've taken hormone therapy. It's good enough
if the state decides that men and women are different.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
It's amazing that only twenty seven states have banned this.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Yeah, but I think we might find movement on that soon.
I mean, we had even Newsome, you know, saying in
California that he was siding with this issue. So you know,
I think this is becoming more of a mainstream idea.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
God, I would think so. All right, So what did
they finally decide on birthright citizenship? If if I fly
in from China and have a baby here or they
automatically a citizen.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Basically, yes, birthright citizenship is almost universal save for a
few exceptions. That is, enemy occupiers you're not entitled to
birthright citizenship and diplomats basically, but everybody else gets birthright citizenship.
It was a six to three decision where we even
had some of the so called conservative justices join here
(03:41):
and say, hey, the text has written really broadly.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
If you don't like.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
It, we can get a constitutional amendment for that. But
this is the way, this is the status quo, this
is the way it's been for, you know, over one
hundred years, one hundred and fifty years, and we're going
to maintain that broad birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So even though the original intent, and I don't know
if that makes you an originalist if you care about that,
but even though the original intent was to make sure
that slaves were considered citizens, doesn't matter the way it's
written in the Constitution. It could include Chinese birth tourists
or people who snuck across the border for five minutes
or whatever.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
And this was a fight between the majority and the descent.
Justice Thomas in particular, said, hey, look at the way
this was written.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
This was written in the.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Wake of the Civil War to apply specifically to recently
freed slaves and their progeny. But the majority said, maybe,
maybe that was the intent, But the text itself applies
very broadly and establishes a broad principle of birthright citizenship,
and so that's what rules.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
I don't want to drag you into political conversations that
might get you in trouble, but it is interesting that
several of the big cases that Trump really wanted to
go a certain way didn't go his way, despite mainstream
media portraying the Spreme Court is some sort of maga
rubber stamp that answers to Trump. They went against him
(05:05):
on a whole bunch of stuff he cared about.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
That's absolutely right.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
I mean, he won some, but he lost a lot,
and he lost the big ones. He lost the tariff case,
which he had He had run his campaign on tariffs
and birthright citizenship. Those were cornerstones of his election, and
so you know, he lost the really big ones. And
it does a lot of damage to the people who
say that these justices march in lockstep with the president
who nominated them. And in fact, Justice Barrett is getting
(05:31):
dragged through the mud right now for not voting with Trump,
even though she's not the only one.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Chief Justice has deviated from him as well.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
And I think that's really a shame, because when these
justices vote according to what they believe is the right outcome,
that bolsters the Supreme Court, and it's really these attacks
on the justices that are doing the most damaged.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, it hasn't been true throughout both of Trump's terms.
I mean, if you look at it statistically, it has
not been a clear six three the justices that he
appointed always going to them and not even close to that.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Yeah, that's right, they're saying this term. It's more of
a three three three divide. The three liberal justices really
do vote almost entirely in lockstep. And then you're getting
a little bit of divide between Kavanaugh, gorsicch and Thomas
on the one hand, and then the Chief Justice. And
my brain is blinking the Chief Justice A. Gorsic and
(06:28):
ACB on the other.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Do you look at any I like those end of
the year roundups where they go through like how many
cases were decided by this number and that number and
everything like that. I find it really interesting. And Ms Jackson,
who does the most talking and is the newest person,
she was on the wrong side by far the most yes.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
And she she's been writing separately to write really strident
descends sometimes, you know, kind of nasty descents. But she's
been on the losing side most I love those totistics too,
because it's actually shocking how many cases are unanimous or
near unanimous. You only hear about the divisive ones, but
in reality, the court is pretty united.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
If you were on the so you got nine really
smart legal minds there, and if you're on the losing
side by far more than anybody else year after year,
wouldn't you at some point you think question your decision making.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
You You would think you would think, or you would
at least temper down the descents and not, you know,
accuse the majority of being you know, unprincipled or or
what have you at least admit that that maybe have
some humility.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
About no kidding, yeah, no kidding. So on this one
about the geo fencing. So you got this case that
arose from a twenty nineteen bank robbery in Virginia where
the police used a geofence warrant. That is, they drew
a virtual geographical fence around an area where a crime
was committed and then asked Google to turn over the
(08:03):
names of everyone's phone who is inside a certain area.
I find that troubling that that ever happened, but that
fits into this particular case. Chatterree is that how you
say it versus the United States? What did they determine
on this?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
They said that that requires a warrant. Come on, that
is almost a quintessential Fourth Amendment search. That really invades
people's privacy. And it's not good enough to say that,
you know, we contract with cell phone companies, and so
now we give our data over to them and can
have no expectation of privacy in our data. We still
(08:38):
enjoy some expectation of privacy here, and if the court
is going to sweep so broadly, it needs a warrant.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Yeah. I like that one. I heard it portrayed as
the way they ruled didn't help us that much, But
if it had gone the other way, it would have
been horrifying in terms of the government's ability to start
reaching into our phones.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
I mean, think about this third party doctrine, this rule
where if you if you contract with a third party
or in any way give away any data to a
third party, then all of a sudden it becomes free
of Fourth Amendment protections and the government can seize it whenever.
I mean that applies to everything in the Internet age.
Everything we do is somehow watched by somebody, and it
would make it would mean that the government could could
(09:21):
look up everything we do, from text to Google searches
to where we are on our cell phones.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
I mean, it's really disturbing. So that was a win.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
You're right, where we go, we talk to our politics,
our finances, our taxes, our love relationships. I mean, everything
is in our phones.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
But that was a big win, a really good case,
and it's part of you know, that's another interesting one
where you get you get some agreement between both the
liberal justices and the conservative justices.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Thank god for that one. At the end of the season.
Any big surprises to you.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
You know, not really.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
I think for somebody who watches the court closely, we
always knew birthright citizenship was going to be an uphill
battle for the government. We knew three justices right, we're
gonna we're gonna rule against Trump on birthright citizenship. So
so the challengers only needed two more. That's not a
very high bar there, So that one kind of went
how we thought it was going to go. You know,
(10:21):
the tariff's case, that was a close one that could
have gone either way. And again that was another case
where both sides said the sky was going to fall
if if they lost. But guess what Trump lost. You know,
the government has to pay back the money. I think
they're still doing fine. Everybody's fine. The economy seems to
be doing better. I know a lot of small businesses
who are who are really thriving because they no longer
(10:43):
have to pay those really punishing tariffs.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
So it seems like for the better.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
I don't think it was all that surprising, but you know,
we'll see what happens next term. They say that quiet
loud terms are followed by quiet terms and vice versa.
So maybe next year we'll get some really really explosive cases.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Is there anything we expect to come down next year?
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I'm hoping one of my own cases gets great.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Okay, what's your favorite one that you would love to
have make it to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Well, it actually involves a California law of course, where
if you are a medical professional and you teach a
continuing education course, so you know, to get to keep
your license, your medical license, you have to take so
many hours of continuing medical education. Now, if you're a
teacher of one of those courses which are totally private, right,
these are just private individuals, doctor, surgeons, whatever, physical therapists
(11:32):
who teach these cases or these courses. California said, if
you teach that course, no matter what you are talking about,
you have to include a section on implicit bias. That
is the yes, yes, the idea that you know there
are health disparities based on race and they come from
everybody's unconscious bias.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
It's it's totally offensive and divisive.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
And our client, you know, she actually fled from Iran.
