May 9, 2024 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Our guest, retired Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman--on the Trump Hush Money Trial...
- Updates from the courtroom!...
- Businesses are struggling with the new minimum wage...
- A Late Nite Joke-Off on RFK Jr. and his brain worm.
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
She told me that Donald was chasing her around his
hotel room. And at that time what she told me
was tidy whities.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
That was some woman I saw her on whatever show
I was watching yesterday. So she's another aging hot blonde
who was there at the golf tournament at Lake Tahoe
back in the day.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Because that's where a whole.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Bunch of rich guys are, is the only reason I
can figure out they're there. And Stormy actually invited her,
said you ought to come up to Trump's room too,
and she said, nah, I gotta I'm doing something else.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Maybe she found some other rich guy to hang out with.
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
But Stormy Daniels is back on the stand today. The
cross examination has continued. Specifically, they started by asking her
how in twenty eleven, five years before she signed a
non disclosure agreement. They suggested that she had been denying
the encounter all up until a certain point, and so
(01:07):
they're trying to make the argument that it's clearly was extortion.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
When the election happened, The Wall Street.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Journal lead opinion today is the Stormy Daniels sex trial.
The salacious details of her testimony were irrelevant to the
charges against Trump. As you may recall, the details got
rather detailed, to the disgust of everyone present, including apparently
the judge. The defense asked for a mistrial. The judge said,
were not at that point yet, but certainly there were
(01:36):
some things said that shouldn't be said. Not impressed by
the judge. Seems to me to just be riddled with
holes that can be appealed.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
But what the hell do I know?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Compared to retired Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman, who served
on the bench for thirty one years in the Superior Court,
handled many many trials, including many murder trials in Alameda
County in the San Francisco Bay area in the courthouse
in Oakland, he is also, rumor has it, according to
the Internet, the father of one Katie Green, Your honor,
(02:07):
how are you, sir?
Speaker 5 (02:08):
I'm doing great? Thanks? How are you guys?
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Good? Can we call you Larry?
Speaker 5 (02:10):
Larry? Yea? Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (02:12):
How does one become a judge? I mean, what's the
career path through becoming a judge?
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Uh?
Speaker 6 (02:17):
It depends on if you know the governor or not.
I was appointed by George Duke Masian, So so.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
You're appointed by a governor. Like were you what were
you before you were a judge?
Speaker 5 (02:27):
I was a civil attorney.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
That okay, you're a lawyer criminal cases.
Speaker 6 (02:31):
And then I met then Attorney General George Duke Mason,
and then when he became governor he appointed me to
the bench.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
There you go, excellent.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I've long said I'd be a good judge because I'm
so judgmental. Is there more good than that?
Speaker 5 (02:43):
I can't really, you know, kind of go with the flow.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
So Larry, why don't we just start where we introduced
the segment Stormy Daniel's testimony, the salacious sexual details and
the relationship to the actual charge.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
What's your opinion on all that?
Speaker 5 (03:02):
It's totally irrelevant.
Speaker 6 (03:03):
I mean, it's it's a shock to anybody that's a
decent judge that this was ever let in.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
It has nothing to do with the charges.
Speaker 6 (03:11):
The test you normally use is the probative value outweigh
the prejudicial effect. And I don't know how anybody with
any sense could say that the probate of value.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Most of these words you can't use if you're talking
about Stormy Daniels, we can't use the word probative. Nope,
there's just so many it makes it so difficult to
talk about. Well, was it the judge's job to jump
up and say this is irrelevant? Or was it Trump's
lawyer's job to jump up?
Speaker 6 (03:32):
Well, I think they did jump up and say it's
irrelevant multiple times, and he overruled them, and then when
they objected, he overruled them, and then he accused them
of not objecting enough where he has the power to
object himself. As a matter of fact, he actually did
impose one objection on his own to her testimony, so
we knew he had the ability to control it.
Speaker 5 (03:50):
He just didn't.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
We both have pretty strong opinions, but I really try
to avoid being the knee jerk obvious conservative bomb chucker.
I try to only say things that I mean, and
then I'm fairly confident about it. Seems to me this
judge is weak and prejudiced. Is that too strong?
Speaker 5 (04:10):
Probably not.
Speaker 6 (04:11):
I mean, there's it's almost like he got his judicial
training from watching Law and Order, you know, where they
call everybody up to the bench and not allowing that
in or into chambers motion denied, instead of actually having
hearings and listening to witnesses and reviewing papers and making rulings.
It's unfathomable the way he's running his courtroom.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
And if you were an attorney thinking we might lose
this one and will file an appeal, would you be
pretty optimistic about the appeals process.
Speaker 6 (04:40):
I'd be very optimistic about the appeals process. Although it's
probably that closing the gate after the horse gets out
of the barn, because the damage will have been done.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
To the candidate politically, and that's always we got to separate,
you know, what this does to him politically versus the
legal situation. I got to ask this, even though it's
a bit of a a tangent. So you talking about
the judge watching too much Law and Order. Whenever we've
had cop panels, it's been pretty universal over the years
(05:11):
that the good cops say about a quarter of the
cops I've worked with shouldn't be cops. What percentage of
judges do you think shouldn't be judges?
Speaker 5 (05:20):
Wow, that's uh.
Speaker 6 (05:22):
I don't know if i'd go twenty five percent, but
there are people that I served with that every now
and then you'd want to go back and check they
make sure they had a bar card.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Yeah, you think maybe ten percent of judges shouldn't be judges,
or would you?
Speaker 6 (05:34):
I'd say ten to fifteen percent, that's enough. Interesting. Probably
some of them would say that about me too.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
But yeah, maybe, yeah, Fairship, maybe that's it. It's just
a disagreement of philosophy.
Speaker 6 (05:45):
Yeah, there are judge certain judges that don't just don't prepare.
I had one judge was amazed that I asked you
read cases. He said, well, I quit doing that years ago. Yeah,
there are judges who just don't care.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
We're talking to retired Superior Court judge Larry Goodman, who
tried many, many, many many cases in the Bay Area.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Do you have a rough number how many cases you tried?
Speaker 5 (06:07):
Over one hundred homicide cases?
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Good lord?
Speaker 6 (06:09):
Wow, twelve death penalty cases and beyond that.
Speaker 5 (06:14):
Those are my clerk's numbers.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
I keep getting tangent questions.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
How often do cases turn out and you think, wow,
that is not the right decision verdict?
Speaker 6 (06:24):
You mean, yeah, yeah, not very often, not very often.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Usually you think it should.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
Yeah, most of the time.
Speaker 6 (06:31):
I had a couple of cases that came out totally
different than I thought they would come out.
Speaker 5 (06:37):
Most of the time, it's pretty close.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yeah, So I actually have a jury related question. I've
been on a handful of juries. It's a fascinating experience.
I'm enthusiastic about serving on juries as opposed to a
lot of people, and I would suggest folks take a
minute to think about the sacred duty we have to
each other to render just verdicts before you try to
weasel out just because you don't want to do it. Anyway,
(07:00):
it was also a terrifying experience trying to reason with
some people who are not capable of reason. But this,
getting back to the stormy Daniel's testimony, how it was irrelevant, prejudicial,
half gross and half sexy. How do you think jurors
(07:21):
might react to that?
Speaker 6 (07:23):
Well, that's hard to tell, you know, jurors are an
unknown quantity. A lot of the times, a lot of
you think, well, they'll be shocked and they'll think to
Trump's the worst person in the world.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
Other jurors might.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
Go, Wow, this lady's really messed up, and whatever she
has to say, I'm not going to listen to it.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
Yeah, just really hard to tell.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Sorry, Just as.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
A former juror if all of the testimony unwound the
way it did. And then she said, but I didn't
do any of this for the money. I'm sorry you're on.
I'm sorry I did go faud.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
Well, I understand.
Speaker 6 (07:55):
A couple of jurors were seen shaking their head or
trying to cover their mouth because they were starting to
giggle when she was testifying about some of the things
she testified to. It's just hard to tell, you know.
