April 26, 2024 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Highlights from the Supreme Court's review of the Trump Immunity case...
- Recycling is a Ruse...
- New details on the Secret Service agent who freaked out...
- The keying of a car!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Shoe Getty Armstrong and Getty show,
presidents have to.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law,
and they have to make decisions about questions that are unsettled.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Did I understand you to say, well, you know.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
If he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake, he
subject to the.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Criminal laws just like anybody else. You don't think he's
in a special as a peculiarly precarious position.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Justine Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court yesterday, in the
discussion of how much immunity does a president have, it's
pretty interesting that we're like a quarter of a millennium, millennial, millennium,
quarter of a millennium into this experiment, and we haven't
nailed this down yet how much a president has in
(00:56):
terms of immunity for actions they take in office.
Speaker 5 (00:59):
We could get into why we're having to deal with
this now, the unique nature of Trump, the utterly unforgivable
lawfare that's being waged in politics. But this is a
great opportunity to just look at a really vexing and
complicated and interesting issue and not worry about partisanship. To me,
all right, when I look at the lefty justices, they
(01:21):
seem acutely aware that Trump is on trial here.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Right. That's your view of it, my view of it,
the Wall Street Journal's view of it. It's not MSNBC's
view of it, which is, you guys are just trying
to turn this into a big philosophical thing so that
you can kick the can down the road, which will
get the decision past the election. You have a specific
case in front of you. Does Donald Trump have immunity
(01:48):
from the things he's charged with? Why don't you just
decide the specifics, which is often what a Supreme court does.
Do you just look a narrow ruling, a narrow ruling,
look at the specifics of the case, and then it
gets you know, when another one comes up later on
down the road, then you add to the precedents.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Yeah, that's an interesting way to view it, and it's
not a completely lunatic argument. On the other hand, I
think a if you pull the conservative six Look, if
we could magically have somebody other than Trump be president,
what would you say, you'd have six votes? Okay, So
(02:26):
the idea that there's six big Trump honks is hilarious. Secondly,
this is now Pandora's box that has been opened. I
don't think that the narrow ruling thing is idiotic, Like
I said, I just I don't think it's right.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
We've got to figure this out or it'll never end.
Speaker 5 (02:44):
Anyway, Having said that, we've got both some really interesting
snippets from the oral arguments and then some really solid analysis.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
I think we think.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Yeah, I lasted about two and a half hours and
I listened to about half of it yesterday. Is flip
and fascinator. I hope to finish it today.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
Yeah, I've got to got to get from you the
easiest to wait a link to that, and you know what,
we'll figure that out and post it an Armstrong and
Geddy dot com. I'm sure we can do that. But anyway,
let's roll on with some more actual clips from the hearing.
This is another from Justice Alito thirty Michael, and we'll
just go in order.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
You began by explaining why you believe that.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Community from criminal prosecution is essential for the proper functioning
of the presidency.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
But my question is whether the very robust.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Form of immunity that you're advocating is really necessary in
order to achieve that result.
Speaker 5 (03:42):
I'd like to hear the answer. It's kind of question.
They're all questions, I think, so all right, well I'll
answer them. I don't know, Okay, rolling on.
Speaker 6 (03:56):
If the potential Jackson's taken off the tape, wouldn't there
be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened
to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?
Speaker 4 (04:10):
If I remember correctly, the answer did get into that's
why it's so important for the electric to choose carefully
who they put in that position. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
My response to KBJ would be if that was really
that big a danger, we'd have dealt with this long ago.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
Right, Well, I think that. I think what I just
said is key. You got to get the right kind
of person in there. I mean, it's it's like like
I always say, if I find out Bill fold that's
got money in it and an ID, there's not a
chance I'm gonna steal in that money. I'm just I'm not.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
I'm not built that way.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
We have had almost entirely, not entirely, but close to
entirely residents who were that kind of person with with
you know, their duties, so this didn't come up. But
if you make it clear that, by the way, just
letting you know, you get elected president, you could do anything,
I mean anything. Hmmm, I don't know where, you don't
(05:19):
know where happens.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
Then yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5 (05:22):
And at the same time, as they argue, if you
also are told the minute you walk into the Oval
office you screw up, we're going to put you in
jail after your president's.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
All right, well that you can't. We have no president
confunction like that.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Rolling on this is Chief Justice John Roberts.
Speaker 7 (05:36):
Why shouldn't we either send it back to the Court
of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that's
not the law.
Speaker 8 (05:43):
Well, I am defending the Court of Appeals judgment, and
I do think that there are layered safeguards that the
Court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about
unduly chilling presidential conduct that concerns us. We are not
endorsing a region that we think would expose former presidents
to criminal prosecution in bad faith for political animus without
(06:08):
adequate evidence.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
To make it clear in case you don't understand, at
some point, I don't know if we have that clip
the lawyer for the prosecution said, he agreed that, and
that would have been that guy there agreed that a
president has to have some sort of immunity. They couldn't
function without it. So once that is agreed upon by
all parties, which it is, well, now we've got to
(06:32):
start drawing lines. And so it only makes sense that
this is going to get kicked to other courts and
they're going to start drawing lines. Therefore, this case is
not going to happen before the election.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Not a chance. Here's the brilliant Neil Gorsuch.
Speaker 7 (06:49):
I'm not concerned about this case, but I am concerned
about future uses of the criminal law to target political
opponents based on accusations about their motives. It's reelection or
who knows what corrupt means in fifteen twelve, right, we
don't know what that means. Maybe we'll find out sometime soon.
(07:11):
But the dangerousness of accusing your political opponent of having
bad motives and if that's enough to overcome your core
powers or any other limits.
Speaker 5 (07:23):
Yeah, I see what he's driving at there. So you
could do something like drone someone you know, hit him
with a weapon from a drone, and the other side
could dig, you know, six degrees of separation, Right, they
could dig and find out that your cousin had once
done business with that person's cousin's attorney, and they could
(07:44):
say he only shot him dead from a drone because
he was looking out for his cousin. And then you're prosecuted,
like I mean, because that Alvin bradcase going on right
now shows that you can take a stinking pile of
garbage and drag that into court and cause the very
(08:05):
least enormous expense in time to your political opponent right
during the election season.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
One of the examples the lawyer on the Trump side
used yesterday was could you prosecute Biden for his lax
enforcement of the border? Well, if you could draw up
some sort of here's a business he's connected to somehow
that benefited from a legal immigration boom, it's a crime
and it wasn't just a policy.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
Yeah, yeah, that's a good one. This is d John Sower,
one of the attorneys involved. Which one was he Is
he the cartoon rabbit guy again?
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Or is he?
Speaker 5 (08:44):
And I say that with great respect, the man just
sounds like a cartoon rabbit. It's not his fault. Well,
go ahead, and roll up, Michael.
Speaker 9 (08:51):
The implications of the Court's decision here extend far beyond
the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush
have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding
or allegedly lined to Congress to induce war in Iraq?
Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing US
citizens abroad by drone strike. Could President Biden someday be
(09:15):
charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally
for his border policies. The answer to all these questions
is no. Prosecuting the president for his official acts is
an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and
incompatible with our constitutional structure.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
The George Bush lying US into war, I mean, so
that was such a big part of the media coverage,
and the Democrats position absolutely would have been an example
of something you go after him for.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
Right, Yeah, that's an easy one. And I think Salar,
who's representing the Trump side of this, obviously, he makes
a good point. That's getting back to the whole. If
the danger is that acute that the president is going
to be completely lawless, how have we gotten two hundred
fifty years into this and not had to worry about it. Really,
I think that's a pretty compelling argument. This is also
(10:11):
known as sleeping dogism or well enough colonialism.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Well, I want to hear Jonathan Turley's analysis, But so
if we're going to go with it's the difference between
actions you took as president or actions that just benefited
you privately as a candidate, which seems to be the difference.
