06-30-25 - *FULL SHOW* Robert Bryce; What About Hate Crimes; F for Justice Jackson

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I hope he had a great weekend. Mine was pretty mellow.
It was, you know, mid nineties around here on Saturday.
And so actually, so here's what happened. True story. So,
my wife just finished reading the last CJ Box novel.
It's called Battle Mountain, and we had CJ on the
show to talk about it some months ago. And it's

(00:21):
set in the mountains, you know, forests, mountains all that
in Wyoming, as most CJ Box novels are, and my
wife just sort of got inspired reading that at that
very moment. I don't mean big picture inspired, I mean
inspired at the moment that she was reading to go.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
To the mountains and go hiking. So she said, hey,
you ross.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
You want to go for a hike. So we got
in the car and we drove forty five minutes or
an hour or whatever to the Jefferson County foothills somewhere
and did a nearly two hour hike and it was
it was really great. You know, it was around ninety
four degrees at our house. It was around seventy four
degrees where we were hiking, and it was just lovely.

(01:00):
As is usual with my wife, I thought we would
hike for forty five minutes or an hour, but she said, oh,
let's go this way, and then it ended up being
an hour forty five or something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:10):
But it was awesome.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
The only the only negative for me was that I
really like eating sunflower seeds while I hike, and I
picked up a bag of sunflower seeds from my pantry and.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
They were kind of stale, so I got out. I
got out there on the trail.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
You know, the shell's still all right, but then you
get to the little kernel in the inside. It was
sort of mushy and it wasn't crunchy, it didn't snap,
you know when you bit down on the sunflower seed.
Shannon's nodding like he knows what I'm talking about. So
I ended up not eating my sunflower seeds. But that
was the only downside it was it was just great.
There is something so wonderful about getting out of the city,

(01:49):
getting into the mountains, into the trees, hearing the bugs
and the birds and the whatever, and just getting away
from it all. It's it's just an absolutely great thing.
And then on the way home, we saw what I
think is a juvenile not very young, but the equivalent
of a teenager black bear crossing the road and then

(02:11):
walking up the driveway to probably try to steal somebody's
trash or dig dig through somebody's trash. I got a
picture of that, you know what. I didn't put it
in the blog today. Maybe i'll maybe I'll put it
on tomorrow's blog.

Speaker 2 (02:23):
But that was a cool thing too.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Anyway, I hope you had a wonderful weekend and that
it was full of fun stuff.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yeah. Oh the other thing I did.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
The other thing I did, And you know that I
would like to warn there's a lot of news going
on today. There's a lot of things I could be
talking about in the news, and I promise we will
momentarily in fact, but you know that I like to
kind of warm up slowly on a Monday. It's just
not right to take up, you know, a cold car
and jam it into third gear and jam on the
gas right away. That's just not how we do it here.

(02:55):
We like to protect our engines, and so we like
to warm up a little bit slow, especially especially on
a Monday. So the other thing that I'll tell you
that I did over the weekend was went online and
booked airfare, rental car, and dates for visits to colleges

(03:16):
to take my younger kid to go look at some colleges.
That's going to be about a month from now, So
I'm gonna miss just a couple of days of work
because I'm going to go to a couple of the
colleges and then my wife is going to continue with
the kid to go look at other ones. And for now,
believe it or not, it's not up to me and

(03:37):
my kid. My kid's gonna choose what he wants to do.
But at the moment, we're only looking. He's only looking
in California. So that's what that's what we're gonna do.
So I spent a bit of the weekend booking the
tours and booking the flights and booking the rental car,
and my wife's going to.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
Book the hotels. So anyway, that was my weekend.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
Now, before we get to all the big political stuff
and the the big beautiful bill vote that you just
heard Pat Wood are talking about a little bit, I
just wanted to share with you a rather odd story,
rather odd story, and I heard it this weekend and
then I went to find the story online and there
it is, and I mean it's all over the place,
not a hard story to find. So sometime in the

(04:20):
past few days, I guess it was last Tuesday, maybe
the brutal dictator and the rather odd person, apparently a
brutal dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong un, did a
ribbon cutting ceremony at a massive new resort beach resort

(04:42):
in North Korea.

Speaker 2 (04:44):
It's called Kalma k A l m A.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
It's a two and a half mile long beach and
there are pictures out there. I'm not sure if there's
any good videos really, but there's pictures out there, and
this place is a enormous I mean, just imagine like,
I don't know, it's not as big as Kancun it,
but imagine a scene like that, you know, two plus

(05:10):
miles of beach with building after building.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
They're all kind of tall.

Speaker 1 (05:16):
But some of them are more like skyscrapers, and some
of them are more like that's sort of more traditional.
You know, five six, seven eight story beachside hotel lining
the beach, I mean, and they look sort of like
gleaming new things. But who knows what they're like on
the inside, right, who knows if the toilets work and
all that stuff. And then and then just behind it,

(05:38):
sort of across a canal away from the ocean itself,
there's a giant water park. And what's kind of wacky
about this is who's gonna go. So obviously the reason
you do this if you're a country like North Korea
is to get hard currency, because the North Korean currency
is worthless except in North Korea, and it's not worth

(05:59):
very much they are either, So you want to get
hard currency, and it could be dollars, but it could
be almost anything else too. It could be Chinese wand
it could be it could be any anything really pretty much,
and almost anything is worth more than North Korean currency,
So that's obviously what they want. But who's gonna go

(06:21):
at the moment. So the only apparent international guest at
the ribbon ribbon cutting ceremony was some mid level Russian diplomat,
like the Russian console in North Korea or something, and
that's about it. Now. You'd think, of course that there'd

(06:41):
be a lot of Chinese visitors there, but a couple
of years back North Korea started blocking Chinese tourism during COVID,
but they haven't reopened it again. They haven't reopened it again,
So like in twenty eighteen, it was reported that about
two hundred thousand Chinese visited North Korea. But right now,

(07:02):
that's not that's not even open. But what a crazy thing.
I mean, I wouldn't go. I wouldn't go because specifically
because I mean, it would be kind of a lark,
wouldn't it go to North Korea and go to a
beach resort. It would be pretty wacky. But just to
put it in perspective. So when I was in so

(07:22):
you've probably heard of Victoria Falls, some of the most
beautiful waterfalls in the world. And on one side of
Victoria Falls is Zambia and the other side of Victoria
Falls is Zimbabwe, formerly called Rhodesia.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
I don't remember the old name for Zambia.

Speaker 1 (07:39):
And I was on the Zambia side at vic Falls.
Just a gorgeous place, and you can walk across a bridge,
I guess, and go into Zimbabwe. And half of me
was tempted to go just to get the stamp in
my passport.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
But at the time, at least.

Speaker 1 (07:56):
The government in Zimbabwe is just so evil and terrible.

Speaker 2 (08:01):
I just said, you know.

Speaker 1 (08:02):
What, as much as I want that stamp in my passport,
I don't want those people to have one dollar of
my money, and I'm not going. And that's kind of
how I feel about a North Korean beach resort, Like
I it would be such a cool story, but I
don't want them to have even a dollar of my money. Still,
It's just it really is kind of surreal, like people

(08:22):
don't even know how they would have been able to
afford and then physically acquire all the construction materials needed
for this. Where do they get the money? It's a
famously poor country. Did they get the millions or billions
of dollars for this by selling weapons to Iran or

(08:43):
Russia or well, Russia doesn't need a lot of help
with that. Where do they get the money? Nobody knows.
Here's the other one thing that's interesting, and a lot
of the video and the still photos around this sort
of ribbon cutting and showing off the resort, Kim Jong
un is with his daughter, with his daughter, and I'm

(09:05):
looking for I'm looking for her name, but in any case,
let's see Kim jew A, so Kim, and then Jayu
and then Ae and she's maybe the air apparent, right,
I don't know how old she is, but she looks
to me to be late teens, early twenties, and I
maybe Kim Jong un is sort of bringing her out

(09:26):
into public now to try to establish her as the
next leader of the country.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
Anyway, it's all so weird. We'll be right back.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
We went out to a play on Saturday night, and
before we did, we went to a little restaurant in Denver,
and there was a dude walking by with the Metallica
shirt and I asked him if he went.

Speaker 2 (09:42):
He said yeah, I mean, I know you, and he said.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
It was great. He said he was going again Sunday night,
and I do. I slightly regret not going. Gina sounded
like she had a fabulous time, and I slightly regret
not going. But if you went, just text me at
five six six nine zero and tell me how the
Metallica is s was or and which one you went
to or if you went to both, and tell me
anything anything you want to tell me what It wouldn't

(10:06):
surprise me if that was my last opportunity to.

Speaker 2 (10:09):
See them, But who knows. We'll see.

Speaker 1 (10:11):
Let me do a couple minutes of politics with you here. Oh.
I should note a couple of people have texted to
ask where my blogcast. My blog note is today and
I did in fact publish it, but it doesn't look
like it's going up on the website. So during during
the next break, perhaps I will try to get in
touch with the digital support team here at iHeart and

(10:33):
figure out why my blog note is not up, because
it looks to me like it should be there and
yet it's not. Okay, let's just talk briefly about what's
going on in politics right now.

Speaker 2 (10:46):
So on Saturday, the United States Senate.

Speaker 1 (10:52):
Had their first what's called a procedural.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
Vote, and the Senate has.

Speaker 1 (10:56):
A lot of stuff like that, where it's basically a
vote that, if it is then allows them to get
onto debating the issue at hand, and that after that
they will vote on amendments, and then after that they
will vote on the actual measure. On Saturday, they passed
the procedural thing fifty one to forty nine. They lost
two Republicans. Two Republicans voted no. One is Rand Paul

(11:20):
of Kentucky, who voted no for the correct reasons. One
is Tom Tillis of North Carolina, who voted no for
the wrong reasons. I'll dispense with Rand Paul first. Rand
Paul voted no because he believes, and he's correct, that
our federal government is still spending way, way too much
money and that it's wildly irresponsible of Republicans not to

(11:45):
be doing everything they can to reduce the size and
cost of government right now, and this so called Big
Beautiful Bill doesn't do enough.

Speaker 2 (11:54):
And I agree with him on that.

Speaker 1 (11:55):
Tom Tillis, on the other hand, voted no because he
doesn't like the reductions to Medicaid.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
And I just want to make something very clear.

Speaker 1 (12:05):
Without the Big Beautiful Bill passing, it is estimated that
the total spending on Medicaid over the next ten years
will will increase by two trillion dollars over that time.
That's if the bill doesn't pass. Two trillion dollar increase. Now,
if the bill does pass, and remember you've got Democrats

(12:28):
talking about these incredible cuts to Medicaid. If the bill
does pass, Medicaid spending over the decade will increase by
one point three trillion dollars. I didn't say decrease, I
said increase by one point three trillion dollars.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
In other words, what this.

Speaker 1 (12:46):
Does is it modestly decreases the rate of growth of Medicaid.
And yes, there are people who will get kicked off
of Medicaid, and most of them, most of them are able,
working age people without children.

Speaker 2 (13:05):
Keep that in mind.

Speaker 1 (13:06):
Another ten percent or maybe a little more of the
people who will lose access to Medicaid if the bill
passes the way it is are illegal immigrants or other
immigrants who are not legally entitled to Medicaid normally but
are on it now one way or another.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
There's more anyway.

Speaker 1 (13:24):
The Democrats stuff about medicaid is an incredible amount of demagoguing,
as is there stuff about tax cuts for billionaires. Here's
the problem. I said it the other day. I'm gonna
say it again. Republicans and President Trump are not doing
enough to counter this message because the message from the
Democrats is a lie, but most of the public believes

(13:47):
it because Republicans.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
Aren't doing enough.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
There's so much more to say about this bill, and
I'm going to get to it a time or two
over the course of the show. Let me just mention
one other thing that might blow your mind.