You watch a jury and you set up there. That's
one of the things you do as a judges. You
watch their reactions and sometimes you think, boy, I understand
these people completely, and then they go and do something
(08:16):
you had no idea what they're going to do.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
But so later in the day the judge did say,
we heard a bunch of stuff that you know wasn't necessary,
we didn't need to hear. But you feel like he
should have jumped in earlier, you know, when they got
into sexual positions and stuff like that, and said no, no, no,
come on now.
Speaker 6 (08:31):
Absolutely, at that point, he you know, calls them to
the bench and says knock it off, or he starts
interposing an objection of his own, and he keeps doing
it with more and more force.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
So he looks at the jury and he starts.
Speaker 6 (08:43):
Shaking his head, going I told you not to go there,
And eventually the jury starts going, Wow, these people are
disregarding what the judge has to say, and then it
starts working against them.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
So the judge has already told us that he thinks
her testimony was irrelevant to the charges.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
So let's talk just a little bit.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Without fully explaining the charges because it would take too long.
The idea that they misrepresented a filing, which is a
misdemeanor to commit another crime, which is a misdemeanor that
the local DA doesn't actually have jurisdiction over, but that
makes it a felony, and it all ends up being
(09:19):
election fraud because covering up an affair is fraud, which
is a ridiculous notion.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
I'm sorry, I'm leading. The witness.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
Would absolutely I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
What do you think of the underlying charges?
Speaker 5 (09:32):
Well, I don't understand them.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Wow.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
Well, I mean it's you're asking a state court to
enforce a federal election law, and that's they don't have
the jurisdiction to do it. One of the other problems
I have with his judge, is he should have made
the prosecution lay out specifically before the trial starts. What
is your theory, what is the crime? And how do
you think you're going to get there?
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Because we're now do that.
Speaker 5 (09:57):
They're playing hide the ball with the defense through most
of this.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Yeah, because we're now fifteen days in and they still
haven't explained how they're going to do the math on
that and make sure.
Speaker 5 (10:06):
It would have made them do that the very first day.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Interesting, right, Yeah, speaking of the appeals process, we should
flip this around to the other side to be fair.
How about Trump and the gag order and the fact
that he's violated.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
How would you have handled that whole situation?
Speaker 6 (10:20):
Well, you know, the gag order is kind of interesting
because the jury knows all about all those gag orders
and all the contempts because how could they avoid it.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
So now in the.
Speaker 6 (10:29):
Jury, even though the jury's not in the courtroom, when
they're talking about the gag order and forcing the gag
order and posing the gag order, the jury goes home
and turns on a TV.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
What do they see?
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Well, that's interesting.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Right now you assume as a judge that even though
they're not supposed to watch TV about the trial.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
I don't think you think they do, just assume they do.
Speaker 6 (10:47):
Of course they do inter me, particularly on something this
high publicity. How are they going to avoid it unless
they don't turn on the television, don't turn on social media,
don't look at anything that's written.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Down, right, they're going to see it.
Speaker 6 (10:58):
Okay, the neighbor's going to say, hey, what do you
think about that before you can tell him to be quiet.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Wow. Interesting, But would you have.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Punished Trump in the same way as often or more
or whatever.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
I would never have imposed the gag order in the
first place. Gag orders are to protect the defendant, and
it's over broad, it's vague, you know. Trump's can be
a pain in that, you know what. So I suppose
he felt like he had to do something, but I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (11:25):
That this was the way to do it, you know.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
I'm I heard a commentator say the other day that
he pointed out that the judge's daughter, who Trump had
said some critical things of, and it was portrayed in
the media, of course, that she's a pigtailed twelve year
old just trying to get through middle school, when she's
a full grown woman who is a high ranking campaign
(11:49):
person in Kamala Harris's office, specifically for the Biden Harris campaign.
And this person said, can't they find a judge in
New York who doesn't have a close family member who's
on the Biden campaign?
Speaker 1 (12:03):
And I thought, you know, that's a pretty good point.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Does that strike you as at least an uncomfortable conflict
of interest?
Speaker 6 (12:12):
Yeah, I mean the canon of ethics say that you're
supposed to avoid all appearances of impropriety, and this is
a pretty good appearance of impropriety. And when they tried
to recuse this judge, what the judge should have done
was file an affidavit and it should have gone to
a third judge or another judge to actually hold a
hearing on whether it was improper or not and then
(12:33):
rule on refusal motion.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
So if I'd pulled off a jewel heist and you're
the judge, or they're talking about you for the judge,
and that turns out, you know, your daughter does the
news on our radio show, then maybe you wouldn't be
the right judge much.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
It might not be Yeah, at least have to hold
a hearing. Wow, this case stinks as much as I
thought it did. Retired Supirity Court judge Larry Goodman. Larry
really really enjoyed the conversation. I hope we can do
it again sometime.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Yeah, I'm available. Okay, cool, excellent, Thank you so much.
He's a retired judge, so he's available. Very tired. People
love being available.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
Oh yeah, interesting stuff.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
So the judge should have jumped in and said, what
is this talk about?
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Whoa whoa whoa whoa with the positions and the panties
and the.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Stop it stap it your thoughts text line four one
five two nine five kftc Armstrong. So the Stormy Daniels
is on the stand, and there are various reporters, you know,
sending the notes back as it's going on and everything
like that. So and we'll get your highlights and Katie
(13:44):
Green's stand on top of everything. But one thing I
wanted to mention, just because I thought this was crazy. Well,
first of all, at the very beginning, Stormy Daniels, at
the beginning of the cross examination took issue with the
with the word choice that Trump's lawyer used talking about
how she had undergone mock cross examination to prepare for
the trial.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Daniels took issue with the word mock. Uh, what do
you mean?
Speaker 4 (14:07):
What the hell is that? But anyway, here's the part
I want to get to. Susan Netchelis. The chilis the
lawyer woman. I don't know how you say your name. Anyway,
Trump's lawyer has been relentless in painting Stormy Daniels is
doing all of this. The NDA, the media appearance, is
her book a strip club tour to make money. I
need to point out this is the New York Times
version of this. You'll notice that here, and this is
the new stuff today. Yeah, this is minutes ago. There is,
(14:31):
of course, and then this is the New York Times
reporter throwing that in there after. They're trying to portray
Stormy Daniels is using all this stuff and stuff to
make money. There is, of course, a small irony in
the fact that Trump himself has always lauded a pursuit
of money, including writing a book How to Get Rich.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
That's about we're talking about testimony in court or whether
or not you were trying to extort.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
A guy and make money off of your situation with him.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
That is pathetic, it amazing.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
Anyway, getting to the more specific stuff, Trump's lawyer has
now brought up on the screen. On the screen an
advertisement for an event from Daniel's strip club tour, the
title of which was make America Horney Again. Daniels claimed
on the stand that she hated that tagline all along.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
I never did like that slogan.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Yeah, right, so you were going around the country shaking
it to the name which I remember it was. That
was the whole big deal, was a make America Horney Again.
I never did like that, your honor.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I can guarantee you that two to five jurors right
now are sitting there thinking this is a complete clown show. Entertaining,
but a clown show. Yeah, to that point. One of
the reporters said this, and I think it's true. As
this cross examination between Trump's lawyer and Stormy Daniels goes
along and it's combative and a hostile I'm reminded that
(15:52):
earlier in the week we were going through dry testimony
of checks invoices and ledgers, the falsified business records that
make up the charges in this case. It has to
be a jarring shift for the jury in it. The
whiplash may be startling and possibly confusing.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
I don't know if it's confused.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Well, maybe it is confusing, but at some point somebody
would have to bring you around to either your own
mind or somebody you're sitting next to the jury. This
isn't what the trial's about. It's about that stuff from
earlier in the week, the boring stuff. That's what this
trial is actually about.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
I think it's worse than that, because the average juror
is not an enthusiastic taker in of the justice system
and almost went to law school. They are sitting there thinking,
and I promise you this is true. What are we
supposed to be convicting this guy of again?
Speaker 5 (16:37):
Right?
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Which is no way to run a prosecution.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
The idea that or they've just gotten into the ot again.
The defense posted the tweet of Daniel's calling Trump an
orange turd.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
She says she was not talking about Trump. Hilarious.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Oh wow, when one of your key witnesses lose is
one hundred percent of their credibility, your case is falling apart.