She she fled tyranny for freeom of speech and freedom,
and she doesn't believe in implicit bias. She doesn't think
that's the main driver of health disparities. She doesn't want
to be forced to talk about it. Right, it's not,
it's not. It's very shoddy science, by the way, and
she has a first moment right to talk about whatever
(12:14):
she wants to talk about. And by the way, what
she wants to talk about is ocular surgery has nothing
to do with implicit bias.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
You do not need to talk about implicit bias in
those courses.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
So we're challenging that on the first moment, and I
think we ought to get to the Supreme.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Court and win.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
That's awesome. I hope you do, and that we'd love
to talk about it. And Stasia Boden, you are so
good at this. We really appreciate your time.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Unfortunately, we might talk again until next October.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Oh I hope not.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Yeah, well, we'll come up with a reason to uh
to uh to talk to you before then. We'll make
up a reason.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
All right, three agrees to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Maybe you go there, you go, fantastic, Anna, Stasia Boden.
She is with the Pacific Legal Foundation. You just heard
one of the cases she's going to be working on.
What am I supposed to say about the podcast? Hanson?
What do you want me to say?
Speaker 5 (12:59):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (12:59):
She has a podcast that's right in descent. She's a
host of the very popular Indscent podcast. So if you
like her act and how would you not, you should
check that out. We've got more on the way right here.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
State.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Does anybody know what they call mini mouse in Italian?
Mickey Mouse in Italian? Ra other? Do you know what
they call Mickey Mouse in Italian? No, you don't know
that it's Topolino is the name of Mickey Mouse in Italian.
And the reason I bring it up is Fiat has
got a new car that they think is going to
be a big hit in the United States called the
top Allino the Little Mouse. It's only thirteen ninety five
(13:41):
dollars new, which by modern car price standards is very
very cheap. And the idea behind this thing is it's tiny.
As you know, Fiats are pretty small, but this is
small even by Fiat standards. It's all electric, top speed
twenty five miles an hour, with the idea of being
and I could see this being the direction we end
(14:03):
up going, especially with electric cars. Like in some of
your neighborhoods that are near golf courses, driving a golf
cart around has become very popular, and not just like
to get to the golf course to play golf or
not just to get around. And I see it in
my neighborhood even and they and Fiat noticed this and
thinks there's a market out there for an inexpensive but
(14:28):
more than a golf cart. Car doesn't need to go
very fast, doesn't need to be very big, but people
will drive it to the grocery store or you know,
over to their kids' school or whatever. And I definitely
could see this being a thing for electric cars. I
think they think they made a mistake the electric car
world and shooting for highway speeds and long ranges like
(14:54):
it's going to replace your regular car, and that has
not worked. People don't want it. They don't work that
well anyway. The ranges aren't as good as they advertise.
But just to get around town everybody having one car
that's a small electric car or lots of people anyway,
especially in urban areas, I could definitely see this catching on. Anyway,
(15:16):
They're going to start selling this little Fiat kind of
a cool looking little thing soon. I mean, I got
my big giant f two fifty I was just talking
about in a commercial that I took on my dirt
bike trip with my son. But I don't need to
haul that thing to the grocery store and back all
the time just to get me there in vac anyway,
(15:37):
kind of an interesting idea. I mentioned this a little
bit earlier. Uh, in Las Vegas. One of the things
I saw. I'm trying to find the actual picture here
a place in the mall called the Drip, and they
got people in medical gowns there. I don't know if
(15:58):
they're actual people of medicine or they're real phlebotomists or
what they are. But anyway, it's the place is called
the Drip and it was in the mall there on
the strip in Vegas. And the idea is that if
you hit it really hard last night and you're hungover
and you're feeling horrible, you go in there. They hook
you up to an IV they pump you back full
(16:18):
of liquids and electrolytes and all the things that will
make you feel better. And I've known people that have
done this sort of thing. You can get rid of
a hangover instantly. I mean instantly, because that's what a
hangover is. It's all kinds of dehydration and nutrients and
things like that that you caused yourself. And there's a
(16:40):
place in the mall in Vegas. You go in there,
you get plugged in, they get rid of your You
can always drink less also, it's one option. But who
wants to do that? I wonder, I wonder why that
hasn't become more popular. Like all over the place, you
get a I knew somebody who worked at the university
and they would give each other ivs because they were
and they would get to the school was a uc Davis.
(17:03):
Actually many years ago, they'd get to the school the
next day after being hungover and give each other ivs
to get him out of it. It works. Armstrong and
Getty is Ukraine winning? Sure? Looks like they might be.
The Dispatch with an article out today. Ukraine has the momentum.
The US can help finish the job. Jonah Goldberg tweeted
(17:26):
out that story and wrote, there's still time for history
to remember the United States is the indispensable ally in
Ukraine's underdog victory over a brutal, lawless, outrageous invasion. So
let's do that. I as you know, if you've been
listening now for Jesus at four years the war has
been going on, know that I agree with that. I
(17:46):
think it's worth us being involved. I don't think it's
a territorial dispute we have no business being involved in.
I think it's letting the world know that you can't
just take over other weaker coming trees that are next
to you. I think we'll have long lasting ramifications if
Putin gets away with it. Anyway, it's been going poorly
(18:07):
for Putin. I'm going to get into some details on
that that are just unbelievable, Like, I can't believe they're
true on how bad it is for Russian recruits when
they get to the line every day. But before we
get to that, here's the latest from Greg Palcott of Fox.
Speaker 6 (18:28):
Another hellish night in Ukraine, especially in the capital Kiev,
Russia firing.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Hundreds of missiles and drones.
Speaker 6 (18:35):
Dozens of civilians killed and injured, residential buildings slammed.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Look, this is a nightmare. Let them go to hell again.
Speaker 6 (18:42):
A shortage of US defense systems, especially Patriot interceptors, allowing
dangerous ballistic missiles to get through.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
It is simply absurd that in the modern world production
has still not been scaled up to the level actually
required to protect people from ballistic terror. Yeah, I would
agree with that. Now Putin is launching, He's had two
nights of a big attacks on Kiev because of the
NATO summit that's going on right now. Trump is at
(19:10):
the NATO summit. He's going to have a one on
one meeting with Zolensky tomorrow, and this time Zelensky has
the cards. We all remember that White House Oval Office
meeting when Trump yelled at Zelensky, you don't have the cards.
Zelenski's got some cards now, as Greg Pilecott points out.
Speaker 6 (19:29):
As attacks have been wrapping up on both sides. Ukrainian
long range drone striking again today, hitting Russia's biggest refinery
deep in Siberia some seventeen hundred miles away. Fuel shortage
is not easing up. Ukraine strategically is imposing themselves on
Russia's major source of supply one to sustain its own economy.
