November 14, 2025 • 32 mins
Join Jim and Greg for the Friday 3 Martini Lunch as they dig into President Trump reducing several key tariffs, Megyn Kelly's confounding comments about Jeffrey Epstein, and Sen. John Fetterman how criticism he gets from the left is far worse than what he hears from the right.
First, they welcome President Trump's decision to lower tariffs on coffee, bananas, and other major imports from four Latin American nations. Jim sees this as a quiet admission that tariffs have been driving up prices. They also hope this signals a broader push to ease the cost of living in this country.
Next, parents may want the kids out of the room for this segment. Jim and Greg react to Megyn Kelly saying a source close to the Jeffrey Epstein case believes Epstein was not technically a pedophile because he preferred "barely legal" girls around fifteen years old instead of pre-pubescent victims. Jim and Greg are horrified by multiple aspects of her statement and discuss the Trump administration's terrible handling of this issue.
Finally, they highlight Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman saying there is no comparison between the vitriol he receives from the right and the left. Fetterman says angry Republicans call him names, while the left openly wishes for his death. We are not the same.
Please visit our great sponsors:
OneSkin uses the patented OS-01 Peptide™ designed to keep skin healthier, stronger, and more resilient over time. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code 3ML at https://www.OneSkin.co/3ML
Try the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure for free with zero commitment by visiting https://Oracle.com/Martini today!
Open a new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and get a free 10-ounce Silver Flag Bar plus a Silver American Eagle Proof Coin—visit https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/3ML
First, they welcome President Trump's decision to lower tariffs on coffee, bananas, and other major imports from four Latin American nations. Jim sees this as a quiet admission that tariffs have been driving up prices. They also hope this signals a broader push to ease the cost of living in this country.
Next, parents may want the kids out of the room for this segment. Jim and Greg react to Megyn Kelly saying a source close to the Jeffrey Epstein case believes Epstein was not technically a pedophile because he preferred "barely legal" girls around fifteen years old instead of pre-pubescent victims. Jim and Greg are horrified by multiple aspects of her statement and discuss the Trump administration's terrible handling of this issue.
Finally, they highlight Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman saying there is no comparison between the vitriol he receives from the right and the left. Fetterman says angry Republicans call him names, while the left openly wishes for his death. We are not the same.
Please visit our great sponsors:
OneSkin uses the patented OS-01 Peptide™ designed to keep skin healthier, stronger, and more resilient over time. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code 3ML at https://www.OneSkin.co/3ML
Try the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure for free with zero commitment by visiting https://Oracle.com/Martini today!
Open a new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and get a free 10-ounce Silver Flag Bar plus a Silver American Eagle Proof Coin—visit https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/3ML
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to the Three Martini Lunch.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Grab a stool next to Greg Corumbus of Radio America
and Jim Garritty of National Review.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Free Martini's coming up.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Hey, it's Friday. We finally made it to Friday. That's
a good martini all by itself, and we actually do
have a regular good martini today. One of the things
we should point out here at the top, though, is
that I hear a lot that parents feel very comfortable
listening to this podcast with their children, which I love.
What We want kids to be well informed and understand
what's going on, and we feel very grateful that you
(00:35):
can trust us to address these things in a way
that you feel comfortable having your kids with us. You
don't want your kids with you in the second martini today,
most likely first Martini, great, second Martini, hit pause, have
them go pick the trash out or something, and then
bring them back for the third Martini. Just some fair
warning on that content. But Jim, we have finally made
(00:57):
it to the weekend, and it turns out we'll talk
about in our first martini here in a second that
maybe tariffs don't reduce prices for people.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
By the way, Greg, are you hearing from a lot
of parents who are saying, I really like your version
of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse better some twenty four fan dads
who are like, I've listened to this song a million times, Alright,
let's listen to this show.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
Kids.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
They're talking about Mickey Mouse and Goofy.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Yes, yes, well, hey, that's just real life.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Well, we'll be more than happy to let the kids
learn about Disney Seed to you so, and they're going
to learn about terrists. They're going to learn about John
Fetterman and the threats that he deals with, primarily from
the left. In the middle, we'll be talking about Jeffrey
Epstein and specifically what Megan Kelly had to say about
that yesterday. But in the meantime, if you're looking to
create a stable financial future, look into Noble Gold Investments.
(01:51):
Here's what I like about Noble Gold. I just like
the people there. First of all, I've had the chance
to sit down and talk to these folks. They're very
calm there, very knowledgeable, and they're very interested in sharing
their knowledge with you because the things that they have
learned over time could certainly be a financial benefit to
you as well. So, if you're looking for more ways
(02:12):
to make sure you have a secure retirement, check out
Noble Gold.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Noble Gold lives up to that name. Their pricing is
clear and upfront, with no hidden fees or tricky fine print.
Whether it's a gold IRA or just a direct purchase,
they make the process easy, and if you ever want
to sell, they will buy your metals back quickly and fairly.
You'll even get a photo of your actual medals, so
there's no guesswork. And most of their business comes from
(02:37):
repeat clients and referrals, meaning they have lots of satisfied customers.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Yeah, Noble Gold knows the markets, the metals, the strategies,
and they explain them patiently in a way that's easy
to understand. No hype, no gimmicks, just honest, fact based
insights and clear options. And their track record speaks for itself.
So take advantage of this limited time offer. Open a
new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and
get a free ten ounce silver flag bar plus a
(03:04):
silver American Eagle Proof coin. Visit Noblegoldinvestments dot com slash
three mL. That's Noble Gold Investments dot com slash three mL.
All right, Jim onto our good martini now and of
course it was late March early April when the President
(03:25):
announced all sorts of reciprocal tariffs, and then since then
there's been some renegotiated trade deals, some fluctuation in the
tariffs we've applied, and more negotiations ongoing. But the question is,
ultimately is when we place higher tariffs on countries and
the things that they send us, ultimately are we paying more?
Is it essentially attacks on us? That's largely been our
(03:48):
argument here, and now there's more AMMO for that courtesy
of the Trump administration. Actually, but they're doing the right
thing here. The Wall Street Journal reporting the US plans
to eliminate tariffs on bananas, coffee, beef, and certain an
apparel and textile products under framework agreements with four Latin
American nations. The expected move, which would apply to some
goods from Ecuador, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala, is part
(04:11):
of a shift from the Trump administration to water down
some of it so called reciprocal tariffs in the midst
of rising prices for consumers as well as legal uncertainty.
After a Supreme Court hearing this month in that case
was about the president whether he has unilateral power to
deal with tariffs and that sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
We don't have a ruling from the court.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
On that yet, but Jim, one of the things that
seems to be getting through after the elections is you
need to be focused a lot on pocketbook issues, just
like you were a year ago. People are still not
satisfied just because there's been a change of administrations, and
this seems to be one area that people are frustrated with.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Hopefully they're listening.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Yeah, So we should point out that the oral arguments
for that case did not appear to go great for
the Trump administration. You can read too much into the
justices questioning, but they certainly seem to be skeptical that
the president had this far reaching lateral power to adjust
the tariffs really almost on a day to day basis,
on any country for seemingly any reason, as long as
(05:10):
he calls it a in emergency. There are two ways
to look at this. I think, you know, if you
thought the tariffs were a bad idea, if you believe
like I do, that targeted tariffs on a place like
China makes sense, it makes sense for the United States
to economically uncouple or consciously uncoupling as Gwyneth Paltrow would
call it. Then it makes absolute sense to say, yes,
(05:30):
we do want to make products from China more expensive,
we want to develop more domestic production of that, or
we want to import them from friendlier countries, not one
that is our pre eminent geopolitical rival. That all makes
perfect sense. Other countries, whether it's Thailand or Venezuela or
really basically every other country of the world, that does
not make sense, and that was a factor in increasing price.
(05:51):
Sometimes companies are going to quote unquote eat the cost,
as Trump has urged them to, but in a whole
bunch of cases they're going to say they don't want
to or that they can't. And keep in mind, it's
not just important goods. It is also any component any
product we make here that involves important components or parts
or things like that. So this is why, you know,
a factor in the increasing cost of loving not the
(06:12):
only factor, but it is a significant one. Treasury Secretary
of Scott Bessent said this week the administration was working
to reduce prices on these agricultural goods and other items.