Really now, she wasn't talking about Trump there, she meant
somebody else, a different orange that she owes a bunch
of money.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Apparently, Yeah, sure, wow, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
The staggering toll of the opioid epidemic on children in
this country. New research finds between twenty eleven and twenty
twenty one, three hundred twenty one thousand, five hundred and
sixty six children lost a parent to a drug overdose.
The rate of that loss more than doubled over the decade.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
That is a stunning number. Yikes.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
That is grim three hundred and twenty one thousand kids
lost a parent to opioid or opioid overdose in a
ten year period. So'd be roughly thirty two thousand a
year kids that lost a parent's That's that's a number.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
The question of legalization, criminalization decriminalization drugs is an interesting one,
you know, legally, sociologically, philosophically, for those of us who
are lovers of liberty, I feel like.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
The experiment has been done. It doesn't work. Yeah, I
would agree.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
I think at the very very very least, we need
an aggressive society wide effort from faith.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Leaders to rappers, to athletes.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
To teachers, to do you name it, saying hard drugs
will ruin your life, don't touch them, don't get anywhere
near them. Why is a slippery slope to misery and death?
Why has that not happened yet.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
Is that because there are too many people that feel, like,
you know, they're so happy with the progress they've made
on legalizing marijuana and you know, some other drugs, and
too many people are incarcerated for having one joint. That
old story which isn't true? Is it that which seems
crazy to me? You can't draw the line between marijuana
(19:00):
and fentanyl.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
I think part of it might be, and I mean
that story that you brought us, that there's no such
thing as casual hard drug use anymore. Right, seventeen year
old kid takes his Xanax for a little buzz on
a Friday night, it has fentanyl in it.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
He's dead, and it happens all the time.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
Yes, that should be Like you said, Yeah, there should
be PSA's running with Lebron James or Barack Obamber P
Diddy maybe that's a bad choice, or whoever could get
their attention. Mister beast should be all over the place, right,
I would agree. Yeah, as to why it's not happening
right now, and I swear I'm trying to come up
(19:37):
with a non partisan answer here, but I can't. Other
than drug decriminalization was such a cherished.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Goal of the left.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Yep, I think that's it, because they had the fanciful
notion that folks would just get treatment and get clean
if we only decriminalized it. And you know, the people
of Oregon, God bless him, had that utopian notion that
that's the way it worked. When they find out, when
they found out that it didn't, they revoked the law.
To their credit, I'm sure portlandy is still saying no, no, no,
(20:09):
we just need to give people more and give them houses,
then they'll stop doing drugs.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
But anyway, that's probably it.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
The story of the day, and we'll talk more about
it later. Is Joe Biden saying no to the bombs
that he had approved sending to Israel because he's afraid
they're actually going to prosecute the war that they're prosecuting.
And I think this is the story of the week,
maybe the month, maybe the year. I mean seriously, depending
on how this goes. And we'll talk more about that later. Yeah, indeed,
(20:37):
glad you're here.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
So speaking of and I'm reminded I should have this
tattooed on my arm, the Tomasol quote. He was talking
about the twentieth century, but he was pointing out that
much of our recent history has been getting rid of
what works in favor of what sounds good. And California,
Cali Unicornia, as we affectionately refer to it.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Is absolutely ground zero of.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Fanciful Unicornean schemes that you know in advance, if you
have any sense, are a miserable idea, but they're enacted
over and over again, like the forced twenty dollars minimum
wage for fast food workers. And Rebecca Paxton at The
National Review had a great piece on an update This
(21:23):
is facts only, an update on how that whole thing
is going. She mentions that, Okay, California imposed that twenty
dollars minimum wage for fast food workers. Some fast food workers,
unless you're a Gavin Newsom's buddy, goes.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
At a bar and grille yesterday and I was thinking
ill about these people aren't making twenty dollars primum wage?
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Yeah, for no good reason.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Nope, Golden State lawmakers don't need to speculate about the
consequences of such policy. Twenty A near twenty dollars minimum
wage experiment has already played out in their own backyard.
In twenty twenty one, Unite Here Local eleven a controversial
LA based labor group, ticketed its way into almost eighteen
dollars minimum wage for hotel workers in the city of
(22:05):
West Hollywood, which is the highest rate in the country.
The union didn't stop there. Within the same year, it
successfully pushed to spread this policy to all industries in
the city. If you don't know West Hollywood, it makes
Berkeley look like omahah. As a result, West Hollywood's minimum
wage increased sharply, rising from thirteen to fourteen bucks an
(22:26):
hour and twenty twenty one depending on the business side,
to a peak of over nineteen dollars an hour last July.
The consequences of the policy were devastating and immediate. Numerous
businesses slashed hours, cut staff level, or closed their doors.
They mentioned this small business owner laid off forty percent
of her staff in a last ditch effort to keep
(22:46):
her business alive. New York Times. The conservative New York
Times reported on another local restaurant tour who was forced
to reduce his staff by thirty percent. They quote another fellow, Marco,
who closed his restaurant after thirty years. You keep a
restaurant open for thirty years, you've got the world by
(23:07):
the tail. That's keeping it open for thirty months is
half impossible, but he lamented for a small business like ours,
it's costing us a few thousand dollars to meet this
new minimum wage, which is the highest in the country.
It's really tough for us, and he ended up shutting
it down. Roughly eighty five businesses shuttered in West Hollywood
last year alone for reasons of not being able to
(23:27):
meet payroll. Perhaps unsettled by these consequences, the city commissioned
a study in February of this year to assist to
assess the impact of the minimum wage on local businesses
and employees. Jack, would you like to take a wild
guess what the study showed.
Speaker 4 (23:46):
So what I'm wondering as I'm listening to this is
because I assume the well, I'm just trying to figure out.
Did the politicians know this, the people that push this,
that advocate for this, Yes, most of them do.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
The true believers who are just dewey eyed, you know,
idealists with no grinding in reality, they don't know this.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
But that's to their discredit.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
I mean, come on, why this happens And a little
more detail from the story. After a quick word from
our friends, that's simply save home security. Talking about successful
business is Simply Safe is taken off like a rocket
because it's so damned good, and as you're heading off
for your summer vacations, your ball game is that sort
of thing. It's more important than ever to invest in
simply save home security, so when you're at the lake
(24:35):
cavorting with the kids, you're not worried about whether all
your stuff's still in your house.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
So newsweg ranked at best Customer service and home security
US News and World Report. It was named best home
security system of twenty twenty four and it's not the
most expensive. It's in fact, it's not even close. Twenty
four to seven professional monitoring for less than a dollar
a day, with no contracts and a sixty day money
back guarantee, so there's no risk in trying this out.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
To detect break ins, fires, floods, more, whatever you're at
risk for. You customize the thing for yourself. A variety
of indoor and outdoor cameras, including crazy cool high def
stuff that's going to see everything, license plate faces, everything,
backed by a sixty day money back Here in tea
simply Safe. It's given so many of us a real
peace of mind. We want you to have it. To
get twenty percent off any new simply Safe system when
(25:22):
you sign up for fast protect monitoring. Keep the scumbags
at Bay visit simply safe dot com slash armstrong. That's
simply safe dot com slash armstrong. There's no safe like
simply safe.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
But so did Gavin Newsom, who is big on the
whole twenty dollars minimum wage for fast food workers?
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Did he think that it.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
Wouldn't cause people to lose their jobs, the restaurants to
shut down, or for them to decide to automate.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
He knew precisely what it would do, but that's how
cynical he is. But I don't understand it as a
vote grab. Oh it's crazy successful that I got to
jump to my conclusion.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
So it must be people who don't work at the
restaurant who he's going to get their.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Votes, or people who do work at the restaurants who
haven't thought this through. But let me get to that
in a second. The study in West Hollywood found that
twenty two percent of hourly workers in West Hollywood just
flat efing lost their jobs.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Twenty two percent.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
Well, that's what I was going to say, the workers
at the restaurant, don't they look around and notice, Wow,
one out of five of us just lost their jobs.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
This isn't good.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Some of them will be sadder but wiser, having learned
the economic lesson. A lot of them will blame because
they've been brought up by lefty politicians to blame the
small business owners, because every small business owner is crazy
risk yacht is crazy rich and just pays lower wages
because they're greedy and mean.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
And a lot of people will come away still thinking that.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
But there's more so two percent lost their jobs completely.