Speaker 5 (19:51):
Oil.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Yeah, Ukraine has been hitting oil refineries all around the country,
including all the way out in Siberia. They blow up
an oil refinery. I mean, look at a map sometime.
That is unbelievable. Yeah, Ukraine has some cards this time.
So what Trump's meeting is going to be like tomorrow. Well,
here's a little bit on the diplomacy front.
Speaker 6 (20:13):
There was some diplomacy over the weekend. President Trump speaking
by phone with Russian President Putin and separate late with
Ukrainian President Zelenski. Trump claims they both want the fighting
to end.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
I think we're getting much closer than people realize.
Speaker 6 (20:26):
Not so close by the look of emergency team scrambling
through the key rubble searching for survivors.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yeah, that whole clip has Trump saying I talked to
Vladimir Putin and he wants the war to end. Does
Trump believe that? I just I really do not know.
When he says that about the leadership of Iran, where
he's talking about Putin Russia and he says they want
the war to end, does he believe that or is
he just Is this part of the art of the deal,
(20:52):
where you state the outcome you want to try to
manufacture it happening. I don't know, But man, if he
or is he being full? It looks to me like
he's being fooled by these people that when the leaders
of Iran or Putin says to him, yeah, I want
the word to be over too, he believes them. I
(21:13):
just I can't understand what's going on there. Anyway. Tomorrow
Trump is going to talk to Zelensky one on one,
and then he's already got a phone call scheduled with
Putin right after that. So what he says to either
one of them, I have no idea how much reporting
there will be around that. I don't know either. What
(21:36):
I hope is and I said this earlier in the show.
I'm hoping because Trump likes being on the side of
the winner, the winner, because it makes him feel like
or look like a winner. He thinks to be on
the side of the winner, and that's part of the
reason that he was, you know, being more friendly with
Putin than Zelensky the last several years. Now that it
looks like Ukraine might win, I'm hoping Trump wants to
(21:57):
be on the side of the winner and for instance,
maybe gives them the air defense systems that they need
or the offensive systems that Joe Biden wouldn't give them
either or allow them to use because he was worried
about starting a war. I'm hoping that we get on
the side that is winning now Ukraine and help them
(22:18):
cross the line and finish this thing. To how bad
things are going for Putin, this is one of the
so Ukraine's gotten better, Russia has gotten worse. Both are
happening at the same time. Russia is being devastated in
terms of man manpower and material, whereas Ukraine is especially
(22:40):
on material, gotten better better at better at building rockets
and missiles and drones and all kinds of different stuff,
which is the sort of thing you do when your
very existence is on the line. But there was a
piece in the foreign press over the weekend. Russia is
now incurring eight men kill or seriously wounded for every
(23:02):
one lost by Ukraine. Russia has eight men killed or
wounded badly enough to take off the battlefield to every
one of Ukraine, with average monthly casualties running at more
than thirty thousand a month this year for Russia. God,
we wouldn't stand for that politically in the United States.
(23:22):
For a week based on recent military involvements, thirty thousand
killed or seriously wounded a month for Russia. And it's
been going on like that for a long time. They're
offering sign up bonuses as high as eighty thousand dollars
or one hundred and forty thousand dollars in debt relief
(23:43):
to encourage more people to enlist. So I hope, you
hope you'll find some guy who's not doing well. The
economy's horrible in Russia over the last couple of years.
So you gets some guy that's gone into debt and
out of desperation to help himself or maybe his wife
and kids, he signs up for that one hundred and
forty thousand dollars in debt relief or eighty thousand dollars
(24:07):
cash and goes off to fight the war. Well, they
probably don't know these statistics, which are just horrific. The
average life expectancy of a new Russian recruit from a
rival at the training ground to death in a combat
zone is somewhere between ten days and three weeks. That's
the average. So you sign up and ten days to
(24:33):
three weeks later, you're probably dead once you're on the battlefield.
Listen to this statistic. That's when you get to the
combat zone, You've got on average ten days to three weeks.
Once you're on the battlefield, the average Russian soldier survives
twenty to thirty five minutes. So you sign up for
(24:56):
that eighty thousand dollars cash bonus or one hundred and forty
thousand dollars worth of debt relief. Once you're in the
combat zone, you're gonna be dead in a half an
hour or shorter. How awful is that? Absolutely amazing. I
(25:17):
tweeted this out over the weekend and Ian Bremer was
responding to that story also with the fact that the
world can't or won't stop this monster is just amazing.
Most of the burdens should be borne by Europe. Why
Europe hasn't stopped this monster is amazing. You're against a
nuclear power, one of the biggest nuclear arsenals on planet Earth,
(25:40):
and the guy in charge of it is willing to
grab young men and feed him into a grinder where
they last twenty minutes once they get on the battlefield.
You can't hardly even wrap your head around the fact
that that exists on planet Earth in the year twenty
twenty six. It is the history of Russia, by the way,
(26:04):
They've been doing this sort of thing forever, under dictators
and czars, war after war after war. Their willingness to
throw away the lives of young men is beyond practically
anything the world has ever seen. What a stunning statistic.
So you get called up, you're gonna last between ten
(26:26):
days and three weeks. Once you get to the battlefield
on average, twenty to thirty five minutes, and you're dead.
I mean, it's almost impossible to believe that. How long
can Russia keep that up? How many people in Russia
know that stat Probably not very many. It's got to
be almost nobody. There's no way. I don't care how
(26:47):
much money you're getting, there's no way you would sign
up if you knew the average person was dead in
a week? Is there? What level of desperation would you
have to have? So we'll be paying attention to any
reporting around Trump's phone call with Zelensky tomorrow and Putin
tomorrow and see where we are on that story. But
(27:08):
right now Ukraine has got the momentum and I wish
we'd help them out. Wolfini ish strong, Next, Army strong, heyyetty.
Speaker 7 (27:22):
The main Democratic Party is urging Grand Platner to drop
out of the main center race.
Speaker 6 (27:26):
This after next.
Speaker 7 (27:27):
Girlfriend says back in twenty twenty one, he showed up
her house very drunk and forced himself on her, even
though she says she repeatedly told him to stop.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Yeah, so this Platiner Nazi, he has an actual Nazi tattoo,
who is running for the Senate. Main You know he've
been following this if you listen to us at all
or paying attention to politics. He won the primary. He
is challenging Susan Connell Collins. And the important thing is
with the Senate so close to fifty to fifty, one
seat either way might determine who controls the US Senate.
(28:00):
And that is a very very big deal. Gazillions of
dollars and many many policies could be at stake, because
if the Democrats control the House and the Senate, that's
that's something. This woman came forward over the weekend, very
credible sounding saying Platner raped her. A whole bunch of
(28:20):
people have turned on Platner now in his own party,
saying he's got to get out. I like this tweet
that Timothy Sanders retweeted. Who endorsed Platner despite the fact
that he said bigoted, racist, sexist things online, despite his
Nazi tattoo, despite accusations of domestic assault. Who is he
(28:40):
endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren Roe, Conna. Lots of people,
well almost all of them had come out and said
he's got to that Platner has to get out of
the race, except for Bernie, and now Bernie Senator Bernie
Sanders Graham, Plattner's a longtime backer, joined the core of
Democrats recommending that the main Senate nominee step aside in
(29:05):
the high stakes race, which means Platner is going to
be getting out probably today within forty eight hours. At
this point. At this point, what he's doing is figuring
out the financial stuff. We've seen this over and over again.