Quote You're going to see some substantial announcements over the
next couple of days in terms of things we don't
grow here in the United States, coffee being one of them, Bananas,
other fruits, things like that. That will bring the prices
(06:33):
down very quickly. Oh oh so price. So tariffs do
increase prices. This is what the administration has but insisting
was not the case for the most part of this year. Again,
I'm glad to see it. If you're going to do
it for these three or four products, how about all
these other products you've had. And again I'm willing to
make an exception for China. I'm willing to make it.
One of the twenty five percent tariffs we put on
(06:55):
goods from India was over their purchase of Russian oil,
which is keeping the Russian war machine going. I clearly
support that objective. I have my doubts about whether you
can really use tariffs as the most effective one. But
Indian oil refineries are declining, or you are declining their
purchases of Russian oil because all of a sudden they
don't want to deal with the consequence. It's like I
get where the administration is coming from on some of
(07:16):
them are the ones like that island full of penguins
that didn't have a lot of people. Yeah, I don't
really understand the justification for that one. But here's the thing.
This is a really really significant concession by the part
of the administration to say, Okay, tariffs do increase prices.
Americas are very upset ab up prices. We have something
we can do about it. And for those of us
who drink an enormous amount of coffee, yes, great to
see that price going down. I think the problem now
(07:37):
is they have faced like, hey, how about all these
other prices that are expensive. Why are you guys keeping
the tariffs in that case and some of these cases
is less of a national security argument and more of
a well, we just really like tariffs and we think
this is a great way to bring in revenue.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Just as a probably irrelevant aside, if there's an island
nation that's populated only by penguins, who's running the country,
The King Penguin.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
He's moved from Gothams Meguin and he's actually had a
recently issued a statement about the idea of tariffs being
dropped on this island. Was the quote there. So Burgess
Meredith action for all of our young listeners.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Had to be Burgess Meredith or Mario Lemieux. You know
there we go.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Okay, that've been that joke could have worked as well too.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Anyway, Well, good news for some businesses here in the
United States. So as a result of that news, But
when it comes to your business, they say you can
have things better, cheaper, or faster, but you only get
to get.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
Two out of three.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
So what what if you could have all three at
the same time, better, cheaper, and faster. Well, that's exactly
what business is like. Cohere, Thomson Reuters and specialized bikes
have done since they've upgraded to the next generation of
the cloud. It's called Oracle Cloud Infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
How is it faster? While Oracle Cloud Infrastructure's block storage
gives you more operations per second, how is it cheaper?
OCI costs up to fifty percent less for computing, seventy
percent less for storage, and up to eighty per sent
less for networking. And how is it better? Well, in
test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher
bandwidth versus other clouds. This is the cloud that is
(09:09):
built for AI and all of your biggest workloads.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And right now, with zero commitment, try OCI for free.
Head to Oracle dot com. Slash martini. That's Oracle dot
com slash martini to try OCI for free, Oracle dot
com slash martini. All right, we've arrived at that second Martini.
So parents, if you want to hit pause, you can.
(09:34):
I'll leave it to your discretion, though, if you think
your kids are old enough to handle it, by all means,
let them listen. But over the last few days, really
ever since it became apparent that the government was going
to reopen, the Democrats have suddenly had a brand new
fixation on Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Part of it's due to the fact that the.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
New representative from Arizona's been sworn in, Adelita Grijalva, and
she's the two hundred eighteenth signature and this discharge petition
to force a vote on releasing all of the Justice
Department's Epstein file. So there is a reason that this
is coming to light. The Democrats have also released selective
emails from Jeffrey Epstein over time. I'm not exactly sure
(10:12):
what you're there from, and so forth that would seem
to suggest in the eyes of some that Donald Trump
knew more about Epstein's operations than Trump has suggested. Others
have been redacted, and then it turns out it's a
girl that has said repeatedly under ote that she never
saw Trump do anything, never experienced Trump do anything in
that sort of way. But as Jim has written, the
(10:36):
Trump administration has not handled this issue well. From Pam
Bondi several months ago right up to the present. There's
reports that they tried to get a couple of members
of Congress to remove their names from this discharge petition
so it wouldn't come to a floor vote. That has
not succeeded well. Meghan Kelly is now in the spotlight
in connection with this story because yesterday on her podcast,
(10:56):
Meghan Kelly quoted someone that she says is pretty darn
close to the Epstein investigation, maybe doesn't know everything, but
knows the vast majority of what's going on there, and
she decided to share this perspective in a way that
left many jaws, understandably on the floor.
Speaker 5 (11:12):
As for Epstein, I've said this before, but this is
a reminder. I do know somebody very very close to
this case who was in a position to know virtually everything,
not everything, but virtually everything. And this person has told
me from the start, years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein,
in this person's view, was not a pedophile. This is
this person's view who was there for a lot of this,
(11:34):
but that he was into the barely legal type, like
he liked fifteen year old girls. And I realized this
is discussing. I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse
for this. I'm just giving you facts that he wasn't
into like eight year olds, but he liked the very
young teen types that could pass for even younger than
they were, but would look legal to a passer by.
(11:59):
And that is what I believed, and that was what
I reliably was told for many years. And it wasn't
until we heard from Pam Bondi that they had tens
of thousands of videos of alleged forgive me. They used
to call it kitty porn, now they call it child's
sexual abuse material on his computer that for the first
time I thought, oh, no, he was an actual pedophile,
(12:21):
I mean, only a pedophile it gets off on young
children abuse videos. She's never clarified it. I don't know
whether it's true. I have to be honest, I don't
really trust Pambondi's word on the Epstein matter.
Speaker 6 (12:34):
Anymore.
Speaker 5 (12:35):
Yeah, so I don't know what's true about him, But
we have yet to see anybody come forward and say
I was a like a I was under ten, I
was under fourteen when I first came within his purview. Look,
it's you can say that's a distinction without a difference.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
No, it's not.
Speaker 5 (12:56):
I think there is a difference. There's a difference between
a fifteen year old and five year old. You know,
it's just whatever. It's sick because every time we start
talking about Epstein it makes your skin crawling. Right, the
whole thing is just disgusting, totally.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
There's nothing about a fifteen year old that's barely legal, Megan.
And yet there's a difference, I guess in their stages
of developments, but in terms of the depravity and the
heinousness and the evil of the crime. As the dad
of two daughters, whether they're eight or whether they're fifteen,
you're still going headfirst through the wood chipper, Jim, I
can't believe that anybody's trying to dissemble this. Who in
(13:28):
the world has any incentive to defend Jeffrey Epstein If
you want to try and defend based on what we
know so far about Trump, that's I guess something you
could spend time doing. But in terms of oh, you know,
look the god to look at it this way, at
least he wasn't this what are you doing?
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Listeners? I know that ninety nine point nine percent of
the time on this podcast, Great Corumbus comes across as
the nicest guy in the world, and very often he
is until he feels children are being threatened. And then
usually those are the ones you really don't want to
mess with. And as we just heard, Greg, Corumbus will
put you head first into a woodschipper if you do
something like that. So the good news is the Corumbus
(14:05):
yard is really well fertilized. So they got that all right.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
So I hate your neighborhood has better neighbors than that are.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I'm just saying that roses are blooming really well, Greg,
So I hate to live down to Mike Cliche. But
there is a lot to unpack here. On the campaign trail,
Trump was asked twice, would you release the Epstein files. Now,
by the way, there's not one clear Epstein file thing,
Like there's the court documents that have been kept under
sealed by a judge. The Trump administration has tried to
get them unveiled. The judge has said, no, there's too
(14:35):
much information in there that does not need to be
disclosed to the public. I'm not going to you know,
I'm not gonna They can try to appeal this, but
that's a factor. But we're talking about in this case
is the Department of Justice's files on everything regarding Epstein
and also Maxwell, who you'll recall is in prison and
who some people say wants a pardon. She was interviewed
by the DOJ's Assistant Attorney General. No. By the way,
(14:57):
on the campaign trail, jd Vance said we should release everything.