An additional seventeen percent experience reduced hours. That's thirty nine
percent who got good and screwed. Forty two percent of
businesses were to layoff workers or cut hours. Over one
third of businesses that reduced employee hours turned to technology
to fill the void.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Well, it's got to add up.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
To one hundred percent had to do something, because you're
not just going to all of a sudden be able
to absorb that.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
All right, And I would guess that, well, it's a
pretty educated guess that the you know, the fifty percent
who still hung under their jobs and were making the
twenty dollars an hour artificial minimum wage or whatever to
nineteen dollars in the hotels that they were having to
bust their asses because they're now brutally understaffed, right, And
those of us who've lived through that sort of thing
(27:33):
know what that feels like.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Did you?
Speaker 4 (27:35):
I think I don't think you were here when I
talked about this, because I had Did you see that
thing I retweeted about the guy who had a subway franchise?
I remember discussing so damned interesting. So this young black
guy got a subway franchise and he's the owner manager
and he works there constantly, and he went through his
(27:56):
bills all downy hours he works and everything, and it
was that shocking to me. But I mean his work
and his ass off.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
It's working.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
I think what he's saying, thirteen sixteen hour days every
single day, and with his electric bill and what you know,
the condiments cost and blah blah blah and this and
that and one employee and everything like that, he's making
like one thousand dollars a week and then an hour
his hourly wage was.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Nothing, right, right, it was a weaker slave wage. Yeah,
But how.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Did the perception get out there that everybody who owns
a subway or a McDonald's or whatever is wealthy.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
I think this is the explanation, and it sounds oversimplified,
but I believe it to my soul, to my spine,
to my marrow. Most Americans are in the age of witchcraft,
believing in evil spirits. When it comes to understanding economics,
and specifically microeconomics, like how a business works. They are
(28:53):
pre modern in their understanding of how it works, and
so they believe all the things we've been describing, and
they think if the government steps in just says you're
going to make more money, you will make more money
and there will be no other effects because they have seriously,
what's another way to put it, like a pre adolescent,
(29:13):
a child's understanding. And I don't mean to be insulting.
It's not your fault if you've not learned something or
not been taught it, although but at least humorous or
at least you learn the state capital. So that's important.
That is the important thing I think, and I've said
this many times. I think one of the best, most
important things we could do as a society is to
(29:35):
make sure every single kid gets out of high school
with a thorough understanding of how small businesses work, how
taxes work, how compound interest works, a very rough idea
of how the stock market works, what an index fund is,
and the fact that we don't do that is tragic.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Some school districts do, to their credit.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
But my son, who's in the private school, I know
a teacher who would love that subway video. I should
send it to him. He'd love to show that to
the cl I mean, because that would be, Oh my god,
the amount of good you could do by just showing
that couple minute video. Yes to every high schooler, right,
I agree completely, And my final point and it sounds partisan,
(30:15):
and for that I insincerely apologize. If we were to
institute that policy for every school kid in America, it
would be devastating the leftist politics. Yea devastating, right, because
the whole narrative of the man has again everybody who
owns the subway has a yacht.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Right, the man is going to stick it to you
unless the government steps in because they've got your back.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
People would go far at that notion.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
With even the most basic understanding of the way the
world really works.
Speaker 4 (30:51):
Hey, KG, are you keeping an eye on the Stormy
Daniels trial. Unfortunately. Yes, oh no, we look forward to
highlights out to show if anything interesting happens, will come
to you when after this break. But I loved that
thing about how I never liked the slogan let's make
America horny again. Okay, the jury has got to be whatever,
(31:13):
this is one of your key witnesses.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Well, and what's this got to do with anything?
Speaker 5 (31:17):
Right?
Speaker 1 (31:18):
All on the way, I just.
Speaker 4 (31:27):
Had this moment of thinking because I was taking in
a little of the SDT Stormy Daniels trial, not the
Stormy Daniels trial, that's what everybody calls it. And then
something else, and then I just had a moment of thinking,
this isn't This can't be real life. This is a
(31:48):
simulation of some sort. This can't be the actual old
world that I like grew up in, of like adults
talking about adult things.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Right, this is the matrix.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Yeah, yeah, I've never seen the Matrix, but I've kind
of just inferred from people's comments about what it's about.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Right, I've never read Moby Dick, but I understand there's
a whale in it.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
So one of the best political stories of the day
yesterday was the New York Times, disclosing having looked into
a divorce trial from years ago with RFK Junior. He
was making the argument, I assume, to try to lessen
his spousal support, that he couldn't work because or he
(32:33):
couldn't work as much as he wanted to because a
worm had eaten away part of his brain.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
And then people were like, what was that? What was that?
You said something about a.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
Worm eating your brain in there, so they dug into
it a little bit, and yeah, yeah, that's what that's.
Apparently what he testified to is that a he was
having some sort of problems and the doctor went in
and found a dead worm in his brain that they
believe had been eating parts of it before it died.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
And if there's one frame these human beings can't ignore,
it's there's a worm in my brain, good lord, or
if it's.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Eaten part of my brain and now I can't work.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
And I was reading about these parasites a little bit,
and it's just so wicky anyway. So the late night
comedian's not surprisingly had at that topic. So let's do
a late night joke off. We've got three comedians taking
a shot at the joke. On the same topic. I
joke Eddie will grade them for their humor abilities in
the bottom grade. Getter will be banned from comedy for life.
Speaker 7 (33:27):
Michael Letterrip RFK Junior said that years ago a doctor
found a dead worm in his brain, and this is strange.
Instead of using d wormer, he injected himself with the
COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
He's got it all wrong.
Speaker 8 (33:44):
Wow, he's got worms in the book brain that explains
the ivermectin.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
It is a de wormer for a guy who.
Speaker 8 (33:49):
Seems to believe doctors are con artists trying to scam
you into getting a vaccine. He sure did get to
run fast when a worm started eating his brain. The
inside of his head is basically the movie Dune.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
But you should definitely vote for him.
Speaker 9 (34:04):
Guys, want to say to any of RFK junior fans
who might be watching, do not to spare. Just because
he has admitted in a swarm deposition that he has
parasitic brain damage doesn't mean he's going to drop out
because Bobby Kennedy Junior does not know the meaning of
the word quit because that information was in the part
of the brain.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
At the worm eight Wow. Next hour, The American comedy crisis.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
I didn't even almost laugh any of those three times,
which is the first time that's ever happened.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
I gave Fallon a D because he's a nice guy.
Kimmel a deep plus because it at least seemed like
it might be a joke. Colbert a C minus. It's
the lowest.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Average grade ever in the history of this.
Speaker 5 (34:53):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
Well, let's hear him talking about He's trying to explain
how well this is RFK Junior yesterday cliped twenty Michael,
I go.
Speaker 10 (35:03):
Hike, and I hiked up hill a mile and a
half up and a mile and a half down with
my dogs, and I do my meditations, and then I
go to the gym, and I go to the gym
for thirty five minutes.
Speaker 4 (35:14):
He was saying, it's hilarious that these two guys are
gonna claim I'm not fit physically or mentally to be president.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
Oh yeah, well all right.
Speaker 4 (35:23):
I mean, you did testify in court that a warm
part of your brain, and so now you can't work
the way you used to be able to. Well, you know,
you got to either say that was true or not
true in nitpicking.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
We later on in the show, John F. Kennedy's grandson
has put out so this is his.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Cousin.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
Yeah, he's put out a series of videos on Instagram
mocking his cousin, cousin, Robert F. Kennedy, for being a
steroid abuser, stupid, he's.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Kind of swool. Yeah, it's it's not charitable. I think
of little Maidy's brain. Yeah, it's kind of of that tone.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
So the update on the oh my god, the utter
miscarriage of justice that is the Trump traveling Manhattan coming
up next hour.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
Stay tuned if
Speaker 4 (36:21):
You dare Armstrong and Geeddy
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
She told me that Donald was chasing her around his
hotel room. And at that time what she told me
was tidy whities.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
That was some woman I saw her on whatever show
I was watching yesterday. So she's another aging hot blonde
who was there at the golf tournament at Lake Tahoe
back in the day.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Because that's where a whole.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Bunch of rich guys are, is the only reason I
can figure out they're there. And Stormy actually invited her,
said you ought to come up to Trump's room too,
and she said, nah, I gotta I'm doing something else.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Maybe she found some other rich guy to hang out with.