A lot of it then has to do with, on
the specific case of Donald Trump, did he believe the
(10:36):
election was stolen or the so poorly run it wasn't
a fair election. Well, if he actually believes that, it's
not crazy for him and his position as president to
try to fix that to make sure, you know, a
coup doesn't happen.
Speaker 5 (10:55):
Yeah, it's absolutely arguable if he was one hundred percent sincere,
I don't think he will.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
I don't think he was either. Oh and the other
thing I wish, I wish I wanted to jump into
a bunch of cable news shows yesterday in shout there
was a mechanism for dealing with this impeachment. That's when
this should have been dealt with. It should have been
dealt with an impeachment. I believe he should have been
impeached her to remove for what he did. Nancy Pelosi
didn't craft the articles of impeachment in such a way
(11:20):
and didn't do it fast enough to make that happen.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
But that was the mechanism. Yeah, yeah, that's that's a
really good point. You want to hear Jonathan Turley, Now, sure,
let's do it. Weindenber oh forty two, Michael.
Speaker 10 (11:36):
You know, the three liberal justices made very clear early
on they were going to vote with a Special Council,
But the remainder of the justices were concerned about arguments
on both sides. They didn't like the sweeping aspects of
the Trump team's argument, but they also did not like
the sweeping arguments of the Special Council, and Chief Justice
(11:56):
John Roberts delivered a haymaker on the DC Circuit. He
quoted a line from them which basically said that these
acts can be prosecuted because they're being prosecuted, and that
circular language really sort of produced some chuckles in the room.
But Roberts was asking a very serious question, how can
that be the standard for presidents? So it looked like
(12:19):
they were trying to sort of grope in the darkness,
trying to find a third option, something that gives protection
to presidents while not giving them carte blanche.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
That is a good line, and I can see why
it would make people giggle, But it's a good line.
They can be prosecuted because they're being prosecuted. That's what's happening.
Speaker 5 (12:38):
Yeah, thanks for that DC Circuit Court a bunch of
wack of doodles.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
By the way, given what I just said that, I
think Trump should have been in pet removed from office
what he did on January sixth, I also still preferred
Trump over Biden for the presidency, and I certainly understand
why somebody could say those don't two things don't go together,
but they do. For Attorney General Barr, who was the
Attorney General under Trump, who said the other day, Hey,
(13:03):
one of them is Russian roulette, one of them is
national suicide. I'm going with the Russian roulette, which is
Trump and Trump. Did you see the statement Trump put
out about that. I did not wow. Former Ag Bill Barr,
who led a lot of great people down by not
investigating voter fraud in our country, has just endorsed me
for president, despite the fact that I called him weeks,
slow moving, lethargic, gutless, and lazy. Based on the fact
(13:27):
that I greatly appreciated his wholehearted endorsement, I am removing
the word lethargic from my statement. Thank you, Bill Magga
twenty twenty four.
Speaker 5 (13:37):
That is is that brilliant comedy?
Speaker 3 (13:41):
Or is that Does he understand?
Speaker 4 (13:44):
So he's removing lethargic, so he still calls him weak,
slow moving, gutless, and lazy. Oh wow, wow, great.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Somebody wake me up? Is this actually happening here? Am
I dreaming?
Speaker 4 (13:56):
This is actually happening? More on the way.
Speaker 11 (14:05):
Following the trail of plastic waste, American consumers think they
are recycling, our team following forty six tracking devices we
placed in plastic bag recycling bins at big box stores
across the country, and we found three from Walmart stores
ended up thousands of miles away, one of them pinging
from outside plastic facilities in Indonesia where we found what
(14:26):
appears to be illegal dumping, another landing at a facility
in Malaysia which a twenty twenty three Malaysian government list
said was operating without an import license. Walmart provided a
statement saying, in part, they are continuously improving their recycling program,
drawing up new contracts with partners requiring proof they're actually recycling.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
If there were a Ministry of Truth and I are
in charge of it, that statement would have read, Look,
ninety eight percent of the recycling saying is fake. We
just continue to fake it because people expect us to,
all right, leave us alone.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Right, and don't they act? That story made it seem
like Walmart's doing something wrong. The whole recycling thing, as
Joe just said, is phony. It has been for a
long time, and it ain't Walmart's fault. It just it
doesn't work for a variety of reasons. But to me,
this is this is another example of the way the
(15:23):
human mind works. And we talk about this a lot.
We're just talking about it yesterday. How the first thing
you hear gets stuck in your head, and even when
you're presented with contrary evidence, it's very hard to dislodge
the first thing you heard. I find it difficult to
throw a plastic bottle in the regular garbage, even though
I have read and watched story after story proving that
(15:48):
I'm not actually doing anything good by putting it in
the recycling. But it's still tough for me to do it.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
It's on the way to the same dump as everything
else because there's no market for those materials. It's too
expensive to make them into product. The Chinese bought it
for a long time. Now they don't.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Yeah, and it just it just it just doesn't work.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
And if you don't think there's enough landfill space in America,
drive across Nevada.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Someday there's plenty.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
And then if a lot of towns you live in
like the one I live, and you have to have
the recycle bin, which you have to pay for and
it's kind of expensive. But I just gave up. I
did when I saw the John Stossel report that I
tweeted out the other day of him following garbage trucks
around and doing this, where I thought, why am I
doing this? I just started throwing it all in the
regular bit. Why am I wheeling two things out every
(16:38):
every Monday morning?
Speaker 5 (16:39):
Well, in the communist enclave where you live, won't you
get fined for that or arrested? Don't they have people
that go through your garbage to inspect it?
Speaker 4 (16:47):
In theory? Yeah, well that's.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Why everything we say on the air is made up.
We don't actually exist. This is AI isn't that something?
And they still oh and all the stuff. This is
what I learned from the John Stossel report.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
All those a little circle with the arrows recyclable. Half
of those, more than half of those aren't true. They
have the recyclable symbol on them, but they're not recyclable.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
What are we doing.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Exactly, what society?
Speaker 3 (17:15):
What are we doing?
Speaker 4 (17:17):
The latest on the campus protests, which are growing, not shrinking,
all across the country, coming.
Speaker 12 (17:21):
Up Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 13 (17:24):
We're very close in New York, I understand, and we're
leading in the country by a lot.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
Paul just came out a little.
Speaker 13 (17:31):
While ago, as you saw yesterday that we were up
in every swing state and up by a lot in
every swing state. So I think we're gonna do very well,
and we're gonna make a play for New York.
Speaker 4 (17:40):
It's they said. I just heard.
Speaker 13 (17:42):
There was a very good pop came out. Normally a
Democrat will win New York. Biden is the worst president
in history, and we have some very bad people here,
but we have the greatest people.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
And they're right behind me.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Yeah, they all want us.
Speaker 13 (17:54):
To run and we're gonna We're gonna run very hard
in New York, New York. We have a good chance
of winning New York in my opinion, but we're gonna
give it a shot.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
So exaggerating as usual as all politicians do the poll numbers.
But he is I had a lot of places and
has been for a while, and blah blah blah. Can
he make a play for New York?
Speaker 7 (18:10):
Boy?
