September 17, 2025 • 37 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Judge Larry Goodman talks to Jack Armstrong!
- Tesla technology fails & Waymo
- Lanhee Chen talks to Jack Armstrong!
- Jack's love emails
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arms Strong and Getty, and now he Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The Utah County Attorney says, Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin used
his grandfather's rifle to kill Kirk and afterwards praised that gun.
Just one of the deeply disturbing details authorities revealed this afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
A short while ago, the twenty two.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Year old suspect appeared remotely from the Utah County jail
for his first court appearance since the assassination of Kirk.
Robinson wore a suicide prevention smock and did not show
any emotion as the charges were read. He did clearly
speak his name. The Utah County Attorney says, the alleged
assassin confessed to his family and his lover. Seven charges
against Robinson were announced, including aggravated murder. Prosecutors say aggravated
(01:03):
murder because Kirk was murdered for his political beliefs, and
because the assassination happened in front of children.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Is there more to that sentence that's sounded like that
was the beginning of a sentence anyway. I know they're
going for the they're likely to go for the death
penalty in this case. And then utah, they shoot you.
So I got no problem with that. Shoot this scumbag
after a trial then silently. It's gonna be too complicated. Well,
actually we could ask a judge about that. Larry Goodman
(01:32):
joins us. This is Katie's dad, who was a judge
for the Superior Court of Alameda County. For those of
you across the country who don't know, that's where Oakland is,
Alameda County for a.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Very long time. How long were you a judge? Judge, Larry, I.
Speaker 4 (01:44):
Was a judge a little over thirty three years.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Thirty three years. Wow.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
So you got a bachelor's degree at Stanford. What did
you get your bachelor's degree.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
In political science?
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Okay? And did were you planning to become a judge?
Speaker 4 (01:59):
No? I with a political science degree, there's not a
lot you can do except teach political science or go
to law school. Who went to laws and.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Then you went to law school. Do you have to
go to law school to become a judge? Yes, you do.
You have to be a lawyer to be a judge.
That makes sense, yes, okay, So I just want to
get that out of the way.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
So any thoughts.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
First of all, just as you've been following this as
a you know, as a citizen of the country who
just happens to have a hell of a lot of
background knowledge on the way courts procedures go and whether
or not people are found guilty or not.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Is he looking pretty dead to right?
Speaker 4 (02:37):
I would say so. I mean it sounds like from
the news reports and what little bit I've read that
he's pretty much confessed and they can use all those
text messages as statements against his own interests with his
roommate that he said that he did it. So yeah,
I think it's it's going to be more like a
slow plea what we used to call when the evidence
(02:57):
is so overwhelming of guilt that the person insists upon
having a trial. We used to call it a slow flea.
You're going to be found guilty, we all know it,
but we have to go through the process.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
What will the defense attorneys even try?
Speaker 4 (03:11):
Do you suppose, you know, in a case like this,
it's gonna if they the jury, they probably won't do
a lot because it will be the same jury that
tries the case that will decide the penalty, and so
they probably don't want to irritate the jury too much.
So I think though they won't be trying any tail
(03:32):
Mary type passes. They might write raise issues about his
mental health, is competency type of thing. But when you're
talking about the same jury deciding that your client state
is the client decides your client's guilt or innocence, you
don't want to mad at you what the time you
start the penalty drops.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Okay, So there's a chance that the lawyers are thinking,
the best thing we could do for this guy is
keep him from getting the death penalty exactly exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
And if he's found guilty, he's ever getting out right.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
Well, I can't imagine. I mean, crazy things happen. I mean,
even in during the trial itself. You may have a
Every time you put a case in front of a jury,
there's always the danger of having a lawless juror or
a juror that has their own agenda that throws everything
off track. But I would say that he's going to
be found guilty, and if he is, he'll either get
(04:26):
the death penalty, your life without.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Parole, okay, before we'll get back to him, and I
got some questions about that, But have you been a
judge in cases with a scumbag that you like, you
fully believe they're guilty, but they ended up walking absolutely.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
One of my big death penalty cases where the charge
was he killed both his sisters and tried to kill
his parents, and it was my OJ Simpson trial. It
lasted four months and the jury found him not guilty
of two counts of murder and two count attempted murder,
(05:01):
and then about two hours later they met him across
the street from.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Margarine Wow and when the foreman read out, we find
you know so and so not guilty.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Were you just like.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
What well I was? And I used to get the
verdicts before they were read, and I wanted to make
it filled out properly. And the jury came back after
a four month trial, they came back with a verdict
in less than two and a half hours. And the
defense was so sure that there was going to be
a guilty verdict that they soon as we found out
(05:35):
there was a verdict, they asked if I would put
their client on suicide watch before we started the penalty trial.
And that wasn't necessary because the jury found them not guilty.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
So where does that leave you after years of doing this?
A couple of different things. One, where do you rank
our justice system and compared to others in other countries
or throughout history? Are we doing it better than anybody
ever has? That's always been my belief, But maybe I'm
maybe I'm wrong about that.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
And where are you on the whole?
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Better to have one hundred men go free than an
innocent man found guilty?
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Well, I think we do have probably the best system.
The problem with our system now has become subject to
a lot of politics. Jurors come sometimes come in with
their own agendas. I've seen judges that get appointed to
the bench that have their own agendas and do things
that probably they shouldn't do if they were uploading their
(06:35):
roaths and not being partially in part and trying to
be impartial. And I think it's better to have a
guilty person go free than have an innocent person be
executed or spend thirty years in prison. The consequences are
It's shocking when you know somebody is guilty like I
(06:56):
did in this case and they walked out, But you
have to do I had to actually make a call.
In that case, it probably led to him being found
not guilty because it was a crucial piece of evidence
that the police messed up, and I spent three days
trying to find out a way to let it in
so the jury could hear it, and there just was
no legal way to do that. So I had to
(07:18):
make the ruling in favor of the defense, and I
think that played a big part. I still live with
that one.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Well, A big picture though, the way we're supposed to
look at it is that forces cops to just be better, right.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
Yeah, I mean, it wasn't just the cops fault. It
was just the circumstances of a key witness that was
going to testify. Matter of fact, it was one of
the victims who eventually died. But she targeted her brother
and said he did it, and I saw his face
and the shotgun blast, And this was after she'd been
in the hospital for two months, and the day before
(07:54):
she was supposed to testify, she threw an air embolism
and died. And the state miss that you made were
not admissible because they weren't excited utterances or a statements
made in anticipation of death. So it was hearsay and
what isn't admitted.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
So back to Utah scumbag, there's going to be a
tremendous amount of attention paid to this trial, obviously every
aspect of it. This story is now what going on
a week old and still leads everywhere all the time,
So it's had, you know, it's really gotten a lot
of people's attention. I don't know if Utah has any
(08:31):
specific rules around cameras in the courtroom or if it's
a case by case circumstance, but are you what's your
opinion of cameras in the courtroom. It seemed while I'm
as interested in anybody as watching these sorts of things,
and obviously transparency is a good thing for a justice system,
I just feel like it distorts things so much.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
I'm mostly against it.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Well, I tried a lot of high publicity cases, excuse me,
and I never let cameras in the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
That would have been your decision.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
Yeah, when the cameras are in ye, generally it's up
to the judge to make the decision. And when cameras
are in the courtroom, just try as hard as they may.
Lawyers play to the cameras. They they get a little
more outrageous, they get a little more flamboyant, a little
more aggressive. Sometimes, Uh makes the jury feel uncomfortable because
(09:22):
they don't want to have a camera person slip up
and show their face. It changes the whole dynamics of
the court room. So I never let them in.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
That's really interesting. Uh, you had friends. I assume judges
that did the would would allow cameras in though. What
was their argument? Transparency?
Speaker 4 (09:41):
Yeah, transparency, I mean, and sometimes the judges will play
to the camera.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Ah, right, you become you can become famous.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Think of Lantido. Yeah, so if there's a camera there
and and you're feeling all judicial and everything, then you
act a little differently if the camera pans on the bench.