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
But Stormy Daniels is back on the stand today. The
cross examination has continued. Specifically, they started by asking her
how in twenty eleven, five years before she signed a
non disclosure agreement. They suggested that she had been denying
the encounter all up until a certain point, and so
(01:07):
they're trying to make the argument that it's clearly was extortion.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
When the election happened, The Wall Street.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Journal lead opinion today is the Stormy Daniels sex trial.
The salacious details of her testimony were irrelevant to the
charges against Trump. As you may recall, the details got
rather detailed, to the disgust of everyone present, including apparently
the judge. The defense asked for a mistrial. The judge said,
were not at that point yet, but certainly there were
(01:36):
some things said that shouldn't be said. Not impressed by
the judge. Seems to me to just be riddled with
holes that can be appealed.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
But what the hell do I know?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Compared to retired Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman, who served
on the bench for thirty one years in the Superior Court,
handled many many trials, including many murder trials in Alameda
County in the San Francisco Bay area in the courthouse
in Oakland, he is also, rumor has it, according to
the Internet, the father of one Katie Green, Your honor,
(02:07):
how are you, sir?
Speaker 5 (02:08):
I'm doing great? Thanks? How are you guys?
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Good? Can we call you Larry?
Speaker 5 (02:10):
Larry? Yea? Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (02:12):
How does one become a judge? I mean, what's the
career path through becoming a judge?
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Uh?
Speaker 6 (02:17):
It depends on if you know the governor or not.
I was appointed by George Duke Masian, So so.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
You're appointed by a governor. Like were you what were
you before you were a judge?
Speaker 5 (02:27):
I was a civil attorney.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
That okay, you're a lawyer criminal cases.
Speaker 6 (02:31):
And then I met then Attorney General George Duke Mason,
and then when he became governor he appointed me to
the bench.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
There you go, excellent.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I've long said I'd be a good judge because I'm
so judgmental. Is there more good than that?
Speaker 5 (02:43):
I can't really, you know, kind of go with the flow.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
So Larry, why don't we just start where we introduced
the segment Stormy Daniel's testimony, the salacious sexual details and
the relationship to the actual charge.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
What's your opinion on all that?
Speaker 5 (03:02):
It's totally irrelevant.
Speaker 6 (03:03):
I mean, it's it's a shock to anybody that's a
decent judge that this was ever let in.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
It has nothing to do with the charges.
Speaker 6 (03:11):
The test you normally use is the probative value outweigh
the prejudicial effect. And I don't know how anybody with
any sense could say that the probate of value.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Most of these words you can't use if you're talking
about Stormy Daniels, we can't use the word probative. Nope,
there's just so many it makes it so difficult to
talk about. Well, was it the judge's job to jump
up and say this is irrelevant? Or was it Trump's
lawyer's job to jump up?
Speaker 6 (03:32):
Well, I think they did jump up and say it's
irrelevant multiple times, and he overruled them, and then when
they objected, he overruled them, and then he accused them
of not objecting enough where he has the power to
object himself. As a matter of fact, he actually did
impose one objection on his own to her testimony, so
we knew he had the ability to control it.
Speaker 5 (03:50):
He just didn't.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
We both have pretty strong opinions, but I really try
to avoid being the knee jerk obvious conservative bomb chucker.
I try to only say things that I mean, and
then I'm fairly confident about it. Seems to me this
judge is weak and prejudiced. Is that too strong?
Speaker 5 (04:10):
Probably not.
Speaker 6 (04:11):
I mean, there's it's almost like he got his judicial
training from watching Law and Order, you know, where they
call everybody up to the bench and not allowing that
in or into chambers motion denied, instead of actually having
hearings and listening to witnesses and reviewing papers and making rulings.
It's unfathomable the way he's running his courtroom.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
And if you were an attorney thinking we might lose
this one and will file an appeal, would you be
pretty optimistic about the appeals process.
Speaker 6 (04:40):
I'd be very optimistic about the appeals process. Although it's
probably that closing the gate after the horse gets out
of the barn, because the damage will have been done.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
To the candidate politically, and that's always we got to separate,
you know, what this does to him politically versus the
legal situation. I got to ask this, even though it's
a bit of a a tangent. So you talking about
the judge watching too much Law and Order. Whenever we've
had cop panels, it's been pretty universal over the years
(05:11):
that the good cops say about a quarter of the
cops I've worked with shouldn't be cops. What percentage of
judges do you think shouldn't be judges?
Speaker 5 (05:20):
Wow, that's uh.
Speaker 6 (05:22):
I don't know if i'd go twenty five percent, but
there are people that I served with that every now
and then you'd want to go back and check they
make sure they had a bar card.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Yeah, you think maybe ten percent of judges shouldn't be judges,
or would you?
Speaker 6 (05:34):
I'd say ten to fifteen percent, that's enough. Interesting. Probably
some of them would say that about me too.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
But yeah, maybe, yeah, Fairship, maybe that's it. It's just
a disagreement of philosophy.
Speaker 6 (05:45):
Yeah, there are judge certain judges that don't just don't prepare.
I had one judge was amazed that I asked you
read cases. He said, well, I quit doing that years ago. Yeah,
there are judges who just don't care.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
We're talking to retired Superior Court judge Larry Goodman, who
tried many, many, many many cases in the Bay Area.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Do you have a rough number how many cases you tried?
Speaker 5 (06:07):
Over one hundred homicide cases?
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Good lord?
Speaker 6 (06:09):
Wow, twelve death penalty cases and beyond that.
Speaker 5 (06:14):
Those are my clerk's numbers.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
I keep getting tangent questions.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
How often do cases turn out and you think, wow,
that is not the right decision verdict?
Speaker 6 (06:24):
You mean, yeah, yeah, not very often, not very often.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Usually you think it should.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
Yeah, most of the time.
Speaker 6 (06:31):
I had a couple of cases that came out totally
different than I thought they would come out.
Speaker 5 (06:37):
Most of the time, it's pretty close.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yeah, So I actually have a jury related question. I've
been on a handful of juries. It's a fascinating experience.
I'm enthusiastic about serving on juries as opposed to a
lot of people, and I would suggest folks take a
minute to think about the sacred duty we have to
each other to render just verdicts before you try to
weasel out just because you don't want to do it. Anyway,
(07:00):
it was also a terrifying experience trying to reason with
some people who are not capable of reason. But this,
getting back to the stormy Daniel's testimony, how it was irrelevant, prejudicial,
half gross and half sexy. How do you think jurors
(07:21):
might react to that?
Speaker 6 (07:23):
Well, that's hard to tell, you know, jurors are an
unknown quantity. A lot of the times, a lot of
you think, well, they'll be shocked and they'll think to
Trump's the worst person in the world.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
Other jurors might.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
Go, Wow, this lady's really messed up, and whatever she
has to say, I'm not going to listen to it.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
Yeah, just really hard to tell.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Sorry, Just as.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
A former juror if all of the testimony unwound the
way it did. And then she said, but I didn't
do any of this for the money. I'm sorry you're on.
I'm sorry I did go faud.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
Well, I understand.
Speaker 6 (07:55):
A couple of jurors were seen shaking their head or
trying to cover their mouth because they were starting to
giggle when she was testifying about some of the things
she testified to. It's just hard to tell, you know.
You watch a jury and you set up there. That's
one of the things you do as a judges. You
watch their reactions and sometimes you think, boy, I understand
these people completely, and then they go and do something
(08:16):
you had no idea what they're going to do.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
But so later in the day the judge did say,
we heard a bunch of stuff that you know wasn't necessary,
we didn't need to hear. But you feel like he
should have jumped in earlier, you know, when they got
into sexual positions and stuff like that, and said no, no, no,
come on now.