Nobody suspends their campaign and then gets back in the race. Ever,
you suspend your campaign to try to figure out how
much debt you have, how much money you got in
(29:27):
the bank, and try to get out of the thing
without financially ruining you. But I want to play this
political had the latest details on the rape accusation from
this woman. Political reporter was on Morning Joe Today. Mika
Brazinski was grilling the political reporter about the details.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Is there evidence between her and him, evidence of a crime,
because he's being he's being accused of rape, So what
is the what put this over the edge? Because yeah,
he says he didn't, and he has people on his
side who say he didn't. She says he did, and
(30:06):
there are people, but there's I'm trying, what's the through
line what ties this together and gives you the evidence
to bring the story to the point of publishable.
Speaker 5 (30:18):
Yeah, you know, we interviewed her, you know, three separate times.
Her stories stayed consistent across those times. You know, we
talked to people who who she had spoken with contemporaneously
about these attacks and all of those stories lined up
and checked out, and ultimately, you know, political stands by
our reporting, and we talked to, you know, people who
(30:41):
cooperated her.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Story, largely Mika Brazinski pushing the political reporter on what
is your proof here harder than you normally hear out
of her, well, certainly than you would ever hear if
it was, for instance, the accusations against Brett have an
awe or whatever. The question is still out there, and
(31:03):
I think this is going to get lost to history probably.
But that big giant Sunday front page article that the
New York Times did a couple of weeks ago where
they ran through a laundry list of women that had
called Graham Platner a bad date. I mean, because the
meat on that story was very, very weak, and they
(31:25):
buried it deep deep in the story. Why did the
New York Times do that? They talked to this very
woman who's now out there accusing him of full on
rape and very credibly accusing him of rape. They talked
to that woman, and they didn't dig into her story.
They didn't contact any of her friends or therapist or
anything like Politico did, like CNN did. This is a
(31:49):
common thing with these kind of stories. If you told
your friends at the time I was raped, those stories
tend to be much more believable and oftentimes turn out
to be true, as opposed to those people who didn't
tell anybody at the time. Not that that's impossible, but
it makes it much more likely that over time, you've
invented this because you're a crazy person, or you've invented
(32:10):
it because you've got a political ax to grind, or whatever.
We know this woman doesn't have a political act to grind.
She is out telling Jake Tapperancie and I want Platiner
policies to win. I don't. One of the reasons I
didn't come forward about the rape earlier is I like
what he's got to say. I'm a Democrat, I agree
with him on all this stuff. But she just finally
(32:31):
couldn't keep her mouth shut about what kind of guy
he was. He'll get out today. Now you're probably wondering
the most obvious question to ask is so, then who
replaces him on the ballot? What's the system for that?
In Maine, they have no system. They get to do
it however they want, absolutely however they want. They have
(32:51):
already announced there in Maine that they're not going to
appoint someone. That's one thing they're not going to do
is just have a commit I think it's just three
or four people just to point somebody. You know, that
would be the whole how Kamala Harris ended up a
nominee where you just pick somebody and go with it.
They don't want to do that. They're going to have
(33:13):
some sort of quickie primary or something along those lines
where the voters get to decide how strong a candidate
they'll be able to come up with. I don't know.
Mark Alprin writes a lot in his newsletter today that
whoever they choose, even if they got somebody in line
that would be a decent candidate, they'll have all kinds
of problems raising money fast enough to run a Senate
(33:36):
race and all that sort of thing. So it definitely
tilts in favor of Susan Collins, the Republican holding on
to her seat. But Platner's done. Who saw that coming?
The guy with the Nazi tattoo? And I mean so
many of the statements. If Joe was here, Joe would
have already pointed out our favorite thing about him is
(33:57):
one of the women he was dating, would talk about
how he would sit there sharpening his axe. That was
one of his favorite things to do, sharpen his axe
and talk about how if anybody ever broke into my house,
I would rape them this shit to punish them. Oh
my god, that's a pretty weird thing to say to
your date. Anyway. Final thoughts with Moot Strong Eddy, you
(34:20):
get the facts.
Speaker 6 (34:21):
They're sharp Instead to move, don't shoot for Getty for
more from Long, Strong and Jetty.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
Final thoughts. Host is me and there's only two of
us to give final thoughts because Katie's on maternity leave
and Joe did not have a baby. He's having an
anniversary vacation and I'll be back in a couple of days.
Michaelangelo pressing all the buttons, flipping all the toggles. What's
your final thought? I guess I gotta stay away from
the small city of fireworks shows. I guess they can
afford really good fireworks.
Speaker 4 (34:57):
When I saw they were literally shooting one fire I
work up in the air at a time, it.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
Was basically like taking a road flare and throwing it
up in the air. It just wasn't that good. I have,
like everyone, my final thought is I like everyone after
vacation has to recalibrate money and calories. You get completely
out of whack on money and calories when you're on vacation.
Everybody does it for some reason, and then you come
(35:23):
back and realize, oh, that's right. I can't eat like
this or buy everything I come across. I can't keep
this up, then shouldn't. I'm happy to be back at work.
I'm happy that I've got a job I like returning
to after vacation. No doubt it's gonna have a lot
of news tomorrow. I'm sure part of it would be
Graham Platner's resigning from the campaign. But the NATO Summit
(35:43):
goes on and there's gonna be some big news around that,
especially with the Russia and Ukraine. We're wrapping up another
grueling four hour workday. Lots of good stuff at Armstrong
and Getty dot com. We'll see tomorrow. God bless America.
I'm strong and getchy mag here tail. But it was hurt.
Oh lord, lower sas ow loud, Wow, same, what do you.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
What you're doing?
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Tar to do? They sah, they're not 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):
Armstrong and Jetty and Key Armstrong and Getty. Three rulings
came down while we were off last week that I'm
interested in from the Supreme Court, and then they high
(00:31):
tail it out of there and they go do whatever
they is they I don't know if they fish or
I don't know what Supreme Court justice is doing their
off time before they come back in October. But three
rulings came down that I'm particularly interested in. The trains ruling,
got a Fourth Amendment case, it's got to do with
your cell phones and stuff like that. And then the
birthright citizenship which Trump was really into. Anyway, we welcome
(00:53):
back to the show, Anastasia Boden, Senior Attorney, Equality and
Opportunity for the Pacific Legal Foundation. How are you today, Anaesthesia?
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Oh, doing great?
Speaker 4 (01:02):
Talking about my favorite thing with one of my favorite people.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Well, I believe it's one of your favorite things. I
don't believe in one of your favorite people. What are
these you most excited about?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
You know, it's funny.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
They were all big, They're so in the news everyone.