Numerous times before he was FBI director, kash Battel ripped
into congressional Republicans for not releasing everything, and he really
kind of condescendingly said, it's time to put on your
big boy pants and get this done. Well, if only
kash Ptel were in some position where he, oh wait
a minute, he's now the director of the FBI and
all the we had this as you mentioned, this press
(15:19):
conference from Attorney General Pam Bondi and all these other folks,
and all of a sudden, oh, no, we can't release
this stuff. There's too much stuff in there that we know.
What argument is there's names of the victims. I think
you get a black marker, you cross them out. That's
what did happen with some of these documents that were
in Epstein's personal files seized by authorities, and that that
you can you can take that move, you can. I
(15:41):
think that one a lot of people think is that
there's a lot of people who are very embarrassed by
their association with Epstein, whether it involved abuse of underage
girls or not, and this idea of, uh, they just
don't want their names out there and associated with it. Well,
I'm sorry, but that's like, you know, there's extraordinary public
interest in this, and if you're an elite and you
(16:01):
associated a lot with Jeffrey Epstein, maybe you got to
take the reputational hit of having that friendship, since it
sounds like his abuse of women was an open secret
in so many ways. The House has had this vote,
there's now a discharge petition. Mike Johnson said they're going
to have this vote at some point next week. Again,
I think it's going to put a lot of Republicans
(16:21):
in really awkward spot because Trump has been adamant he
doesn't want this stuff really. He refers to it as
the Epstein hoax. He says that he said Epstein is
someone who nobody cares about anymore. I'm sorry, I mister President,
That's not even close to being true. I think it's
entirely reasonable to say, take whatever precautions are needed, but
these documents. Better to have them out there than to
not have them out there. There's been this perception that
(16:43):
there's been a lack of curiosity about how far Epstein's
connections were and about how far Epstein's actions went. So
then getting onto Megan Kelly, I've been on her podcast
a bunch of times. I have no animosity towards her.
I've enjoyed being on it. It's been a while, but
happy to be on again. But I don't quite understand
what her thinking is on this issue. A couple of
(17:03):
other issues too, but I'm going to focus on this
right now. As you mentioned, barely legal is not fifteen
year olds. Barely legal would be on the eighteenth birthday, right,
That is that you're legal, but you just barely became legal.
Fifteen is not that the rest of the teen years
Like this is not you know, like you're you're on
the wrong side of legal of that point, and also
her phrase, but they look younger, that really is not
(17:25):
as exculpatory as she makes it sound, right like, oh,
look at the driver's license. This person is fifteen, but
they look younger. That doesn't make anyone less. I understand
that if you're a clinical psychologist, maybe you draw a
distinction between a grown man who's attracted to people girls
who are in their older teen years but under eighteen,
versus children. I think the enormo, like the general public,
(17:49):
does not draw that distinction and does not care about
this distinction. It's really kind of shocking to see two
figures well known, and if not on the right, then
then you know currently by bing pro Trump perceived to
be right emphasizing that there is a difference. Is there
is there one that anybody really cares about? Now? I
don't think so, I really don't think. And the other
(18:09):
thing is is that you see this in Trump's comments,
You see this in basically everyone who knew him, and
in that creepy book of birthday greetings and all that stuff.
It certainly sounds like everybody knew that Jeffrey Epstein was
always surrounded by teenage girls. Trump reportedly said to Roger
Stone when he went over to Epstein's house, he thought that,
(18:30):
like the neighborhood kids, he was allowing them to use
the pool. Right, so everybody knew that they looked astonishingly young,
Whether or know of their age, it is now very clear,
based on their testimony they were in those teen years
they were under eighteen. That is a crime, right, seventeenth birthday,
three hundred and sixty four days. Technically that's a crime.
Prosecutors have discretion over that sort of thing. Fourteen fifteen sixteen.
(18:52):
We're not in a gray area. We're not in something
where it's close and particularly if you're a grown man
or something like that. So I have no idea where
she's coming from on this. And maybe this is just
her being pedantic and saying, well, technically there's a definition
of pedophilia and this doesn't really meet that clinical American
psychological associate whatever it is. Like, one, no one cares.
(19:13):
Two Would you come out and make this distinction at
this moment, when there's all this discussion about the release
of these files, it certainly makes people think you're trying
to create some sort of defense and to say, oh,
Epstein wasn't that bad. Well, yes, he was that bad.
There is no gray area here, there is no Ah. Yes,
but no, no, this is really bad. I don't understand
(19:33):
why this is going on. And I'm just going to
point out between Trump throwing tirades about this on Trump's
on truth, social on people like Bondie and Cash Ptel
and all these people doing this about face, and now
you throw in somebody like Mike Megan Kelly saying well,
it's not really pedophilia. This all feels like there's something
(19:53):
terrible out there that they all want to make sure
it doesn't get exposed. I don't know what it is.
I'm not going to pretend to know what it is.
I'm just to say everybody's acting like somebody is guilty
of sin here and doesn't want it to come to light.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
I mean, we had said so many times that we
figured if there had been any Trump implication here, it
would have come out during the Biden years, maybe even
the Obama years. Others are saying, well, no, Julane Maxwell
was being prosecuted or appealing during a lot of the
Biden years, so that's why nothing was released.
Speaker 4 (20:22):
Then.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
I don't know what this is. But the narrative changed
so much, so quickly on this where BONDI just tried
to put it away some weekend earlier this year, where
she's like, oh, as it turns out there is no list,
they really weren't trafficking people, and so there's really nothing
to see here.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
It's all going to go away.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
By and nobody's going for that, because, I mean, even
if you don't necessarily believe everything Virginia Giufrey said before
she died, Hello, we've got the prince formerly known as
Andrew or the former prince known as Andrew, who got
stripped by his mother of all his titles and duties
and stuff, and then Prince Charles kicked him out of
his house and then he's not even allowed to be
(21:00):
called prints anymore. I don't think any of that would
have happened if there wasn't something.
Speaker 4 (21:04):
There there, and it's not just him. I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
The argument of oh, if Trump had done, you know,
committed some terrible crime, wouldn't it have come to light
with you know, four years of Merrick Garland verning Like, okay,
that's all that's perfectly reasonable point. But if that's the
case and Trump didn't do anything. Why is this, Why
are we not allowed to see this stuff? Why is
this suddenly under lock and key by people who insisted
they were going to release everything? And who you know,
(21:31):
Dan Bongino brought this up on his podcast a lot
of times. He's now deputy director of the FBI. All
these people were perfectly willing to bang the drum on this,
and then they got into positions of power, and all
of a sudden, now they don't want to have any
of these documents released. That stinks to high heaven. And
I cannot begrudge anybody for being suspicious. The administration knows
exactly what it's got to do here to make this issue,
to get Rido to resolve this issue. For some reason,
(21:52):
they just refused to do it.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Yeah, and the left has done a one ady on
this too, And Bill Cluton was mainly the person involved,
and maybe some other figures on the demomocratic side. Oh
just let's just let's talk about something else and move
along if we can. Here now they're licking their chops
and hoping that there's something absolutely incontrovertible about Donald Trump.
And one of the weirdest things here, one of the
(22:14):
people trying to lead the charge on this is the
Lincoln Project, which might have the least credibility on stopping
sexual predators towards underage people. All Right, Well, after a
story like that, you definitely want to take a shower,
you definitely want to refresh, and there's no better way
to do that than with good skincare products. And with that,
you want One Skin. And don't look at your calendar now.