Speaker 2 (14:02):
Take a guess.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
What percentage of the population of the state of Colorado
is on medicaid. What percentage of the population of this
state is on medicaid? You don't have to text me
your answer, just answer in your own head Would you
believe twenty two percent of Colorado is on Medicaid? Are

(14:29):
you kidding me? Not that many years ago and about
twenty ten, and about twenty ten it was eleven percent.
It's doubled now, and it was even higher a couple
of years ago.

Speaker 2 (14:42):
But it's doubled.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
When close to a quarter of your state is on
government healthcare, something is very wrong and something needs to change.
Coming up in the next five minutes, This hour's chance
to win a thousand bucks thanks to color Rotojoint Replacement
Coloradojoint dot org. My good friend Robert Bryce, one of

(15:05):
the world's true leading experts on electricity generation, power grids,
and so on, author of many books on the subjects
as well. He travels the world speaking about these issues,
and he has a fantastic substack that everybody should subscribe
to at Robert Bryce. That's Bryce dot substack dot com.

(15:25):
Go check it out now. I just got yesterday a
note from Robert entitled the Big Beautiful Bill Torpedoes, Big
Solar and Big Wind, And I have to say, just
the headline put a big smile on my face. I'm
one of these people who, like Robert, has had a
lot of well questions and criticisms for many years about

(15:46):
all this stuff. So Robert, welcome back to the show.
It's good to have you.

Speaker 3 (15:50):
Always a pleasure.

Speaker 1 (15:50):
Russ. It's funny you start your note by talking about
ten predictions that you made, and it seems like one
of them might not come true, and it's one you
and I both would have wanted to not come true.
So what was the prediction and what seems to be happening.

Speaker 3 (16:05):
Well, okay, so first my crystal ball is broken. Now
it's officially broken. I think I may quit predicting anything
ever again. But last November I wrote a piece right
before the election saying here ten predictions, can't miss predictions
for the election, and one of them was that Trump
would not be able to repeal the energy subsidies in
the Inflation Reduction Act. And I just you know, went

(16:27):
off of what was kind of I guess conventional wisdom
because I adopted it last November, which was that big business,
you know, once they get their snout in the trough,
it's going to be very difficult to get them out.
And there that was the the you know, the feeling
at that time was that now big business, you know,
because of all the subsidies that were going to wind
and solar, that Trump wouldn't have the political will or

(16:50):
political might to be able to repeal the alternative energy
subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act of twenty twenty two.
But the latest version of the Senate bill, in fact,
is even more restrictive than the House version of this
reconciliation package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And if
this bill becomes law, storren Win take it into shorts.

(17:11):
I mean, their projects will have to be in service
by twenty twenty seven or they get no federal subsidence
under the PTC or the ITC. And and in fact,
it also enacts a tax if they can't prove they
don't have a lot of Chinese content in their equipment.
So it's very welcome news, and I just think it's fantastic.
As I said in my piece, great news for taxpayers,

(17:32):
great news for wildlife, and great news for rural Americans
who've been fighting the encroachment of these stupid wind and
solar and high biltage transmission projects.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
I'm very pleased about this too.

Speaker 1 (17:44):
There is a Republican congressman in Colorado who I like
a lot.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
His name is Jeff Hurd.

Speaker 1 (17:50):
I supported him aggressively during the campaign, and I still
like him a lot. But he's one of these Republicans
who have been complaining a little bit about this.

Speaker 2 (18:01):
It's like, if he were in.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
Congress when this first came up, he would have voted
against the Inflation Reduction Act, basically a water down, green
new deal. But now that the money is flowing and
he's got a huge rural district right that has a lot,
potentially a lot of this stuff, he hasn't said he's
going to vote against the bill because of it, but
he's been complaining. And I think there's quite a few
Republicans who are trying to decide whether they'd be willing

(18:24):
to vote against the bill if it means taking on Trump.
But there are squishy Republicans who, now that the money
is flowing, would like to see it keep flowing, or
the flow slow down, but not turn off. So that's
probably some of what you were thinking about.

Speaker 3 (18:39):
Yeah, well, at that time, remember there were I think
eighteen or twenty House Republicans sent a letter, it was
last August saying they don't want these things to be repealed,
these massive subsidies to be repealed, because some of them,
like in New York, they had you know, factories that
were being built in their districts et cetera. But from
what my reporting and knowing for who you know, have

(19:01):
talked with top legislators on Capitol Hill, especially on the
Senate side, this was the issue that especially Senator Mike
Lee from Utah said, I am not going to support
any of this stuff, and the President wants to get
rid of it, I'm fully on board. And so there
was a previous version of the Senate bill that included
a carve out for Philip Anschitittz's big win project in

(19:22):
Wyoming that lasted for a few days. But in the
in the laser version, that little exception that would have
meant about three hundred million dollars a year to Ans'
project was taken out. So, as Lily Tomlin said, no
matter how cynical I get, I.

Speaker 1 (19:37):
Can't keep up.

Speaker 3 (19:38):
But this bill has in fact gotten better, and you know,
we need to get rid of these solar and win subsidies.
If these guys, if these characters are solar and winded,
they keep saying, oh, it's cheaper, it's cheaper. Will then
prove it, by God, prove it without government money, without
taking taxpayer money, prove your stuff is cheaper, and then
let the market decide instead of getting all this favoritism

(19:59):
and thumb on the scale.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
Yeah, and I don't need to spend long on this part,
but it was interesting to read the name Phil Anshoots,
who is the richest man in the state that I
live in, and a highly respected guy. And I have
to say, and you probably feel it just the same
way I do. Actually, let me tell you a personal story.
So two houses in a row, I put solar panels

(20:20):
on them, and I told my listeners the finances of
that absolutely positively only work because of the subsidies, because
of all tax credits. And I said, of course I'm
going to take them. They're out there. Everybody else is
taking my children's money. But if I were in Congress,
I would have voted against them. But now that they're

(20:42):
in I'm taking them, and I don't.

Speaker 3 (20:46):
I did the same in Austin. I have eight and
a half killowatchs of solar on the roof of my house.
I'm I'm a post all subsidies unless I'm getting them.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
Hell yes, But what I'm saying is what I'm saying
is even though you are getting them, and even you
got them and I got them, if you or I
were in Congress, we'd still vote to eliminate all the subsidies.

Speaker 3 (21:06):
Oh of course, sure, sure, But ancience. I mean, look,
this is what lobbyists do. They insert special language. And
I was writing, in fact, just yeah, you know, the
David for History. I was writing a piece about this,
and I was going right after antiens and then met
provision got taken out. So then once I saw the
latest version, I thought, well, this is really good. I mean,
actually government paying attention and politicians paying attention saying no, we.

Speaker 2 (21:28):
Can't have this.

Speaker 3 (21:29):
But I think that, you know, over the long term,
I think this is especially good because it likely kills
Anchietz's choke Cherry Sierra Madre project north of you in
Wyoming there. This is like, this is something like a
three and a half gigawatt project if completed, but it
would kill dozens of golden eagles per year, and thousands
of non raptor species and thousands of bats. And I'm

(21:50):
an avid birdwatcher. Ross and I'm a longtime critic of
the win business. I hate that business.

Speaker 1 (21:55):
I hate that.

Speaker 3 (21:55):
Industry because they despoiled the landscape. But they also have
been killed America's wildlife, some of our most iconic birds
for decades, and they have been only been prosecuted a
couple times for it. So I hope this kills that
choke cherry project. I hope it kills. I think it
will kill offshore wind. It's going to kill a lot
of high builtage transmission projects. And I couldn't be happier

(22:16):
if this bill is the one that actually gets signed
into law.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
And we'll go back to the finances in a second.
But on the bird thing, is it basically the bird
flies into the the bird gets chopped up by the
blade as it's flying by exactly.

Speaker 3 (22:29):
And you know what's interesting is that it was in
twenty twenty two and I wrote about it in Newsweek
that next Era Energy, the world's biggest producer of alternative energy.
They built a big wind project near Rawlins. And they
built that wind project despite multiple warnings from the Fishing
Wildlife Service and the Department of Material inside the Department

(22:51):
of Interia. Don't build that wind project. You've got golden
eagles nesting nearby. That's a big area for golden eagles.
They built it anyway, and in twenty twenty one they
featured that same project in their ESG report and then
thankfully under the Biden administration. Under the Biden administration, their
their conduct was so egregious the DOJ called it blatant

(23:12):
disregard for the law. They prosecuted next era for killing
over one hundred eagles, including the eagles that they killed
at that project in Wyoming, so that area. You know,
golden eagles are more rare than bald eagles. And as
I said, I'm an avid bird watcher, and this slaughter
of our wildlife in the name of climatism, I just
it grinds my gears. As my late brother John Brice said,

(23:34):
grills my cheese.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
Let's go back to the finances a little bit. You
mentioned your PTC and i TC first, what of those
stand for? And then I want to spend a little time.
I think I want to focus on PTC.

Speaker 2 (23:47):
I don't know how many of.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
My listeners understand just how much money has been given
to these wind producers.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
You're fuller as well.

Speaker 3 (23:55):
Sure well as a preface, what happened in the Inflacient
Reduction Act of twenty two two was that these subsidies
for wind and solar, respectively, the Production Tax Credit for
wind and Investment tax Credit for solar, were made effectively
permanent under the IRA, and if they hadn't been repealed,
Wood Mackenzie estimated that those subsidies couldn't cost.

Speaker 4 (24:15):
As much as three trillion dollars by twenty fifty, and
Travis Fisher at Cato Institute had done a similar calculation.

Speaker 3 (24:22):
So these these subsidies, that wind subsidy, the PTC has
been in effect since nineteen ninety two and has had
roughly a dozen extensions. You know, this is supposed to
be a nascent energy, you know, source of energy. We
need to boost it because it's you know, new and
the rest of it. But the wind industry has had
effectively now made it permanent. The same with solar. And

(24:44):
so you know, again to repeat what I said before,
if these sources of energy production are so cheap, they
should be able to stand on their own without subsidies,
and yet they big wind and big solar lobby to
get these subsidies made permanent in the IRA. And now
that looks like they're on the verge of being eliminated altogether.
And the big Win in Big Solar screaming like mad,

(25:07):
and the you know, the academics like Jesse Jenkins from
Prince er Winjing saying, oh Jesus is so terrible. Well,
you know, let them compete.

Speaker 1 (25:14):
For those Just joining we're talking with Robert Bryce, Robert
Brice dot substack dot com his latest piece, the Big
Beautiful Bill torpedoes Big Solar and Big Win. So I'm
already seeing the usual left wing line on Twitter as
they start talking about this, saying, yeah, saying, well, oil
and gas get all these subsidies, and they're just killing

(25:36):
the subsidies for the renewable stuff. What's the truth about
what the left calls subsidies for oil and gas and
how they compare or don't to subsidies or so called renewables.

Speaker 3 (25:48):
Sure, well, first let's just do a quick thought experiment
ross and just assume, okay, well, they're all substies. Whatever
the tax treatment is, whether it's a tax credit or
a deduction for appletion allowance or just expensing of drilling costs,
Let's call all of the tax treatments for all of
the energy forms a subsidy of some kind or another. Well,

(26:09):
if you look at the EIA, the Energy Information Administration,
they did an analysis for twenty twenty two. They estimated
that solar per quadrillion BTUs of energy produces getting four
billion dollars. How much is oil and gas getting thirty million?
In other words, it's getting solar in twenty twenty two
got three hundred times more love, more tax treatment, more

(26:34):
better incentives from the federal government than oil and gas
I'm sorry, the nuclear and one hundred and thirty six
times more than oil and gas. So even if you
assume take their numbers and say, oh, it's all SUBSD,
well oil with solar and wind are the subs The
tax treatments that they're getting in the federal tax code.

Speaker 4 (26:54):
Are far, far, far more.