Speaker 4 (18:10):
I doubt it. But here is the clip of the
day yesterday was making the rounds. Here's a construction worker,
which is core Scranton, Joe people right here, unionized construction worker.
A journalist asks him a question.
Speaker 10 (18:28):
What's like seeing so many Republicans in Manhattan, so many
Trump supporters of Manhattan?
Speaker 4 (18:32):
As I surprised? You, No, not at all?
Speaker 3 (18:35):
Turning the Trump's turn again. What's your message to Joe Biden?
Speaker 4 (18:39):
You, oh, earthy, you surprised to see how the Republicans know?
Not at all? It's turning again, It's Trump's turn. What's
your message to Joe Biden? Blank?
Speaker 7 (18:50):
You?
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Wow?
Speaker 5 (18:53):
That is so in keeping with the trends everybody's seen
and talked about that the working class America of all
colors are saying, yeah, the Democrats goodbye, goodbye.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
We're turning to Trump.
Speaker 4 (19:05):
Anyway, I wanted to get that on. So we had
a story yesterday. I don't know if you heard it,
and Casey it didn't. And I wanted to Katie to
join us on this because we had a lot of
fun with it. What stands out from you, Katie? In
the story of the Secret Service Agent that went nuts,
it was part of Kamala Harris's detail. She went nutsoh yesterday,
(19:26):
which included punching her boss. What else was she doing?
Speaker 5 (19:31):
Hiding behind a curtain, chucking tampons at her ass or mentroats?
Speaker 3 (19:38):
She was deleting her apps.
Speaker 4 (19:41):
She grabbed the guy's phone and started deleting his apps.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Yes, she wasn't deleting her own apps. She was grabbing
other people started deleting apps from the way.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Yeay yyyy I play that game.
Speaker 12 (19:51):
This sounds like the poor woman snapped, is what it
sounds like.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Yeah, throwing tampa.
Speaker 5 (19:57):
She started yelling that they were all going to hell
and the other madness.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Yeah, she punched her boss and then at that at
some point they realize, Okay, this person's completely crazy and
has a gun. Yes, so they had loaded a gun
at the rustle, the gun out her hand. What is
the message when you throw a tampon at someone there, Katie.
Speaker 12 (20:20):
Well, I mean, I know in my past, throwing a
tampon at a guy has been like, oh, you know,
quit your bitchin gotcha?
Speaker 5 (20:28):
Yeah, quit being a meaw yow yes, a precisely, you're
making a gendered statement.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Yes, oh, please stop.
Speaker 5 (20:36):
Using gendered language when you hurl things at friends.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (20:43):
It just sounds like a meltdown to me. I mean, well, okay, So.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
When I got an update on this from an inside source,
that is really interesting. There was speculation in the reporting
yesterday from some of the agents not named that it
had to do with DEI hiring this woman and she
wasn't exactly qualified, but they needed certain sort of person
to get on there.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Well, this is happening in many professions.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
I can't say where I'm getting this information, but trust me,
this is real stuff, or I wouldn't be passing along
to you.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
Jack's friends with Hunter Biden, that's ours.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
When going through training, there were numerous concerns brought forth
by her classmates and class coordinators, supervisory agents who mentor
and monitor each class of new recruits for the Secret Service.
These concerns all centered around her suitability to perform the job.
Can she be calm during moments of high intensity? Is
she able to multitask? Well, she has came kind of multitasking.
(21:40):
She grabbed a guy's phone, was deleting apps and throwing tampons,
So that's.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Two things right busy morning.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Is she resilient? The answer to all of these questions
was a resounding no. Keep in mind, this is training
in fake scenarios. Her class coordinator called her, and I quote,
a nut job. When this happens, the training center supervisors
convene what's called a special Agent review board. Then it
gets into all that they got together for two and
a half hours, with the class coordinators passionately imploring the
(22:10):
supervisors to dismiss this trainee. In the end, it was
decided to keep her on. It'll become more evident here
coming up in a little bit ultimately, And there's a
lot more information on this that I won't get to
that that was very very interesting to me. But it's
this person said, it's a kin to public schools continuingly
advancing a kid who can't read. Nobody wants to deal
with the problem. And eventually to become society's problem. You
(22:32):
don't want to get the blowback at your level for
dealing with this, so you pass it along to the
next level and say, you know, good luck to you, right.
Speaker 5 (22:41):
I know of concrete examples where folks were told from above,
we need two of X in the graduating class, and
the folks who do the training say we don't have
two that are qualified. Well, then give me to whether
they're qualified or not. And some of this is really
(23:02):
important and dangerous stuff like this secret service that the
idea that you would uh abrogate you you would you
would fail in your core duty to fulfill this tangential
socio political checklist is disgusting.
Speaker 4 (23:20):
Well, uh well, I'll save my ultimate point once I
get through a little bit more of this. But it's
there's more, just more of what you were saying. Uh yeah,
there is more. The hiring field office determines whether they're suitable. Well,
the field officers have dei quota incentives and routinely routinely
send people they know shouldn't be on the job. And
(23:40):
this woman's case, here's a story of the baggage she
brought to the hiring process and there's a link to
a story. Female police officer files one million dollar gender
discrimination lawsuit against the City of Dallas. So this person
had done that in their past. So you you're dealing
with somebody who's willing to sue and make a big stink.
Speaker 7 (24:00):
Right.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Here's what's being said in the back channels today. They
knew what she was when they hired her. They fought
hard to keep her despite what they were told by
the people who knew her well that she wasn't suitable.
And this person said, we're heading toward a colossal security failure.
We're doomed as a nation and a society if at
(24:28):
this level, this is someone who's on the vice presidential
detail during a turbulent time where a threat of violence
is more in the air than it has been since
I was a tiny child. Yes, and we're still gonna
let DEI in that sort of crap rule the day.
I mean, why would I believe that it's better in
(24:51):
various levels of government, military, nuclear deterrence, anything else. I mean,
if secret Service protection for the vice president does this,
I gotta belie it's happening at every level of everything.
I'd been hoping that we're not doing this, you know
where it really matters. We're doing it in schools, We're
doing it in your local police for some but surely
(25:13):
not at that. If we're doing it at this level,
they're putting through somebody in the Secret Service who's going
to be guarding the Vice President, and everybody's saying she's
not qualified. No, no freaking way, still do it for
DEI reasons, we are doomed. You think CHILDA does this
or do you think they get the most qualified people
for every position?
Speaker 3 (25:35):
Right?
Speaker 5 (25:35):
I was just rereading the fact that on like day
one in office, Joe Biden put out that memorandum saying
we are going to put DEI programs to work in
every department of the government in every way. As always,
I must say, dismantle every DEI program everywhere it exists, immediately,
whether corporate, educational, or governmental. It's a cult. It's neo Marxism.
(25:57):
It's awful. It has nothing to do with diversity. You're
right if the compulsion to do this in the name
of whatever phony you know, desire for diversities behind it
is so strong and irresistible that they're doing it in
the military, in the secret services. You're dealing with madness.
(26:21):
You're dealing with an inability to process that which is
plainly true. We need excellence and only excellence at that level.
I can't imagine being a secret service supervisor and saying
you got to put her through anyway.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
I mean, you.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
Are enslaved by a radical ideology that does not give
a crap about your core mission, which is insane.
Speaker 4 (26:47):
This inside information was leaked to us because of that
last sentence. I'm sure we are heading toward a colossal
security failure. This is somebody that knows how it works
and knows where this is going to lead.