So there's just not a good I get the transparency thing,
but there's really not a good upside to having that
kind of transparency. If people want to see the trialy
come down and sit in the audience.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Anything before we let you go, Anything surprised you over
the last several days since they got him, arrested him,
you know, he showed up in the courtroom first time.
Anything we should be on the watch out for.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
No, it's interesting, Utah has a very strict death penalty.
I was doing a little research on it, and the
aggravation factor is that he exposed others to the risk
of death or injury when he killed Charlie Kirk, and
that's what they're going to hang the whole aggravating circumstance
on him to try to get the death penalty. In California,
(10:43):
there was a lot wider area of aggravation circumstances that
you can use, but this is they have to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he put other people's lives
at risk and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
aggravating circumstances outweighed gating and that the death penalty is
justified and appropriate. And that's a pretty good standard. So
(11:05):
it'd be interesting to see if it plays out.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Yeah, I got another question before we let you go.
All these years of watching people come before you, the
ones that are guilty, how often are the idiots and
how often are they and how often are they too
smart for their own good? I think that's what this
kid's deal is. He's too smart for his own good.
He thinks he, you know, can fix the world and
(11:29):
get away with it and all that.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
Oh, I had my share of of well, i'd say
most of.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Them idiots, most of our idiots, most.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Of the idiots. But I had I had a couple
of high publicity cases where the guy who was just
thought he was smarter than everybody else in the courtroom, right,
and it turned out.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
But yeah, yeah, that's that's gotta be something when you
when you're looking at an idiot who committed a crime.
You know, let's not talk about really hurting somebody, because
there's no excusing that. Regardless of your your intelligence, you know,
you try to pull off a robin, a bank or whatever.
You must look at some of these people and think, God,
dang it, you had no shot in life. You're a moron.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
Well yeah, I mean most of them are like that,
particularly in Oakland. I mean that's that's just kind of
a way of life. I would I would have a
third category, and some of them are just pure evil.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Ah, that's a good one artist guy.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
In the room. You can have the idiot and you've
got the ones that are just pure evil.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Yeah, And that that might be what this this shooter
in Utah is also, he might just be evil.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
We talked about it before the shark eyes, you know.
And if you look at his booking photo, he's got
those shark eyes again.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Yeah, that is something you've talked to us about before. Hey, Judge,
Larry Larry Goodman, thanks for coming on the air today.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
Sure, Jack, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
Yeah, if you if you didn't hear us talking about
that before. There are some people you look at, the
judge said, and cops will tell you this too. You
did you look at them or they look at you,
and you can just see there's there's no soul in
there for whatever reason, you know, whatever's gone wrong. You
can make your life a lot easier if you've got
a trust and or will. You know, something unexpected happens
(13:11):
and then your family's fighting over the money and all
this sort of stuff, and even if they don't end
up fighting for it, often the state gets involved and
makes all kinds of decisions you would really hate and
costs lots of money. You can avoid that with trust
and will create and manage a customer state plan starting
at one hundred and ninety nine dollars. Trust based plans
start at four hundred and ninety nine dollars, but starting
at just one hundred and ninety nine dollars and you
can manage your trust or will online with their easy
(13:33):
to use website that's set up state specific for various
laws and all that have all your important documents in
one place. How great would that be? With bank level encryption.
They've got all kinds of customer support, customers support their chat,
phone and email start to finish to help you with that.
So secure your assets and protect your loved ones with
trust and will get twenty percent off on your estate
(13:53):
planned documents by visiting Trust and Will dot com slash Armstrong.
That's Trustinwill dot com slash Armstrong. Death penalty for this
idiot almost certainly, I think. And he's gonna be found
guilty and he's gonna get shot because in Utah, unlike California,
the death penalty means you actually die. Is he going
(14:15):
to be quite the drama to fall follow over the
next months and years A lot more on the waist
to hear Armstrong Andngetti.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
At one hundred and thirty thousand railroad crossings nationwide, a
constant fear for train operators that a car or truck
won't stop in time. In Texas, Itala for goalie was
sure his Tesla Wise full self driving mode would stopped
his car before the crossing arms, but he says it didn't.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
It just seemed like I didn't see it at all.
Speaker 5 (14:44):
And other Tesla drivers have similar complaints, drivers reporting Tesla's
full self driving software failed to recognize rail crossing. Since
twenty twenty three, Tesla It's Self warns drivers not to
rely on the auto driving software.
Speaker 6 (14:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
I don't know what to make of this yet.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
I have a Tesla with the latest self driving software
in it and cameras and sensors and all the stuff
that and everything like that, and it's way way better
than it was a couple of years ago. It's pretty
dang good. In fact, I the other day, we boys
and I were coming home from a restaurant. I said,
let's see how it does, and I just pressed home
and had it drive me all the way to the driveway. Perfect,
absolutely perfect, as good as I would drive her better
(15:24):
the whole way. But everyone's while it does screw up.
I don't know if we'll ever have completely self driving
cars all over the country. Now you have waymos in cities,
but they do a different thing where they map a
small area I mean they've got the every tiny bit
of San Francisco, for instance, mapped, and that's in the
(15:47):
cars computer. So you would have the railroad crossing in there,
you know, a Testlas coming along, and it would just would.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Have to sense this. It doesn't know it's there.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
WEYMO knows where every crosswalk, railroad crossing, everything is in
the whole unless they come up with enough technology or
or or map the whole country every road and stop.
Speaker 7 (16:08):
I wonder why Tesla can't do that, I mean why
does I mean, it's it's simple as enough software update.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Why can't they do something?
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Because because WEIMO for years sent cars around San Francisco,
for instance, with cameras mapping every curb, crosswater, I mean
just every tiny detail, and it's so it's not sensing
these things. It's in the computer already. It would take
a lot to map the whole country because you know,
when somebody buys a car where they're going.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
To be driving. Well, let's go elon space man. But
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Elon the other day said that he thinks Tesla is
going to be completely self driving in twenty six you
won't have to pay attention at all. I don't think
that's gonna happen, And I just don't. I just don't
think we're there yet. Oh there's an interesting study out today,
though I'll have to get into it later because it's
it's kind of in the weeds. But so there's a
gap in life expectancy between the United States and other
(16:58):
countries were a little behind. Most of it could be
made up if we all started writing in waymos. I mean,
if you had the safety record of a waymo oh
because of the car crash car crashes, you eliminate the
thirty some thousand deaths from automobile accidents every year, and
our our life expectancy gets right with everybody Else's.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Interesting, I know. So I don't know.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
I'm just afraid we're going to be forced into them.
And I don't want to be forced into automated cars.
Speaker 7 (17:28):
But I'm yet to write in a Waymo. I want to, though,
you gotta it seems cool. I just I saw that video.
It was during I can't remember what name the riot,
you know, but A Waymo got stuck in one of
those and like got the cut the car surrounded and yeah,
you know, so that that scares me a little bit.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
But yeah, well if you're not so, I'm used to
a self driving car, so it's not weird. But if
you've never done it before, getting in the back seat
of a Weymo with no driver and having it drive
off would.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Feel pretty weird. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah, I mean you're sitting in the back seat and
you're looking at the steering wheel and it's turning and
it's doing its thing. I guess they're eliminating the steerwheel everything.
They're just gonna have benches in the front and back
away mods and so it's just like a little train
car practically, or something that just shows up and you
get in Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
But do let Getty get a great stand?
Speaker 2 (18:15):
I guess who knows?
Speaker 4 (18:16):
You didn't ever know what du let?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
But who tells you?
Speaker 8 (18:19):
Job ra the rake?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Chippy mc clara much mcslaa.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
That's Donald Trump referring to Federal Reserve Chairman Powell.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Is too late.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Hope your lower's rates. Well, that's what's expected to happen today,
and uh, we'll have more on that coming up. A
little bit later. Trump headed over to England, where I'm
watching live on TV right now. You got people in
funny outfits marching around playing bagpipes. Trump and his model
wife and a fancy hat. Sit there and watch. We'd
(18:53):
like to welcome to the arm Showing and Getty Show.