Speaker 3 (26:56):
Lucrative than anything that is given to oil and gas.
And then if you want to take it further, you
could say, well, actually, the expensing of drilling, well that's
a standard practice in all business, not just the oil
and gas industry. Depletion allowance. Okay, we can argue about
that one. But nevertheless that the subsidies being given to
wind and solar are vastly greater than those being given

(27:17):
to oil and gas, and especially much greater than those
going to nuclear.

Speaker 1 (27:23):
Also, And I take your point about you could essentially
you could call them all subsidies. I mean, I guess
if a company we're going to have to pay five
hundred million in corporate income tax and then they only
pay four hundred I guess you could because of this,
that and the other kind of deduction, I guess you
could call that a form of subsidy. But somehow, and
this may not be economic, This might just be more emotional.

(27:44):
But I feel like they're different because the wind and
solar just get cash transfers from my children's futures.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
But it really bothers me well.

Speaker 3 (27:57):
And that was one of the features of the of
the IRA was that it expanded the definition of who
could get the subsidies for wind and solar. And they
call it direct pay in other words, instead of going
getting the tax credit over years, that the entity that
was building the wind and solar could get direct payments
from the Treasury in advance.

Speaker 5 (28:17):
As the way I understand it.

Speaker 3 (28:20):
But I guess the other part to me.

Speaker 4 (28:21):
Ross that just is so aggravating about all of this
is that if the goal is decarbonization, right, if the
goal of all this legislation, and Joe Biden called it
the most of the biggest effort on climate change ever ever,
you know he repeat ever ever ever, Right.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
But you look at wind energy and it was getting
in twenty twenty two, it was the subsidy for win
was nine hundred and forty seven million dollars per quadrillion
bt US. It was sixty nine times more than what's
going to nuclear power. So you know, let's make fair fair.
If you're going to give it all that money to
win in solar, you should at least be giving the

(28:57):
same to nuclear.

Speaker 2 (28:59):
And yet that is the case.

Speaker 1 (29:01):
Well, and we'll leave it with this, and you can
you can get the last word here. I'll just say
that the reason that those subsidies are at those levels
partly it's rent seeking, but also it's that despite as
you noted earlier, a lot of these radical environmentalists who
keep talking about solar and wind being cheap, it's only
cheap after you dump a trillion dollars of other people's

(29:21):
money into it, and then the part you have it's cheap.
It's like it's like you steal somebody's wallet. You go
out for a lobster dinner, right and right, and you
find and you find two hundred dollars in the wallet
that you stole, and the bill is two fifty. So
you take the two hundred that you stole and you
take the fifty out of your wallet, and you're like, yeah,

(29:43):
fifty dollars lobster dinner. That's cheap. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (29:47):
Well, one other quick point, ross and I know you
got other guests coming up, but one other thing that's
happened recently. So this this this rollback of these massive
tax credits for solar and wind, I think are very
positive for a bunch of different reasons. We haven't even
talked about great stability or North Atlantic right whales or
marine mammals and offshore wind and what a scandal that is,

(30:07):
but it's that it's going to roll back all these
efforts by these big companies to then push wind and
solar on rural communities and high voltage transmission and the
Colorado sun I included in my peace on substat a
note about Elbert County, which just on June twenty fifth
denied permission for Excel Energy to put their power pathway
across Albert County, southeast of Denver, and there was a

(30:30):
great quote from the county Commission there Byron McDaniel, who
told the Colorado Sun quote, this line serves no purpose
here in Elbert County, and frankly, I don't care about Denver.
It's like well, of course, but that's another example of
how rural communities are being bearing the brunt of all
this alt energy junk, all this aalt energy infrastructure because

(30:52):
people in urban areas, voters in urban areas want it,
and Excel Energy is only doing what you know, they're
told by the federal, by the Colorades state government. So
you know, that's another reason why this rollback of the
solar and wind subsidies is going to be very positive
because I care about rural America. I love ranchers and
farmers and the people who live out in rural America,
and so many of.

Speaker 4 (31:11):
Them are just getting screwed by this alt energy craze.
On this rollback of the subsidies I think is a
very positive step.

Speaker 1 (31:19):
Well, I'm with you on hoping that if the BBB passes,
I bet it will that these most aggressive things that
the amendments that the Senate has put in to take
out these wind in solar subsidies. I hope they stay in.
I hope it stays as aggressive as possible. Robert Bryce's
new piece is called The Big Beautiful Bill Torpedoes, Big
Solar and Wind. You should subscribe to Robert's substack at

(31:42):
Robert Bryce with a Y in Bryce Robert Bryce dot
substack dot com. Thanks for your time as always, Robert,
it's my pleasure. Russ Gosh, I love talking to that guy.
He's so good. He's such a good talker as well.
He's actually in New York right now about to give
a speech. He gave a speech in Boston day before that.
He travels the country in the world talking about electricity issues,

(32:04):
and so it's great to be able to get him
on the show. Let me share a story with you.
Normally I don't do this. Normally, I don't share a
story that's you know, a month old but I missed it.
But I want to share with you a story that's
a month old but I missed it. And because I
haven't seen any update on this yet, I'd be kind of.

Speaker 2 (32:20):
Interested how how it plays out.

Speaker 1 (32:23):
This is from CBS Denver, and this is from about
a month ago. The headline Denver International Airport employees questioned
CEO about nineteen thousand dollars business class flights, and then
it says in quote creates a rift. So apparently there

(32:44):
was a conference in April in Madrid, and the a
bunch of the staff from Denver International Airport, including the CEO,
Phil Washington. He went with eight members of his executive
staff went to this conference is a three day conference,
so it was nine total people.

Speaker 2 (33:05):
Now, let's just think about this for a second.

Speaker 1 (33:07):
The overall cost of the trip for the nine people
was about one hundred.

Speaker 2 (33:12):
And sixty five thousand dollars.

Speaker 1 (33:15):
One hundred and sixty five thousand dollars, right, so let's
do a little let's do a little math here. Let's
do one hundred and sixty five thousand. I'm not going
to try to do this in my head because it's Monday.
A little over eighteen thousand dollars a person for a
three day trip, three day trip, so the overall yeah,

(33:38):
actually it has this in the article, an average of
about eighteen thousand for flights, conference cost, hotels.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
And meals.

Speaker 1 (33:44):
Washington and all of his subordinates flew either business class
or first class to and from Madrid, with one ticket
costing over nineteen thousand dollars, another one just under sixteen thousand,
till we're around twelve thousand, and the other five range

(34:05):
between nine thousand and eleven thousand. Responding to a question
from an employee, DIA CEO Phil Washington said, I think
the conference was worthwhile. It was a great investment in
our folks. He explained the high cost of tickets, saying, quote,
all of the travel requests should be done at the
same time. In this case they were not. Some travel
requests came in a little later. So I think what

(34:27):
he's saying is the cheap tickets went to people who
decided early that they wanted to go, and they were
invited to go, and they said yes, and then those
tickets were booked and those were six to eight thousand dollars,
and then some other people, you know, jumped in late,
and at that point the price of the tickets had
gone up a lot. In this CBS Denver piece, they
quote a travel consultant who said the airport should have
just waited a little longer to buy tickets and prices

(34:49):
would have come down and you didn't need to spend
that kind of money, and this you know, travel expert
said he was in shock and disbelief that DA paid
so much forsiness class tickets to Spain. So Phil Washington
told airport employees that were a little upset about this.
We're reviewing our travel policy. There are some revisions we

(35:09):
could make to that policy. Oh you don't say, now,
why do I care? Why do you care? Here's why?
Where does that money come from? That money comes from
Diia's budget. Where does di IA's budget come from. It
comes from, you know, the stores in the airport that
rent space to sell your food or sell you magazines,
or sell your gifts or whatever. It comes from fees

(35:33):
that apply to car rentals at the airport.

Speaker 2 (35:36):
It applies to other airport user fees.

Speaker 1 (35:39):
So as these people waste money by sending nine people
on business.

Speaker 2 (35:44):
Or first class fares, why not.

Speaker 1 (35:48):
Go economy or why not go economy plus a? Right?
But as they're spending one hundred and sixty five thousand
dollars eighteen thousand dollars a person for a three D conference,
they're gonna make that money up somewhere, and it comes from,
you know, raising the rents in all these places. It's
why a big mac that might be five dollars at

(36:08):
a McDonald's near you is nine dollars at the airport. Right,
It's why everything is so freaking expensive at the airport.
It's why renting a car at the airport costs so
so much. On and on and on, and I'll tell
you I don't I haven't yet seen an update to this.
I don't know if the airport is just kind of

(36:30):
hoping it'll it'll go away. But I sure do hope
they change some policies here, and I hope here's one,
one suggestion, one way to do it. You say that
for any given trip, the maximum amount the airport DA
will spend to send their employees is x thousand dollars,

(36:50):
and then they can break it up however they want. Right,
if there's only a few people and you want to
send a few business class and waste some money that way,
all right, As long as you're under budget, fine, I guess.
But otherwise, fly economy, you know. See, if the boss
has to go in business class because he's a big shot, fine,
I think that's a bad I think it's a bad look.

(37:12):
But in any case, I did want to share that
story with you, even though it's several weeks old, and
I'd love to hear what happens next.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
I did get quite.

Speaker 1 (37:19):
A lot of texts about the conversation we had with
Robert Price regarding the so called Big Beautiful Bill and
its impact on oil. I'm sorry on wind and solar subsidies,
and I don't want to rehash that a lot. If
you missed it, you can go to Rosskominsky dot well.

Speaker 2 (37:37):
We actually don't know.

Speaker 1 (37:38):
I published a blog this morning, but it doesn't appear
to have gone up on the website. Dragon is trying
to figure out if I did something wrong or if
the system is having a glitch or whatever.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
Normally, and eventually all of our.

Speaker 1 (37:50):
Interviews almost all go up on the blog at Rosskominsky
dot com, and then you can you can listen to
them as a as a standalone. If you're looking for
my blog, note right now it's not there, but we
don't know why, and we're trying to We're trying to
figure that out.

Speaker 2 (38:04):
Dragon's working on a little bit.

Speaker 6 (38:06):
Jos is published on our end, but when we try
and fight it in the wild, it's not there. So
I'm gonna try a couple of things. See what happens
right there?

Speaker 1 (38:13):
You go? So all right, let me do a couple
of a couple of quick things. Oh first, I have
the burning question of the day. I wanted to get
my younger kid on to ask you this question himself,
because he asked me the question and I like the
question a lot, Dragon, Are you ready to wait? Just
waste a little bit of time with me? Love to Okay,
So my kid asked me this question yesterday, and he

(38:35):
and I had a difference of opinion as to the answer,
but I won't tell you who was on which side.
And his question was, is cereal soup? Hmmm? I would
like to know from listeners, what do you think is
cereal soup? Why?

Speaker 2 (38:54):
Or why not?

Speaker 1 (38:55):
Text us at five six six nine zero and tell
us And we have to enter some a little bit
of levity and time wasting in a day that otherwise
has a lot of heavy stuff going on, which we
will get back to.

Speaker 2 (39:06):
But is cereal soup? Dragon? Do you have an opinion? Yes?

Speaker 1 (39:10):
Yes, you have an opinion? Or yes cereal is soup?
Yes to both, Yes, cereal can be soup. Interesting?

Speaker 6 (39:17):
All right, I see a lot of people, wait, it's
cold and it's sweet. No, isn't what the dispatcho or whatever?

Speaker 2 (39:24):
The nut cold and vishy sUAS as well also cold soup,
So yeah, why not? Why not?

Speaker 6 (39:31):
And I are milk based soups out there?

Speaker 1 (39:35):
Sure?

Speaker 6 (39:36):
Yes, because the ingredient that you're eating in the soup
like a chicken noodle soup noodle.