Speaker 5 (27:02):
One of my favorite things said about this was said
by Jordan Peterson, and I'm not sure if it was
an original thought, but it doesn't matter. He was talking
about hierarchies and how incredibly important they are in a society,
meaning excellence. You achieve being at the higher echelons of
things through excellence and only excellence, and that the role
(27:23):
of the left, maybe or fair minded people is to
make sure at the bottom of that ladder there's no discrimination.
A little black girl has the same opportunity as a
white boy or a Hispanic boy or whatever to begin
the process of achieving excellence.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
That's very, very important.
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Otherwise you have a racist or discriminatory society. But if
you can ensure that the bottom end of that, you
must never ever ever compromise at the top end, because
that's suicidal and it doesn't solve the problem at the
bottom end. Right, And you know, to quote one of
my favorite David Brothers songs, I'm frightened by those who
(28:01):
don't see it.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
This is disturbing, not surprising. I guess I did think
at this level there is no messing around with this stuff.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Yeah, you know, I have a feature, multi part feature
ready to go any time you want about how your
big time medical colleges now are absolutely they have been enslaved, purchased,
whatever you want to say, by the DEI thing, and
they are teaching things in medical schools that are clearly
(28:37):
undeniably untrue.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
Well, this is how I can justifyd my mind anyway.
Trump over Biden for the very reasons that Attorney General
Barr said, Trump is Russian to Roulette, but Biden is
national suicide. If we continue down this road of this
sort of.
Speaker 5 (28:54):
Thing, inevitable ruin division revolution, it's all a hell of
a choice.
Speaker 4 (29:01):
That's a stunning story to head into your beautiful frya on. Huh.
You're preparing to party for the weekend. You can't but
think about National Ruin.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
I can't.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
How is your day? Here's a drink, music's loud, so
I gotta to how how is your day? I'm okay
thinking about National ruin? Dancing around.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
We're all doomed by the way. You're cute. You want
to get coffee sometime, not that the nation will still
be here.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Actually, I was promising myself earlier, I am going to
listen to music today. I'm not going to listen to
a book about World War three or the economy. I'm
going to listen to music today. I'm going to make
myself do it. You are so right, that's funny. I
had a similar conversation with myself. I was out walking the.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
Dog and when Judy got home from the golf course
yesterday afternoon.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
And.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
She stops to say hi and give me a kiss.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
And I'm in the midst of now.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Granted, I was in the midst of cleaning up my
dog's pooh, which is like a third of my free
time these days.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
How have I crafted my life?
Speaker 5 (30:17):
What has happened but I'm listening to an incredibly intense
discussion about Ukraine policy, and I like resented being interrupted
by the person I love the most who wanted to
say hello and pet our dog.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
And I'm thinking, okay.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
You are off the rails, buddy, you got to hit
a reset or something.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
So anyway, here's the hit.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
In a reset, you spend a third of your free
time picking up dog excrement.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Roughly, Yeah, well that seems like it. Anyway.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
There's the walking into where he'd like to poop. We
call it the laxative lot in our neighborhood, where he
for whatever reason, Man, that's the happy hunting. He hits
that that lot, and it's like a GPS thing goes
off vinum or something like. It borders books, very similar
phenomenon that just like.
Speaker 4 (31:10):
That, I ain't Panda Express again last night, since you
guys convinced me that's not disgusting. Somehow I'd gotten into
my head the Panda Express was disgusting. Do you guys
convince me it's a step above like burger king and stuff?
Speaker 5 (31:31):
So oh, I think so it's it's you know, more
modest than a good sit down Chinese restaurant. But it's
pretty good.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
What'd you think?
Speaker 4 (31:40):
It was delicious? And at least thus far, there have
been no repercussions, if you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
Thank you for that. Do we still have that cop?
Speaker 5 (31:49):
And I'm sorry the construction worker guy, Andy, I can't
remember what clip that was.
Speaker 10 (31:57):
Republicans in Manhattan, so many Trump supporters of Manhattan's that's.
Speaker 4 (32:01):
Not at all turning the Trumps turn again.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
What's your message to Joe By?
Speaker 4 (32:07):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (32:07):
That's unnecessary?
Speaker 5 (32:09):
Uh? And then you have this Florida cop who's talking
to a guy who he caught keying a car because
it had a Let's Go Brandon sticker on it?
Speaker 7 (32:18):
Oh?
Speaker 14 (32:18):
Was it when Dixie had to pick up some coffee
and key line pie?
Speaker 4 (32:22):
Do you remember what she did when you walked out
of one Dixie?
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Uh?
Speaker 14 (32:26):
Okay, the green Toyota Tundra pickup truck that you walked
up to.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
You don't remember what she did?
Speaker 6 (32:30):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (32:31):
Walked by a truck?
Speaker 8 (32:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (32:32):
Okay? What did you do to it?
Speaker 3 (32:34):
I scratched it?
Speaker 4 (32:35):
Why was it the bumper sticker?
Speaker 14 (32:38):
Because when you they've got a ton of security footage there, man. Okay,
So so I see you walking behind it and you
look over at it, and she's got a sticker that
says let's go Brandon or something.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
Yeah, like I said, infuriated me? Okay, yep? Was that it?
Speaker 14 (32:52):
That that's the only reason he did it? You don't
know who owns this truck or anything. Uh, yeah, that's
the only reason I did it. Oh.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
Interesting, I was wondering why is the cop digging in
to the why the king? But there is a difference
between if you're like personally angry at a human being,
I guess there's that's kind of a threat, a little
bit of violence perhaps could be adding that direction. If
it's just a bumper sticker, then it's different.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
I guess. Yes, he's dealing with a different sort of situation.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
You like the detail. Can you play the very beginning again?
I like that detail the guy through in.
Speaker 14 (33:24):
Oh is it when DIXI had to pick up some
coffee and key line pie?
Speaker 4 (33:27):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (33:28):
I like you the particular kind of pie. Just two
of my favorite things on Earth. Coffee and key lime pie.
High five, buddy. Couldn't you know give key in people's cars?
Speaker 4 (33:37):
But if you've just committed a crime and the cops
all of a sudden they're questioning you. It's good to
get in the you know, the details don't make any
any writing rich.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
You know, just I like how an eight year old.
It doesn't need I just walked by it, that's all
you did.
Speaker 4 (33:52):
Well?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
I scratched it? Did you scratch it? I scratched it?
Why because there had a bumper stick on and it
made me mad?
Speaker 4 (34:00):
Are you a crown man or not? Here's something I
learned the other day. I almost hate to say this
on the air.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
Uh, oh, Michael.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
In fact, I won't. I won't say it on the
air just because I don't. But uh, it was a
way to damage a vehicle that is really expensive. I
found out from a friend. Oh no, no, let's not
and that I didn't know. And I thought, why do
people key cars at people that are angry at and
not do this because that is a way bigger deal
(34:33):
and it's simple. But it was seventeen thousand dollars worth
of damage to somebody's card that they think might be
for political reasons.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
Bought a boom bot of beings sugar in the gas tank?
Speaker 4 (34:45):
Yeah zags? Yeah? Was I I had something I was
gonna talk about and it flipped out of my head.
Oh I was speaking of.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Because you're fixated on vandalism for some reason.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
We were at eating at A. I'm out of time.
I guess I'll have to sell a story next week
or sometime. Ran out of time. Don't keep people's cars.
You know what a low life, scumbag waste to skin
you are. If you keep somebody's car for any reason,
you are so pathetic. You are a weak, awful human being.
(35:19):
And don't think you're not good. Lord? Could anything be
more despicable than that? Oh?