Lna heat Chen to talk a little bit of politics.
Lni is the David and Die and Stephie Fellow in
American Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution, the Director of
Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University, and a super smart
guy about politics.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
How are you, Lonnie?
Speaker 8 (19:09):
I am doing well.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
Thanks check.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
How how are you feeling in terms of optimism or
pessimism for the country after the last week?
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Oh boy, well, I'm look.
Speaker 8 (19:21):
I think there are always reasons to be optimistic about America,
but we're in a really challenging political moment right now,
and we're in a.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Very challenging time.
Speaker 8 (19:30):
I think as we look at how people are reacting
and responding to politics, and obviously the tragic assassination of
Charlie Kirk, which I know, you know folks have talked
about a lot. But what I continue to reflect is
the way in which this kind of violence impacts people
who you know, aren't even elected officials, you know, just
(19:51):
people who are speaking up and expressing their points of view.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
I noticed myself when I've been pulling into the parking lots,
like is that always there?
Speaker 6 (20:00):
I mean, yeah, And you know, people shouldn't have to
feel and think that way in a place like America,
where I think we've always valued our ability to disagree
civilly but vociferously, right, And.
Speaker 8 (20:16):
I don't know, so I'm jack. I'm a little concerned
about where we are. But obviously, you know, there are
a lot of bright spots. I mean, if you look
at just I think a lot of people have been
truly compassionate in the wake of what happened. I think
you've seen a lot of people who have decided that
they want to be more involved in our political system
(20:39):
and not less. And I think that's all good. But
you know, I do worry a little bit about how
various things are making us more and more divided, you know,
whether it's social media or you know, the other thing
I look at. I mean not to tie a current
event to all of this, but if you look at
redistricting and all the battles over redistricting that are happened,
what redistricting the way that politicians want to change the
(21:02):
system here in California, and elsewhere by the way, Texas
and other places too, is to draw lines so that
we are living next to more people and voting next
to more people who we agree with rather than who
we disagree with. And I think what that does is
it creates a tendency for us to only be in
an echo or we're hearing things we agree with, never
(21:22):
getting actually.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
Had bers and people.
Speaker 8 (21:26):
I have a civil distate about predisagree about.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Hey, Lani, unfortunately we're having a problem with our connection.
Can we drop here real quick and then let you
guys do something see if you can get that fix.
Maybe hang up on him and call him back in
or whatever, because I have a couple of questions. Lani
is actually one of the smartest people about politics we've
ever talked to, certainly about California politics.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
And we want to talk about the.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
Redistricting measure that Gavin Newsom was trying to get going
in November, which is almost certainly to fail. I was
going to make from an optimistic standpoint. I mean, I
thought that all of those all of those football stadiums
that had a moment of silence, I mean that was
surprised me. I didn't think that that would happen about
(22:15):
a divisive political figure getting gunned down. I mean, so
there was a lot of that that made me somewhat hopeful.
But then, as Joe pointed out a little bit earlier
in the show, yeah, there's a lot of videos going
around of people at gatherings cheering the death of Charlie Kirk.
So that's the disheartening part. Anyway, we got Loni Chen
(22:36):
back the point you were making.
Speaker 8 (22:38):
Lonnie, Oh yeah, sorry about that. I mean, sometimes technology
fails us. What I was saying was that, you know,
when you look at the redistricting and measurers that are
out there, whether it's California particular or Texas, what they
do is that they draw these district lines to put
more people who think alike together, as opposed to putting
(22:58):
us in conversation and to people with whom, you know,
maybe we have some political disagreements. I actually think it's
good for us to have opportunities to interact with people
with whom we disagree, and I think we need more
of that in our society, not less so.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Texas decides to redistrict in the in the middle of
the decade, and it's their state allows them to do
that legally, it's not unheard of, it's not common. The
media studiously avoided mentioning to viewers who don't already know
that lots and lots of states have jerrymandered throughout our
(23:33):
country's history. And a lot of blue states are already
jerrymandered to death, including Illinois where they all ran to anyway,
So that's an old story. So now California is going
to try to do it, or at least put it
on the ballot for November fourth and change the rules
here in California so that we could redistrict. Also, the
polling shows that it's going to go down in flames.
Are you staying you think that's true?
Speaker 8 (23:55):
Well, I'm I think it's going to be close.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Actually, oh really, okay, you know more about it than idea.
Speaker 8 (23:59):
Well, well, because I think the challenge is that anytime,
what you've seen with what Newsome and his allies have
done on this initiative is they have painted it as
not the issues that you've framed it as, which are
the right issues. They framed it as do you like
Donald Trump or not? And this will be the gosh,
(24:20):
let's think about this. Now, there's probably the fourth or
fifth election cycle in a row where they're going to
run this playbook, and today they've been pretty successful with
this point, and so I think that the worry for
those of us who oppose this proposition and who don't
believe it's the right course for California. I think the
concern is that voters are not going to be choosing
(24:42):
whether they like.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Of course, you're right, You are so right.
Speaker 8 (24:47):
It's going to be about do you like Trump or not?
Speaker 6 (24:49):
Ye?
Speaker 8 (24:49):
Right, And I think in California, you know, and some
of your listeners might not lie hearing this, but the
reality is that Donald Trump is not the most popular
guy in California, and so I think that the dynamic
they're setting up here with Prop fifty is a dynamic
that could end up moving in their favor. Now, there's
(25:09):
a lot more information that's got to be distributed over
the next couple of weeks, and we've got a little
over a month until election day, So I have some
measure of hope that people will see through what this is.
But I don't know, Jack, I think it's gonna be
pretty close.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
You're absolutely right. I can't believe.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Silly me, I thought it would be about the issue itself,
but people wore masks or didn't wear masks because it
demonstrated are you for Trump or not not? Because of
the disease. I mean, there's all kinds of examples of that.
You're four against climate change because everything you can mention
is Trump for it or not. So yeah, of course
this is going to be that.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:46):
And I mean it's interesting.
Speaker 8 (25:48):
Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was actually the governor who originally led
California's effort to turn our redistricting away from the politicians
into independent citizens, he actually spoke up, you know, sort
of really significantly about this the other day for the
first time, and you know, even you know, he's no
great supporter of Donald Trump, but he said, listen, the
(26:11):
effort that Gavin Newsom and his allies are undertaking with
this proposition, that effort is really an effort to give
the power to redistrict back to politicians and away from
kind of an independent, more independent process, which we've had
in California since two thousand and eight and twenty ten
for congressional seats, we've had this process in place. And
(26:33):
by the way, the process we've had has drawn complaints
from both Republicans and Democrats, which is how you know
it's working. Okay, probably right, And so it was interesting
to see Schwarzenegger get involved. I think a few other
people may get involved who are not your usual suspects
on this sort of thing. So I hope that voters
are able to at least understand what the basic question is,
(26:55):
which is do we believe that district lines in California
should be drawn by politicians or by citizens? And that's
the fundamental questions.
Speaker 1 (27:05):
So I see a lot of national pundits who aren't
from California that are really high and I mean people
that lean right, who are really high on Gavin Newsom's
chances of becoming president. I feel like being closer to him,
I'm not as high. Where are you on that?
Speaker 8 (27:21):
Well, Look, I think there's two things here, Jack. First
of all, there's just an absence of strong leadership on
the Democratic side of the aisle. I'd say, people who
are who are perceived to be out there, and you know,
whether whatever you think of what Nisson's doing, he's out there.
So I think that's the first thing is just you know,
politics have whoors a vacuum, and Newsom has stepped into
(27:44):
that in a very real way. I think the other
reason that people sort of see him positively in particularly
given what he's been doing with this redistricting proposition, is
you got to think about the composition of the Democratic
primary electorate and it's going to on average be more
act to this, more left of center, and Newsom's politics
are a good match for that. So I think that's
(28:05):
probably why people feel well.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
At national level.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
I agree what you're doing. I could see him getting
the nomination. That wouldn't surprise me. How can you run
for president with I just feel like the homeless situation,
the people, the fact that people are leaving your state
for the first time ever, a lot of those things.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
How do you overcome that?