Speaker 1 (39:41):
For cereal, it's the fruit loop and the read okay,
and I so so my kid said what you said,
and I said, no, it's not soup. Oh yeah, And
I said it's not soup for a couple of reasons. First,
you're you're not making the broth out of anything.

Speaker 2 (39:59):
It's just a product, right, It's just a thing.

Speaker 1 (40:02):
It's just milk, whereas soup normally you're making the broth.

Speaker 2 (40:05):
You're flavoring the broth.

Speaker 1 (40:06):
The liquid itself has ingredients and flavors, and also in soup,
the liquid itself is really designed to absorb the flavors,
and the liquid it might have chunks in it.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
The milk absorbs the flavor of the fruit.

Speaker 6 (40:27):
And you get the chocolate milk or the fruit of
your milk sometimes but not always.

Speaker 1 (40:31):
And that's not an inherent part of eating cereal. And
if you eat cereal kind of quickly before it gets soggy,
especially right, you would get it with pretty much just
milk flavor in the milk, and then the only the
actual flavor you're getting is coming off the cereal. The
liquid in the soup is designed to absorb all these flavors,

(40:52):
and you savor the liquid.

Speaker 2 (40:54):
You're not savoring the milk in. The milk is out.

Speaker 1 (40:58):
The milk is a vehicle to help you swallow the
dry stuff. Kind of like how about this? How about
this from the President Bad Analogae Club?

Speaker 2 (41:08):
Oh boy, you ready for this one?

Speaker 1 (41:10):
Dragon?

Speaker 2 (41:10):
I thought it?

Speaker 1 (41:12):
Come on, I just thought of it. Do you remember
the other day when you had a bad headache and
you had to take a couple.

Speaker 2 (41:19):
Of tilet all?

Speaker 1 (41:20):
Sure, when you put the toilet all in your mouth
and then put the water in your mouth and then
swallowed it all?

Speaker 2 (41:27):
Was that soup? That's no different than cereal. It's just
like cereal the pills?

Speaker 1 (41:35):
Do you really? Yeah, I've never heard of that before. Really,
that's another question for listeners five six six nine zero.
Have you ever done the water first and then the pills?
How do you keep the water in your mouth? Do
you face your you put your head up and then
just maybe a third or a half a mouthful rather
than a whole mouthful, so you don't dribble all over yourself. Wow,

(41:57):
I never even thought of. I might have to try it,
just to see how that feels. To do the water.
Why would you do the water first and then the pills?

Speaker 6 (42:04):
See if you put the pills in first, I start
choking on the pills.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (42:10):
Yeah, yeah, it's weird.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
I know. So Dragon is water first and believes cereal
is soup.

Speaker 6 (42:17):
Is oatmeal, Soup is oatmeal.

Speaker 1 (42:21):
Cereal hmm, it probably is technically cereal to the extent
that cereal the word means a grain. Yeah right, Gosh,
a lot of burning questions today. I'll just say almost
everybody says cereal is not soup, and one one person
I kind of like this one cereal is about as

(42:44):
much a soup as a milkshake is a smoothie, which
raises the question, then is a milkshake as smoothie?

Speaker 2 (42:51):
But I think it's not? Dragon a listener.

Speaker 1 (42:54):
Another listener says the trick to taking pills, I'm gonna
just read the text. Tilt your head forward, not backward
when swallowing pills.

Speaker 2 (43:01):
It's a game changer. How does that even work? I
don't know.

Speaker 1 (43:04):
I don't know. That sounds like a way to choke
on pills and die, right, doesn't it.

Speaker 2 (43:10):
I choose life?

Speaker 1 (43:12):
Huh A Ross. I'm Hungarian and I speak the language.
My wife and I are interested in your listener trip
next year to Budapest, Prague in Vienna. Where do I
get the details? The answer is rosstrip dot com, r
O s s t r ip dot com.

Speaker 2 (43:27):
Would a root beer float the soup?

Speaker 1 (43:32):
Wow? We're really going deep here, all right. Way too
much thought, way, way too much thought into it. But
that's a good thing for a Monday, all right. So uh.
The other thing that I wanted to do, at least briefly,
is I wanted to ask you Dragon, how was Metallica?

Speaker 6 (43:45):
It was awesome both nights. You went both ye Friday
and Sunday.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
Gina and Marty were talking about it. Gina actually ended
up going Friday, not Sunday, but just in their conversation
and texting with people, it seemed like it seemed like
the people who went loved both shows, but maybe at
a slight preference for Sunday based on the set list
or something I did you. I totally agree with that.

Speaker 6 (44:07):
The set list on Sunday was a much better song selection.

Speaker 2 (44:11):
I enjoyed that so much more.

Speaker 6 (44:12):
But I felt like Friday, knowing that I have to
work on Monday, I was able to have more fun
on the Friday show.

Speaker 1 (44:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (44:21):
How many hours of sleep did you get last night?

Speaker 7 (44:24):
Four?

Speaker 1 (44:25):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (44:25):
All right, that's not I mean, it's not great, but
it's not terrible.

Speaker 1 (44:29):
And I think I think I heard Gina say that
last night. They did Intersandman close out the show to
close out the show, and then what they did Rocky
Mountain High in one of.

Speaker 2 (44:41):
The correct yeah, one of them.

Speaker 1 (44:43):
How was it? How is Metallica doing it?

Speaker 3 (44:45):
John Day?

Speaker 6 (44:46):
It was just Kirk and Rob doing it at that time.

Speaker 2 (44:48):
Okay, it was just fine.

Speaker 1 (44:49):
It's fine, you.

Speaker 6 (44:50):
Know, nothing, nothing too too special. As we were walking out,
there were a couple of people that we had heard
in passing going it was a great show, so different
Rocky High that sucked?

Speaker 1 (45:00):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (45:00):
And was there a highlight for you or was it
all just great? It was all just great.

Speaker 6 (45:04):
Yeah. And I enjoyed the instrumentals that they did both nights.
They did the first night was Oriyan and then last
night was Colic with Hulu, so that those where I
enjoy those. I don't know how much the average Metallica fan,
of the average rock and roll fan likes just straight
up instrumentals, but I thoroughly enjoyed them.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
And I thought I heard somebody say it might have
been the dude actually was. So I we went out
to dinner on Saturday night and the dude walked by
into Metallica a brand new Metallica T shirt.

Speaker 2 (45:32):
So I said, how was the show? And he told
me and he said, I'm going tomorrow too, And I
thought he said.

Speaker 1 (45:37):
There were different opening bands the different nights.

Speaker 6 (45:40):
Yes, yeah, I don't remember the Fiscuit first opening act,
but yeah, Limp Biscuit for Friday and then Pantera for yesterday.

Speaker 1 (45:46):
Yeah. And were they good?

Speaker 2 (45:48):
Oh yeah, very much.

Speaker 6 (45:49):
My wife complained about Limp Biscuit because they seemed to
play more covers than their own originals, which is a
little bit frustrating.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
And Grandpa Durast just really looks old with the with
the beards, really just needs to stop with that.

Speaker 7 (46:01):
Uh huh.

Speaker 6 (46:02):
My own personal opinion, I do enjoy beards, but if
you're going to be this rock guy, yeah, you don't
want to look like grandpa.

Speaker 1 (46:11):
And and was.

Speaker 2 (46:12):
Pantera like were they like old school hair metal? Just
exactly what you wanted it to.

Speaker 6 (46:18):
Be Pantera, you can imagine it, Yeah without vinean time,
but you know, yeah, yeah, fabulous?

Speaker 2 (46:23):
All right? And how did you rank those shows in.

Speaker 1 (46:26):
Terms of all the Metallica shows you've seen?

Speaker 2 (46:29):
You get?

Speaker 6 (46:30):
Yeah, the first Summer Sandy and Sanitarium tour has a
special place in my heart because that was the first Metallica,
you know, show that i'd ever seen. Yeah, I'd say
that's that one Summer Sanitarium two thousand, number one.

Speaker 1 (46:42):
This is definitely number two. I'm glad you had a
good time. I'm a little jealous that I missed it.
We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back on Kowa.
So I was trying to ask you. Nobody could hear me.
I was talking and nobody could hear. I was trying
to ask you if that Pantera song was one that
they played.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
Yes, it's what they closed with. And what's it called? Walk?
All right?

Speaker 1 (47:00):
And had you seen them before? No, I've never seen
pet there before. All right, it was fun, let's do
something different. So I'm very pleased to bring back to
the show my much much better half, my lovely bride, Kristen. Uh.
And we have some things to talk about. But first, Kristin,
you told dragon where you are? Tell us, tell us
where you are.

Speaker 8 (47:20):
Oh my god, I'm in king soupers. I'm in the
produce section.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
I'm right now.

Speaker 8 (47:23):
I'm feeling mangoes.

Speaker 2 (47:25):
You're feeling mangoes. Okay.

Speaker 8 (47:26):
I don't like buying them too hard. I'm a bit
of a Goldilocks. It's got to be sort of not
quite soft, but on the way there. I don't like
buying them too hard because I feel like they ripen
that well here all right.

Speaker 1 (47:38):
So now, if you're listening to podcast, you're going to
wonder what we're talking about, and so I can have
more privacy.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
Wait, what section are you moving to?

Speaker 8 (47:44):
I'm going into cheeses.

Speaker 1 (47:46):
Cheeses?

Speaker 6 (47:47):
Okay, cheese isn't as sexy as melons.

Speaker 2 (47:50):
No, No, especially when you're fondling them.

Speaker 8 (47:53):
You know, I don't fondle the cheese.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
No, no, fondling cheese. All right, So what I wanted
to what I wanted to ask you about? Uh? Are
you and I were standing around this morning talking about whatever?
And one of the news channels had stuff about bezos
wedding in Venice and uh and you you described it
with a phrase that I absolutely loved.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
Do you remember what you called it?

Speaker 1 (48:19):
Yeah?

Speaker 8 (48:19):
But I have to, like, please forgive me everybody for
being such a cynic, because I hate being a cynical
about people. Because it is a wedding, you know, and
a wedding that generally like celebrations of love. So I
don't want to poop poo that, but you know, I
felt like when I saw it, I don't know. I mean,
now I know how people probably felt when they Shah
Jahan built the taj Mahal for his you know, deceased wife.

(48:44):
You know, it's just sort of that of old the
display of money, you know, in everyone's faces. And you know,
I don't know, I felt like it was a celebrity
playdate and I felt this. You know, I guess this
this his what the bride, because weddings are usually about
the bride. You know, this was her fantasy. She wanted
to be celebrity wedding in Venice and to feel like

(49:06):
a princess, so he did it for her. But you know,
it just seems a little vulgar, you know, a little
tone death for our time. But you know, it's like
Marie Antoinette, it's that sort of thing.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
Right, And in fact, I heard somebody else on TV.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
I heard somebody else on TV give give that same
analogy to to Marie Antoinette. And so they had like
they had Usher and Oprah and all the Kardashians.

Speaker 8 (49:33):
And Bill Yates, celebrity wedding she wanted, and he bought
each center to space and now here. I don't know
what he's going to do next.

Speaker 2 (49:42):
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 8 (49:43):
A palace on an island or something.

Speaker 1 (49:45):
Yeah, there's a picture with Ivanka Trump and Jared and
I just loved. I loved that phrase that you came
up with. Celebrity playdate. Yeah, celebrity play dates alsitation.

Speaker 8 (49:57):
I probably would have gone too.

Speaker 1 (49:58):
So I don't want to.

Speaker 8 (50:00):
Yeah, it's easy to these.

Speaker 2 (50:02):
Things, right, So my so here's my thing.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
So I I don't I don't necessarily mind somewhat ostentatious
displays of wealth because I think that Jeff Bezos got
to be one of the richest men in the world
by making so many people's lives better.

Speaker 2 (50:23):
Right, He's created so many jobs.