They were all supposed to be blockbusters, and everybody tells
you that if they don't get their way, it's going
to be the end of the world, and then the
term is over, and now everybody's forgotten about all three anyway.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
But I mean, we can start with the trans athletes one.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Okay, So first of all, oftentimes the headline of what
happened is incredibly misleading as to what was actually decided.
And I haven't looked into these because I was on vacation,
But so what did they rule around trans athletes? Particularly
the issue, as we all know, is boys competing in girls'
sports in high school.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
This is one of those cases where the headlines are
misleading because this case doesn't address whether states must separate
trans athletes from women's sports. It just says that states
can separate if they want to, and twenty seven states
have chosen to do so. They've said that women's sports
belong to women, and the majority, actually all nine justices,
(02:12):
all nine justices, said that separating transgender athletes does not
violate Title nine of our Siliites.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
I didn't realize that on that.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Issue, it was I know, the only place where there
was some descent was on the equal protection clause. Three
justices thought that maybe if trans athletes have mitigated in quotes,
mitigated their advantage by taking hormone therapy and whatnot, then
they should be able to challenge that ban and say
(02:43):
that they get to compete too with women.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
But the majority held, no, it.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Doesn't matter if you've taken hormone therapy. It's good enough
if the state decides that men and women are different.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
It's amazing that only twenty seven states have banned this.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Yeah, but I think we might find movement on that soon.
I mean, we had even Newsome, you know, saying in
California that he was siding with this issue. So you know,
I think this is becoming more of a mainstream idea.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
God, I would think so. All right, So what did
they finally decide on birthright citizenship? If if I fly
in from China and have a baby here or they
automatically a citizen.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Basically, yes, birthright citizenship is almost universal save for a
few exceptions. That is, enemy occupiers you're not entitled to
birthright citizenship and diplomats basically, but everybody else gets birthright citizenship.
It was a six to three decision where we even
had some of the so called conservative justices join here
(03:41):
and say, hey, the text has written really broadly.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
If you don't like.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
It, we can get a constitutional amendment for that. But
this is the way, this is the status quo, this
is the way it's been for, you know, over one
hundred years, one hundred and fifty years, and we're going
to maintain that broad birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So even though the original intent, and I don't know
if that makes you an originalist if you care about that,
but even though the original intent was to make sure
that slaves were considered citizens, doesn't matter the way it's
written in the Constitution. It could include Chinese birth tourists
or people who snuck across the border for five minutes
or whatever.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
And this was a fight between the majority and the descent.
Justice Thomas in particular, said, hey, look at the way
this was written.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
This was written in the.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Wake of the Civil War to apply specifically to recently
freed slaves and their progeny. But the majority said, maybe,
maybe that was the intent, But the text itself applies
very broadly and establishes a broad principle of birthright citizenship,
and so that's what rules.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
I don't want to drag you into political conversations that
might get you in trouble, but it is interesting that
several of the big cases that Trump really wanted to
go a certain way didn't go his way, despite mainstream
media portraying the Spreme Court is some sort of maga
rubber stamp that answers to Trump. They went against him
(05:05):
on a whole bunch of stuff he cared about.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
That's absolutely right.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
I mean, he won some, but he lost a lot,
and he lost the big ones. He lost the tariff case,
which he had He had run his campaign on tariffs
and birthright citizenship. Those were cornerstones of his election, and
so you know, he lost the really big ones. And
it does a lot of damage to the people who
say that these justices march in lockstep with the president
who nominated them. And in fact, Justice Barrett is getting
(05:31):
dragged through the mud right now for not voting with Trump,
even though she's not the only one.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Chief Justice has deviated from him as well.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
And I think that's really a shame, because when these
justices vote according to what they believe is the right outcome,
that bolsters the Supreme Court, and it's really these attacks
on the justices that are doing the most damaged.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, it hasn't been true throughout both of Trump's terms.
I mean, if you look at it statistically, it has
not been a clear six three the justices that he
appointed always going to them and not even close to that.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Yeah, that's right, they're saying this term. It's more of
a three three three divide. The three liberal justices really
do vote almost entirely in lockstep. And then you're getting
a little bit of divide between Kavanaugh, gorsicch and Thomas
on the one hand, and then the Chief Justice. And
my brain is blinking the Chief Justice A. Gorsic and
(06:28):
ACB on the other.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Do you look at any I like those end of
the year roundups where they go through like how many
cases were decided by this number and that number and
everything like that. I find it really interesting. And Ms Jackson,
who does the most talking and is the newest person,
she was on the wrong side by far the most yes.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
And she she's been writing separately to write really strident
descends sometimes, you know, kind of nasty descents. But she's
been on the losing side most I love those totistics too,
because it's actually shocking how many cases are unanimous or
near unanimous. You only hear about the divisive ones, but
in reality, the court is pretty united.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
If you were on the so you got nine really
smart legal minds there, and if you're on the losing
side by far more than anybody else year after year,
wouldn't you at some point you think question your decision making.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
You You would think you would think, or you would
at least temper down the descents and not, you know,
accuse the majority of being you know, unprincipled or or
what have you at least admit that that maybe have
some humility.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
About no kidding, yeah, no kidding. So on this one
about the geo fencing. So you got this case that
arose from a twenty nineteen bank robbery in Virginia where
the police used a geofence warrant. That is, they drew
a virtual geographical fence around an area where a crime
was committed and then asked Google to turn over the
(08:03):
names of everyone's phone who is inside a certain area.
I find that troubling that that ever happened, but that
fits into this particular case. Chatterree is that how you
say it versus the United States? What did they determine
on this?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
They said that that requires a warrant. Come on, that
is almost a quintessential Fourth Amendment search. That really invades
people's privacy. And it's not good enough to say that,
you know, we contract with cell phone companies, and so
now we give our data over to them and can
have no expectation of privacy in our data. We still
(08:38):
enjoy some expectation of privacy here, and if the court
is going to sweep so broadly, it needs a warrant.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Yeah. I like that one. I heard it portrayed as
the way they ruled didn't help us that much, But
if it had gone the other way, it would have
been horrifying in terms of the government's ability to start
reaching into our phones.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
I mean, think about this third party doctrine, this rule
where if you if you contract with a third party
or in any way give away any data to a
third party, then all of a sudden it becomes free
of Fourth Amendment protections and the government can seize it whenever.
I mean that applies to everything in the Internet age.
Everything we do is somehow watched by somebody, and it
would make it would mean that the government could could
(09:21):
look up everything we do, from text to Google searches
to where we are on our cell phones.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
I mean, it's really disturbing. So that was a win.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
You're right, where we go, we talk to our politics,
our finances, our taxes, our love relationships. I mean, everything
is in our phones.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
But that was a big win, a really good case,
and it's part of you know, that's another interesting one
where you get you get some agreement between both the
liberal justices and the conservative justices.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Thank god for that one. At the end of the season.