Speaker 3 (35:28):
I got a list, but it's despicable.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Yeah, Armstrong and Getty
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Shoe Getty Armstrong and Getty show,
presidents have to.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law,
and they have to make decisions about questions that are unsettled.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Did I understand you to say, well, you know.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
If he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake, he
subject to the.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Criminal laws just like anybody else. You don't think he's
in a special as a peculiarly precarious position.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Justine Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court yesterday, in the
discussion of how much immunity does a president have, it's
pretty interesting that we're like a quarter of a millennium, millennial, millennium,
quarter of a millennium into this experiment, and we haven't
nailed this down yet how much a president has in
(00:56):
terms of immunity for actions they take in office.
Speaker 5 (00:59):
We could get into why we're having to deal with
this now, the unique nature of Trump, the utterly unforgivable
lawfare that's being waged in politics. But this is a
great opportunity to just look at a really vexing and
complicated and interesting issue and not worry about partisanship. To me,
all right, when I look at the lefty justices, they
(01:21):
seem acutely aware that Trump is on trial here.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Right. That's your view of it, my view of it,
the Wall Street Journal's view of it. It's not MSNBC's
view of it, which is, you guys are just trying
to turn this into a big philosophical thing so that
you can kick the can down the road, which will
get the decision past the election. You have a specific
case in front of you. Does Donald Trump have immunity
(01:48):
from the things he's charged with? Why don't you just
decide the specifics, which is often what a Supreme court does.
Do you just look a narrow ruling, a narrow ruling,
look at the specifics of the case, and then it
gets you know, when another one comes up later on
down the road, then you add to the precedents.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Yeah, that's an interesting way to view it, and it's
not a completely lunatic argument. On the other hand, I
think a if you pull the conservative six Look, if
we could magically have somebody other than Trump be president,
what would you say, you'd have six votes? Okay, So
(02:26):
the idea that there's six big Trump honks is hilarious. Secondly,
this is now Pandora's box that has been opened. I
don't think that the narrow ruling thing is idiotic, Like
I said, I just I don't think it's right.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
We've got to figure this out or it'll never end.
Speaker 5 (02:44):
Anyway, Having said that, we've got both some really interesting
snippets from the oral arguments and then some really solid analysis.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
I think we think.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Yeah, I lasted about two and a half hours and
I listened to about half of it yesterday. Is flip
and fascinator. I hope to finish it today.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
Yeah, I've got to got to get from you the
easiest to wait a link to that, and you know what,
we'll figure that out and post it an Armstrong and
Geddy dot com. I'm sure we can do that. But anyway,
let's roll on with some more actual clips from the hearing.
This is another from Justice Alito thirty Michael, and we'll
just go in order.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
You began by explaining why you believe that.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Community from criminal prosecution is essential for the proper functioning
of the presidency.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
But my question is whether the very robust.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Form of immunity that you're advocating is really necessary in
order to achieve that result.
Speaker 5 (03:42):
I'd like to hear the answer. It's kind of question.
They're all questions, I think, so all right, well I'll
answer them. I don't know, Okay, rolling on.
Speaker 6 (03:56):
If the potential Jackson's taken off the tape, wouldn't there
be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened
to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?
Speaker 4 (04:10):
If I remember correctly, the answer did get into that's
why it's so important for the electric to choose carefully
who they put in that position. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
My response to KBJ would be if that was really
that big a danger, we'd have dealt with this long ago.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
Right, Well, I think that. I think what I just
said is key. You got to get the right kind
of person in there. I mean, it's it's like like
I always say, if I find out Bill fold that's
got money in it and an ID, there's not a
chance I'm gonna steal in that money. I'm just I'm not.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
I'm not built that way.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
We have had almost entirely, not entirely, but close to
entirely residents who were that kind of person with with
you know, their duties, so this didn't come up. But
if you make it clear that, by the way, just
letting you know, you get elected president, you could do anything,
I mean anything. Hmmm, I don't know where, you don't
(05:19):
know where happens.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
Then yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5 (05:22):
And at the same time, as they argue, if you
also are told the minute you walk into the Oval
office you screw up, we're going to put you in
jail after your president's.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
All right, well that you can't. We have no president
confunction like that.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Rolling on this is Chief Justice John Roberts.
Speaker 7 (05:36):
Why shouldn't we either send it back to the Court
of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that's
not the law.
Speaker 8 (05:43):
Well, I am defending the Court of Appeals judgment, and
I do think that there are layered safeguards that the
Court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about
unduly chilling presidential conduct that concerns us. We are not
endorsing a region that we think would expose former presidents
to criminal prosecution in bad faith for political animus without
(06:08):
adequate evidence.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
To make it clear in case you don't understand, at
some point, I don't know if we have that clip
the lawyer for the prosecution said, he agreed that, and
that would have been that guy there agreed that a
president has to have some sort of immunity. They couldn't
function without it. So once that is agreed upon by
all parties, which it is, well, now we've got to
(06:32):
start drawing lines. And so it only makes sense that
this is going to get kicked to other courts and
they're going to start drawing lines. Therefore, this case is
not going to happen before the election.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Not a chance. Here's the brilliant Neil Gorsuch.
Speaker 7 (06:49):
I'm not concerned about this case, but I am concerned
about future uses of the criminal law to target political
opponents based on accusations about their motives. It's reelection or
who knows what corrupt means in fifteen twelve, right, we
don't know what that means. Maybe we'll find out sometime soon.
(07:11):
But the dangerousness of accusing your political opponent of having
bad motives and if that's enough to overcome your core
powers or any other limits.
Speaker 5 (07:23):
Yeah, I see what he's driving at there. So you
could do something like drone someone you know, hit him
with a weapon from a drone, and the other side
could dig, you know, six degrees of separation, Right, they
could dig and find out that your cousin had once
done business with that person's cousin's attorney, and they could
(07:44):
say he only shot him dead from a drone because
he was looking out for his cousin. And then you're prosecuted,
like I mean, because that Alvin bradcase going on right
now shows that you can take a stinking pile of
garbage and drag that into court and cause the very
(08:05):
least enormous expense in time to your political opponent right
during the election season.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
One of the examples the lawyer on the Trump side
used yesterday was could you prosecute Biden for his lax
enforcement of the border? Well, if you could draw up
some sort of here's a business he's connected to somehow
that benefited from a legal immigration boom, it's a crime
and it wasn't just a policy.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
Yeah, yeah, that's a good one. This is d John Sower,
one of the attorneys involved. Which one was he Is
he the cartoon rabbit guy again?
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Or is he?
Speaker 5 (08:44):
And I say that with great respect, the man just
sounds like a cartoon rabbit. It's not his fault. Well,
go ahead, and roll up, Michael.
Speaker 9 (08:51):
The implications of the Court's decision here extend far beyond
the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush
have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding
or allegedly lined to Congress to induce war in Iraq?
Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing US
citizens abroad by drone strike. Could President Biden someday be
(09:15):
charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally
for his border policies. The answer to all these questions
is no. Prosecuting the president for his official acts is
an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and
incompatible with our constitutional structure.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
The George Bush lying US into war, I mean, so
that was such a big part of the media coverage,
and the Democrats position absolutely would have been an example
of something you go after him for.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
Right, Yeah, that's an easy one. And I think Salar,
who's representing the Trump side of this, obviously, he makes
a good point. That's getting back to the whole. If
the danger is that acute that the president is going
to be completely lawless, how have we gotten two hundred
fifty years into this and not had to worry about it. Really,
I think that's a pretty compelling argument. This is also
(10:11):
known as sleeping dogism or well enough colonialism.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Well, I want to hear Jonathan Turley's analysis, But so
if we're going to go with it's the difference between
actions you took as president or actions that just benefited
you privately as a candidate, which seems to be the difference.