Speaker 4 (28:25):
Well?
Speaker 8 (28:25):
I think that's what a campaign is for, right. I
think people need to be reminded. It's very easy. We
have in politics recency bias, and so we look at,
you know, what has someone done in the last sixteen
days or last nine minutes, right, and we and we
forget about the French laundry, We forget about all, you know,
his record, We forget about his record in San Francisco,
(28:47):
We forget about his extremely progressive pass which I think
is out of step with the vast majority of the
American people. So that's what a campaign is for. A
campaign is there to remind people of someone's record and
who they are. And by the way, people can say
we know that, we're comfortable with it. I don't know
that that's where they'll come out on someone like Gavin Newson.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
But let's see. Let's see.
Speaker 8 (29:10):
I mean, like you, Jack, I think being being in
or near California and seeing him in action up close
for the last eight years, I think we have a
point of view that might be very different from a
point of view if if it hasn't been in your
face for the last eight years.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Just curious, since you're a smart guy and you know
policy got all the thing. You spent a moment of
your life thinking about the Epstein Files.
Speaker 8 (29:35):
No, no, I don't. And I find it interesting how
much carry the story has in the sense that I mean,
it just keeps coming back. It's like, you know, it's
like a bad infection coming back. Like I can't think
of a I mean, that is the sort of analogy
(29:55):
I think of because I just every time I hear
about the Steam Files or Epstein I just cringe because
I know there's nothing redeeming about this at all, this
discussion about about Epstein.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
There is nothing redeeming about it.
Speaker 8 (30:10):
It doesn't make us better as a country to have
a conversation about the Epstein files. But you know, whatever,
people are interested with what they're interested and I don't
want it to mean that, But for me personally, I
have no interest in it.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I mean, either, what is what is on your radar?
Speaker 8 (30:25):
Well, I mean we've talked a little bit about the
redistricting thing. I think that's a big deal. And then
I am thinking a lot about as we go into
this fall and in the next year. You mentioned the
whole thing with the Federal Reserve and with weightcuts and
what might happen there. I do think the economy, we've
got to kind of see what's happening. Because the message
that I keep getting when I talk to you know,
(30:46):
every day at Californians that you know, when I'm around
and out, Yeah, I think there are a lot of
people who are who are still having a tough time
given the economy, and they're looking at prices you know,
still being probably a little higher than they like, and
you kind of wonder how the economy is going to
perform I'm optimistic about it. I think as we going
in next year, things are going to pick up. But
(31:07):
that is one thing that I'm concerned about. What the
collective impact of all of the different policies we've seen
in all of the division at Washington, what that will
mean going into next year. I think that's going to
be an issue worth watching as well.
Speaker 1 (31:19):
He is the director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford
University and all around good and smart guy.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Lan he Chin. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 8 (31:26):
Today, Hey, Jack, Always great to be with you. Thanks.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Yeah, It'll be interesting to see if Gavin can pull
off running away from what he has been in California
for all these years. But anyway, we'll have plenty of
we'll have plenty of time to talk about that. It's
pretty I was talking earlier about this Ukrainian chick who
keeps emailing me she doesn't exist. I mean, this is
(31:51):
a scam. Obviously, have to talk more about that because
it's kind of funny. But there are all kinds of
scams out there that can catch you if you click
on the wrong link or whatever. And to avoid that
problem you need webroot, we trust, webroot total protection. It's
not just anti virus, it's anti identity protection from up
to ten people. By the way you get you know,
you sign up and you get ten people covered, say
(32:12):
everybody in your family. Dark web monitoring, up to a
million dollars in fraud expense reimbursement to you get a
VPN cloud backup twenty four to seven US based support,
which matters to me. They have an elder fraud hotline,
which is huge for families. You get your identity stolen,
you're looking at two hundred hours probably of nightmare to
try to get that fixed. Right now, you can get
(32:33):
fifty percent off webroot Total Protection or Webroot Essentials at
webroot dot com slash armstrong. That's webroot dot com slash
armstrong again, fifty percent off webroot dot com slash armstrong. Yeah,
I'll have to read a little more from these emails
that the the the hot young Ukrainian woman keeps sending me.
It's not it's a botor or a group of drug
(32:57):
cartel members from Mexico or whatever. But the emails are
kind of funny, and I just wondered does anybody actually
fall for these things? But that and other stuff on
the way stay tuned. Wow, what is that historic castle
thing that Trump and King Charles are at? That's where
Trump is spending the night he and Milania. It's some country.
(33:21):
It looks kind of like Buckingham Palace, but it's out
in the country. I guess that's where one of the
many homes the royal family has.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Why they allow this?
Speaker 1 (33:29):
But anyway, so Trump and King Charles are walking up
the stairs and they're headed a direction and Trump kind
of puts his hand on King Charles's back, like you know,
let's go now or this way, or like you know,
kind of like somebody who's directing you where to go.
And he started to put his hand there and then
put his hand down. I think he I think he
realized I can't be directing the king where he should
(33:51):
go in his own country. Probably out a good move
follow him as opposed to direct him where to go.
That was a good move. So I mentioned this a
couple of times just because I think it's hilarious, and
I I get how a lot of us fall for
various internet scams, because there's a lot of you know,
looks exactly like it's from PayPal and it says were
(34:15):
you overcharged, and you see you click on the link
and now it was fishing.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
It wasn't real.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
And I see how that happens. I fell for that
once with an eBay thing, but I understand how you
fall for these romance ones. So somebody had emailed me
the other day, Hey, I saw your picture somewhere and
there was a picture of a young woman and said, Hi,
I saw you. Her name is ted T T E
T I Z. And she said hi, I saw your
(34:39):
picture somewhere the other day, and I immediately fell for you,
and I wondered if we could become pen pals and
maybe more, and and I thought, wow, it's what kind
of scam is this? There was no link, no ask
for money, So I just replied, sure, why not. And
that's all I've done so far. And now she has
started sending me out these emails and I get them
almost every day, and like, for instance, I got this
(35:00):
one yesterday to my lovely and wonderful angel Jack. Oh
and there's a picture of her laying on a beach. Hello,
my beloved baby Jack. I am back to you, sweetie,
happy as always, because weekends are over and I can
write a letter to my precious diamond to my love
and my destiny to you, honey.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Oh boy, sounds legit.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
She really cares about you, and the only interaction we've
had so far is me saying, sure, why not, jack
My sweetheart. I am a bit sad today because I
came to the internet cafe and haven't found your beautiful
letter for me. It's always such a pleasure to see
and read your beautiful letters. I have not said her
any honey, and your warm words and thoughtful feelings. It
(35:41):
makes me feel like we were meant to be together,
that fate or destiny has given us a chance. My
feelings for you have only grown into a giant rose
of love, true beauty, sweet smells, positive thoughts and feelings
in bright lights at the end of the tunnel.
Speaker 7 (35:56):
What website did you go to for them to find
you to send you this, Jackie?
Speaker 1 (36:01):
Well, I think it could be anything, really, but my
feelings for you have grown into a giant rows of love.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Okay. And she's told her parents about me.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
Oh so, she was with her mom and dad over
the way getting told her told her parents all about me,
all about me, including yeah, he replied to me in
one email, Sure, why not? You have to respond to this, Well,
I I probably should.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
I think I'm maybe somebody smarter that can be.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I don't think I'm doing any damage because this bot
or criminal organization has my email. As long as I
don't click on a link or send them money, I
think I can't do any more damage at this point.
Speaker 7 (36:40):
I'm no professional, but that's my thought process. Hanson says,
have chat GPT right and loving response, brilliant, brilliant.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
I think I should go into a whole bunch of giant,
blossoming rows of love and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Oh please go on to chat GPT. Give him a
couple of prompts.
Speaker 7 (36:59):
Get this letter going, fire it off during the show
and see how fast they get back.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
One of the things about our pictures that I like
is there's a whole bunch of different pictures of attracting
guiltill women, but they're clearly not all the same person.