(22:35):
But we're only about a month and a half away
from Christmas and One Skin has launched its limited edition
holiday sets, including the Nightly Rewind gift set that includes
their best selling face moisturizer, their new peptide lip mask,
and a cooling guashaw tool. Each component of the set
is designed to work together as your body enters its
natural nightly repair mode. And at the core of everything
(22:58):
One Skin does is the patented os one peptide, the
first ingredient proven to target senesen cells, the root cause
of wrinkles, crapiness, and loss of elasticity, which are all
key signs of skin aging. And these results have now
been validated in five different clinical studies.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Listeners, do you have sensitive skin, does it react strongly
to chemicals or does it just simply get very prickly
when it gets criticized. Whatever your skin's level of sensitivity,
One Skin products are certified safe for sensitive skin, free
for more than one thy five hundred harsher irritating ingredients.
They are dermatologists tested, and they've been awarded the National
(23:33):
Enzoma Association Seal of Acceptance, or as we call them
over here, the good NEEA, and they deliver powerful results
without all the side effects. All of one Skin's products
designed to layer seamlessly and replace multiple steps in your routine,
making your skin health easier and smarter at every age.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
For a limited time, try one Skin for fifteen percent
off using the code three mL at one skin dot
co slash three mL. After you purchase, they'll ask you
where you heard about them, So please support the three
martini lunch and then that we sent you. That's code
three mL at one skin dot co slash threeml for
fifteen percent off. All right, Jim, Last topic here relates
(24:15):
to Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman. First of all, our
best wishes to go out to Senator Fetterman. He fell
yesterday a little seems like a hard issue while he
was out for a walk, banged up his face a
little bit, says he's going to be fine, but still
in the hospital for observation. Obviously, you know, his heart
and other issues going back to the stroke, and perhaps
even before that, for all we know, have been concerns
(24:36):
there and so they're taking their time to figure out
exactly what's going on there. But John Fetterman also has
a book out called Unfettered, And of course, ever since
the terrorist attack in Israel and twenty twenty three, Fetterman
has been an outspoken supporter of Israel, which means ever
since then he's been a pariah in many sectors of
the left, especially the far left base. And so part
(24:59):
of what he talked too out in this book is
how ridiculously evil some of the comments have been from
folks on the left and Dana bash Over at CNN,
and is mystified as to why he would say the
left comments are worse than the right. Well, John Fetterman,
explain it very clearly.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
You said, quote, I've drunk deeply of the venom of
both the left and the right. As a connoisseur, I
can confirm that the most poisonous, the bitterest is from
the far left. That is pretty remarkable to hear you
say that as an elected Democrat.
Speaker 6 (25:33):
Why, it's just been my personal experience on this thing.
And when I asked my digital team, I said, you know,
you're we're on all the platforms, you know, really, what's
what's kind of the harshest, what's kind of the most personal?
And the answer was immediately said, oh, blue sky. It's
blue sky. And the difference is, I mean, the right
(25:53):
would say really rough things and names, you know, some
names I won't repeat on TV. But at the the
on the left, it was like they want me to die,
or that we're cheering for your next stroke, or that's
terrible that depression wants why couldn't it depression one? And
and I hope your kids find you. Uh, I mean
(26:15):
they even have like the graphic a gift where they
have like a stroke you know, you know in your head,
you know, cheering it. Yeah, and and they said that
I remember one they claimed the doctor let us down,
and why did they have to save his life? I
mean just really like I just can't imagine people are
(26:36):
are wishing, you know, I wish he dies or I
want him to die, you know, literally cheering for for
a stroke, and I don't know what the kind of
a place where that comes from. I mean, that's that's
much different than just calling me a name, you know,
And that's that's really been consistent, you know, in that
community online, Jim.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
We've talked about this or certainly heard a lot about
this ever since the murder of Charlie Kirk a couple
of months ago, where the right can get vitriolic and
the language can get pretty tough, and then the left,
of course out there is cheering assassinations at least a
disturbingly high percentage. Obviously not everyone on the left, and
that kind of rhetoric continues, and so the line on
(27:17):
the right has been we are not the same, and
what Fetterman is describing there suggests very clearly the two
sides are not the same.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Yeah. So, first of all, I mean, the First Amendment
protects your right to criticize any candidate or lawmaker. They
are public figures, they have a much higher bar to
prove libel or slander. But whether or not you have
the right to something, doesn't this mean you should do something.
And I think a lot of us would say hoping
that his kids find him dead really goes well beyond
(27:47):
any line of legitimate criticism. Now, look, we should you know,
we have clear eyes of John Fetterman. He is a
Pennsylvania Democrat, which means every once in a while he's
going to vote the way we'd like to see him
to vote, but he's going to vote against the way
we want a whole bunch of times. But you know,
he has stood up to the rest of his party
on some very emotionally charged issues, obviously Israel in front
of center. But let's remember this was the only guy
(28:09):
who was really willing to like lots of demo state
Democrats offered a murmured criticism of Bob Benendez for what
turned out to be you know, multi counts of bribery
and just you know, and Fetterman like brought it up
every opportunity. Fedderman really seemed to enjoy sticking it to
him and twisting the knife to him. And I just
feel like that was like, that's a that's an active integrity,
that that is confronting a problem in your own party
(28:31):
that most people would rather revert their eyes from. Let's
point out, on the issue of illilumigration, he pointed out
that wanting a secure border is not xenophobia like you
might say, Jim, that's like saying two plus two equals four.
But a lot of Democrats won't say that. That is
a real That is a rare and seemingly brave statement
for Fetterman to come out and say that. And just
just today in Michael Continetti's column in the second best
(28:53):
off ed page of a newspaper, The Wall Street Journal,
he makes the point that Fetterman was saying that, like,
you know, he had Chuck um or engineered the longest
shutdown ever for nothing, making me life miserable for air travelers,
food stamp recipients, and federal employees. And I think Federman's
right on that. Fetterman from the beginning was I don't
want to continue the shutdown, and we can argue about
Obamacare subsidies and all the time of stuff, but he
(29:14):
like he did not see the point of it. So
he's in my mind, he's got much higher supplies of
common sense than the typical Senate Democrat. And the other
thing I've thought about is that if you go back
and listen to the archives of this podcast in twenty
twenty two, we were not fans of John Fetterman, particularly
after the stroke, and we were pulling for that whirling dervish,
over all political charisma and staunch supporter of Israel who
(29:35):
hasn't said a darn thing about Israel since October seventh,
mement Oz. But Oz is now running the Center for
Medicaid Medicare Services. And you can go back and find
lots of cases were you and I arguing John Fetterman
should not be the nominee and that he was not well.
Go back and listen to that last debate with Oz,
and it was very clear Fetterman could really barely speak.
(29:56):
He could not put together his words and his thoughts
in a complete sentence. He was still really struggling. Fetterman's
book is out, as you mentioned, and in the book
he writes, in hindsight, I should have quit, And he
says that dot as a matter of a reflection of
his depression, but it's a sense of like that his
condition was just in really rough shape and he was
really not capable of doing the job the way he
(30:18):
really needed to be done. Now we just played that audio,
he sounds much better. He's sounding worlds better than he
was back in twenty twenty two, and I'm thrilled to
hear it. I hope Ron Fetterman lives to be one hundred.
I hope he gets through this recent hospitalization fine. You know,
he's going to be around for another couple of years,
and I think that as far as Democrats go, he's
probably one of the much better ones. And I hope
(30:38):
he and his family get to enjoy each other for
you know, decades and decades to come. Should he continue,
you know, i'd like to. I feel the letter from
his doctor that he released at the time appeared to
be utter nonsense because they were saying he could do
the job with no significant restrictions. Then he got up
on stage and he really couldn't talk. I'm really glad
he's made you know, it looks like I've not a
full recovery, a really significant recovery. He looks and sounds better.
(31:00):
He's doing the job the way it's meant to be done.
I don't think we were wrong to say that this
guy should not be a Senate candidate back then, just
because he was in no shape to campaign. He was
in no shape to do the right. So I don't
say that was bad. I don't regret anything. I'm just
really thrilled that he's made it much better and mem
and Oz. You know, he said he was a big
supporter of Israel on the campaign trail then, and he's
(31:21):
just not just maybe he's just waiting for the right
time to issue a statement about the October seventh.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
The texts, Yeah, being very patient about it. Yeah, that
comment that Dana Bash and all of us recoil on,
we hope your kids find you dead. At one point,
I was like expecting him to say, you know, Jay
Jones really needs to tone it down. He didn't actually
say that as far as we know, but he didn't
say it about, of course.