Speaker 1 (50:25):
We can buy stuff cheaper, we can buy stuff more conveniently.
He generates lots of tax revenue for the government. I mean,
I think somebody like that is a hero, and so
I don't mind that he gets rich and at some point,
like you say, maybe maybe it's a little over the top.
But what I think is the part that you said about, Okay,
this is probably what she wanted more than what he wanted,

(50:47):
although we're both just guessing on that. But like when
you and I, when you and I got married, we
didn't even we did. We would never have thought of
I mean, we're not rich and famous like them, but
we would never have thought of inviting somebody who wasn't
a really close friend or loved one. And I bet

(51:09):
that you know, a bunch of those people are people
they've never met before.

Speaker 8 (51:14):
Probably, But it's just like that getting off on being envied.

Speaker 7 (51:18):
I just don't like that.

Speaker 8 (51:21):
I don't like the idea that like that, that people
like get such a thrill out of. It's other people's envy,
you know, And that's what a lot.

Speaker 1 (51:30):
Of that is about.

Speaker 8 (51:31):
And that sort of makes that that's sort of olga
to me.

Speaker 2 (51:35):
Yeah, yeah, it's it's you know, in Australia.

Speaker 8 (51:39):
You call someone like that opposer.

Speaker 2 (51:41):
Yeah, that's a word here too.

Speaker 8 (51:43):
Yeah, it's just like that sort of poser is sort
of it's just I don't know, it just leaves a
bad taste in my mouth. It's like ikey, Yeah, I
love that line, and it's hard for me to find
the romance and the love, you know, underneath the ven
near that sick of po poser is or whatever you
call it.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
Yeah, celebrity playdate is just that's that's absolutely fabulous as well.

Speaker 8 (52:06):
They can remind each other that how wonderful and amazing
they are.

Speaker 1 (52:10):
Yeah right, how special I was, How special I am
because I got invited to a wedding of somebody I
barely know. But we're all really special. All right, one
other one other thing for you, as long as I've
got you here, what and whatever.

Speaker 8 (52:24):
Yeah, if I was in Venice and I couldn't go
about my usual day.

Speaker 1 (52:28):
Well a lot of people in Venice were pissed and
they had to move it. It's still Venice, but it
was a little more on the outskirts right in the
middle because the people the people said they were going
to throw inflatable alligators into the canals. To prevent all
the celebrities boats from going around or all the water
taxis with the celebrities in them, so they had to
move it so because the locals didn't want the celebrity playdate. Y. Yeah,

(52:51):
that would have been cool just to see that. All right,
So I have a I have one other question that
has been the burning question of the show so far today.
And this is a question that our younger kid I
asked me yesterday and ed, is is cereal soup?

Speaker 2 (53:07):
And I would like to know your answer to that question.

Speaker 8 (53:10):
Yes? Wow, so the right came from another planet. I
would see people eating soup and then people eating cereal
next to it. I think, yeah, that's the same thing. Wow,
the cereal bits of cruton.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
Mhmm.

Speaker 2 (53:25):
You're you're with Dragon on that, and and you're with
our kid on that, and with nobody else.

Speaker 1 (53:33):
But all the people. But yeah, like one hundred and
seven percent of listeners said that cereal is not soup,
but you and Dragon think it is, and our kid
thinks it is too.

Speaker 2 (53:45):
So you're smarter than I am.

Speaker 1 (53:46):
So that's special.

Speaker 8 (53:48):
Special.

Speaker 2 (53:48):
Yeah, you are special.

Speaker 1 (53:50):
You are. That's why you had to go to that
special school and take that special bus special, bus special,
helmet special.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
That's not good. All right, Go fondle some cheese. Okay,
thank you, Kristin, Okay, bye bye bye.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
All right, that's my lovely bride, Kristin talking about celebrity playdates.
I love that formulation. When she said it seemed to
me like the celebrity playdate. I just said, all right,
I gotta get you on the show to talk about that.
All right.

Speaker 2 (54:16):
Let me switch gears in a very major way here.
So you are aware of the.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
Supreme Court decision late last week that was nominally about
birthright citizenship, but really about nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court
didn't get to the issue of birthright citizenship even though
so basically what happened was Donald the Trump administration announced
that they do not intend to recognize birthright citizenship essentially

(54:49):
in certain cases, certain cases, and there are a bunch
of lawsuits, and in a few of the lawsuits, district judges,
federal district judges, which is the lowest level of federal judiciary.
You know, a local judge in Boston, a local judge
in Seattle issued a nationwide injunction in saying that the
Trump administration's rule may not go into effect anywhere in

(55:10):
the country. And the Supreme Court ruled on that. They
didn't rule on the underlying question of whether the administration
must recognize birthright citizenship as we've understood it since the
Civil War. And what they said was the lower courts,
the lowest courts, the federal district courts, may not issue

(55:31):
nationwide injunctions. Their rulings only apply to the plaintiffs who
are in front of them. There is a little bit
of a wiggle room there where a court could create
a class and then make a class action out of it.
And that's a fine idea, and I think one of
the good things about that, as Andy McCarthy said to me,
is that there are a lot of rules regarding certifying

(55:53):
a class. It's not something a judge can do on
a whim. And so if there is a legitimate class
of people who will be harmed by whatever the government
is doing in this case, usually class actions aren't against
the government, but I guess they could be. Then the
judge has to dot a lot of ey's and cross
a lot of te's in order to certify the class,

(56:15):
and then there could be a lawsuit on behalf of
the class and then that could benefit or protect or
whatever lots and lots and lots of people and not
just the few plaintiffs. So it was a six' to
three ruling THAT i would say was a significant win
for The trump, administration even THOUGH i do think they
end up losing eventually when the case gets heard on the.

(56:35):
Merits but it was a pretty big win and it
was six to. Three, now the primary descent was written
By Justice, jackson and her descent was pretty out. There
it was very, aggressive And Katanji Brown jackson is she's

(57:01):
the newest member of The Supreme. Court and some people
have wondered whether she was put there just because of
the color of her. SKIN i, mean after, All Joe
biden said she was only gonna pick a he was
only gonna pick a black, Woman and so some people
wonder if she's good enough judge to be on The Supreme. Court,

(57:21):
now it doesn't really matter whether we think she is or,
not because she's there and she's not going away until
she decides to go away or until she passes.

Speaker 2 (57:27):
Away but a listener sent me this fabulous thing from.

Speaker 1 (57:32):
Substack from a substack called zark z a ark files
and the proprietor is a guy who's a PhD in,
something BUT i don't know.

Speaker 2 (57:42):
What and what he did was he Took.

Speaker 1 (57:48):
Justice Katanji Brown jackson's dissent in that. Case and let
me just read to you a little bit here because
this is so much, fun he, says for, FUN i
uploaded the documents to AN ai Called Claude claude dot
ai and asked it to grade them from the perspective

(58:10):
of A Harvard Law school professor on quality of arguments
and understanding of. Law so he fed the majority decision
the controlling, decision which was.

Speaker 2 (58:21):
Written By Amy Cony, barrett and.

Speaker 1 (58:24):
He also fed in the descent By Kaitanji Brown. Jackson,
now in a moment, Here i'm going to tell you
what THE ai said About Kaitanji Brown jackson's, Descent but
THE ai Gave Amy Cony barrett an A.

Speaker 2 (58:41):
AND i want to mention one other thing that's tangential to.

Speaker 1 (58:44):
THIS i think it's really interesting That Amy Cony barrett
was assigned to write this decision because she has been
the subject of ongoing very aggressive online attacks BY, maga you,
know On twitter and.

Speaker 2 (59:04):
Elsewhere over and over and. Over they don't like her.

Speaker 1 (59:07):
Anymore trump has been somewhat critical of her as, well
questioning her let's, say not aggressively critical necessarily By, trump
but sounding a little, critical a little, disappointed that kind of.

Speaker 2 (59:18):
Thing and SO i think That Chief.

Speaker 1 (59:22):
Justice John roberts assigned the writing of this opinion because
he knew it was the majority, opinion so we knew
it would be the one that.

Speaker 2 (59:32):
CONTROLS i think he.

Speaker 1 (59:34):
SIGNED i think he assigned it To Amy Coney barrett
to take some of the political pressure off of.

Speaker 2 (59:40):
Her that's my.

Speaker 1 (59:41):
Guess so in any, case THE ai Gave Amy Coney
barrett an. As and Now i'm going to continue to
read from. This It's zark, files zark files dot substack dot.

Speaker 2 (59:52):
Com and this is.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
The response by THE, ai as if THE ai is
A Harvard law professor grading A Harvard law, student and
this is what THE ai had to, say or grading a,
judge it doesn't have to be a, Student Miss.

Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
Jackson this dissent.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
Contains such fundamental errors in legal reasoning and judicial temperament
That i'm genuinely concerned about your understanding of both constitutional
law and the judicial. Role next category is the first
big category is called disqualifying. Problems, first in appropriate judicial.
Voice your use of colloquialisms like wait for it is

(01:00:39):
completely unacceptable in judicial. Writing Supreme court opinions are former legal,
documents not casual. Commentary this language suggests you don't understand
the gravity and formality required of your institutional.

Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
Role number, two anti legal.

Speaker 1 (01:00:54):
Attitude describing the majority's statutory analysis as mind numbingly technical
and legal ease is disqualifying for a. Judge legal Analy
legal analysis is. Technical that's the. Point your dismissive attitude
toward careful legal reasoning suggests you're fundamentally unsuited for judicial.

(01:01:14):
Office judges who find legal analysis boring should find different.
Careers number three complete misunderstanding of basic legal. Concepts your
confusion about what constitutes relief in injunctive contexts shows alarming
gaps in basic civil procedure. Knowledge when you claim universal
injunctions don't grant relief to non, parties you demonstrate you

(01:01:37):
don't understand how injunctions. Function number four straw man. Argumentation
your repeated framing of this is about whether courts can
quote order the executive to follow the law end quote
is intellectually. Dishonest you're either incapable of understanding the actual
legal question or deliberately mischaracterizing. It second major category constitutional

(01:01:58):
methodology failure rejection of textual. Constraints your impatience with the
judiciary acts limitations reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of judicial. Authority
courts derive power from constitutional and statutory. Grants they can't
simply assert whatever authority they think necessary for good. Outcomes,

(01:02:20):
next apocalyptic rhetoric over legal. Analysis you are quote mortal
wound end quote end of constitutional republic end. Quote language
reads like political, advocacy not judicial. Reasoning this kind of
hyperbole has no place in constitutional.

Speaker 2 (01:02:38):
Adjudication and then THE ai analysis of.

Speaker 1 (01:02:42):
Justice jackson's dissent ends with a broad category that THE
ai calls the fundamental, problem and it, says you seem
to believe judges should have whatever power necessary to achieve
results you, consider just regardless of legal. Constraints and this
is the opposite of constitutional, adjudication which requires operating within

(01:03:05):
specific grants of authority even when the results seem. Suboptimal
your dissent reads like someone who wants to be a political,
activist not a. Judge grade F this work demonstrates such
fundamental misunderstanding of judicial role and legal methodology THAT i

(01:03:26):
would recommend you seriously reconsider whether law is the right
field for. You.

Speaker 2 (01:03:34):
Wow, now the reason.

Speaker 1 (01:03:36):
That's so interesting is that it was written BY, ai
not by a human who is a conservative or a
political activist or in. Anything it's written by AN ai
that gets its understanding of the law by reading millions
and millions of pages of law and analysis of law
and lawsuits and judicial opinions and all this.

Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Stuff and it reads as.

Speaker 1 (01:03:58):
Much as it can about the law and synthesizes all
of that into what is good legal, reasoning and it
gives her an F AND i don't have more to
add to. IT i just thought that was a fascinating.
Story let me do just two minutes on this other.
Thing it's a follow up on something that actually this
follow up news actually happened last, week But i've been

(01:04:20):
keeping you up to date on the story for a few.
Weeks so you may RECALL i shared with you a
story from a few weeks ago where an employee in
The Jared police administration here In colorado state government sued
the governor when the governor ordered some part of state
government to hand over information TO ice about illegal alien

(01:04:43):
children's whereabouts and ordering them to do, that the lawsuit,
claimed was forcing state employees to violate state, law.