Have you missed the segment or an hour and get
the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand
Speaker 7 (37:19):
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):
Arms Strong and Getty, and now he Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The Utah County Attorney says, Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin used
his grandfather's rifle to kill Kirk and afterwards praised that gun.
Just one of the deeply disturbing details authorities revealed this afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
A short while ago, the twenty two.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Year old suspect appeared remotely from the Utah County jail
for his first court appearance since the assassination of Kirk.
Robinson wore a suicide prevention smock and did not show
any emotion as the charges were read. He did clearly
speak his name. The Utah County Attorney says, the alleged
assassin confessed to his family and his lover. Seven charges
against Robinson were announced, including aggravated murder. Prosecutors say aggravated
(01:03):
murder because Kirk was murdered for his political beliefs, and
because the assassination happened in front of children.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Is there more to that sentence that's sounded like that
was the beginning of a sentence anyway. I know they're
going for the they're likely to go for the death
penalty in this case. And then utah, they shoot you.
So I got no problem with that. Shoot this scumbag
after a trial then silently. It's gonna be too complicated. Well,
actually we could ask a judge about that. Larry Goodman
(01:32):
joins us. This is Katie's dad, who was a judge
for the Superior Court of Alameda County. For those of
you across the country who don't know, that's where Oakland is,
Alameda County for a.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Very long time. How long were you a judge? Judge, Larry, I.
Speaker 4 (01:44):
Was a judge a little over thirty three years.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Thirty three years. Wow.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
So you got a bachelor's degree at Stanford. What did
you get your bachelor's degree.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
In political science?
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Okay? And did were you planning to become a judge?
Speaker 4 (01:59):
No? I with a political science degree, there's not a
lot you can do except teach political science or go
to law school. Who went to laws and.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Then you went to law school. Do you have to
go to law school to become a judge? Yes, you do.
You have to be a lawyer to be a judge.
That makes sense, yes, okay, So I just want to
get that out of the way.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
So any thoughts.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
First of all, just as you've been following this as
a you know, as a citizen of the country who
just happens to have a hell of a lot of
background knowledge on the way courts procedures go and whether
or not people are found guilty or not.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Is he looking pretty dead to right?
Speaker 4 (02:37):
I would say so. I mean it sounds like from
the news reports and what little bit I've read that
he's pretty much confessed and they can use all those
text messages as statements against his own interests with his
roommate that he said that he did it. So yeah,
I think it's it's going to be more like a
slow plea what we used to call when the evidence
(02:57):
is so overwhelming of guilt that the person insists upon
having a trial. We used to call it a slow flea.
You're going to be found guilty, we all know it,
but we have to go through the process.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
What will the defense attorneys even try?
Speaker 4 (03:11):
Do you suppose, you know, in a case like this,
it's gonna if they the jury, they probably won't do
a lot because it will be the same jury that
tries the case that will decide the penalty, and so
they probably don't want to irritate the jury too much.
So I think though they won't be trying any tail
(03:32):
Mary type passes. They might write raise issues about his
mental health, is competency type of thing. But when you're
talking about the same jury deciding that your client state
is the client decides your client's guilt or innocence, you
don't want to mad at you what the time you
start the penalty drops.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Okay, So there's a chance that the lawyers are thinking,
the best thing we could do for this guy is
keep him from getting the death penalty exactly exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
And if he's found guilty, he's ever getting out right.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
Well, I can't imagine. I mean, crazy things happen. I mean,
even in during the trial itself. You may have a
Every time you put a case in front of a jury,
there's always the danger of having a lawless juror or
a juror that has their own agenda that throws everything
off track. But I would say that he's going to
be found guilty, and if he is, he'll either get
(04:26):
the death penalty, your life without.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Parole, okay, before we'll get back to him, and I
got some questions about that, But have you been a
judge in cases with a scumbag that you like, you
fully believe they're guilty, but they ended up walking absolutely.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
One of my big death penalty cases where the charge
was he killed both his sisters and tried to kill
his parents, and it was my OJ Simpson trial. It
lasted four months and the jury found him not guilty
of two counts of murder and two count attempted murder,
(05:01):
and then about two hours later they met him across
the street from.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Margarine Wow and when the foreman read out, we find
you know so and so not guilty.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Were you just like.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
What well I was? And I used to get the
verdicts before they were read, and I wanted to make
it filled out properly. And the jury came back after
a four month trial, they came back with a verdict
in less than two and a half hours. And the
defense was so sure that there was going to be
a guilty verdict that they soon as we found out
(05:35):
there was a verdict, they asked if I would put
their client on suicide watch before we started the penalty trial.
And that wasn't necessary because the jury found them not guilty.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
So where does that leave you after years of doing this?
A couple of different things. One, where do you rank
our justice system and compared to others in other countries
or throughout history? Are we doing it better than anybody
ever has? That's always been my belief, But maybe I'm
maybe I'm wrong about that.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
And where are you on the whole?
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Better to have one hundred men go free than an
innocent man found guilty?
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Well, I think we do have probably the best system.
The problem with our system now has become subject to
a lot of politics. Jurors come sometimes come in with
their own agendas. I've seen judges that get appointed to
the bench that have their own agendas and do things
that probably they shouldn't do if they were uploading their
(06:35):
roaths and not being partially in part and trying to
be impartial. And I think it's better to have a
guilty person go free than have an innocent person be
executed or spend thirty years in prison. The consequences are
It's shocking when you know somebody is guilty like I
(06:56):
did in this case and they walked out, But you
have to do I had to actually make a call.
In that case, it probably led to him being found
not guilty because it was a crucial piece of evidence
that the police messed up, and I spent three days
trying to find out a way to let it in
so the jury could hear it, and there just was
no legal way to do that. So I had to
(07:18):
make the ruling in favor of the defense, and I
think that played a big part. I still live with
that one.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Well, A big picture though, the way we're supposed to
look at it is that forces cops to just be better, right.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
Yeah, I mean, it wasn't just the cops fault. It
was just the circumstances of a key witness that was
going to testify. Matter of fact, it was one of
the victims who eventually died. But she targeted her brother
and said he did it, and I saw his face
and the shotgun blast, And this was after she'd been
in the hospital for two months, and the day before
(07:54):
she was supposed to testify, she threw an air embolism
and died. And the state miss that you made were
not admissible because they weren't excited utterances or a statements
made in anticipation of death. So it was hearsay and
what isn't admitted.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
So back to Utah scumbag, there's going to be a
tremendous amount of attention paid to this trial, obviously every
aspect of it. This story is now what going on
a week old and still leads everywhere all the time,
So it's had, you know, it's really gotten a lot
of people's attention. I don't know if Utah has any
(08:31):
specific rules around cameras in the courtroom or if it's
a case by case circumstance, but are you what's your
opinion of cameras in the courtroom. It seemed while I'm
as interested in anybody as watching these sorts of things,
and obviously transparency is a good thing for a justice system,
I just feel like it distorts things so much.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
I'm mostly against it.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Well, I tried a lot of high publicity cases, excuse me,
and I never let cameras in the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
That would have been your decision.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
Yeah, when the cameras are in ye, generally it's up
to the judge to make the decision. And when cameras
are in the courtroom, just try as hard as they may.
Lawyers play to the cameras. They they get a little
more outrageous, they get a little more flamboyant, a little
more aggressive. Sometimes, Uh makes the jury feel uncomfortable because
(09:22):
they don't want to have a camera person slip up
and show their face. It changes the whole dynamics of
the court room. So I never let them in.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
That's really interesting. Uh, you had friends. I assume judges
that did the would would allow cameras in though. What
was their argument? Transparency?
Speaker 4 (09:41):
Yeah, transparency, I mean, and sometimes the judges will play
to the camera.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Ah, right, you become you can become famous.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Think of Lantido. Yeah, so if there's a camera there
and and you're feeling all judicial and everything, then you
act a little differently if the camera pans on the bench.