Any big surprises to you.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
You know, not really.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
I think for somebody who watches the court closely, we
always knew birthright citizenship was going to be an uphill
battle for the government. We knew three justices right, we're
gonna we're gonna rule against Trump on birthright citizenship. So
so the challengers only needed two more. That's not a
very high bar there, So that one kind of went
how we thought it was going to go. You know,
(10:21):
the tariff's case, that was a close one that could
have gone either way. And again that was another case
where both sides said the sky was going to fall
if if they lost. But guess what Trump lost. You know,
the government has to pay back the money. I think
they're still doing fine. Everybody's fine. The economy seems to
be doing better. I know a lot of small businesses
who are who are really thriving because they no longer
(10:43):
have to pay those really punishing tariffs.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
So it seems like for the better.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
I don't think it was all that surprising, but you know,
we'll see what happens next term. They say that quiet
loud terms are followed by quiet terms and vice versa.
So maybe next year we'll get some really really explosive cases.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Is there anything we expect to come down next year?
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I'm hoping one of my own cases gets great.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Okay, what's your favorite one that you would love to
have make it to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Well, it actually involves a California law of course, where
if you are a medical professional and you teach a
continuing education course, so you know, to get to keep
your license, your medical license, you have to take so
many hours of continuing medical education. Now, if you're a
teacher of one of those courses which are totally private, right,
these are just private individuals, doctor, surgeons, whatever, physical therapists
(11:32):
who teach these cases or these courses. California said, if
you teach that course, no matter what you are talking about,
you have to include a section on implicit bias. That
is the yes, yes, the idea that you know there
are health disparities based on race and they come from
everybody's unconscious bias.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
It's it's totally offensive and divisive.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
And our client, you know, she actually fled from Iran.
She she fled tyranny for freeom of speech and freedom,
and she doesn't believe in implicit bias. She doesn't think
that's the main driver of health disparities. She doesn't want
to be forced to talk about it. Right, it's not,
it's not. It's very shoddy science, by the way, and
she has a first moment right to talk about whatever
(12:14):
she wants to talk about. And by the way, what
she wants to talk about is ocular surgery has nothing
to do with implicit bias.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
You do not need to talk about implicit bias in
those courses.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
So we're challenging that on the first moment, and I
think we ought to get to the Supreme.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Court and win.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
That's awesome. I hope you do, and that we'd love
to talk about it. And Stasia Boden, you are so
good at this. We really appreciate your time.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Unfortunately, we might talk again until next October.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Oh I hope not.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Yeah, well, we'll come up with a reason to uh
to uh to talk to you before then. We'll make
up a reason.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
All right, three agrees to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Maybe you go there, you go, fantastic, Anna, Stasia Boden.
She is with the Pacific Legal Foundation. You just heard
one of the cases she's going to be working on.
What am I supposed to say about the podcast? Hanson?
What do you want me to say?
Speaker 5 (12:59):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (12:59):
She has a podcast that's right in descent. She's a
host of the very popular Indscent podcast. So if you
like her act and how would you not, you should
check that out. We've got more on the way right here.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
State.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Does anybody know what they call mini mouse in Italian?
Mickey Mouse in Italian? Ra other? Do you know what
they call Mickey Mouse in Italian? No, you don't know
that it's Topolino is the name of Mickey Mouse in Italian.
And the reason I bring it up is Fiat has
got a new car that they think is going to
be a big hit in the United States called the
top Allino the Little Mouse. It's only thirteen ninety five
(13:41):
dollars new, which by modern car price standards is very
very cheap. And the idea behind this thing is it's tiny.
As you know, Fiats are pretty small, but this is
small even by Fiat standards. It's all electric, top speed
twenty five miles an hour, with the idea of being
and I could see this being the direction we end
(14:03):
up going, especially with electric cars. Like in some of
your neighborhoods that are near golf courses, driving a golf
cart around has become very popular, and not just like
to get to the golf course to play golf or
not just to get around. And I see it in
my neighborhood even and they and Fiat noticed this and
thinks there's a market out there for an inexpensive but
(14:28):
more than a golf cart. Car doesn't need to go
very fast, doesn't need to be very big, but people
will drive it to the grocery store or you know,
over to their kids' school or whatever. And I definitely
could see this being a thing for electric cars. I
think they think they made a mistake the electric car
world and shooting for highway speeds and long ranges like
(14:54):
it's going to replace your regular car, and that has
not worked. People don't want it. They don't work that
well anyway. The ranges aren't as good as they advertise.
But just to get around town everybody having one car
that's a small electric car or lots of people anyway,
especially in urban areas, I could definitely see this catching on. Anyway,
(15:16):
They're going to start selling this little Fiat kind of
a cool looking little thing soon. I mean, I got
my big giant f two fifty I was just talking
about in a commercial that I took on my dirt
bike trip with my son. But I don't need to
haul that thing to the grocery store and back all
the time just to get me there in vac anyway,
(15:37):
kind of an interesting idea. I mentioned this a little
bit earlier. Uh, in Las Vegas. One of the things
I saw. I'm trying to find the actual picture here
a place in the mall called the Drip, and they
got people in medical gowns there. I don't know if
(15:58):
they're actual people of medicine or they're real phlebotomists or
what they are. But anyway, it's the place is called
the Drip and it was in the mall there on
the strip in Vegas. And the idea is that if
you hit it really hard last night and you're hungover
and you're feeling horrible, you go in there. They hook
you up to an IV they pump you back full
(16:18):
of liquids and electrolytes and all the things that will
make you feel better. And I've known people that have
done this sort of thing. You can get rid of
a hangover instantly. I mean instantly, because that's what a
hangover is. It's all kinds of dehydration and nutrients and
things like that that you caused yourself. And there's a
(16:40):
place in the mall in Vegas. You go in there,
you get plugged in, they get rid of your You
can always drink less also, it's one option. But who
wants to do that? I wonder, I wonder why that
hasn't become more popular. Like all over the place, you
get a I knew somebody who worked at the university
and they would give each other ivs because they were
and they would get to the school was a uc Davis.
(17:03):
Actually many years ago, they'd get to the school the
next day after being hungover and give each other ivs
to get him out of it. It works. Armstrong and
Getty is Ukraine winning? Sure? Looks like they might be.
The Dispatch with an article out today. Ukraine has the momentum.
The US can help finish the job. Jonah Goldberg tweeted
(17:26):
out that story and wrote, there's still time for history
to remember the United States is the indispensable ally in
Ukraine's underdog victory over a brutal, lawless, outrageous invasion. So
let's do that. I as you know, if you've been
listening now for Jesus at four years the war has
been going on, know that I agree with that. I
(17:46):
think it's worth us being involved. I don't think it's
a territorial dispute we have no business being involved in.
I think it's letting the world know that you can't
just take over other weaker coming trees that are next
to you. I think we'll have long lasting ramifications if
Putin gets away with it. Anyway, it's been going poorly
(18:07):
for Putin. I'm going to get into some details on
that that are just unbelievable, Like, I can't believe they're
true on how bad it is for Russian recruits when
they get to the line every day. But before we
get to that, here's the latest from Greg Palcott of Fox.
Speaker 6 (18:28):
Another hellish night in Ukraine, especially in the capital Kiev,
Russia firing.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Hundreds of missiles and drones.
Speaker 6 (18:35):
Dozens of civilians killed and injured, residential buildings slammed.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Look, this is a nightmare. Let them go to hell again.