Speaker 6 (08:31):
Absolutely, at that point, he you know, calls them to
the bench and says knock it off, or he starts
interposing an objection of his own, and he keeps doing
it with more and more force.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
So he looks at the jury and he starts.
Speaker 6 (08:43):
Shaking his head, going I told you not to go there,
And eventually the jury starts going, Wow, these people are
disregarding what the judge has to say, and then it
starts working against them.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
So the judge has already told us that he thinks
her testimony was irrelevant to the charges.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
So let's talk just a little bit.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Without fully explaining the charges because it would take too long.
The idea that they misrepresented a filing, which is a
misdemeanor to commit another crime, which is a misdemeanor that
the local DA doesn't actually have jurisdiction over, but that
makes it a felony, and it all ends up being
(09:19):
election fraud because covering up an affair is fraud, which
is a ridiculous notion.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
I'm sorry, I'm leading. The witness.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
Would absolutely I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
What do you think of the underlying charges?
Speaker 5 (09:32):
Well, I don't understand them.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Wow.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
Well, I mean it's you're asking a state court to
enforce a federal election law, and that's they don't have
the jurisdiction to do it. One of the other problems
I have with his judge, is he should have made
the prosecution lay out specifically before the trial starts. What
is your theory, what is the crime? And how do
you think you're going to get there?
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Because we're now do that.
Speaker 5 (09:57):
They're playing hide the ball with the defense through most
of this.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Yeah, because we're now fifteen days in and they still
haven't explained how they're going to do the math on
that and make sure.
Speaker 5 (10:06):
It would have made them do that the very first day.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Interesting, right, Yeah, speaking of the appeals process, we should
flip this around to the other side to be fair.
How about Trump and the gag order and the fact
that he's violated.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
How would you have handled that whole situation?
Speaker 6 (10:20):
Well, you know, the gag order is kind of interesting
because the jury knows all about all those gag orders
and all the contempts because how could they avoid it.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
So now in the.
Speaker 6 (10:29):
Jury, even though the jury's not in the courtroom, when
they're talking about the gag order and forcing the gag
order and posing the gag order, the jury goes home
and turns on a TV.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
What do they see?
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Well, that's interesting.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Right now you assume as a judge that even though
they're not supposed to watch TV about the trial.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
I don't think you think they do, just assume they do.
Speaker 6 (10:47):
Of course they do inter me, particularly on something this
high publicity. How are they going to avoid it unless
they don't turn on the television, don't turn on social media,
don't look at anything that's written.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Down, right, they're going to see it.
Speaker 6 (10:58):
Okay, the neighbor's going to say, hey, what do you
think about that before you can tell him to be quiet.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Wow. Interesting, But would you have.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Punished Trump in the same way as often or more
or whatever.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
I would never have imposed the gag order in the
first place. Gag orders are to protect the defendant, and
it's over broad, it's vague, you know. Trump's can be
a pain in that, you know what. So I suppose
he felt like he had to do something, but I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (11:25):
That this was the way to do it, you know.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
I'm I heard a commentator say the other day that
he pointed out that the judge's daughter, who Trump had
said some critical things of, and it was portrayed in
the media, of course, that she's a pigtailed twelve year
old just trying to get through middle school, when she's
a full grown woman who is a high ranking campaign
(11:49):
person in Kamala Harris's office, specifically for the Biden Harris campaign.
And this person said, can't they find a judge in
New York who doesn't have a close family member who's
on the Biden campaign?
Speaker 1 (12:03):
And I thought, you know, that's a pretty good point.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Does that strike you as at least an uncomfortable conflict
of interest?
Speaker 6 (12:12):
Yeah, I mean the canon of ethics say that you're
supposed to avoid all appearances of impropriety, and this is
a pretty good appearance of impropriety. And when they tried
to recuse this judge, what the judge should have done
was file an affidavit and it should have gone to
a third judge or another judge to actually hold a
hearing on whether it was improper or not and then
(12:33):
rule on refusal motion.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
So if I'd pulled off a jewel heist and you're
the judge, or they're talking about you for the judge,
and that turns out, you know, your daughter does the
news on our radio show, then maybe you wouldn't be
the right judge much.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
It might not be Yeah, at least have to hold
a hearing. Wow, this case stinks as much as I
thought it did. Retired Supirity Court judge Larry Goodman. Larry
really really enjoyed the conversation. I hope we can do
it again sometime.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Yeah, I'm available. Okay, cool, excellent, Thank you so much.
He's a retired judge, so he's available. Very tired. People
love being available.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
Oh yeah, interesting stuff.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
So the judge should have jumped in and said, what
is this talk about?
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Whoa whoa whoa whoa with the positions and the panties
and the.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Stop it stap it your thoughts text line four one
five two nine five kftc Armstrong. So the Stormy Daniels
is on the stand, and there are various reporters, you know,
sending the notes back as it's going on and everything
like that. So and we'll get your highlights and Katie
(13:44):
Green's stand on top of everything. But one thing I
wanted to mention, just because I thought this was crazy. Well,
first of all, at the very beginning, Stormy Daniels, at
the beginning of the cross examination took issue with the
with the word choice that Trump's lawyer used talking about
how she had undergone mock cross examination to prepare for
the trial.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Daniels took issue with the word mock. Uh, what do
you mean?
Speaker 4 (14:07):
What the hell is that? But anyway, here's the part
I want to get to. Susan Netchelis. The chilis the
lawyer woman. I don't know how you say your name. Anyway,
Trump's lawyer has been relentless in painting Stormy Daniels is
doing all of this. The NDA, the media appearance, is
her book a strip club tour to make money. I
need to point out this is the New York Times
version of this. You'll notice that here, and this is
the new stuff today. Yeah, this is minutes ago. There is,
(14:31):
of course, and then this is the New York Times
reporter throwing that in there after. They're trying to portray
Stormy Daniels is using all this stuff and stuff to
make money. There is, of course, a small irony in
the fact that Trump himself has always lauded a pursuit
of money, including writing a book How to Get Rich.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
That's about we're talking about testimony in court or whether
or not you were trying to extort.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
A guy and make money off of your situation with him.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
That is pathetic, it amazing.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
Anyway, getting to the more specific stuff, Trump's lawyer has
now brought up on the screen. On the screen an
advertisement for an event from Daniel's strip club tour, the
title of which was make America Horney Again. Daniels claimed
on the stand that she hated that tagline all along.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
I never did like that slogan.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Yeah, right, so you were going around the country shaking
it to the name which I remember it was. That
was the whole big deal, was a make America Horney Again.
I never did like that, your honor.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I can guarantee you that two to five jurors right
now are sitting there thinking this is a complete clown show. Entertaining,
but a clown show. Yeah, to that point. One of
the reporters said this, and I think it's true. As
this cross examination between Trump's lawyer and Stormy Daniels goes
along and it's combative and a hostile I'm reminded that
(15:52):
earlier in the week we were going through dry testimony
of checks invoices and ledgers, the falsified business records that
make up the charges in this case. It has to
be a jarring shift for the jury in it. The
whiplash may be startling and possibly confusing.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
I don't know if it's confused.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Well, maybe it is confusing, but at some point somebody
would have to bring you around to either your own
mind or somebody you're sitting next to the jury. This
isn't what the trial's about. It's about that stuff from
earlier in the week, the boring stuff. That's what this
trial is actually about.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
I think it's worse than that, because the average juror
is not an enthusiastic taker in of the justice system
and almost went to law school. They are sitting there thinking,
and I promise you this is true. What are we
supposed to be convicting this guy of again?
Speaker 5 (16:37):
Right?
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Which is no way to run a prosecution.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
The idea that or they've just gotten into the ot again.
The defense posted the tweet of Daniel's calling Trump an
orange turd.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
She says she was not talking about Trump. Hilarious.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Oh wow, when one of your key witnesses lose is
one hundred percent of their credibility, your case is falling apart.