A lot of it then has to do with, on
the specific case of Donald Trump, did he believe the
(10:36):
election was stolen or the so poorly run it wasn't
a fair election. Well, if he actually believes that, it's
not crazy for him and his position as president to
try to fix that to make sure, you know, a
coup doesn't happen.
Speaker 5 (10:55):
Yeah, it's absolutely arguable if he was one hundred percent sincere,
I don't think he will.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
I don't think he was either. Oh and the other
thing I wish, I wish I wanted to jump into
a bunch of cable news shows yesterday in shout there
was a mechanism for dealing with this impeachment. That's when
this should have been dealt with. It should have been
dealt with an impeachment. I believe he should have been
impeached her to remove for what he did. Nancy Pelosi
didn't craft the articles of impeachment in such a way
(11:20):
and didn't do it fast enough to make that happen.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
But that was the mechanism. Yeah, yeah, that's that's a
really good point. You want to hear Jonathan Turley, Now, sure,
let's do it. Weindenber oh forty two, Michael.
Speaker 10 (11:36):
You know, the three liberal justices made very clear early
on they were going to vote with a Special Council,
But the remainder of the justices were concerned about arguments
on both sides. They didn't like the sweeping aspects of
the Trump team's argument, but they also did not like
the sweeping arguments of the Special Council, and Chief Justice
(11:56):
John Roberts delivered a haymaker on the DC Circuit. He
quoted a line from them which basically said that these
acts can be prosecuted because they're being prosecuted, and that
circular language really sort of produced some chuckles in the room.
But Roberts was asking a very serious question, how can
that be the standard for presidents? So it looked like
(12:19):
they were trying to sort of grope in the darkness,
trying to find a third option, something that gives protection
to presidents while not giving them carte blanche.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
That is a good line, and I can see why
it would make people giggle, But it's a good line.
They can be prosecuted because they're being prosecuted. That's what's happening.
Speaker 5 (12:38):
Yeah, thanks for that DC Circuit Court a bunch of
wack of doodles.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
By the way, given what I just said that, I
think Trump should have been in pet removed from office
what he did on January sixth, I also still preferred
Trump over Biden for the presidency, and I certainly understand
why somebody could say those don't two things don't go together,
but they do. For Attorney General Barr, who was the
Attorney General under Trump, who said the other day, Hey,
(13:03):
one of them is Russian roulette, one of them is
national suicide. I'm going with the Russian roulette, which is
Trump and Trump. Did you see the statement Trump put
out about that. I did not wow. Former Ag Bill Barr,
who led a lot of great people down by not
investigating voter fraud in our country, has just endorsed me
for president, despite the fact that I called him weeks,
slow moving, lethargic, gutless, and lazy. Based on the fact
(13:27):
that I greatly appreciated his wholehearted endorsement, I am removing
the word lethargic from my statement. Thank you, Bill Magga
twenty twenty four.
Speaker 5 (13:37):
That is is that brilliant comedy?
Speaker 3 (13:41):
Or is that Does he understand?
Speaker 4 (13:44):
So he's removing lethargic, so he still calls him weak,
slow moving, gutless, and lazy. Oh wow, wow, great.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Somebody wake me up? Is this actually happening here? Am
I dreaming?
Speaker 4 (13:56):
This is actually happening? More on the way.
Speaker 11 (14:05):
Following the trail of plastic waste, American consumers think they
are recycling, our team following forty six tracking devices we
placed in plastic bag recycling bins at big box stores
across the country, and we found three from Walmart stores
ended up thousands of miles away, one of them pinging
from outside plastic facilities in Indonesia where we found what
(14:26):
appears to be illegal dumping, another landing at a facility
in Malaysia which a twenty twenty three Malaysian government list
said was operating without an import license. Walmart provided a
statement saying, in part, they are continuously improving their recycling program,
drawing up new contracts with partners requiring proof they're actually recycling.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
If there were a Ministry of Truth and I are
in charge of it, that statement would have read, Look,
ninety eight percent of the recycling saying is fake. We
just continue to fake it because people expect us to,
all right, leave us alone.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Right, and don't they act? That story made it seem
like Walmart's doing something wrong. The whole recycling thing, as
Joe just said, is phony. It has been for a
long time, and it ain't Walmart's fault. It just it
doesn't work for a variety of reasons. But to me,
this is this is another example of the way the
(15:23):
human mind works. And we talk about this a lot.
We're just talking about it yesterday. How the first thing
you hear gets stuck in your head, and even when
you're presented with contrary evidence, it's very hard to dislodge
the first thing you heard. I find it difficult to
throw a plastic bottle in the regular garbage, even though
I have read and watched story after story proving that
(15:48):
I'm not actually doing anything good by putting it in
the recycling. But it's still tough for me to do it.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
It's on the way to the same dump as everything
else because there's no market for those materials. It's too
expensive to make them into product. The Chinese bought it
for a long time. Now they don't.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Yeah, and it just it just it just doesn't work.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
And if you don't think there's enough landfill space in America,
drive across Nevada.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Someday there's plenty.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
And then if a lot of towns you live in
like the one I live, and you have to have
the recycle bin, which you have to pay for and
it's kind of expensive. But I just gave up. I
did when I saw the John Stossel report that I
tweeted out the other day of him following garbage trucks
around and doing this, where I thought, why am I
doing this? I just started throwing it all in the
regular bit. Why am I wheeling two things out every
(16:38):
every Monday morning?
Speaker 5 (16:39):
Well, in the communist enclave where you live, won't you
get fined for that or arrested? Don't they have people
that go through your garbage to inspect it?
Speaker 4 (16:47):
In theory? Yeah, well that's.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Why everything we say on the air is made up.
We don't actually exist. This is AI isn't that something?
And they still oh and all the stuff. This is
what I learned from the John Stossel report.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
All those a little circle with the arrows recyclable. Half
of those, more than half of those aren't true. They
have the recyclable symbol on them, but they're not recyclable.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
What are we doing.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Exactly, what society?
Speaker 3 (17:15):
What are we doing?
Speaker 4 (17:17):
The latest on the campus protests, which are growing, not shrinking,
all across the country, coming.
Speaker 12 (17:21):
Up Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 13 (17:24):
We're very close in New York, I understand, and we're
leading in the country by a lot.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
Paul just came out a little.
Speaker 13 (17:31):
While ago, as you saw yesterday that we were up
in every swing state and up by a lot in
every swing state. So I think we're gonna do very well,
and we're gonna make a play for New York.
Speaker 4 (17:40):
It's they said. I just heard.
Speaker 13 (17:42):
There was a very good pop came out. Normally a
Democrat will win New York. Biden is the worst president
in history, and we have some very bad people here,
but we have the greatest people.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
And they're right behind me.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Yeah, they all want us.
Speaker 13 (17:54):
To run and we're gonna We're gonna run very hard
in New York, New York. We have a good chance
of winning New York in my opinion, but we're gonna
give it a shot.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
So exaggerating as usual as all politicians do the poll numbers.
But he is I had a lot of places and
has been for a while, and blah blah blah. Can
he make a play for New York?
Speaker 7 (18:10):
Boy?
Speaker 4 (18:10):
I doubt it. But here is the clip of the
day yesterday was making the rounds. Here's a construction worker,
which is core Scranton, Joe people right here, unionized construction worker.