Speaker 4 (31:43):
The former Speaker of the House in Virginia.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
But apparently he's not the only one who who talks
like that and wishes those sorts of things because their
lives are completely engrossed in politics and a certain perspective,
and any threat to what they want to see happen
must be met with just the most vile response.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
So amazing, listeners, don't let politics drive you crazy. Think
of calm thoughts like Greg feeding some creep into a
wood chipper. That's what I think when I feel.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
Happy, thankful I haven't had to do that. But now
the warning's out there, so say so you say you know.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Some disappearances of suspicious characters. What a lovely thought to
end the week on.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Jim, have a good weekend.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
See you Monday.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
See you Monday, Greg.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Jim Garretty National Review. I'm Greg Corumbus of Radio America.
Thanks so much for being with us today. Please subscribe
to the podcast if you don't already, tell your friends
about us as well. Thanks also for your five star
ratings and your kind reviews. Please keep those coming. Get
us on your home devices. All you have to say
is play Three Martini Lunch podcast. Follow us on X
He's at Jim Garrity, I'm at Greg Corumbas, have a
(32:48):
great weekend. Join us on Monday for the next three
Martini Lunch
Welcome to the Three Martini Lunch.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Grab a stool next to Greg Corumbus of Radio America
and Jim Garritty of National Review.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Free Martini's coming up.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Hey, it's Friday. We finally made it to Friday. That's
a good martini all by itself, and we actually do
have a regular good martini today. One of the things
we should point out here at the top, though, is
that I hear a lot that parents feel very comfortable
listening to this podcast with their children, which I love.
What We want kids to be well informed and understand
what's going on, and we feel very grateful that you
(00:35):
can trust us to address these things in a way
that you feel comfortable having your kids with us. You
don't want your kids with you in the second martini today,
most likely first Martini, great, second Martini, hit pause, have
them go pick the trash out or something, and then
bring them back for the third Martini. Just some fair
warning on that content. But Jim, we have finally made
(00:57):
it to the weekend, and it turns out we'll talk
about in our first martini here in a second that
maybe tariffs don't reduce prices for people.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
By the way, Greg, are you hearing from a lot
of parents who are saying, I really like your version
of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse better some twenty four fan dads
who are like, I've listened to this song a million times, Alright,
let's listen to this show.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
Kids.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
They're talking about Mickey Mouse and Goofy.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Yes, yes, well, hey, that's just real life.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Well, we'll be more than happy to let the kids
learn about Disney Seed to you so, and they're going
to learn about terrists. They're going to learn about John
Fetterman and the threats that he deals with, primarily from
the left. In the middle, we'll be talking about Jeffrey
Epstein and specifically what Megan Kelly had to say about
that yesterday. But in the meantime, if you're looking to
create a stable financial future, look into Noble Gold Investments.
(01:51):
Here's what I like about Noble Gold. I just like
the people there. First of all, I've had the chance
to sit down and talk to these folks. They're very
calm there, very knowledgeable, and they're very interested in sharing
their knowledge with you because the things that they have
learned over time could certainly be a financial benefit to
you as well. So, if you're looking for more ways
(02:12):
to make sure you have a secure retirement, check out
Noble Gold.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Noble Gold lives up to that name. Their pricing is
clear and upfront, with no hidden fees or tricky fine print.
Whether it's a gold IRA or just a direct purchase,
they make the process easy, and if you ever want
to sell, they will buy your metals back quickly and fairly.
You'll even get a photo of your actual medals, so
there's no guesswork. And most of their business comes from
(02:37):
repeat clients and referrals, meaning they have lots of satisfied customers.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Yeah, Noble Gold knows the markets, the metals, the strategies,
and they explain them patiently in a way that's easy
to understand. No hype, no gimmicks, just honest, fact based
insights and clear options. And their track record speaks for itself.
So take advantage of this limited time offer. Open a
new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and
get a free ten ounce silver flag bar plus a
(03:04):
silver American Eagle Proof coin. Visit Noblegoldinvestments dot com slash
three mL. That's Noble Gold Investments dot com slash three mL.
All right, Jim onto our good martini now and of
course it was late March early April when the President
(03:25):
announced all sorts of reciprocal tariffs, and then since then
there's been some renegotiated trade deals, some fluctuation in the
tariffs we've applied, and more negotiations ongoing. But the question is,
ultimately is when we place higher tariffs on countries and
the things that they send us, ultimately are we paying more?
Is it essentially attacks on us? That's largely been our
(03:48):
argument here, and now there's more AMMO for that courtesy
of the Trump administration. Actually, but they're doing the right
thing here. The Wall Street Journal reporting the US plans
to eliminate tariffs on bananas, coffee, beef, and certain an
apparel and textile products under framework agreements with four Latin
American nations. The expected move, which would apply to some
goods from Ecuador, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala, is part
(04:11):
of a shift from the Trump administration to water down
some of it so called reciprocal tariffs in the midst
of rising prices for consumers as well as legal uncertainty.
After a Supreme Court hearing this month in that case
was about the president whether he has unilateral power to
deal with tariffs and that sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
We don't have a ruling from the court.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
On that yet, but Jim, one of the things that
seems to be getting through after the elections is you
need to be focused a lot on pocketbook issues, just
like you were a year ago. People are still not
satisfied just because there's been a change of administrations, and
this seems to be one area that people are frustrated with.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Hopefully they're listening.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Yeah, So we should point out that the oral arguments
for that case did not appear to go great for
the Trump administration. You can read too much into the
justices questioning, but they certainly seem to be skeptical that
the president had this far reaching lateral power to adjust
the tariffs really almost on a day to day basis,
on any country for seemingly any reason, as long as
(05:10):
he calls it a in emergency. There are two ways
to look at this. I think, you know, if you
thought the tariffs were a bad idea, if you believe
like I do, that targeted tariffs on a place like
China makes sense, it makes sense for the United States
to economically uncouple or consciously uncoupling as Gwyneth Paltrow would
call it. Then it makes absolute sense to say, yes,
(05:30):
we do want to make products from China more expensive,
we want to develop more domestic production of that, or
we want to import them from friendlier countries, not one
that is our pre eminent geopolitical rival. That all makes
perfect sense. Other countries, whether it's Thailand or Venezuela or
really basically every other country of the world, that does
not make sense, and that was a factor in increasing price.
(05:51):
Sometimes companies are going to quote unquote eat the cost,
as Trump has urged them to, but in a whole
bunch of cases they're going to say they don't want
to or that they can't. And keep in mind, it's
not just important goods. It is also any component any
product we make here that involves important components or parts
or things like that. So this is why, you know,
a factor in the increasing cost of loving not the
(06:12):
only factor, but it is a significant one. Treasury Secretary
of Scott Bessent said this week the administration was working
to reduce prices on these agricultural goods and other items.
Quote You're going to see some substantial announcements over the
next couple of days in terms of things we don't
grow here in the United States, coffee being one of them, Bananas,
other fruits, things like that. That will bring the prices
(06:33):
down very quickly. Oh oh so price. So tariffs do
increase prices. This is what the administration has but insisting
was not the case for the most part of this year. Again,
I'm glad to see it. If you're going to do
it for these three or four products, how about all
these other products you've had. And again I'm willing to
make an exception for China. I'm willing to make it.
One of the twenty five percent tariffs we put on
(06:55):
goods from India was over their purchase of Russian oil,
which is keeping the Russian war machine going. I clearly
support that objective. I have my doubts about whether you
can really use tariffs as the most effective one. But
Indian oil refineries are declining, or you are declining their
purchases of Russian oil because all of a sudden they
don't want to deal with the consequence. It's like I
get where the administration is coming from on some of
(07:16):
them are the ones like that island full of penguins
that didn't have a lot of people. Yeah, I don't
really understand the justification for that one. But here's the thing.
This is a really really significant concession by the part
of the administration to say, Okay, tariffs do increase prices.