Speaker 2 (01:04:54):
And that might in fact be.

Speaker 1 (01:04:55):
True you AND i probably disagree that that should be
state life, law but it is state law that they
cannot work WITH ice cannot give them information unless it
is in pursuit of a criminal investigation with subpoena issued
by a. Judge SO ice kind of sort of hinted

(01:05:16):
that it was a criminal investigation to make sure that
children weren't being, trafficked but they didn't actually say it's
a criminal. Investigation and the subpoena was not issued by a.
Judge it was issued BY ice, itself not by a.
Judge SO i told you all, that AND i said

(01:05:37):
that it seemed to me like the argument was going
to come down to whether a court would believe that
it was in fact a criminal, investigation and then Pol
us therefore had the, authority and a judge ruled in
the middle of last week that the governor cannot force
a state employee to turn over that information about the
sponsors of these illegal immigrant kids who came into the

(01:05:58):
country without, parent without. Anybody they came. Unaccompanied so let
me just share a little with you from The Colorado
Son Denver District, Court Judge Bruce jones said in issuing
a preliminary injunction That Governor polis's plan to have a
division of The State Labor department turnover information on about
thirty Five colorados TO Us immigration And Customers enforcement would

(01:06:22):
violate state laws meant to protect protect their. Data, now
he also said that he was not going to prohibit
the governor from finding another way to.

Speaker 2 (01:06:34):
Comply with a.

Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
Subpoena he, SAID i will not enjoin the governor from
otherwise responding to this subpoena if that's what he wants to. Do,
so in, short if the governor can find a way
to respond to the subpoena that doesn't break the, law
the judge is going to, say go for, it you.

Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
Know or of Course ice.

Speaker 1 (01:06:50):
Could come through with a subpoena that is signed by
a judge and saying it's part of a criminal. Investigation
but right, now that's a fairly rare loss in court
For Jared.

Speaker 2 (01:07:00):
Poulis we'll be right back.

Speaker 6 (01:07:01):
Correction IF i, May, Yes ROSS i did get a
correction from A texter said That pantera close With cowboys From.
Hell oh Not walk and he is. Correct, okay that's my.
Mistake walks played a song or two prior to.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
That all, right very, good appreciate getting it.

Speaker 1 (01:07:15):
Right so we have a lot to.

Speaker 2 (01:07:17):
Do there's a lot going on in the.

Speaker 1 (01:07:18):
World and also we're going to Have Michael, doherty The
Boulder County District, attorney on with us in about half an.
Hour this was actually previously scheduled before today's news hit
that one of the ladies who the wanna be the

(01:07:38):
hottest lunatic In boulder fire bombed and it seemed like
everybody was going to, survive but she has passed. Away
AND i actually Asked Michael dougherty by, email can you
tie her death to that?

Speaker 2 (01:07:50):
Attack and he said.

Speaker 1 (01:07:51):
Yes and as you've Heard neavender report in Our Kawai
news a couple of times now over the past, hour
two or three times in the past, hour the charges
against this guy have been upgraded to include. Murder, now
so we are going to talk with The Boulder COUNTY
da about that and some other things in about half an.
Hour so let me just get through a couple of

(01:08:12):
other couple of other quick stories.

Speaker 2 (01:08:14):
They're going to be, local, national, international a little bit of.

Speaker 1 (01:08:17):
Everything And i'll just do those for this, segment next,
segment and get a bunch of.

Speaker 2 (01:08:21):
Stuff done here.

Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
First so there a top, cleric or maybe the top
cleric In, iran separate from The Ayatola kameni, himself who
really functions more as a political, leader even though he
is also a. Cleric but the top person who's just a,
cleric and he goes by the name Of Grand Ayatola
Nasser Makharem, shirazi issued a fatwa over the, weekend and

(01:08:51):
it essentially says that anybody who Threatens iranian leadership is
what is considered In islam a warlord and an enemy Of.
Islam and so essentially what this, is it is calling
for Radical islamists to well to try to kill either

(01:09:14):
Both President trump.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
And benjamin Net. Yahoo and.

Speaker 1 (01:09:19):
Essentially this is the Top iranian cleric calling for assassination
Of western leaders and also Of iranian. Dissidents by the,
way it would apply just as well to. Them AND i,
Look i'm just gonna offer one little piece of analysis.

(01:09:40):
Here it has long long Been american policy via executive
order that has held for since then whenever it was
first put in, place AND i don't remember how long
ago that, was but a long time that The United
states does not assassinate foreign political. Leaders we do not
assassinate foreign heads of. State and the reason is very very.

(01:10:03):
Simple if we were to engage in assassinating foreign heads of,
state it would massively increase the chance that some foreign
head of state would try to assassinate the president of
The United.

Speaker 2 (01:10:13):
States and it's just not worth. It it's a trade
that's not worth.

Speaker 1 (01:10:16):
It, Now israel potentially could try to assassinate the head Of,
iran and in, fact there were news stories that said
they wanted to When Donald trump told them not. To
but if there's anything that would Get President trump or
really any Other american, president not Just, trump to, say all,

(01:10:40):
Right i'm going to rescind that executive order for, now
and we're going to go take out this foreign head of.
State the thing that would do that would be if
there's an attack on the president's life that can be
tied to that, country not just someone who happens to
be a citizen of the.

Speaker 2 (01:10:59):
Country.

Speaker 1 (01:10:59):
Right you, know if Some iranian were to prior to this,
fatwah if Some iranian or Some saudi or some whatever
were to get, caught let's, say putting a plan in.
PLACE i don't even want to talk about, what you,
know somebody getting a shot. Off we've seen too much
of that. Already but that's not necessarily a. Reason you

(01:11:21):
wouldn't say just because someone comes from a country means
that we're going to, then you, know open the floodgates
and try to take out that country's. Leader but, now
when you've got a fat what issued by the top
cleric in that, country if we do, find if somebody
does find An iranian plot Against, TRUMP i, mean if
there's ever a thing that would get An american president to,

(01:11:44):
say all, right we're gonna temporarily suspend this executive order
because we have to take this guy. Out it's. That
And israel is already not going to be shy about
taking out the leader Of, iran but they'd Want america's.
Permission and, again if there is some kind of uncovered
plot or actual attempt to Assassinate Trump Ordnate, yahoo you

(01:12:10):
gotta think That trump will Give israel the green light
to take Out kamey And. E and that's WHY i
was a little bit surprised as crazy as these people can,
BE i was a little bit surprised that they were
willing to go down that road because it sure does
massively increase the risk to The iranian. Regime all, right
let's do A colorado. Story this is the story that's

(01:12:33):
been bouncing around for a couple of, years just a
horrendous story about a former business Called return To Nature
Funeral home down in Southern colorado and the Owner john
with NO H halford H A. L. Lfoord he was
co owner along with his. WIFE i think was this
Past friday sentenced to twenty years in prison in federal.

(01:12:57):
Court now he had already been sentenced on state, charges
AND i guess these things are going to run. CONCURRENTLY
i don't recall what a sentence was on the state,
charges but since he was sentenced to twenty years in federal,
COURT i assume that if he gets out of state prison,
early The feds will take him and put him in federal.
Prison and generally you don't get parole in federal. Prison you,

(01:13:18):
know in state prison you can sometimes get, parole get,
out get, supervision get, probation with all that. Stuff usually
in federal you serve whatever the number is. So the
judge also ordered him to pay back a million dollars
one hundred and ninety three, thousand about one hundred and
over a, million one hundred and ninety three, thousand to
be shared by the families of.

Speaker 2 (01:13:38):
Victims and then The Small.

Speaker 1 (01:13:40):
Business association has been awarded eight hundred and seventy six
thousand dollars because he and his wife did multiple fraudulent
applications and received money FOR covid pandemic relief. Funds and
they've pleaded guilty to that. Stuff but in any, case

(01:14:03):
and this is just such a horrific, story And i'll
quote FROM Cbs. Denver the federal indictment arrived after the
investigation into the funeral home began in Early october twenty twenty,
three when neighbors reported a foul odor to The Fremont
County sheriff's. Office they discovered investigators discovered at least one
hundred and ninety improperly stored.

Speaker 2 (01:14:23):
Bodies and that's a polite way to put.

Speaker 1 (01:14:24):
It this was so, disgusting so terrible that the investigators
had to wear hazmat suits and even then could only
go into that building for a short period of time
before having to come out. Again and these, people, would you,
know tell loved ones that their families have been buried or.

Speaker 2 (01:14:44):
Cremated they gave an urn with.

Speaker 1 (01:14:47):
Concrete powder rather than the actual, ashes and just on
and on and on and so, anyway twenty years good.
Good the, WIFE i, think has been found guilty or
pled guilty to some some of this, stuff but she
withdrew a guilty plea in the federal, case and so
the wife is actually going to go to trial a
little bit later this. Year in any, case twenty years

(01:15:10):
in prison sounds fine with. Me, again every once in
a WHILE i have This i'm kind of, torn like
is that sentence too harsh versus we need to make
an example out of somebody so other people don't do this,
Stuff AND i think twenty years is harsh and should
be a small correction kind of sort. OF i said
that prisoners in the federal system tend to serve their

(01:15:32):
whole sentences because there's no.

Speaker 2 (01:15:34):
Parole so that was only half. Right there is no,
parole but it is possible.

Speaker 1 (01:15:39):
To serve less than your whole sentence with something that
they call good time. Credit so if you're a very
well behaved, prisoner you can have your sentence. Reduced the
THING i see online HERE i haven't gone to verify,
yet but this says by up to fifty four days per, year,

(01:16:00):
right you, know after let's say seven, years then you'd
be seven. Years if you got all fifty four right per,
year then you could take a year off your, sentence
that sort of. Thing BUT i, anyway so there you.
Go there's no, parole but there is good conduct. Time

(01:16:20):
there's some other things that federal prisoners can do to
like go into substance abuse, treatment stuff like that that
potentially could lower a sentence as. Well, ANYWAY i just
wanted to correct myself on, that thanks to a listener
or two who texted in about. That all, right SINCE
i might not have too much more time to talk

(01:16:40):
some politics, today and since this is really important And
i've only done it for a few minutes earlier in the,
show only three minutes right, now on what's going on
in The senate with this so called big beautiful.

Speaker 2 (01:16:49):
Bill so On.

Speaker 1 (01:16:52):
Saturday they passed The senate passed the first procedural.

Speaker 2 (01:16:56):
Hurdle Two republicans voted.

Speaker 1 (01:16:58):
No one of them Was Tom Tillis North, carolina who
was then absolutely blasted By trump after that, vote even
more than the other no Vote Ran paul Was and
after That Tom tillis Of North, carolina who was probably
thinking this way, anyway announced that he's not going to
run for. Reelection that's going to be very, interesting, Right
so this is going to be in a year and a,

(01:17:18):
half In november twenty twenty, six this election will be,
up and there are a few potentially Interested. Republicans in,
Fact Donald trump's, daughter daughter in, Law Laura, trump may be.
Interested she's From North. CAROLINA i think she would be
a fairly appealing. Candidate she's got a lot of pluses
and a lot of. Minuses the pluses For Laura trump

(01:17:38):
is she's pretty, smart she's pretty good spokes and When
i've had her on my radio show a couple of,
times although not, recently she you, know for a surrogate
at the, TIME i thought she gave fairly honest. Answers
she's a very good communicator because she used to be
a television, anchor and she's good.

Speaker 2 (01:17:55):
Looking so all those are.