A journalist asks him a question.
Speaker 10 (18:28):
What's like seeing so many Republicans in Manhattan, so many
Trump supporters of Manhattan?
Speaker 4 (18:32):
As I surprised? You, No, not at all?
Speaker 3 (18:35):
Turning the Trump's turn again. What's your message to Joe Biden?
Speaker 4 (18:39):
You, oh, earthy, you surprised to see how the Republicans know?
Not at all? It's turning again, It's Trump's turn. What's
your message to Joe Biden? Blank?
Speaker 7 (18:50):
You?
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Wow?
Speaker 5 (18:53):
That is so in keeping with the trends everybody's seen
and talked about that the working class America of all
colors are saying, yeah, the Democrats goodbye, goodbye.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
We're turning to Trump.
Speaker 4 (19:05):
Anyway, I wanted to get that on. So we had
a story yesterday. I don't know if you heard it,
and Casey it didn't. And I wanted to Katie to
join us on this because we had a lot of
fun with it. What stands out from you, Katie? In
the story of the Secret Service Agent that went nuts,
it was part of Kamala Harris's detail. She went nutsoh yesterday,
(19:26):
which included punching her boss. What else was she doing?
Speaker 5 (19:31):
Hiding behind a curtain, chucking tampons at her ass or mentroats?
Speaker 3 (19:38):
She was deleting her apps.
Speaker 4 (19:41):
She grabbed the guy's phone and started deleting his apps.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Yes, she wasn't deleting her own apps. She was grabbing
other people started deleting apps from the way.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Yeay yyyy I play that game.
Speaker 12 (19:51):
This sounds like the poor woman snapped, is what it
sounds like.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Yeah, throwing tampa.
Speaker 5 (19:57):
She started yelling that they were all going to hell
and the other madness.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Yeah, she punched her boss and then at that at
some point they realize, Okay, this person's completely crazy and
has a gun. Yes, so they had loaded a gun
at the rustle, the gun out her hand. What is
the message when you throw a tampon at someone there, Katie.
Speaker 12 (20:20):
Well, I mean, I know in my past, throwing a
tampon at a guy has been like, oh, you know,
quit your bitchin gotcha?
Speaker 5 (20:28):
Yeah, quit being a meaw yow yes, a precisely, you're
making a gendered statement.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Yes, oh, please stop.
Speaker 5 (20:36):
Using gendered language when you hurl things at friends.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (20:43):
It just sounds like a meltdown to me. I mean, well, okay, So.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
When I got an update on this from an inside source,
that is really interesting. There was speculation in the reporting
yesterday from some of the agents not named that it
had to do with DEI hiring this woman and she
wasn't exactly qualified, but they needed certain sort of person
to get on there.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Well, this is happening in many professions.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
I can't say where I'm getting this information, but trust me,
this is real stuff, or I wouldn't be passing along
to you.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
Jack's friends with Hunter Biden, that's ours.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
When going through training, there were numerous concerns brought forth
by her classmates and class coordinators, supervisory agents who mentor
and monitor each class of new recruits for the Secret Service.
These concerns all centered around her suitability to perform the job.
Can she be calm during moments of high intensity? Is
she able to multitask? Well, she has came kind of multitasking.
(21:40):
She grabbed a guy's phone, was deleting apps and throwing tampons,
So that's.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Two things right busy morning.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Is she resilient? The answer to all of these questions
was a resounding no. Keep in mind, this is training
in fake scenarios. Her class coordinator called her, and I quote,
a nut job. When this happens, the training center supervisors
convene what's called a special Agent review board. Then it
gets into all that they got together for two and
a half hours, with the class coordinators passionately imploring the
(22:10):
supervisors to dismiss this trainee. In the end, it was
decided to keep her on. It'll become more evident here
coming up in a little bit ultimately, And there's a
lot more information on this that I won't get to
that that was very very interesting to me. But it's
this person said, it's a kin to public schools continuingly
advancing a kid who can't read. Nobody wants to deal
with the problem. And eventually to become society's problem. You
(22:32):
don't want to get the blowback at your level for
dealing with this, so you pass it along to the
next level and say, you know, good luck to you, right.
Speaker 5 (22:41):
I know of concrete examples where folks were told from above,
we need two of X in the graduating class, and
the folks who do the training say we don't have
two that are qualified. Well, then give me to whether
they're qualified or not. And some of this is really
(23:02):
important and dangerous stuff like this secret service that the
idea that you would uh abrogate you you would you
would fail in your core duty to fulfill this tangential
socio political checklist is disgusting.
Speaker 4 (23:20):
Well, uh well, I'll save my ultimate point once I
get through a little bit more of this. But it's
there's more, just more of what you were saying. Uh yeah,
there is more. The hiring field office determines whether they're suitable. Well,
the field officers have dei quota incentives and routinely routinely
send people they know shouldn't be on the job. And
(23:40):
this woman's case, here's a story of the baggage she
brought to the hiring process and there's a link to
a story. Female police officer files one million dollar gender
discrimination lawsuit against the City of Dallas. So this person
had done that in their past. So you you're dealing
with somebody who's willing to sue and make a big stink.
Speaker 7 (24:00):
Right.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Here's what's being said in the back channels today. They
knew what she was when they hired her. They fought
hard to keep her despite what they were told by
the people who knew her well that she wasn't suitable.
And this person said, we're heading toward a colossal security failure.
We're doomed as a nation and a society if at
(24:28):
this level, this is someone who's on the vice presidential
detail during a turbulent time where a threat of violence
is more in the air than it has been since
I was a tiny child. Yes, and we're still gonna
let DEI in that sort of crap rule the day.
I mean, why would I believe that it's better in
(24:51):
various levels of government, military, nuclear deterrence, anything else. I mean,
if secret Service protection for the vice president does this,
I gotta belie it's happening at every level of everything.
I'd been hoping that we're not doing this, you know
where it really matters. We're doing it in schools, We're
doing it in your local police for some but surely
(25:13):
not at that. If we're doing it at this level,
they're putting through somebody in the Secret Service who's going
to be guarding the Vice President, and everybody's saying she's
not qualified. No, no freaking way, still do it for
DEI reasons, we are doomed. You think CHILDA does this
or do you think they get the most qualified people
for every position?
Speaker 3 (25:35):
Right?
Speaker 5 (25:35):
I was just rereading the fact that on like day
one in office, Joe Biden put out that memorandum saying
we are going to put DEI programs to work in
every department of the government in every way. As always,
I must say, dismantle every DEI program everywhere it exists, immediately,
whether corporate, educational, or governmental. It's a cult. It's neo Marxism.
(25:57):
It's awful. It has nothing to do with diversity. You're
right if the compulsion to do this in the name
of whatever phony you know, desire for diversities behind it
is so strong and irresistible that they're doing it in
the military, in the secret services. You're dealing with madness.
(26:21):
You're dealing with an inability to process that which is
plainly true. We need excellence and only excellence at that level.
I can't imagine being a secret service supervisor and saying
you got to put her through anyway.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
I mean, you.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
Are enslaved by a radical ideology that does not give
a crap about your core mission, which is insane.
Speaker 4 (26:47):
This inside information was leaked to us because of that
last sentence. I'm sure we are heading toward a colossal
security failure. This is somebody that knows how it works
and knows where this is going to lead.