Really now, she wasn't talking about Trump there, she meant
somebody else, a different orange that she owes a bunch
of money.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Apparently, Yeah, sure, wow, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
The staggering toll of the opioid epidemic on children in
this country. New research finds between twenty eleven and twenty
twenty one, three hundred twenty one thousand, five hundred and
sixty six children lost a parent to a drug overdose.
The rate of that loss more than doubled over the decade.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
That is a stunning number. Yikes.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
That is grim three hundred and twenty one thousand kids
lost a parent to opioid or opioid overdose in a
ten year period. So'd be roughly thirty two thousand a
year kids that lost a parent's That's that's a number.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
The question of legalization, criminalization decriminalization drugs is an interesting one,
you know, legally, sociologically, philosophically, for those of us who
are lovers of liberty, I feel like.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
The experiment has been done. It doesn't work. Yeah, I
would agree.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
I think at the very very very least, we need
an aggressive society wide effort from faith.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Leaders to rappers, to athletes.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
To teachers, to do you name it, saying hard drugs
will ruin your life, don't touch them, don't get anywhere
near them. Why is a slippery slope to misery and death?
Why has that not happened yet.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
Is that because there are too many people that feel, like,
you know, they're so happy with the progress they've made
on legalizing marijuana and you know, some other drugs, and
too many people are incarcerated for having one joint. That
old story which isn't true? Is it that which seems
crazy to me? You can't draw the line between marijuana
(19:00):
and fentanyl.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
I think part of it might be, and I mean
that story that you brought us, that there's no such
thing as casual hard drug use anymore. Right, seventeen year
old kid takes his Xanax for a little buzz on
a Friday night, it has fentanyl in it.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
He's dead, and it happens all the time.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
Yes, that should be Like you said, Yeah, there should
be PSA's running with Lebron James or Barack Obamber P
Diddy maybe that's a bad choice, or whoever could get
their attention. Mister beast should be all over the place, right,
I would agree. Yeah, as to why it's not happening
right now, and I swear I'm trying to come up
(19:37):
with a non partisan answer here, but I can't. Other
than drug decriminalization was such a cherished.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Goal of the left.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Yep, I think that's it, because they had the fanciful
notion that folks would just get treatment and get clean
if we only decriminalized it. And you know, the people
of Oregon, God bless him, had that utopian notion that
that's the way it worked. When they find out, when
they found out that it didn't, they revoked the law.
To their credit, I'm sure portlandy is still saying no, no, no,
(20:09):
we just need to give people more and give them houses,
then they'll stop doing drugs.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
But anyway, that's probably it.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
The story of the day, and we'll talk more about
it later. Is Joe Biden saying no to the bombs
that he had approved sending to Israel because he's afraid
they're actually going to prosecute the war that they're prosecuting.
And I think this is the story of the week,
maybe the month, maybe the year. I mean seriously, depending
on how this goes. And we'll talk more about that later. Yeah, indeed,
(20:37):
glad you're here.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
So speaking of and I'm reminded I should have this
tattooed on my arm, the Tomasol quote. He was talking
about the twentieth century, but he was pointing out that
much of our recent history has been getting rid of
what works in favor of what sounds good. And California,
Cali Unicornia, as we affectionately refer to it.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Is absolutely ground zero of.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Fanciful Unicornean schemes that you know in advance, if you
have any sense, are a miserable idea, but they're enacted
over and over again, like the forced twenty dollars minimum
wage for fast food workers. And Rebecca Paxton at The
National Review had a great piece on an update This
(21:23):
is facts only, an update on how that whole thing
is going. She mentions that, Okay, California imposed that twenty
dollars minimum wage for fast food workers. Some fast food workers,
unless you're a Gavin Newsom's buddy, goes.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
At a bar and grille yesterday and I was thinking
ill about these people aren't making twenty dollars primum wage?
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Yeah, for no good reason.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Nope, Golden State lawmakers don't need to speculate about the
consequences of such policy. Twenty A near twenty dollars minimum
wage experiment has already played out in their own backyard.
In twenty twenty one, Unite Here Local eleven a controversial
LA based labor group, ticketed its way into almost eighteen
dollars minimum wage for hotel workers in the city of
(22:05):
West Hollywood, which is the highest rate in the country.
The union didn't stop there. Within the same year, it
successfully pushed to spread this policy to all industries in
the city. If you don't know West Hollywood, it makes
Berkeley look like omahah. As a result, West Hollywood's minimum
wage increased sharply, rising from thirteen to fourteen bucks an
(22:26):
hour and twenty twenty one depending on the business side,
to a peak of over nineteen dollars an hour last July.
The consequences of the policy were devastating and immediate. Numerous
businesses slashed hours, cut staff level, or closed their doors.
They mentioned this small business owner laid off forty percent
of her staff in a last ditch effort to keep
(22:46):
her business alive. New York Times. The conservative New York
Times reported on another local restaurant tour who was forced
to reduce his staff by thirty percent. They quote another fellow, Marco,
who closed his restaurant after thirty years. You keep a
restaurant open for thirty years, you've got the world by
(23:07):
the tail. That's keeping it open for thirty months is
half impossible, but he lamented for a small business like ours,
it's costing us a few thousand dollars to meet this
new minimum wage, which is the highest in the country.
It's really tough for us, and he ended up shutting
it down. Roughly eighty five businesses shuttered in West Hollywood
last year alone for reasons of not being able to
(23:27):
meet payroll. Perhaps unsettled by these consequences, the city commissioned
a study in February of this year to assist to
assess the impact of the minimum wage on local businesses
and employees. Jack, would you like to take a wild
guess what the study showed.
Speaker 4 (23:46):
So what I'm wondering as I'm listening to this is
because I assume the well, I'm just trying to figure out.
Did the politicians know this, the people that push this,
that advocate for this, Yes, most of them do.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
The true believers who are just dewey eyed, you know,
idealists with no grinding in reality, they don't know this.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
But that's to their discredit.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
I mean, come on, why this happens And a little
more detail from the story. After a quick word from
our friends, that's simply save home security. Talking about successful
business is Simply Safe is taken off like a rocket
because it's so damned good, and as you're heading off
for your summer vacations, your ball game is that sort
of thing. It's more important than ever to invest in
simply save home security, so when you're at the lake
(24:35):
cavorting with the kids, you're not worried about whether all
your stuff's still in your house.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
So newsweg ranked at best Customer service and home security
US News and World Report. It was named best home
security system of twenty twenty four and it's not the
most expensive. It's in fact, it's not even close. Twenty
four to seven professional monitoring for less than a dollar
a day, with no contracts and a sixty day money
back guarantee, so there's no risk in trying this out.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
To detect break ins, fires, floods, more, whatever you're at
risk for. You customize the thing for yourself. A variety
of indoor and outdoor cameras, including crazy cool high def
stuff that's going to see everything, license plate faces, everything,
backed by a sixty day money back Here in tea
simply Safe. It's given so many of us a real
peace of mind. We want you to have it. To
get twenty percent off any new simply Safe system when
(25:22):
you sign up for fast protect monitoring. Keep the scumbags
at Bay visit simply safe dot com slash armstrong. That's
simply safe dot com slash armstrong. There's no safe like
simply safe.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
But so did Gavin Newsom, who is big on the
whole twenty dollars minimum wage for fast food workers?
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Did he think that it.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
Wouldn't cause people to lose their jobs, the restaurants to
shut down, or for them to decide to automate.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
He knew precisely what it would do, but that's how
cynical he is. But I don't understand it as a
vote grab. Oh it's crazy successful that I got to
jump to my conclusion.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
So it must be people who don't work at the
restaurant who he's going to get their.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Votes, or people who do work at the restaurants who
haven't thought this through. But let me get to that
in a second. The study in West Hollywood found that
twenty two percent of hourly workers in West Hollywood just
flat efing lost their jobs.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Twenty two percent.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
Well, that's what I was going to say, the workers
at the restaurant, don't they look around and notice, Wow,
one out of five of us just lost their jobs.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
This isn't good.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Some of them will be sadder but wiser, having learned
the economic lesson. A lot of them will blame because
they've been brought up by lefty politicians to blame the
small business owners, because every small business owner is crazy
risk yacht is crazy rich and just pays lower wages
because they're greedy and mean.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
And a lot of people will come away still thinking that.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
But there's more so two percent lost their jobs completely.