So there's just not a good I get the transparency thing,
but there's really not a good upside to having that
kind of transparency. If people want to see the trialy
come down and sit in the audience.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Anything before we let you go, Anything surprised you over
the last several days since they got him, arrested him,
you know, he showed up in the courtroom first time.
Anything we should be on the watch out for.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
No, it's interesting, Utah has a very strict death penalty.
I was doing a little research on it, and the
aggravation factor is that he exposed others to the risk
of death or injury when he killed Charlie Kirk, and
that's what they're going to hang the whole aggravating circumstance
on him to try to get the death penalty. In California,
(10:43):
there was a lot wider area of aggravation circumstances that
you can use, but this is they have to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he put other people's lives
at risk and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
aggravating circumstances outweighed gating and that the death penalty is
justified and appropriate. And that's a pretty good standard. So
(11:05):
it'd be interesting to see if it plays out.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Yeah, I got another question before we let you go.
All these years of watching people come before you, the
ones that are guilty, how often are the idiots and
how often are they and how often are they too
smart for their own good? I think that's what this
kid's deal is. He's too smart for his own good.
He thinks he, you know, can fix the world and
(11:29):
get away with it and all that.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
Oh, I had my share of of well, i'd say
most of.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Them idiots, most of our idiots, most.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Of the idiots. But I had I had a couple
of high publicity cases where the guy who was just
thought he was smarter than everybody else in the courtroom, right,
and it turned out.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
But yeah, yeah, that's that's gotta be something when you
when you're looking at an idiot who committed a crime.
You know, let's not talk about really hurting somebody, because
there's no excusing that. Regardless of your your intelligence, you know,
you try to pull off a robin, a bank or whatever.
You must look at some of these people and think, God,
dang it, you had no shot in life. You're a moron.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
Well yeah, I mean most of them are like that,
particularly in Oakland. I mean that's that's just kind of
a way of life. I would I would have a
third category, and some of them are just pure evil.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Ah, that's a good one artist guy.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
In the room. You can have the idiot and you've
got the ones that are just pure evil.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Yeah, And that that might be what this this shooter
in Utah is also, he might just be evil.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
We talked about it before the shark eyes, you know.
And if you look at his booking photo, he's got
those shark eyes again.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Yeah, that is something you've talked to us about before. Hey, Judge,
Larry Larry Goodman, thanks for coming on the air today.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
Sure, Jack, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
Yeah, if you if you didn't hear us talking about
that before. There are some people you look at, the
judge said, and cops will tell you this too. You
did you look at them or they look at you,
and you can just see there's there's no soul in
there for whatever reason, you know, whatever's gone wrong. You
can make your life a lot easier if you've got
a trust and or will. You know, something unexpected happens
(13:11):
and then your family's fighting over the money and all
this sort of stuff, and even if they don't end
up fighting for it, often the state gets involved and
makes all kinds of decisions you would really hate and
costs lots of money. You can avoid that with trust
and will create and manage a customer state plan starting
at one hundred and ninety nine dollars. Trust based plans
start at four hundred and ninety nine dollars, but starting
at just one hundred and ninety nine dollars and you
can manage your trust or will online with their easy
(13:33):
to use website that's set up state specific for various
laws and all that have all your important documents in
one place. How great would that be? With bank level encryption.
They've got all kinds of customer support, customers support their chat,
phone and email start to finish to help you with that.
So secure your assets and protect your loved ones with
trust and will get twenty percent off on your estate
(13:53):
planned documents by visiting Trust and Will dot com slash Armstrong.
That's Trustinwill dot com slash Armstrong. Death penalty for this
idiot almost certainly, I think. And he's gonna be found
guilty and he's gonna get shot because in Utah, unlike California,
the death penalty means you actually die. Is he going
(14:15):
to be quite the drama to fall follow over the
next months and years A lot more on the waist
to hear Armstrong Andngetti.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
At one hundred and thirty thousand railroad crossings nationwide, a
constant fear for train operators that a car or truck
won't stop in time. In Texas, Itala for goalie was
sure his Tesla Wise full self driving mode would stopped
his car before the crossing arms, but he says it didn't.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
It just seemed like I didn't see it at all.
Speaker 5 (14:44):
And other Tesla drivers have similar complaints, drivers reporting Tesla's
full self driving software failed to recognize rail crossing. Since
twenty twenty three, Tesla It's Self warns drivers not to
rely on the auto driving software.
Speaker 6 (14:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
I don't know what to make of this yet.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
I have a Tesla with the latest self driving software
in it and cameras and sensors and all the stuff
that and everything like that, and it's way way better
than it was a couple of years ago. It's pretty
dang good. In fact, I the other day, we boys
and I were coming home from a restaurant. I said,
let's see how it does, and I just pressed home
and had it drive me all the way to the driveway. Perfect,
absolutely perfect, as good as I would drive her better
(15:24):
the whole way. But everyone's while it does screw up.
I don't know if we'll ever have completely self driving
cars all over the country. Now you have waymos in cities,
but they do a different thing where they map a
small area I mean they've got the every tiny bit
of San Francisco, for instance, mapped, and that's in the
(15:47):
cars computer. So you would have the railroad crossing in there,
you know, a Testlas coming along, and it would just would.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Have to sense this. It doesn't know it's there.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
WEYMO knows where every crosswalk, railroad crossing, everything is in
the whole unless they come up with enough technology or
or or map the whole country every road and stop.
Speaker 7 (16:08):
I wonder why Tesla can't do that, I mean why
does I mean, it's it's simple as enough software update.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Why can't they do something?
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Because because WEIMO for years sent cars around San Francisco,
for instance, with cameras mapping every curb, crosswater, I mean
just every tiny detail, and it's so it's not sensing
these things. It's in the computer already. It would take
a lot to map the whole country because you know,
when somebody buys a car where they're going.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
To be driving. Well, let's go elon space man. But
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Elon the other day said that he thinks Tesla is
going to be completely self driving in twenty six you
won't have to pay attention at all. I don't think
that's gonna happen, And I just don't. I just don't
think we're there yet. Oh there's an interesting study out today,
though I'll have to get into it later because it's
it's kind of in the weeds. But so there's a
gap in life expectancy between the United States and other
(16:58):
countries were a little behind. Most of it could be
made up if we all started writing in waymos. I mean,
if you had the safety record of a waymo oh
because of the car crash car crashes, you eliminate the
thirty some thousand deaths from automobile accidents every year, and
our our life expectancy gets right with everybody Else's.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Interesting, I know. So I don't know.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
I'm just afraid we're going to be forced into them.
And I don't want to be forced into automated cars.
Speaker 7 (17:28):
But I'm yet to write in a Waymo. I want to, though,
you gotta it seems cool. I just I saw that video.
It was during I can't remember what name the riot,
you know, but A Waymo got stuck in one of
those and like got the cut the car surrounded and yeah,
you know, so that that scares me a little bit.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
But yeah, well if you're not so, I'm used to
a self driving car, so it's not weird. But if
you've never done it before, getting in the back seat
of a Weymo with no driver and having it drive
off would.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Feel pretty weird. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah, I mean you're sitting in the back seat and
you're looking at the steering wheel and it's turning and
it's doing its thing. I guess they're eliminating the steerwheel everything.
They're just gonna have benches in the front and back
away mods and so it's just like a little train
car practically, or something that just shows up and you
get in Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
But do let Getty get a great stand?
Speaker 2 (18:15):
I guess who knows?
Speaker 4 (18:16):
You didn't ever know what du let?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
But who tells you?
Speaker 8 (18:19):
Job ra the rake?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Chippy mc clara much mcslaa.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
That's Donald Trump referring to Federal Reserve Chairman Powell.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Is too late.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Hope your lower's rates. Well, that's what's expected to happen today,
and uh, we'll have more on that coming up. A
little bit later. Trump headed over to England, where I'm
watching live on TV right now. You got people in
funny outfits marching around playing bagpipes. Trump and his model
wife and a fancy hat. Sit there and watch. We'd
(18:53):
like to welcome to the arm Showing and Getty Show.
Lna heat Chen to talk a little bit of politics.