Americas are very upset ab up prices. We have something
we can do about it. And for those of us
who drink an enormous amount of coffee, yes, great to
see that price going down. I think the problem now
(07:37):
is they have faced like, hey, how about all these
other prices that are expensive. Why are you guys keeping
the tariffs in that case and some of these cases
is less of a national security argument and more of
a well, we just really like tariffs and we think
this is a great way to bring in revenue.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Just as a probably irrelevant aside, if there's an island
nation that's populated only by penguins, who's running the country,
The King Penguin.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
He's moved from Gothams Meguin and he's actually had a
recently issued a statement about the idea of tariffs being
dropped on this island. Was the quote there. So Burgess
Meredith action for all of our young listeners.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Had to be Burgess Meredith or Mario Lemieux. You know
there we go.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Okay, that've been that joke could have worked as well too.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Anyway, Well, good news for some businesses here in the
United States. So as a result of that news, But
when it comes to your business, they say you can
have things better, cheaper, or faster, but you only get
to get.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
Two out of three.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
So what what if you could have all three at
the same time, better, cheaper, and faster. Well, that's exactly
what business is like. Cohere, Thomson Reuters and specialized bikes
have done since they've upgraded to the next generation of
the cloud. It's called Oracle Cloud Infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
How is it faster? While Oracle Cloud Infrastructure's block storage
gives you more operations per second, how is it cheaper?
OCI costs up to fifty percent less for computing, seventy
percent less for storage, and up to eighty per sent
less for networking. And how is it better? Well, in
test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher
bandwidth versus other clouds. This is the cloud that is
(09:09):
built for AI and all of your biggest workloads.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And right now, with zero commitment, try OCI for free.
Head to Oracle dot com. Slash martini. That's Oracle dot
com slash martini to try OCI for free, Oracle dot
com slash martini. All right, we've arrived at that second Martini.
So parents, if you want to hit pause, you can.
(09:34):
I'll leave it to your discretion, though, if you think
your kids are old enough to handle it, by all means,
let them listen. But over the last few days, really
ever since it became apparent that the government was going
to reopen, the Democrats have suddenly had a brand new
fixation on Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Part of it's due to the fact that the.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
New representative from Arizona's been sworn in, Adelita Grijalva, and
she's the two hundred eighteenth signature and this discharge petition
to force a vote on releasing all of the Justice
Department's Epstein file. So there is a reason that this
is coming to light. The Democrats have also released selective
emails from Jeffrey Epstein over time. I'm not exactly sure
(10:12):
what you're there from, and so forth that would seem
to suggest in the eyes of some that Donald Trump
knew more about Epstein's operations than Trump has suggested. Others
have been redacted, and then it turns out it's a
girl that has said repeatedly under ote that she never
saw Trump do anything, never experienced Trump do anything in
that sort of way. But as Jim has written, the
(10:36):
Trump administration has not handled this issue well. From Pam
Bondi several months ago right up to the present. There's
reports that they tried to get a couple of members
of Congress to remove their names from this discharge petition
so it wouldn't come to a floor vote. That has
not succeeded well. Meghan Kelly is now in the spotlight
in connection with this story because yesterday on her podcast,
(10:56):
Meghan Kelly quoted someone that she says is pretty darn
close to the Epstein investigation, maybe doesn't know everything, but
knows the vast majority of what's going on there, and
she decided to share this perspective in a way that
left many jaws, understandably on the floor.
Speaker 5 (11:12):
As for Epstein, I've said this before, but this is
a reminder. I do know somebody very very close to
this case who was in a position to know virtually everything,
not everything, but virtually everything. And this person has told
me from the start, years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein,
in this person's view, was not a pedophile. This is
this person's view who was there for a lot of this,
(11:34):
but that he was into the barely legal type, like
he liked fifteen year old girls. And I realized this
is discussing. I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse
for this. I'm just giving you facts that he wasn't
into like eight year olds, but he liked the very
young teen types that could pass for even younger than
they were, but would look legal to a passer by.
(11:59):
And that is what I believed, and that was what
I reliably was told for many years. And it wasn't
until we heard from Pam Bondi that they had tens
of thousands of videos of alleged forgive me. They used
to call it kitty porn, now they call it child's
sexual abuse material on his computer that for the first
time I thought, oh, no, he was an actual pedophile,
(12:21):
I mean, only a pedophile it gets off on young
children abuse videos. She's never clarified it. I don't know
whether it's true. I have to be honest, I don't
really trust Pambondi's word on the Epstein matter.
Speaker 6 (12:34):
Anymore.
Speaker 5 (12:35):
Yeah, so I don't know what's true about him, But
we have yet to see anybody come forward and say
I was a like a I was under ten, I
was under fourteen when I first came within his purview. Look,
it's you can say that's a distinction without a difference.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
No, it's not.
Speaker 5 (12:56):
I think there is a difference. There's a difference between
a fifteen year old and five year old. You know,
it's just whatever. It's sick because every time we start
talking about Epstein it makes your skin crawling. Right, the
whole thing is just disgusting, totally.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
There's nothing about a fifteen year old that's barely legal, Megan.
And yet there's a difference, I guess in their stages
of developments, but in terms of the depravity and the
heinousness and the evil of the crime. As the dad
of two daughters, whether they're eight or whether they're fifteen,
you're still going headfirst through the wood chipper, Jim, I
can't believe that anybody's trying to dissemble this. Who in
(13:28):
the world has any incentive to defend Jeffrey Epstein If
you want to try and defend based on what we
know so far about Trump, that's I guess something you
could spend time doing. But in terms of oh, you know,
look the god to look at it this way, at
least he wasn't this what are you doing?
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Listeners? I know that ninety nine point nine percent of
the time on this podcast, Great Corumbus comes across as
the nicest guy in the world, and very often he
is until he feels children are being threatened. And then
usually those are the ones you really don't want to
mess with. And as we just heard, Greg, Corumbus will
put you head first into a woodschipper if you do
something like that. So the good news is the Corumbus
(14:05):
yard is really well fertilized. So they got that all right.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
So I hate your neighborhood has better neighbors than that are.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I'm just saying that roses are blooming really well, Greg,
So I hate to live down to Mike Cliche. But
there is a lot to unpack here. On the campaign trail,
Trump was asked twice, would you release the Epstein files. Now,
by the way, there's not one clear Epstein file thing,
Like there's the court documents that have been kept under
sealed by a judge. The Trump administration has tried to
get them unveiled. The judge has said, no, there's too
(14:35):
much information in there that does not need to be
disclosed to the public. I'm not going to you know,
I'm not gonna They can try to appeal this, but
that's a factor. But we're talking about in this case
is the Department of Justice's files on everything regarding Epstein
and also Maxwell, who you'll recall is in prison and
who some people say wants a pardon. She was interviewed
by the DOJ's Assistant Attorney General. No. By the way,
(14:57):
on the campaign trail, jd Vance said we should release everything.
Numerous times before he was FBI director, kash Battel ripped
into congressional Republicans for not releasing everything, and he really
kind of condescendingly said, it's time to put on your
big boy pants and get this done. Well, if only
kash Ptel were in some position where he, oh wait
a minute, he's now the director of the FBI and
all the we had this as you mentioned, this press
(15:19):
conference from Attorney General Pam Bondi and all these other folks,
and all of a sudden, oh, no, we can't release
this stuff. There's too much stuff in there that we know.