Speaker 6 (18:42):
A shortage of US defense systems, especially Patriot interceptors, allowing
dangerous ballistic missiles to get through.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
It is simply absurd that in the modern world production
has still not been scaled up to the level actually
required to protect people from ballistic terror. Yeah, I would
agree with that. Now Putin is launching, He's had two
nights of a big attacks on Kiev because of the
NATO summit that's going on right now. Trump is at
(19:10):
the NATO summit. He's going to have a one on
one meeting with Zolensky tomorrow, and this time Zelensky has
the cards. We all remember that White House Oval Office
meeting when Trump yelled at Zelensky, you don't have the cards.
Zelenski's got some cards now, as Greg Pilecott points out.
Speaker 6 (19:29):
As attacks have been wrapping up on both sides. Ukrainian
long range drone striking again today, hitting Russia's biggest refinery
deep in Siberia some seventeen hundred miles away. Fuel shortage
is not easing up. Ukraine strategically is imposing themselves on
Russia's major source of supply one to sustain its own economy.
Speaker 5 (19:51):
Oil.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Yeah, Ukraine has been hitting oil refineries all around the country,
including all the way out in Siberia. They blow up
an oil refinery. I mean, look at a map sometime.
That is unbelievable. Yeah, Ukraine has some cards this time.
So what Trump's meeting is going to be like tomorrow. Well,
here's a little bit on the diplomacy front.
Speaker 6 (20:13):
There was some diplomacy over the weekend. President Trump speaking
by phone with Russian President Putin and separate late with
Ukrainian President Zelenski. Trump claims they both want the fighting
to end.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
I think we're getting much closer than people realize.
Speaker 6 (20:26):
Not so close by the look of emergency team scrambling
through the key rubble searching for survivors.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yeah, that whole clip has Trump saying I talked to
Vladimir Putin and he wants the war to end. Does
Trump believe that? I just I really do not know.
When he says that about the leadership of Iran, where
he's talking about Putin Russia and he says they want
the war to end, does he believe that or is
he just Is this part of the art of the deal,
(20:52):
where you state the outcome you want to try to
manufacture it happening. I don't know, But man, if he
or is he being full? It looks to me like
he's being fooled by these people that when the leaders
of Iran or Putin says to him, yeah, I want
the word to be over too, he believes them. I
(21:13):
just I can't understand what's going on there. Anyway. Tomorrow
Trump is going to talk to Zelensky one on one,
and then he's already got a phone call scheduled with
Putin right after that. So what he says to either
one of them, I have no idea how much reporting
there will be around that. I don't know either. What
(21:36):
I hope is and I said this earlier in the show.
I'm hoping because Trump likes being on the side of
the winner, the winner, because it makes him feel like
or look like a winner. He thinks to be on
the side of the winner, and that's part of the
reason that he was, you know, being more friendly with
Putin than Zelensky the last several years. Now that it
looks like Ukraine might win, I'm hoping Trump wants to
(21:57):
be on the side of the winner and for instance,
maybe gives them the air defense systems that they need
or the offensive systems that Joe Biden wouldn't give them
either or allow them to use because he was worried
about starting a war. I'm hoping that we get on
the side that is winning now Ukraine and help them
(22:18):
cross the line and finish this thing. To how bad
things are going for Putin, this is one of the
so Ukraine's gotten better, Russia has gotten worse. Both are
happening at the same time. Russia is being devastated in
terms of man manpower and material, whereas Ukraine is especially
(22:40):
on material, gotten better better at better at building rockets
and missiles and drones and all kinds of different stuff,
which is the sort of thing you do when your
very existence is on the line. But there was a
piece in the foreign press over the weekend. Russia is
now incurring eight men kill or seriously wounded for every
(23:02):
one lost by Ukraine. Russia has eight men killed or
wounded badly enough to take off the battlefield to every
one of Ukraine, with average monthly casualties running at more
than thirty thousand a month this year for Russia. God,
we wouldn't stand for that politically in the United States.
(23:22):
For a week based on recent military involvements, thirty thousand
killed or seriously wounded a month for Russia. And it's
been going on like that for a long time. They're
offering sign up bonuses as high as eighty thousand dollars
or one hundred and forty thousand dollars in debt relief
(23:43):
to encourage more people to enlist. So I hope, you
hope you'll find some guy who's not doing well. The
economy's horrible in Russia over the last couple of years.
So you gets some guy that's gone into debt and
out of desperation to help himself or maybe his wife
and kids, he signs up for that one hundred and
forty thousand dollars in debt relief or eighty thousand dollars
(24:07):
cash and goes off to fight the war. Well, they
probably don't know these statistics, which are just horrific. The
average life expectancy of a new Russian recruit from a
rival at the training ground to death in a combat
zone is somewhere between ten days and three weeks. That's
the average. So you sign up and ten days to
(24:33):
three weeks later, you're probably dead once you're on the battlefield.
Listen to this statistic. That's when you get to the
combat zone, You've got on average ten days to three weeks.
Once you're on the battlefield, the average Russian soldier survives
twenty to thirty five minutes. So you sign up for
(24:56):
that eighty thousand dollars cash bonus or one hundred and forty
thousand dollars worth of debt relief. Once you're in the
combat zone, you're gonna be dead in a half an
hour or shorter. How awful is that? Absolutely amazing. I
(25:17):
tweeted this out over the weekend and Ian Bremer was
responding to that story also with the fact that the
world can't or won't stop this monster is just amazing.
Most of the burdens should be borne by Europe. Why
Europe hasn't stopped this monster is amazing. You're against a
nuclear power, one of the biggest nuclear arsenals on planet Earth,
(25:40):
and the guy in charge of it is willing to
grab young men and feed him into a grinder where
they last twenty minutes once they get on the battlefield.
You can't hardly even wrap your head around the fact
that that exists on planet Earth in the year twenty
twenty six. It is the history of Russia, by the way,
(26:04):
They've been doing this sort of thing forever, under dictators
and czars, war after war after war. Their willingness to
throw away the lives of young men is beyond practically
anything the world has ever seen. What a stunning statistic.
So you get called up, you're gonna last between ten
(26:26):
days and three weeks. Once you get to the battlefield
on average, twenty to thirty five minutes, and you're dead.
I mean, it's almost impossible to believe that. How long
can Russia keep that up? How many people in Russia
know that stat Probably not very many. It's got to
be almost nobody. There's no way. I don't care how
(26:47):
much money you're getting, there's no way you would sign
up if you knew the average person was dead in
a week? Is there? What level of desperation would you
have to have? So we'll be paying attention to any
reporting around Trump's phone call with Zelensky tomorrow and Putin
tomorrow and see where we are on that story. But
(27:08):
right now Ukraine has got the momentum and I wish
we'd help them out. Wolfini ish strong, Next, Army strong, heyyetty.
Speaker 7 (27:22):
The main Democratic Party is urging Grand Platner to drop
out of the main center race.
Speaker 6 (27:26):
This after next.