Lni is the David and Die and Stephie Fellow in
American Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution, the Director of
Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University, and a super smart
guy about politics.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
How are you, Lonnie?
Speaker 8 (19:09):
I am doing well.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
Thanks check.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
How how are you feeling in terms of optimism or
pessimism for the country after the last week?
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Oh boy, well, I'm look.
Speaker 8 (19:21):
I think there are always reasons to be optimistic about America,
but we're in a really challenging political moment right now,
and we're in a.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Very challenging time.
Speaker 8 (19:30):
I think as we look at how people are reacting
and responding to politics, and obviously the tragic assassination of
Charlie Kirk, which I know, you know folks have talked
about a lot. But what I continue to reflect is
the way in which this kind of violence impacts people
who you know, aren't even elected officials, you know, just
(19:51):
people who are speaking up and expressing their points of view.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
I noticed myself when I've been pulling into the parking lots,
like is that always there?
Speaker 6 (20:00):
I mean, yeah, And you know, people shouldn't have to
feel and think that way in a place like America,
where I think we've always valued our ability to disagree
civilly but vociferously, right, And.
Speaker 8 (20:16):
I don't know, so I'm jack. I'm a little concerned
about where we are. But obviously, you know, there are
a lot of bright spots. I mean, if you look
at just I think a lot of people have been
truly compassionate in the wake of what happened. I think
you've seen a lot of people who have decided that
they want to be more involved in our political system
(20:39):
and not less. And I think that's all good. But
you know, I do worry a little bit about how
various things are making us more and more divided, you know,
whether it's social media or you know, the other thing
I look at. I mean not to tie a current
event to all of this, but if you look at
redistricting and all the battles over redistricting that are happened,
what redistricting the way that politicians want to change the
(21:02):
system here in California, and elsewhere by the way, Texas
and other places too, is to draw lines so that
we are living next to more people and voting next
to more people who we agree with rather than who
we disagree with. And I think what that does is
it creates a tendency for us to only be in
an echo or we're hearing things we agree with, never
(21:22):
getting actually.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
Had bers and people.
Speaker 8 (21:26):
I have a civil distate about predisagree about.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Hey, Lani, unfortunately we're having a problem with our connection.
Can we drop here real quick and then let you
guys do something see if you can get that fix.
Maybe hang up on him and call him back in
or whatever, because I have a couple of questions. Lani
is actually one of the smartest people about politics we've
ever talked to, certainly about California politics.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
And we want to talk about the.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
Redistricting measure that Gavin Newsom was trying to get going
in November, which is almost certainly to fail. I was
going to make from an optimistic standpoint. I mean, I
thought that all of those all of those football stadiums
that had a moment of silence, I mean that was
surprised me. I didn't think that that would happen about
(22:15):
a divisive political figure getting gunned down. I mean, so
there was a lot of that that made me somewhat hopeful.
But then, as Joe pointed out a little bit earlier
in the show, yeah, there's a lot of videos going
around of people at gatherings cheering the death of Charlie Kirk.
So that's the disheartening part. Anyway, we got Loni Chen
(22:36):
back the point you were making.
Speaker 8 (22:38):
Lonnie, Oh yeah, sorry about that. I mean, sometimes technology
fails us. What I was saying was that, you know,
when you look at the redistricting and measurers that are
out there, whether it's California particular or Texas, what they
do is that they draw these district lines to put
more people who think alike together, as opposed to putting
(22:58):
us in conversation and to people with whom, you know,
maybe we have some political disagreements. I actually think it's
good for us to have opportunities to interact with people
with whom we disagree, and I think we need more
of that in our society, not less so.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Texas decides to redistrict in the in the middle of
the decade, and it's their state allows them to do
that legally, it's not unheard of, it's not common. The
media studiously avoided mentioning to viewers who don't already know
that lots and lots of states have jerrymandered throughout our
(23:33):
country's history. And a lot of blue states are already
jerrymandered to death, including Illinois where they all ran to anyway,
So that's an old story. So now California is going
to try to do it, or at least put it
on the ballot for November fourth and change the rules
here in California so that we could redistrict. Also, the
polling shows that it's going to go down in flames.
Are you staying you think that's true?
Speaker 8 (23:55):
Well, I'm I think it's going to be close.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Actually, oh really, okay, you know more about it than idea.
Speaker 8 (23:59):
Well, well, because I think the challenge is that anytime,
what you've seen with what Newsome and his allies have
done on this initiative is they have painted it as
not the issues that you've framed it as, which are
the right issues. They framed it as do you like
Donald Trump or not? And this will be the gosh,
(24:20):
let's think about this. Now, there's probably the fourth or
fifth election cycle in a row where they're going to
run this playbook, and today they've been pretty successful with
this point, and so I think that the worry for
those of us who oppose this proposition and who don't
believe it's the right course for California. I think the
concern is that voters are not going to be choosing
(24:42):
whether they like.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Of course, you're right, You are so right.
Speaker 8 (24:47):
It's going to be about do you like Trump or not?
Speaker 6 (24:49):
Ye?
Speaker 8 (24:49):
Right, And I think in California, you know, and some
of your listeners might not lie hearing this, but the
reality is that Donald Trump is not the most popular
guy in California, and so I think that the dynamic
they're setting up here with Prop fifty is a dynamic
that could end up moving in their favor. Now, there's
(25:09):
a lot more information that's got to be distributed over
the next couple of weeks, and we've got a little
over a month until election day, So I have some
measure of hope that people will see through what this is.
But I don't know, Jack, I think it's gonna be
pretty close.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
You're absolutely right. I can't believe.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Silly me, I thought it would be about the issue itself,
but people wore masks or didn't wear masks because it
demonstrated are you for Trump or not not? Because of
the disease. I mean, there's all kinds of examples of that.
You're four against climate change because everything you can mention
is Trump for it or not. So yeah, of course
this is going to be that.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:46):
And I mean it's interesting.
Speaker 8 (25:48):
Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was actually the governor who originally led
California's effort to turn our redistricting away from the politicians
into independent citizens, he actually spoke up, you know, sort
of really significantly about this the other day for the
first time, and you know, even you know, he's no
great supporter of Donald Trump, but he said, listen, the
(26:11):
effort that Gavin Newsom and his allies are undertaking with
this proposition, that effort is really an effort to give
the power to redistrict back to politicians and away from
kind of an independent, more independent process, which we've had
in California since two thousand and eight and twenty ten
for congressional seats, we've had this process in place. And
(26:33):
by the way, the process we've had has drawn complaints
from both Republicans and Democrats, which is how you know
it's working. Okay, probably right, And so it was interesting
to see Schwarzenegger get involved. I think a few other
people may get involved who are not your usual suspects
on this sort of thing. So I hope that voters
are able to at least understand what the basic question is,
(26:55):
which is do we believe that district lines in California
should be drawn by politicians or by citizens? And that's
the fundamental questions.
Speaker 1 (27:05):
So I see a lot of national pundits who aren't
from California that are really high and I mean people
that lean right, who are really high on Gavin Newsom's
chances of becoming president. I feel like being closer to him,
I'm not as high. Where are you on that?
Speaker 8 (27:21):
Well, Look, I think there's two things here, Jack. First
of all, there's just an absence of strong leadership on
the Democratic side of the aisle. I'd say, people who
are who are perceived to be out there, and you know,
whether whatever you think of what Nisson's doing, he's out there.
So I think that's the first thing is just you know,
politics have whoors a vacuum, and Newsom has stepped into
(27:44):
that in a very real way. I think the other
reason that people sort of see him positively in particularly
given what he's been doing with this redistricting proposition, is
you got to think about the composition of the Democratic
primary electorate and it's going to on average be more
act to this, more left of center, and Newsom's politics
are a good match for that. So I think that's
(28:05):
probably why people feel well.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
At national level.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
I agree what you're doing. I could see him getting
the nomination. That wouldn't surprise me. How can you run
for president with I just feel like the homeless situation,
the people, the fact that people are leaving your state
for the first time ever, a lot of those things.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
How do you overcome that?