An additional seventeen percent experience reduced hours. That's thirty nine
percent who got good and screwed. Forty two percent of
businesses were to layoff workers or cut hours. Over one
third of businesses that reduced employee hours turned to technology
to fill the void.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Well, it's got to add up.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
To one hundred percent had to do something, because you're
not just going to all of a sudden be able
to absorb that.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
All right, And I would guess that, well, it's a
pretty educated guess that the you know, the fifty percent
who still hung under their jobs and were making the
twenty dollars an hour artificial minimum wage or whatever to
nineteen dollars in the hotels that they were having to
bust their asses because they're now brutally understaffed, right, And
those of us who've lived through that sort of thing
(27:33):
know what that feels like.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Did you?
Speaker 4 (27:35):
I think I don't think you were here when I
talked about this, because I had Did you see that
thing I retweeted about the guy who had a subway franchise?
I remember discussing so damned interesting. So this young black
guy got a subway franchise and he's the owner manager
and he works there constantly, and he went through his
(27:56):
bills all downy hours he works and everything, and it
was that shocking to me. But I mean his work
and his ass off.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
It's working.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
I think what he's saying, thirteen sixteen hour days every
single day, and with his electric bill and what you know,
the condiments cost and blah blah blah and this and
that and one employee and everything like that, he's making
like one thousand dollars a week and then an hour
his hourly wage was.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Nothing, right, right, it was a weaker slave wage. Yeah,
But how.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Did the perception get out there that everybody who owns
a subway or a McDonald's or whatever is wealthy.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
I think this is the explanation, and it sounds oversimplified,
but I believe it to my soul, to my spine,
to my marrow. Most Americans are in the age of witchcraft,
believing in evil spirits. When it comes to understanding economics,
and specifically microeconomics, like how a business works. They are
(28:53):
pre modern in their understanding of how it works, and
so they believe all the things we've been describing, and
they think if the government steps in just says you're
going to make more money, you will make more money
and there will be no other effects because they have seriously,
what's another way to put it, like a pre adolescent,
(29:13):
a child's understanding. And I don't mean to be insulting.
It's not your fault if you've not learned something or
not been taught it, although but at least humorous or
at least you learn the state capital. So that's important.
That is the important thing I think, and I've said
this many times. I think one of the best, most
important things we could do as a society is to
(29:35):
make sure every single kid gets out of high school
with a thorough understanding of how small businesses work, how
taxes work, how compound interest works, a very rough idea
of how the stock market works, what an index fund is,
and the fact that we don't do that is tragic.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Some school districts do, to their credit.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
But my son, who's in the private school, I know
a teacher who would love that subway video. I should
send it to him. He'd love to show that to
the cl I mean, because that would be, Oh my god,
the amount of good you could do by just showing
that couple minute video. Yes to every high schooler, right,
I agree completely, And my final point and it sounds partisan,
(30:15):
and for that I insincerely apologize. If we were to
institute that policy for every school kid in America, it
would be devastating the leftist politics. Yea devastating, right, because
the whole narrative of the man has again everybody who
owns the subway has a yacht.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Right, the man is going to stick it to you
unless the government steps in because they've got your back.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
People would go far at that notion.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
With even the most basic understanding of the way the
world really works.
Speaker 4 (30:51):
Hey, KG, are you keeping an eye on the Stormy
Daniels trial. Unfortunately. Yes, oh no, we look forward to
highlights out to show if anything interesting happens, will come
to you when after this break. But I loved that
thing about how I never liked the slogan let's make
America horny again. Okay, the jury has got to be whatever,
(31:13):
this is one of your key witnesses.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Well, and what's this got to do with anything?
Speaker 5 (31:17):
Right?
Speaker 1 (31:18):
All on the way, I just.
Speaker 4 (31:27):
Had this moment of thinking because I was taking in
a little of the SDT Stormy Daniels trial, not the
Stormy Daniels trial, that's what everybody calls it. And then
something else, and then I just had a moment of thinking,
this isn't This can't be real life. This is a
(31:48):
simulation of some sort. This can't be the actual old
world that I like grew up in, of like adults
talking about adult things.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Right, this is the matrix.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Yeah, yeah, I've never seen the Matrix, but I've kind
of just inferred from people's comments about what it's about.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Right, I've never read Moby Dick, but I understand there's
a whale in it.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
So one of the best political stories of the day
yesterday was the New York Times, disclosing having looked into
a divorce trial from years ago with RFK Junior. He
was making the argument, I assume, to try to lessen
his spousal support, that he couldn't work because or he
(32:33):
couldn't work as much as he wanted to because a
worm had eaten away part of his brain.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
And then people were like, what was that? What was that?
You said something about a.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
Worm eating your brain in there, so they dug into
it a little bit, and yeah, yeah, that's what that's.
Apparently what he testified to is that a he was
having some sort of problems and the doctor went in
and found a dead worm in his brain that they
believe had been eating parts of it before it died.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
And if there's one frame these human beings can't ignore,
it's there's a worm in my brain, good lord, or
if it's.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Eaten part of my brain and now I can't work.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
And I was reading about these parasites a little bit,
and it's just so wicky anyway. So the late night
comedian's not surprisingly had at that topic. So let's do
a late night joke off. We've got three comedians taking
a shot at the joke. On the same topic. I
joke Eddie will grade them for their humor abilities in
the bottom grade. Getter will be banned from comedy for life.
Speaker 7 (33:27):
Michael Letterrip RFK Junior said that years ago a doctor
found a dead worm in his brain, and this is strange.
Instead of using d wormer, he injected himself with the
COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
He's got it all wrong.
Speaker 8 (33:44):
Wow, he's got worms in the book brain that explains
the ivermectin.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
It is a de wormer for a guy who.
Speaker 8 (33:49):
Seems to believe doctors are con artists trying to scam
you into getting a vaccine. He sure did get to
run fast when a worm started eating his brain. The
inside of his head is basically the movie Dune.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
But you should definitely vote for him.
Speaker 9 (34:04):
Guys, want to say to any of RFK junior fans
who might be watching, do not to spare. Just because
he has admitted in a swarm deposition that he has
parasitic brain damage doesn't mean he's going to drop out
because Bobby Kennedy Junior does not know the meaning of
the word quit because that information was in the part
of the brain.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
At the worm eight Wow. Next hour, The American comedy crisis.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
I didn't even almost laugh any of those three times,
which is the first time that's ever happened.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
I gave Fallon a D because he's a nice guy.
Kimmel a deep plus because it at least seemed like
it might be a joke. Colbert a C minus. It's
the lowest.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Average grade ever in the history of this.
Speaker 5 (34:53):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
Well, let's hear him talking about He's trying to explain
how well this is RFK Junior yesterday cliped twenty Michael,
I go.
Speaker 10 (35:03):
Hike, and I hiked up hill a mile and a
half up and a mile and a half down with
my dogs, and I do my meditations, and then I
go to the gym, and I go to the gym
for thirty five minutes.
Speaker 4 (35:14):
He was saying, it's hilarious that these two guys are
gonna claim I'm not fit physically or mentally to be president.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
Oh yeah, well all right.
Speaker 4 (35:23):
I mean, you did testify in court that a warm
part of your brain, and so now you can't work
the way you used to be able to. Well, you know,
you got to either say that was true or not
true in nitpicking.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
We later on in the show, John F. Kennedy's grandson
has put out so this is his.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Cousin.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
Yeah, he's put out a series of videos on Instagram
mocking his cousin, cousin, Robert F. Kennedy, for being a
steroid abuser, stupid, he's.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Kind of swool. Yeah, it's it's not charitable. I think
of little Maidy's brain. Yeah, it's kind of of that tone.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
So the update on the oh my god, the utter
miscarriage of justice that is the Trump traveling Manhattan coming
up next hour.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
Stay tuned if
Speaker 4 (36:21):
You dare Armstrong and Geeddy
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.