Speaker 7 (27:27):
Girlfriend says back in twenty twenty one, he showed up
her house very drunk and forced himself on her, even
though she says she repeatedly told him to stop.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Yeah, so this Platiner Nazi, he has an actual Nazi tattoo,
who is running for the Senate. Main You know he've
been following this if you listen to us at all
or paying attention to politics. He won the primary. He
is challenging Susan Connell Collins. And the important thing is
with the Senate so close to fifty to fifty, one
seat either way might determine who controls the US Senate.
(28:00):
And that is a very very big deal. Gazillions of
dollars and many many policies could be at stake, because
if the Democrats control the House and the Senate, that's
that's something. This woman came forward over the weekend, very
credible sounding saying Platner raped her. A whole bunch of
(28:20):
people have turned on Platner now in his own party,
saying he's got to get out. I like this tweet
that Timothy Sanders retweeted. Who endorsed Platner despite the fact
that he said bigoted, racist, sexist things online, despite his
Nazi tattoo, despite accusations of domestic assault. Who is he
(28:40):
endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren Roe, Conna. Lots of people,
well almost all of them had come out and said
he's got to that Platner has to get out of
the race, except for Bernie, and now Bernie Senator Bernie
Sanders Graham, Plattner's a longtime backer, joined the core of
Democrats recommending that the main Senate nominee step aside in
(29:05):
the high stakes race, which means Platner is going to
be getting out probably today within forty eight hours. At
this point. At this point, what he's doing is figuring
out the financial stuff. We've seen this over and over again.
Nobody suspends their campaign and then gets back in the race. Ever,
you suspend your campaign to try to figure out how
much debt you have, how much money you got in
(29:27):
the bank, and try to get out of the thing
without financially ruining you. But I want to play this
political had the latest details on the rape accusation from
this woman. Political reporter was on Morning Joe Today. Mika
Brazinski was grilling the political reporter about the details.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Is there evidence between her and him, evidence of a crime,
because he's being he's being accused of rape, So what
is the what put this over the edge? Because yeah,
he says he didn't, and he has people on his
side who say he didn't. She says he did, and
(30:06):
there are people, but there's I'm trying, what's the through
line what ties this together and gives you the evidence
to bring the story to the point of publishable.
Speaker 5 (30:18):
Yeah, you know, we interviewed her, you know, three separate times.
Her stories stayed consistent across those times. You know, we
talked to people who who she had spoken with contemporaneously
about these attacks and all of those stories lined up
and checked out, and ultimately, you know, political stands by
our reporting, and we talked to, you know, people who
(30:41):
cooperated her.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Story, largely Mika Brazinski pushing the political reporter on what
is your proof here harder than you normally hear out
of her, well, certainly than you would ever hear if
it was, for instance, the accusations against Brett have an
awe or whatever. The question is still out there, and
(31:03):
I think this is going to get lost to history probably.
But that big giant Sunday front page article that the
New York Times did a couple of weeks ago where
they ran through a laundry list of women that had
called Graham Platner a bad date. I mean, because the
meat on that story was very, very weak, and they
(31:25):
buried it deep deep in the story. Why did the
New York Times do that? They talked to this very
woman who's now out there accusing him of full on
rape and very credibly accusing him of rape. They talked
to that woman, and they didn't dig into her story.
They didn't contact any of her friends or therapist or
anything like Politico did, like CNN did. This is a
(31:49):
common thing with these kind of stories. If you told
your friends at the time I was raped, those stories
tend to be much more believable and oftentimes turn out
to be true, as opposed to those people who didn't
tell anybody at the time. Not that that's impossible, but
it makes it much more likely that over time, you've
invented this because you're a crazy person, or you've invented
(32:10):
it because you've got a political ax to grind, or whatever.
We know this woman doesn't have a political act to grind.
She is out telling Jake Tapperancie and I want Platiner
policies to win. I don't. One of the reasons I
didn't come forward about the rape earlier is I like
what he's got to say. I'm a Democrat, I agree
with him on all this stuff. But she just finally
(32:31):
couldn't keep her mouth shut about what kind of guy
he was. He'll get out today. Now you're probably wondering
the most obvious question to ask is so, then who
replaces him on the ballot? What's the system for that?
In Maine, they have no system. They get to do
it however they want, absolutely however they want. They have
(32:51):
already announced there in Maine that they're not going to
appoint someone. That's one thing they're not going to do
is just have a commit I think it's just three
or four people just to point somebody. You know, that
would be the whole how Kamala Harris ended up a
nominee where you just pick somebody and go with it.
They don't want to do that. They're going to have
(33:13):
some sort of quickie primary or something along those lines
where the voters get to decide how strong a candidate
they'll be able to come up with. I don't know.
Mark Alprin writes a lot in his newsletter today that
whoever they choose, even if they got somebody in line
that would be a decent candidate, they'll have all kinds
of problems raising money fast enough to run a Senate
(33:36):
race and all that sort of thing. So it definitely
tilts in favor of Susan Collins, the Republican holding on
to her seat. But Platner's done. Who saw that coming?
The guy with the Nazi tattoo? And I mean so
many of the statements. If Joe was here, Joe would
have already pointed out our favorite thing about him is
(33:57):
one of the women he was dating, would talk about
how he would sit there sharpening his axe. That was
one of his favorite things to do, sharpen his axe
and talk about how if anybody ever broke into my house,
I would rape them this shit to punish them. Oh
my god, that's a pretty weird thing to say to
your date. Anyway. Final thoughts with Moot Strong Eddy, you
(34:20):
get the facts.
Speaker 6 (34:21):
They're sharp Instead to move, don't shoot for Getty for
more from Long, Strong and Jetty.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
Final thoughts. Host is me and there's only two of
us to give final thoughts because Katie's on maternity leave
and Joe did not have a baby. He's having an
anniversary vacation and I'll be back in a couple of days.
Michaelangelo pressing all the buttons, flipping all the toggles. What's
your final thought? I guess I gotta stay away from
the small city of fireworks shows. I guess they can
afford really good fireworks.
Speaker 4 (34:57):
When I saw they were literally shooting one fire I
work up in the air at a time, it.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
Was basically like taking a road flare and throwing it
up in the air. It just wasn't that good. I have,
like everyone, my final thought is I like everyone after
vacation has to recalibrate money and calories. You get completely
out of whack on money and calories when you're on vacation.
Everybody does it for some reason, and then you come
(35:23):
back and realize, oh, that's right. I can't eat like
this or buy everything I come across. I can't keep
this up, then shouldn't. I'm happy to be back at work.
I'm happy that I've got a job I like returning
to after vacation. No doubt it's gonna have a lot
of news tomorrow. I'm sure part of it would be
Graham Platner's resigning from the campaign. But the NATO Summit
(35:43):
goes on and there's gonna be some big news around that,
especially with the Russia and Ukraine. We're wrapping up another
grueling four hour workday. Lots of good stuff at Armstrong
and Getty dot com. We'll see tomorrow. God bless America.
I'm strong and getchy mag here tail. But it was hurt.
Oh lord, lower sas ow loud, Wow, same, what do you.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
What you're doing?
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Tar to do? They sah, they're not Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com