Speaker 4 (28:25):
Well?
Speaker 8 (28:25):
I think that's what a campaign is for, right. I
think people need to be reminded. It's very easy. We
have in politics recency bias, and so we look at,
you know, what has someone done in the last sixteen
days or last nine minutes, right, and we and we
forget about the French laundry, We forget about all, you know,
his record, We forget about his record in San Francisco,
(28:47):
We forget about his extremely progressive pass which I think
is out of step with the vast majority of the
American people. So that's what a campaign is for. A
campaign is there to remind people of someone's record and
who they are. And by the way, people can say
we know that, we're comfortable with it. I don't know
that that's where they'll come out on someone like Gavin Newson.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
But let's see. Let's see.
Speaker 8 (29:10):
I mean, like you, Jack, I think being being in
or near California and seeing him in action up close
for the last eight years, I think we have a
point of view that might be very different from a
point of view if if it hasn't been in your
face for the last eight years.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Just curious, since you're a smart guy and you know
policy got all the thing. You spent a moment of
your life thinking about the Epstein Files.
Speaker 8 (29:35):
No, no, I don't. And I find it interesting how
much carry the story has in the sense that I mean,
it just keeps coming back. It's like, you know, it's
like a bad infection coming back. Like I can't think
of a I mean, that is the sort of analogy
(29:55):
I think of because I just every time I hear
about the Steam Files or Epstein I just cringe because
I know there's nothing redeeming about this at all, this
discussion about about Epstein.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
There is nothing redeeming about it.
Speaker 8 (30:10):
It doesn't make us better as a country to have
a conversation about the Epstein files. But you know, whatever,
people are interested with what they're interested and I don't
want it to mean that, But for me personally, I
have no interest in it.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I mean, either, what is what is on your radar?
Speaker 8 (30:25):
Well, I mean we've talked a little bit about the
redistricting thing. I think that's a big deal. And then
I am thinking a lot about as we go into
this fall and in the next year. You mentioned the
whole thing with the Federal Reserve and with weightcuts and
what might happen there. I do think the economy, we've
got to kind of see what's happening. Because the message
that I keep getting when I talk to you know,
(30:46):
every day at Californians that you know, when I'm around
and out, Yeah, I think there are a lot of
people who are who are still having a tough time
given the economy, and they're looking at prices you know,
still being probably a little higher than they like, and
you kind of wonder how the economy is going to
perform I'm optimistic about it. I think as we going
in next year, things are going to pick up. But
(31:07):
that is one thing that I'm concerned about. What the
collective impact of all of the different policies we've seen
in all of the division at Washington, what that will
mean going into next year. I think that's going to
be an issue worth watching as well.
Speaker 1 (31:19):
He is the director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford
University and all around good and smart guy.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Lan he Chin. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 8 (31:26):
Today, Hey, Jack, Always great to be with you. Thanks.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Yeah, It'll be interesting to see if Gavin can pull
off running away from what he has been in California
for all these years. But anyway, we'll have plenty of
we'll have plenty of time to talk about that. It's
pretty I was talking earlier about this Ukrainian chick who
keeps emailing me she doesn't exist. I mean, this is
(31:51):
a scam. Obviously, have to talk more about that because
it's kind of funny. But there are all kinds of
scams out there that can catch you if you click
on the wrong link or whatever. And to avoid that
problem you need webroot, we trust, webroot total protection. It's
not just anti virus, it's anti identity protection from up
to ten people. By the way you get you know,
you sign up and you get ten people covered, say
(32:12):
everybody in your family. Dark web monitoring, up to a
million dollars in fraud expense reimbursement to you get a
VPN cloud backup twenty four to seven US based support,
which matters to me. They have an elder fraud hotline,
which is huge for families. You get your identity stolen,
you're looking at two hundred hours probably of nightmare to
try to get that fixed. Right now, you can get
(32:33):
fifty percent off webroot Total Protection or Webroot Essentials at
webroot dot com slash armstrong. That's webroot dot com slash
armstrong again, fifty percent off webroot dot com slash armstrong. Yeah,
I'll have to read a little more from these emails
that the the the hot young Ukrainian woman keeps sending me.
It's not it's a botor or a group of drug
(32:57):
cartel members from Mexico or whatever. But the emails are
kind of funny, and I just wondered does anybody actually
fall for these things? But that and other stuff on
the way stay tuned. Wow, what is that historic castle
thing that Trump and King Charles are at? That's where
Trump is spending the night he and Milania. It's some country.
(33:21):
It looks kind of like Buckingham Palace, but it's out
in the country. I guess that's where one of the
many homes the royal family has.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Why they allow this?
Speaker 1 (33:29):
But anyway, so Trump and King Charles are walking up
the stairs and they're headed a direction and Trump kind
of puts his hand on King Charles's back, like you know,
let's go now or this way, or like you know,
kind of like somebody who's directing you where to go.
And he started to put his hand there and then
put his hand down. I think he I think he
realized I can't be directing the king where he should
(33:51):
go in his own country. Probably out a good move
follow him as opposed to direct him where to go.
That was a good move. So I mentioned this a
couple of times just because I think it's hilarious, and
I I get how a lot of us fall for
various internet scams, because there's a lot of you know,
looks exactly like it's from PayPal and it says were
(34:15):
you overcharged, and you see you click on the link
and now it was fishing.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
It wasn't real.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
And I see how that happens. I fell for that
once with an eBay thing, but I understand how you
fall for these romance ones. So somebody had emailed me
the other day, Hey, I saw your picture somewhere and
there was a picture of a young woman and said, Hi,
I saw you. Her name is ted T T E
T I Z. And she said hi, I saw your
(34:39):
picture somewhere the other day, and I immediately fell for you,
and I wondered if we could become pen pals and
maybe more, and and I thought, wow, it's what kind
of scam is this? There was no link, no ask
for money, So I just replied, sure, why not. And
that's all I've done so far. And now she has
started sending me out these emails and I get them
almost every day, and like, for instance, I got this
(35:00):
one yesterday to my lovely and wonderful angel Jack. Oh
and there's a picture of her laying on a beach. Hello,
my beloved baby Jack. I am back to you, sweetie,
happy as always, because weekends are over and I can
write a letter to my precious diamond to my love
and my destiny to you, honey.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Oh boy, sounds legit.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
She really cares about you, and the only interaction we've
had so far is me saying, sure, why not, jack
My sweetheart. I am a bit sad today because I
came to the internet cafe and haven't found your beautiful
letter for me. It's always such a pleasure to see
and read your beautiful letters. I have not said her
any honey, and your warm words and thoughtful feelings. It
(35:41):
makes me feel like we were meant to be together,
that fate or destiny has given us a chance. My
feelings for you have only grown into a giant rose
of love, true beauty, sweet smells, positive thoughts and feelings
in bright lights at the end of the tunnel.
Speaker 7 (35:56):
What website did you go to for them to find
you to send you this, Jackie?
Speaker 1 (36:01):
Well, I think it could be anything, really, but my
feelings for you have grown into a giant rows of love.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Okay. And she's told her parents about me.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
Oh so, she was with her mom and dad over
the way getting told her told her parents all about me,
all about me, including yeah, he replied to me in
one email, Sure, why not? You have to respond to this, Well,
I I probably should.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
I think I'm maybe somebody smarter that can be.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I don't think I'm doing any damage because this bot
or criminal organization has my email. As long as I
don't click on a link or send them money, I
think I can't do any more damage at this point.
Speaker 7 (36:40):
I'm no professional, but that's my thought process. Hanson says,
have chat GPT right and loving response, brilliant, brilliant.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
I think I should go into a whole bunch of giant,
blossoming rows of love and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Oh please go on to chat GPT. Give him a
couple of prompts.
Speaker 7 (36:59):
Get this letter going, fire it off during the show
and see how fast they get back.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
One of the things about our pictures that I like
is there's a whole bunch of different pictures of attracting
guiltill women, but they're clearly not all the same person.
Have you missed the segment or an hour and get
the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand
Speaker 7 (37:19):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
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
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.