What argument is there's names of the victims. I think
you get a black marker, you cross them out. That's
what did happen with some of these documents that were
in Epstein's personal files seized by authorities, and that that
you can you can take that move, you can. I
(15:41):
think that one a lot of people think is that
there's a lot of people who are very embarrassed by
their association with Epstein, whether it involved abuse of underage
girls or not, and this idea of, uh, they just
don't want their names out there and associated with it. Well,
I'm sorry, but that's like, you know, there's extraordinary public
interest in this, and if you're an elite and you
(16:01):
associated a lot with Jeffrey Epstein, maybe you got to
take the reputational hit of having that friendship, since it
sounds like his abuse of women was an open secret
in so many ways. The House has had this vote,
there's now a discharge petition. Mike Johnson said they're going
to have this vote at some point next week. Again,
I think it's going to put a lot of Republicans
(16:21):
in really awkward spot because Trump has been adamant he
doesn't want this stuff really. He refers to it as
the Epstein hoax. He says that he said Epstein is
someone who nobody cares about anymore. I'm sorry, I mister President,
That's not even close to being true. I think it's
entirely reasonable to say, take whatever precautions are needed, but
these documents. Better to have them out there than to
not have them out there. There's been this perception that
(16:43):
there's been a lack of curiosity about how far Epstein's
connections were and about how far Epstein's actions went. So
then getting onto Megan Kelly, I've been on her podcast
a bunch of times. I have no animosity towards her.
I've enjoyed being on it. It's been a while, but
happy to be on again. But I don't quite understand
what her thinking is on this issue. A couple of
(17:03):
other issues too, but I'm going to focus on this
right now. As you mentioned, barely legal is not fifteen
year olds. Barely legal would be on the eighteenth birthday, right,
That is that you're legal, but you just barely became legal.
Fifteen is not that the rest of the teen years
Like this is not you know, like you're you're on
the wrong side of legal of that point, and also
her phrase, but they look younger, that really is not
(17:25):
as exculpatory as she makes it sound, right like, oh,
look at the driver's license. This person is fifteen, but
they look younger. That doesn't make anyone less. I understand
that if you're a clinical psychologist, maybe you draw a
distinction between a grown man who's attracted to people girls
who are in their older teen years but under eighteen,
versus children. I think the enormo, like the general public,
(17:49):
does not draw that distinction and does not care about
this distinction. It's really kind of shocking to see two
figures well known, and if not on the right, then
then you know currently by bing pro Trump perceived to
be right emphasizing that there is a difference. Is there
is there one that anybody really cares about? Now? I
don't think so, I really don't think. And the other
(18:09):
thing is is that you see this in Trump's comments,
You see this in basically everyone who knew him, and
in that creepy book of birthday greetings and all that stuff.
It certainly sounds like everybody knew that Jeffrey Epstein was
always surrounded by teenage girls. Trump reportedly said to Roger
Stone when he went over to Epstein's house, he thought that,
(18:30):
like the neighborhood kids, he was allowing them to use
the pool. Right, so everybody knew that they looked astonishingly young,
Whether or know of their age, it is now very clear,
based on their testimony they were in those teen years
they were under eighteen. That is a crime, right, seventeenth birthday,
three hundred and sixty four days. Technically that's a crime.
Prosecutors have discretion over that sort of thing. Fourteen fifteen sixteen.
(18:52):
We're not in a gray area. We're not in something
where it's close and particularly if you're a grown man
or something like that. So I have no idea where
she's coming from on this. And maybe this is just
her being pedantic and saying, well, technically there's a definition
of pedophilia and this doesn't really meet that clinical American
psychological associate whatever it is. Like, one, no one cares.
(19:13):
Two Would you come out and make this distinction at
this moment, when there's all this discussion about the release
of these files, it certainly makes people think you're trying
to create some sort of defense and to say, oh,
Epstein wasn't that bad. Well, yes, he was that bad.
There is no gray area here, there is no Ah. Yes,
but no, no, this is really bad. I don't understand
(19:33):
why this is going on. And I'm just going to
point out between Trump throwing tirades about this on Trump's
on truth, social on people like Bondie and Cash Ptel
and all these people doing this about face, and now
you throw in somebody like Mike Megan Kelly saying well,
it's not really pedophilia. This all feels like there's something
(19:53):
terrible out there that they all want to make sure
it doesn't get exposed. I don't know what it is.
I'm not going to pretend to know what it is.
I'm just to say everybody's acting like somebody is guilty
of sin here and doesn't want it to come to light.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
I mean, we had said so many times that we
figured if there had been any Trump implication here, it
would have come out during the Biden years, maybe even
the Obama years. Others are saying, well, no, Julane Maxwell
was being prosecuted or appealing during a lot of the
Biden years, so that's why nothing was released.
Speaker 4 (20:22):
Then.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
I don't know what this is. But the narrative changed
so much, so quickly on this where BONDI just tried
to put it away some weekend earlier this year, where
she's like, oh, as it turns out there is no list,
they really weren't trafficking people, and so there's really nothing
to see here.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
It's all going to go away.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
By and nobody's going for that, because, I mean, even
if you don't necessarily believe everything Virginia Giufrey said before
she died, Hello, we've got the prince formerly known as
Andrew or the former prince known as Andrew, who got
stripped by his mother of all his titles and duties
and stuff, and then Prince Charles kicked him out of
his house and then he's not even allowed to be
(21:00):
called prints anymore. I don't think any of that would
have happened if there wasn't something.
Speaker 4 (21:04):
There there, and it's not just him. I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
The argument of oh, if Trump had done, you know,
committed some terrible crime, wouldn't it have come to light
with you know, four years of Merrick Garland verning Like, okay,
that's all that's perfectly reasonable point. But if that's the
case and Trump didn't do anything. Why is this, Why
are we not allowed to see this stuff? Why is
this suddenly under lock and key by people who insisted
they were going to release everything? And who you know,
(21:31):
Dan Bongino brought this up on his podcast a lot
of times. He's now deputy director of the FBI. All
these people were perfectly willing to bang the drum on this,
and then they got into positions of power, and all
of a sudden, now they don't want to have any
of these documents released. That stinks to high heaven. And
I cannot begrudge anybody for being suspicious. The administration knows
exactly what it's got to do here to make this issue,
to get Rido to resolve this issue. For some reason,
(21:52):
they just refused to do it.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Yeah, and the left has done a one ady on
this too, And Bill Cluton was mainly the person involved,
and maybe some other figures on the demomocratic side. Oh
just let's just let's talk about something else and move
along if we can. Here now they're licking their chops
and hoping that there's something absolutely incontrovertible about Donald Trump.
And one of the weirdest things here, one of the
(22:14):
people trying to lead the charge on this is the
Lincoln Project, which might have the least credibility on stopping
sexual predators towards underage people. All Right, Well, after a
story like that, you definitely want to take a shower,
you definitely want to refresh, and there's no better way
to do that than with good skincare products. And with that,
you want One Skin. And don't look at your calendar now.
(22:35):
But we're only about a month and a half away
from Christmas and One Skin has launched its limited edition
holiday sets, including the Nightly Rewind gift set that includes
their best selling face moisturizer, their new peptide lip mask,
and a cooling guashaw tool. Each component of the set
is designed to work together as your body enters its
natural nightly repair mode. And at the core of everything
(22:58):
One Skin does is the patented os one peptide, the
first ingredient proven to target senesen cells, the root cause
of wrinkles, crapiness, and loss of elasticity, which are all
key signs of skin aging. And these results have now
been validated in five different clinical studies.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Listeners, do you have sensitive skin, does it react strongly
to chemicals or does it just simply get very prickly
when it gets criticized. Whatever your skin's level of sensitivity,
One Skin products are certified safe for sensitive skin, free
for more than one thy five hundred harsher irritating ingredients.