Speaker 5 (27:02):
One of my favorite things said about this was said
by Jordan Peterson, and I'm not sure if it was
an original thought, but it doesn't matter. He was talking
about hierarchies and how incredibly important they are in a society,
meaning excellence. You achieve being at the higher echelons of
things through excellence and only excellence, and that the role
(27:23):
of the left, maybe or fair minded people is to
make sure at the bottom of that ladder there's no discrimination.
A little black girl has the same opportunity as a
white boy or a Hispanic boy or whatever to begin
the process of achieving excellence.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
That's very, very important.
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Otherwise you have a racist or discriminatory society. But if
you can ensure that the bottom end of that, you
must never ever ever compromise at the top end, because
that's suicidal and it doesn't solve the problem at the
bottom end. Right, And you know, to quote one of
my favorite David Brothers songs, I'm frightened by those who
(28:01):
don't see it.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
This is disturbing, not surprising. I guess I did think
at this level there is no messing around with this stuff.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Yeah, you know, I have a feature, multi part feature
ready to go any time you want about how your
big time medical colleges now are absolutely they have been enslaved, purchased,
whatever you want to say, by the DEI thing, and
they are teaching things in medical schools that are clearly
(28:37):
undeniably untrue.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
Well, this is how I can justifyd my mind anyway.
Trump over Biden for the very reasons that Attorney General
Barr said, Trump is Russian to Roulette, but Biden is
national suicide. If we continue down this road of this
sort of.
Speaker 5 (28:54):
Thing, inevitable ruin division revolution, it's all a hell of
a choice.
Speaker 4 (29:01):
That's a stunning story to head into your beautiful frya on. Huh.
You're preparing to party for the weekend. You can't but
think about National Ruin.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
I can't.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
How is your day? Here's a drink, music's loud, so
I gotta to how how is your day? I'm okay
thinking about National ruin? Dancing around.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
We're all doomed by the way. You're cute. You want
to get coffee sometime, not that the nation will still
be here.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Actually, I was promising myself earlier, I am going to
listen to music today. I'm not going to listen to
a book about World War three or the economy. I'm
going to listen to music today. I'm going to make
myself do it. You are so right, that's funny. I
had a similar conversation with myself. I was out walking the.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
Dog and when Judy got home from the golf course
yesterday afternoon.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
And.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
She stops to say hi and give me a kiss.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
And I'm in the midst of now.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Granted, I was in the midst of cleaning up my
dog's pooh, which is like a third of my free
time these days.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
How have I crafted my life?
Speaker 5 (30:17):
What has happened but I'm listening to an incredibly intense
discussion about Ukraine policy, and I like resented being interrupted
by the person I love the most who wanted to
say hello and pet our dog.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
And I'm thinking, okay.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
You are off the rails, buddy, you got to hit
a reset or something.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
So anyway, here's the hit.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
In a reset, you spend a third of your free
time picking up dog excrement.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Roughly, Yeah, well that seems like it. Anyway.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
There's the walking into where he'd like to poop. We
call it the laxative lot in our neighborhood, where he
for whatever reason, Man, that's the happy hunting. He hits
that that lot, and it's like a GPS thing goes
off vinum or something like. It borders books, very similar
phenomenon that just like.
Speaker 4 (31:10):
That, I ain't Panda Express again last night, since you
guys convinced me that's not disgusting. Somehow I'd gotten into
my head the Panda Express was disgusting. Do you guys
convince me it's a step above like burger king and stuff?
Speaker 5 (31:31):
So oh, I think so it's it's you know, more
modest than a good sit down Chinese restaurant. But it's
pretty good.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
What'd you think?
Speaker 4 (31:40):
It was delicious? And at least thus far, there have
been no repercussions, if you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
Thank you for that. Do we still have that cop?
Speaker 5 (31:49):
And I'm sorry the construction worker guy, Andy, I can't
remember what clip that was.
Speaker 10 (31:57):
Republicans in Manhattan, so many Trump supporters of Manhattan's that's.
Speaker 4 (32:01):
Not at all turning the Trumps turn again.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
What's your message to Joe By?
Speaker 4 (32:07):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (32:07):
That's unnecessary?
Speaker 5 (32:09):
Uh? And then you have this Florida cop who's talking
to a guy who he caught keying a car because
it had a Let's Go Brandon sticker on it?
Speaker 7 (32:18):
Oh?
Speaker 14 (32:18):
Was it when Dixie had to pick up some coffee
and key line pie?
Speaker 4 (32:22):
Do you remember what she did when you walked out
of one Dixie?
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Uh?
Speaker 14 (32:26):
Okay, the green Toyota Tundra pickup truck that you walked
up to.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
You don't remember what she did?
Speaker 6 (32:30):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (32:31):
Walked by a truck?
Speaker 8 (32:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (32:32):
Okay? What did you do to it?
Speaker 3 (32:34):
I scratched it?
Speaker 4 (32:35):
Why was it the bumper sticker?
Speaker 14 (32:38):
Because when you they've got a ton of security footage there, man. Okay,
So so I see you walking behind it and you
look over at it, and she's got a sticker that
says let's go Brandon or something.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
Yeah, like I said, infuriated me? Okay, yep? Was that it?
Speaker 14 (32:52):
That that's the only reason he did it? You don't
know who owns this truck or anything. Uh, yeah, that's
the only reason I did it. Oh.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
Interesting, I was wondering why is the cop digging in
to the why the king? But there is a difference
between if you're like personally angry at a human being,
I guess there's that's kind of a threat, a little
bit of violence perhaps could be adding that direction. If
it's just a bumper sticker, then it's different.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
I guess. Yes, he's dealing with a different sort of situation.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
You like the detail. Can you play the very beginning again?
I like that detail the guy through in.
Speaker 14 (33:24):
Oh is it when DIXI had to pick up some
coffee and key line pie?
Speaker 4 (33:27):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (33:28):
I like you the particular kind of pie. Just two
of my favorite things on Earth. Coffee and key lime pie.
High five, buddy. Couldn't you know give key in people's cars?
Speaker 4 (33:37):
But if you've just committed a crime and the cops
all of a sudden they're questioning you. It's good to
get in the you know, the details don't make any
any writing rich.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
You know, just I like how an eight year old.
It doesn't need I just walked by it, that's all
you did.
Speaker 4 (33:52):
Well?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
I scratched it? Did you scratch it? I scratched it?
Why because there had a bumper stick on and it
made me mad?
Speaker 4 (34:00):
Are you a crown man or not? Here's something I
learned the other day. I almost hate to say this
on the air.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
Uh, oh, Michael.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
In fact, I won't. I won't say it on the
air just because I don't. But uh, it was a
way to damage a vehicle that is really expensive. I
found out from a friend. Oh no, no, let's not
and that I didn't know. And I thought, why do
people key cars at people that are angry at and
not do this because that is a way bigger deal
(34:33):
and it's simple. But it was seventeen thousand dollars worth
of damage to somebody's card that they think might be
for political reasons.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
Bought a boom bot of beings sugar in the gas tank?
Speaker 4 (34:45):
Yeah zags? Yeah? Was I I had something I was
gonna talk about and it flipped out of my head.
Oh I was speaking of.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Because you're fixated on vandalism for some reason.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
We were at eating at A. I'm out of time.
I guess I'll have to sell a story next week
or sometime. Ran out of time. Don't keep people's cars.
You know what a low life, scumbag waste to skin
you are. If you keep somebody's car for any reason,
you are so pathetic. You are a weak, awful human being.
(35:19):
And don't think you're not good. Lord? Could anything be
more despicable than that? Oh?
Speaker 3 (35:28):
I got a list, but it's despicable.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Yeah, Armstrong and Getty
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
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.