Speaker 1 (01:17:56):
Positives and having the Name trump is a double ledged, sword,
Right so some people Love trump and they'll vote for
just because she's Called, trump even if they might not
if you weren't Called. Trump and then there are people
the other way who maybe they are more Traditional republicans
who might Like Laura trump if her name Weren't trump
and might vote for might vote for, her but won't

(01:18:19):
because her name Is. TRUMP i think the big. Chance
and there's two things For Laura trump in this. DECISION
i think the two biggest. Things, one while her father
in law is, president she's gonna have just a heck
of a hard time even slightly claiming to be. Independent
that is not going to be easy for. Her and

(01:18:39):
the other thing is she's got a great gig right
now On. Fox she does some television. Thing i've never seen,
it but she you know to me that it seems
like a really good. Gig you HAVE i, think a nicer,
Life you probably make more. Money you definitely make more
money than you do as a. Senator she's got a
decision to. Make there are other Credible republicans that is

(01:19:01):
a potential pickup For, democrats and that's pretty. Important so
the big Beautiful, bill they are doing this so called
vote rama where they vote on, amendments and they are
this so called vote rama may actually go until. Tomorrow,
right lots and lots and lots of, amendments and some
debate about each, amendment and some of them are, good
some of them are. Bad most of them will not.

(01:19:24):
Pass most of the amendments will not. Pass i'm not
going to spend time right now talking about what might
pass and what might. Not but at some, point maybe
even by the time you AND i talk again tomorrow,
morning maybe there will be a vote by then on
this so called big beautiful.

Speaker 2 (01:19:43):
BILL i don't think it's.

Speaker 1 (01:19:44):
BEAUTIFUL i THINK i think it's not, great BUT i
think The senate has made it enough better that IF
i were In, congress i'd probably vote for. It the
Original house, VERSION i THINK i would have voted against,
it BUT i THINK i would vote for it. Now
and even though it's not very, good and even Though
massey And Rand paul are, right absolutely, right that it

(01:20:05):
is a sin That republicans are not putting forward spending
plans that massively reduce the, deficit it's disgusting that they're.
Not it's pure cowardice that they're. Not they're still doing
a little. Bit and the bottom line, is if this
thing doesn't, pass then essentially everybody In america is going
to have an increase in their marginal income tax.

Speaker 2 (01:20:27):
Rates it doesn't mean everyone.

Speaker 1 (01:20:28):
Is going to end up with an actual tax, hike
but two thirds of the country at least will end
up with an actual tax hike if this thing. Fails
so the WAY i think about it is perhaps the
only thing worse than this bill passing is this bill not.
Passing so we'll see how it. Goes we might have

(01:20:48):
a vote. Tomorrow Producer dragon, says my blog is up
on the. Website, now we're not entirely sure what happened
why there was that, delay but if you want to
check out my, blog it's up At rosskominski dot.

Speaker 2 (01:20:59):
Com we'll be right back With Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:21:01):
Doherty The Boulder County district, attorney talking about the new
murder charges against the crazy man who fire bombed peaceful
marchers In boulder some weeks.

Speaker 2 (01:21:11):
Ago is that What metallica covered? Yesterday, yeah that's WHAT i,
thought all.

Speaker 1 (01:21:15):
Right so the timing of this conversation is coincidental in
THAT i had Asked Michael doherty to come on the.
SHOW i asked him a couple of days ago to
talk about hate crimes, laws and we will absolutely get to.
That it ties in, very very much to the conversation
regarding this wannabe g hottist who firebombed peaceful marchers In

(01:21:40):
boulder several weeks, ago and there is news on that,
today and you've heard some coverage already from Our Kaaway news.
Team But Michael doherty is The Boulder County District attorney
who will be prosecuting that. Guy he's also a candidate
For Attorney general of The state Of. Colorado, michael welcome
back to the. Show good, Morning.

Speaker 5 (01:22:01):
Ross it's very nice to be back with you. Today
thank you for having me.

Speaker 2 (01:22:04):
On what do we need to know about today's.

Speaker 7 (01:22:06):
News, well earlier this, morning our office is filed an
amended complaint against the defendant and The Pearl street, Attack and,
unfortunately in that complaint there are two things that have been.

Speaker 5 (01:22:19):
Added one is an account.

Speaker 7 (01:22:20):
Of murder in the first degree for a victim by
the name Of Karen, diamond who died as.

Speaker 5 (01:22:24):
A result of the severe injury she suffered in the.

Speaker 7 (01:22:26):
Attack she was in our early eighties and will love
it by our family and her, friends and our office
will fight tirelessly for justice for her or her family
and for the. Community of, course we also added charges
for additional victims that have been identified through the good
work and hard investigation underway by law, enforcement both from
THE fbi and from the bold of police demat additional?

Speaker 1 (01:22:48):
Victims does that mean people who got burned on that?

Speaker 7 (01:22:51):
Day so we now have a total count of twenty nine.
Victims thirteen of them suffered physical injury from the burns
that day or from injuries running from the.

Speaker 1 (01:23:00):
Attack got it all? Right i'm gonna ask you a
very legalistic kind of kind of. Question so every once
in a, WHILE i see a case where somebody has
done a bunch of things wrong and the, prosecutor for prosecutorial,
reasons decides to only charge one thing or two things

(01:23:20):
or whatever that might. Be how do you how do
you decide how many of these things to? Charge for,
example if you get him on murder to the other
ones even? Matter or is part of it that you
want to represent all these victims so that they know
they're being represented in court.

Speaker 2 (01:23:42):
By a particular.

Speaker 7 (01:23:43):
Charge, well it's the, latter and just speaking, generally what
we can use for example That king super is mass murder.
Case we have ten people gunned down and tragically killed
at The king supers And, Table Mason, boulder AND i
think you'd, Agree, ross that would be a mistake for
us to just charge one or two two victims in that,
complaint because it wouldn't do justice to the other, victims

(01:24:04):
their loved, ones and everybody who. Suffered as, results we
charged for all ten of the. Victims and, then to
answer your, question we do look to see what charges
are most appropriate based on the evidence in a, case
and we bring those charges, when of, course there are
other charges you could, bring and we try to bring
the charge they reflect what we believe has happened and
the victims that have been harmed by the conduct as

(01:24:25):
a direct result of the.

Speaker 2 (01:24:26):
ACTIONS i asked you this.

Speaker 1 (01:24:28):
Before i'm not sure IF i asked you in, public
might have been in that interview we did The sunday
after the heinous event In, bolder WHEN i chatted with
you On Pearl.

Speaker 2 (01:24:42):
Street.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
Mall but the federal government is charging him as, well
AND i KNOW i asked you this in. Private but
are you confident and if, so why are you confident
that the federal government will let you prosecute This?

Speaker 2 (01:24:58):
First let you sentence him in in state.

Speaker 1 (01:25:00):
Court sentenced him to state prison rather than the fed's
big footing.

Speaker 7 (01:25:05):
YOU i appreciate your asking that, question and it speaks
to something THAT i am very grateful for that we
have In colorado that other states don't, have which is
we have strong working relationships between, federal, state and local
partners as a result of years of working on communication and,
coordination particularly in response to a tragedy or. Crisis so
what that means in practical terms is when something Like

(01:25:27):
King supers takes place and those ten lives are taken
or with a Pro street, attack that we have THE
Us Attorney's, office The federal of your, investigation local law,
enforcement and my office in the same room and there's
mutual respect and trust.

Speaker 5 (01:25:41):
And a shared commitment to do in.

Speaker 7 (01:25:43):
Justice and based on, that in this case related To Pearl,
street we're able to determine that THE Us Attorney's office
would file hate crimes charges and we would file the attempted,
murder murder and other charges related to the.

Speaker 5 (01:25:57):
Victims in the.

Speaker 1 (01:25:58):
Case that that's good and, uh because you do hear
these stories from time to time and The feds just
jumping in because they.

Speaker 2 (01:26:05):
Can and SO i sure hope.

Speaker 1 (01:26:08):
YOU i hope it work plays out the way you you,
expect AND i, BELIEVE i believe you that it will
and and and it's also interesting that that outcome can
be can be influenced by just the quality of the
relationship between the LOCAL da and the and the local federal.

Speaker 7 (01:26:25):
Agents, well that's absolutely, right and it's really important to
me because it's exactly what the people in the case
but also in the community deserve, from whether it be, federal,
state or local.

Speaker 5 (01:26:35):
Agencies the community deserves us.

Speaker 7 (01:26:38):
Operating at our very best and being able to communicate
effectively and work to the right outcome in these cases
without behind the scenes infighting and jurisdictional.

Speaker 5 (01:26:46):
Battles AND i appreciate that In colorado we've built those.

Speaker 7 (01:26:49):
Relationships in my office works hard to maintain those relationships
that the federal and state and local partners that we.
HAVE i wouldn't, mention AS i have to do ANYTIME
i talk to the media about a pending, case that
in this, case of, course the charges are melian, accusation
and the defendant has proom resumed innocent unless and until proven.
GUILTY i want to make sure we able to give
him a fair trial here In Mulder, county and for

(01:27:10):
the federal prosecutores to do so on their hate crimes
charges as.

Speaker 1 (01:27:13):
Well, Right and you, Know i'm not an. Attorney i'm
not going to be a. Juror i'm not a.

Speaker 2 (01:27:17):
Judge i'm not a.

Speaker 1 (01:27:18):
Prosecutor SO i don't need to be careful that way
HOW i talk about. It but you, do AND i appreciate.
THAT i want to paraphrase a listener question for, You,
michael and this is probably more of a philosophical question
than a legal. One what would have to happen here
to make you feel like there's actual? Justice AND i

(01:27:41):
think what the listeners getting at is this, man because
of hatred in his heart and mind firebombed innocent people
walking through a street.

Speaker 2 (01:27:51):
And killed an eighty two year old.

Speaker 1 (01:27:53):
Woman and, somehow if he just you, know goes to
some state prison for even if it's the rest of his,
life somehow it feels like not. Enough you, know we
don't have the death penalty. Here how do you think about?

Speaker 7 (01:28:07):
Justice, well generally, Speaking Ross AND i think that's a good,
question And i'll just answer in general. Terms i've been
a prosecutor for twenty eight, years, starting as you, know
at The Manhattan districtorney's office In New York, city AND
i was at the AG's office here In, colorado And
i've been the elected disc attorney here In Boulder county
for the past seven. Years AND i think that question
is one that we should always ask, ourselves and people

(01:28:28):
are going to have different.

Speaker 5 (01:28:29):
Answers to.

Speaker 7 (01:28:30):
Me it means assessing the evidence to make sure that
we're prosecuting the right, person that we could prove the
charges beyond a reasonable, doubt and that the sentence, reflects
in some, way however, appropriate the harm that the person.
Caused and there are going to be times where that
sentence doesn't necessarily reflect the, harm what doesn't meet what
people think the sentence should. Be BUT i strongly believe

(01:28:53):
in the system we. HAVE i think it's the best
justice system in the. World but it means that we
have to always work hard to push for the right,
outcome work as hard as we can to get. Justice.

Speaker 1 (01:29:02):
Yeah, Look i'm old school on, this and maybe it's
Because i'm Not christian right with a sort of turn
the other cheek, thing And i'm you, know oversimplifying by a.
Lot but in The jewish, tradition it's more like an
eye for an, eye AND i promise You i'm not
being sarcastic WHEN i say the right, punishment And i'll
give your. Caveat assuming he's found, guilty the right punishment

(01:29:24):
is to firebomb. Him i'm not trying to be. Funny
i'm really. Not to, me something like that feels like
justice and. Just and this isn't a criticism of. You
you're You're this is our Our and obviously What i'm
suggesting is wildly unconstitutional and impossible and not but, again
it's a philosophical. Thing and every once in a while

(01:29:46):
you get these crimes that are so heinous and so
arouse such, emotion like The King super's thing that you
talked about as, well and it's almost like there's nothing
that can happen to these, people even a death sentence
that we don't even have here.