They are dermatologists tested, and they've been awarded the National
(23:33):
Enzoma Association Seal of Acceptance, or as we call them
over here, the good NEEA, and they deliver powerful results
without all the side effects. All of one Skin's products
designed to layer seamlessly and replace multiple steps in your routine,
making your skin health easier and smarter at every age.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
For a limited time, try one Skin for fifteen percent
off using the code three mL at one skin dot
co slash three mL. After you purchase, they'll ask you
where you heard about them, So please support the three
martini lunch and then that we sent you. That's code
three mL at one skin dot co slash threeml for
fifteen percent off. All right, Jim, Last topic here relates
(24:15):
to Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman. First of all, our
best wishes to go out to Senator Fetterman. He fell
yesterday a little seems like a hard issue while he
was out for a walk, banged up his face a
little bit, says he's going to be fine, but still
in the hospital for observation. Obviously, you know, his heart
and other issues going back to the stroke, and perhaps
even before that, for all we know, have been concerns
(24:36):
there and so they're taking their time to figure out
exactly what's going on there. But John Fetterman also has
a book out called Unfettered, And of course, ever since
the terrorist attack in Israel and twenty twenty three, Fetterman
has been an outspoken supporter of Israel, which means ever
since then he's been a pariah in many sectors of
the left, especially the far left base. And so part
(24:59):
of what he talked too out in this book is
how ridiculously evil some of the comments have been from
folks on the left and Dana bash Over at CNN,
and is mystified as to why he would say the
left comments are worse than the right. Well, John Fetterman,
explain it very clearly.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
You said, quote, I've drunk deeply of the venom of
both the left and the right. As a connoisseur, I
can confirm that the most poisonous, the bitterest is from
the far left. That is pretty remarkable to hear you
say that as an elected Democrat.
Speaker 6 (25:33):
Why, it's just been my personal experience on this thing.
And when I asked my digital team, I said, you know,
you're we're on all the platforms, you know, really, what's
what's kind of the harshest, what's kind of the most personal?
And the answer was immediately said, oh, blue sky. It's
blue sky. And the difference is, I mean, the right
(25:53):
would say really rough things and names, you know, some
names I won't repeat on TV. But at the the
on the left, it was like they want me to die,
or that we're cheering for your next stroke, or that's
terrible that depression wants why couldn't it depression one? And
and I hope your kids find you. Uh, I mean
(26:15):
they even have like the graphic a gift where they
have like a stroke you know, you know in your head,
you know, cheering it. Yeah, and and they said that
I remember one they claimed the doctor let us down,
and why did they have to save his life? I
mean just really like I just can't imagine people are
(26:36):
are wishing, you know, I wish he dies or I
want him to die, you know, literally cheering for for
a stroke, and I don't know what the kind of
a place where that comes from. I mean, that's that's
much different than just calling me a name, you know,
And that's that's really been consistent, you know, in that
community online, Jim.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
We've talked about this or certainly heard a lot about
this ever since the murder of Charlie Kirk a couple
of months ago, where the right can get vitriolic and
the language can get pretty tough, and then the left,
of course out there is cheering assassinations at least a
disturbingly high percentage. Obviously not everyone on the left, and
that kind of rhetoric continues, and so the line on
(27:17):
the right has been we are not the same, and
what Fetterman is describing there suggests very clearly the two
sides are not the same.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Yeah. So, first of all, I mean, the First Amendment
protects your right to criticize any candidate or lawmaker. They
are public figures, they have a much higher bar to
prove libel or slander. But whether or not you have
the right to something, doesn't this mean you should do something.
And I think a lot of us would say hoping
that his kids find him dead really goes well beyond
(27:47):
any line of legitimate criticism. Now, look, we should you know,
we have clear eyes of John Fetterman. He is a
Pennsylvania Democrat, which means every once in a while he's
going to vote the way we'd like to see him
to vote, but he's going to vote against the way
we want a whole bunch of times. But you know,
he has stood up to the rest of his party
on some very emotionally charged issues, obviously Israel in front
of center. But let's remember this was the only guy
(28:09):
who was really willing to like lots of demo state
Democrats offered a murmured criticism of Bob Benendez for what
turned out to be you know, multi counts of bribery
and just you know, and Fetterman like brought it up
every opportunity. Fedderman really seemed to enjoy sticking it to
him and twisting the knife to him. And I just
feel like that was like, that's a that's an active integrity,
that that is confronting a problem in your own party
(28:31):
that most people would rather revert their eyes from. Let's
point out, on the issue of illilumigration, he pointed out
that wanting a secure border is not xenophobia like you
might say, Jim, that's like saying two plus two equals four.
But a lot of Democrats won't say that. That is
a real That is a rare and seemingly brave statement
for Fetterman to come out and say that. And just
just today in Michael Continetti's column in the second best
(28:53):
off ed page of a newspaper, The Wall Street Journal,
he makes the point that Fetterman was saying that, like,
you know, he had Chuck um or engineered the longest
shutdown ever for nothing, making me life miserable for air travelers,
food stamp recipients, and federal employees. And I think Federman's
right on that. Fetterman from the beginning was I don't
want to continue the shutdown, and we can argue about
Obamacare subsidies and all the time of stuff, but he
(29:14):
like he did not see the point of it. So
he's in my mind, he's got much higher supplies of
common sense than the typical Senate Democrat. And the other
thing I've thought about is that if you go back
and listen to the archives of this podcast in twenty
twenty two, we were not fans of John Fetterman, particularly
after the stroke, and we were pulling for that whirling dervish,
over all political charisma and staunch supporter of Israel who
(29:35):
hasn't said a darn thing about Israel since October seventh,
mement Oz. But Oz is now running the Center for
Medicaid Medicare Services. And you can go back and find
lots of cases were you and I arguing John Fetterman
should not be the nominee and that he was not well.
Go back and listen to that last debate with Oz,
and it was very clear Fetterman could really barely speak.
(29:56):
He could not put together his words and his thoughts
in a complete sentence. He was still really struggling. Fetterman's
book is out, as you mentioned, and in the book
he writes, in hindsight, I should have quit, And he
says that dot as a matter of a reflection of
his depression, but it's a sense of like that his
condition was just in really rough shape and he was
really not capable of doing the job the way he
(30:18):
really needed to be done. Now we just played that audio,
he sounds much better. He's sounding worlds better than he
was back in twenty twenty two, and I'm thrilled to
hear it. I hope Ron Fetterman lives to be one hundred.
I hope he gets through this recent hospitalization fine. You know,
he's going to be around for another couple of years,
and I think that as far as Democrats go, he's
probably one of the much better ones. And I hope
(30:38):
he and his family get to enjoy each other for
you know, decades and decades to come. Should he continue,
you know, i'd like to. I feel the letter from
his doctor that he released at the time appeared to
be utter nonsense because they were saying he could do
the job with no significant restrictions. Then he got up
on stage and he really couldn't talk. I'm really glad
he's made you know, it looks like I've not a
full recovery, a really significant recovery. He looks and sounds better.
(31:00):
He's doing the job the way it's meant to be done.
I don't think we were wrong to say that this
guy should not be a Senate candidate back then, just
because he was in no shape to campaign. He was
in no shape to do the right. So I don't
say that was bad. I don't regret anything. I'm just
really thrilled that he's made it much better and mem
and Oz. You know, he said he was a big
supporter of Israel on the campaign trail then, and he's
(31:21):
just not just maybe he's just waiting for the right
time to issue a statement about the October seventh.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
The texts, Yeah, being very patient about it. Yeah, that
comment that Dana Bash and all of us recoil on,
we hope your kids find you dead. At one point,
I was like expecting him to say, you know, Jay
Jones really needs to tone it down. He didn't actually
say that as far as we know, but he didn't
say it about, of course.
Speaker 4 (31:43):
The former Speaker of the House in Virginia.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
But apparently he's not the only one who who talks
like that and wishes those sorts of things because their
lives are completely engrossed in politics and a certain perspective,
and any threat to what they want to see happen
must be met with just the most vile response.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
So amazing, listeners, don't let politics drive you crazy. Think
of calm thoughts like Greg feeding some creep into a
wood chipper. That's what I think when I feel.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
Happy, thankful I haven't had to do that. But now
the warning's out there, so say so you say you know.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Some disappearances of suspicious characters. What a lovely thought to
end the week on.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Jim, have a good weekend.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
See you Monday.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
See you Monday, Greg.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Jim Garretty National Review. I'm Greg Corumbus of Radio America.
Thanks so much for being with us today. Please subscribe
to the podcast if you don't already, tell your friends
about us as well. Thanks also for your five star
ratings and your kind reviews. Please keep those coming. Get
us on your home devices. All you have to say
is play Three Martini Lunch podcast. Follow us on X
He's at Jim Garrity, I'm at Greg Corumbas, have a
(32:48):
great weekend. Join us on Monday for the next three
Martini Lunch
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.