Speaker 2 (01:29:56):
Anymore that quite feels like the level of justice some
people might. Prefer and, ROSSO i think what you.

Speaker 7 (01:30:04):
Just shared reflects that we all have an individual view of,
this AND i respect and appreciate you sharing it with.
Me WHAT i will, say from working on cases my entire,
career but including The King super's, case there are, oftentimes
at the end of the criminal justice process that families
do feel some sense of justice has been accomplished through
the prosecution of the criminal. Case it will never fill the,

(01:30:26):
void it will never make them feel like everything's okay
because they've lost a loved one and that, suffering that
trauma will remain with them every, DAY i imagine and
believe for.

Speaker 5 (01:30:35):
The rest of their.

Speaker 7 (01:30:36):
Lives but they know that our justice system work the
way it's supposed. To, ultimately in that case and in other,
Cases i've seen victims feel some sense of. Closure and
AGAIN i want to stress it doesn't replace the sense
of loss that they continue to, suffer but it.

Speaker 5 (01:30:49):
Was the impact that the justice system can have when.

Speaker 7 (01:30:53):
We fight hard for the right outcome and we're able
to secure the right outcome for loved ones and for the.

Speaker 2 (01:30:57):
Community we are talking With Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
Doherty he is the district attorney In Boulder county who
is prosecuting this guy whose NAME i won't, use and
he's a candidate For Attorney general of the state Of.
COLORADO a couple of listener questions for, you what do
you know about this guy's legal? Representation does he have private?

(01:31:20):
Attorneys does he have public? Defender? You what do you, know.

Speaker 7 (01:31:26):
He's represented by public defenders on the state, case and
from WHAT i, understand public defenders on the federal case as.

Speaker 1 (01:31:31):
Well the listener wants to know if there's any possibility
of a death sentence in any of the federal cases against, Him.

Speaker 5 (01:31:46):
So that would be a question for THE Us attorney's.

Speaker 7 (01:31:48):
Office i'm not in a position to answer for their,
office BUT i would say at the state, level as
ross you indicated earlier At Colorado, rekeal the death penalty
in the only sentenced someone can perceive if they're convicted
for murder in the first degree is life without the
possibility of.

Speaker 1 (01:32:06):
Parole i'm going to gets to hate crimes in a,
second which is the REASON i asked you to be here.

Speaker 2 (01:32:11):
Today but one, more we'll call it a.

Speaker 1 (01:32:15):
Hypothetical imagine that somebody is charged with murder as a
state crime and hate crimes and murder as a federal,
crime and gets convicted on, everything gets life without parole
in the, state and is death penalty eligible in the federal.

Speaker 2 (01:32:35):
Case And i'm not saying that's what's happening. HERE i don't.
Know i'm giving it a, hypothetical or and and and gets.

Speaker 1 (01:32:41):
A death, sentence, uh normally, normally how would that play
out in terms of what actually happens to the person after?

Speaker 2 (01:32:50):
Conviction which which?

Speaker 1 (01:32:51):
Which does he serve the state sentence and then get
executed to the The feds just take him and execute
him after whatever the appeal, processes assuming it gets all
the way, through.

Speaker 2 (01:33:02):
How would that?

Speaker 1 (01:33:03):
Work and then a more specific, question if something like
that played out in.

Speaker 2 (01:33:07):
This, case what would you want to?

Speaker 7 (01:33:09):
Happen, Well i'm not going to speculate on it BECAUSE
i am, restricted as you, know by the ethical rules
and talking about open pending. Cases beyond What i've already,
Shared i've never heard of a circumstance hypothetically you've come up.
WITH i appreciate you raising, it But i've never heard
of that actually. Happening it may, have But i'm unfamiliar

(01:33:30):
with any case where the federal prosecutors secured the death
penalty and state prosecutors securre a sentence of life without
the possibility of. Role, so rather than speculate on, that
WHAT i would say, Is i'm really grateful that we
do have a strong working relationship WITH Us attorney's. Office
we filed the murder and the first degree charges this
morning after consulting with THE Us Attorney's, office The Federal viewer,

(01:33:52):
investigation and the bold use. Format so Although i'm on
the show this morning And i'm talking about this, case
this is very much joint effort to secure justice for
all the, victims their, families and the entire community.

Speaker 1 (01:34:05):
On the federal side at, Least AND i don't Think
i've heard this on the state. Side i'm not correct.
ME i don't know what hate crime laws are In.
Colorado we've certainly heard about hate crime charges filed against
this guy by THE.

Speaker 2 (01:34:19):
Feds and WHEN i asked.

Speaker 1 (01:34:22):
You a few days ago to be on the, show
it was for more of a philosophical conversation than a legal.
Conversation based on today's, News we've gotten into some legal,
stuff BUT i want to come back to WHY i
asked you to be here as A, jew as a
member of a group that is often targeted by people
just Because I'm. JEWISH i nevertheless really struggle with the

(01:34:43):
idea of hate crimes, Because, michael they seem to me
to be thought to. Crimes and if someone beats me
up Because I'm, jewish and that's why they did, it
my good instinct is they should be punished for beating me,
up but not necessarily for the reason they beat me.
Up and in order for me not to talk too,

(01:35:04):
long why don't you explain a little bit why hate
crime's laws even, exist and then if you want, to
And i'd appreciate if you would express some of your
own opinion about whether they're a good idea or a bad.
IDEA i feel LIKE i have an open mind about,
it But i'm leaning against, them.

Speaker 7 (01:35:23):
All. Right i'm going to try to convince your ross
why these are appropriate for us to have under the,
law because that's my, view And i'm so glad you
reached out to me about, this so thank.

Speaker 5 (01:35:30):
YOU i be thinking about your question to me that
you emailed. ME i came up with four.

Speaker 7 (01:35:35):
Reasons the first, is we already have under the criminal
law In colorado and every state different charges and sentences
based on what someone is thinking at the. Time so
in the assault that you just, described if someone's hurt
intentionally or knowingly or, recklessly those are all different criminal
offenses with different sensing ranges based on what the person was.

(01:35:57):
Thinking so we already have men's rea as part of
our criminal, law including. Sentences the second, is in this,
country we value and cherish diversity, intolerance AND i strongly
believe our laws should reflect who we are as a.
People so having hate crimes to me reflects the priority
replace on diversity intolerance.

Speaker 5 (01:36:16):
In this great.

Speaker 7 (01:36:17):
Country the third is when someone commits a, crime commits
a hate. Crime so you use yourself as an. Example
when someone commits a hate crime against you based on your,
religion based on your, faith they're not just committing a
crime against, you they're committing a crime against the Entire jewish.
Community so it also accounts for the ripple effect that
a hate crime, has once committed against an, individual the

(01:36:39):
impact it has on their wider. Community and, fourth AND
i think this is something you'd agree with me, on
we have other special classes of, victims if that's the
right way to phrase. It we have other classes of
victims where there are enhanced. Penalty, so for, example a
sex crime against the, child a crime against an older
person new year older In colorado is considered an at risk,

(01:37:03):
offense crimes against law enforcement first, responders, judges those are
all specific offenses that carry certain penalties with them based
on the person who's being.

Speaker 5 (01:37:14):
Victimized so for those four, REASONS i strongly support hate.

Speaker 7 (01:37:18):
CRIMES i think you raised a good, question and it's
a Conversation i've had many times over the, years But
i've always thought these are appropriate for us to have
into the. Laws we do justice for victims based on
what's being committed against them and.

Speaker 2 (01:37:28):
WHY i think those are all legit.

Speaker 1 (01:37:30):
ARGUMENTS i Think i've heard number three most often right
that an attack on let's say, me Because I'm jewish
represents you called it an. ATTACK i might word it slightly.
DIFFERENTLY i might say an implied threat and against every
Other jew that that person or people who think like

(01:37:52):
him might might come in contact, with and so for
deterrent purposes, Perhaps.

Speaker 2 (01:37:57):
AND i think those are very good.

Speaker 1 (01:37:59):
ARGUMENTS i don't know if you've convinced, me but you've
certainly given me something to something to think. About last,
thing for, you tell me one thing that you learned
while serving in The Manhattan District attorney's office that you
think taught you something very valuable that helps you be

(01:38:19):
a better district attorney here In.

Speaker 2 (01:38:20):
Colorado so a good.

Speaker 7 (01:38:24):
Question AND i was there for thirteen, years and my
final position there was in charge of the day to
day operations of the entire office of thirteen hundred, people
so working very closely with the elected district attorney, there
recognizing the importance of having staff that understands the mission
of doing justice and operating with integrity and working to
secare the right, outcome and from most, cases without fear or,

(01:38:46):
favor doing our very, best which the right.

Speaker 5 (01:38:48):
Outcome so that's the leadership. Experience and then the trial
experience was incredibly valuable to.

Speaker 7 (01:38:54):
Me SO i, handled for, example a case involving a
guy who right after nine to eleven The World Trade,
center which was about even nine blocks in my, OFFICE
i falsely claimed to have found survivors while firefighters.

Speaker 5 (01:39:06):
For trying to conduct rescue, operations AND i prosecuted him
for that.

Speaker 7 (01:39:09):
OFFENSE i also prosecuted one of the first hate crimes
offenses In New york after the state passed the law
in two thousand on hate. Crimes so from those, Experiences
i've learned how valuable it is to be able to
fight for justice in the courtroom while also leading a
staff to do Sent.

Speaker 1 (01:39:27):
Michael Dougherty Boulder, COUNTY, da and they're lucky to have
him candidate For Colorado Attorney general as. Well thank you
for the wide ranging. Conversation thank you for updating koa
audience on the breaking news from. Today thank, You.

Speaker 5 (01:39:40):
ROSS i always appreciate talking to you AND i hope
you have a great.

Speaker 1 (01:39:42):
Day, likewise thank, You. Michael All, Right, mandy you heard
a lot of THAT i. Did what'd you think of
anything you want to react? To, well you've were kind
of moving your head a little bit on the hate crime.

Speaker 9 (01:39:53):
Conversation, sutumentally everything he said does not change the underlying
fact that you've now decided any group of, people for any,
reason their lives are more valuable than someone else is
based on what someone might have been, thinking and THAT
i don't like any of. THAT i, mean his arguments
are very, compelling, yeah and they're very emotionally, appealing but

(01:40:15):
they still do not override for me the fact that
equal justice for everyone is what we should be striving,
for not deciding that someone is more important because of
the job they.

Speaker 2 (01:40:24):
Hold, yeah that's that's WHERE i am.

Speaker 1 (01:40:29):
Too is very good, arguments BUT i still think hate
crimes are thought crimes and people should be should be
tried and convicted if they did it for whatever the
actual act was and not the idea in the.

Speaker 2 (01:40:45):
BRAIN i get their.

Speaker 1 (01:40:46):
ARGUMENT i get the, argument BUT i don't get, it you,
know AND i Will i'll mention one other, Thing. Folks
it's very early for this, conversation But i'm just going
to say it. Now if you're A, republican if you're
Registered republican In, colorado switch to unaffiliated just so you
can vote For Michael doherty in The democratic primary For

(01:41:09):
Attorney general the state Of, colorado because the alternative Is Jenna,
griswold And Jenna griswold must never be elected to anything
else in this. State And michael we might not agree on,
everything but the dude is a real lawyer who's done real,
law prosecuting real cases of high ranking in The Manhattan Day's,
office done a good job. Here we don't agree on,

(01:41:29):
everything but he's the real. Deal And Jenna griswold is a.
Disaster AND i Realize i'm way ahead here of whenever
we're going to need to do.

Speaker 9 (01:41:37):
Anything BUT i just want to get it out with
the show BECAUSE i Have William shatner at twelve.

Speaker 2 (01:41:41):
Years you DON'T

Speaker 1 (01:41:43):
I, Do oh my, gosh what's coming up at Twelve
andy's up next with one of my Favorite, jews