April 25, 2024 • 35 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features..
- The upcoming SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity claim...
- Why the pro-Hamas students...
- Jack's son shows his true colors!
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,
we have.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
A big case that in the Supreme Court of Presidential Immunity,
a president has to have immunity.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.
Donald J.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
There addressing the question that will be before the Supreme
Court today in a case that I think is just
going to be crazy interesting. Is it within the outer
limits of the presidential duties?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
That's the whole question.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
That's kind of one of the questions. Well shouted sir,
thank you. So the perimeter, what what the outer perimeter?
Speaker 3 (00:49):
That's it, isn't it. It's the is it within the
outer perimeter? That's the whole question. That's that's redundant.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
As a wordsmith, I object to the phrase outer perimeter
as if there can be an inner perimeter.
Speaker 5 (01:04):
So we won't get a ruling till June. But this
is a big deal for all presidents. This is something
that should have been ruled on a long long time
ago and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court
for presidents going forward. So it's not just Donald Trump
that's on the line here, though the media will treat
it like it's all about Donald Trump and Trump's court
(01:27):
outrageous MAGA controlled court.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Is going to rule in his favor or not that
sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
Right, Yeah, I'm not one hundred percent sure we've made
clear what's happening here. But the question before the court
is can the president be prosecuted for acts he commits
as president at all or sometimes or just once in
a while. Now, in this case, you got old Jack
Smith targeting the president for conspiracies that culminated and converged
(01:55):
on January sixth, seeking to prevent Congress from certifying Joe
Biden's victory. And we could go into the details of it,
but that's not really the important part. Relitigating that is
not what the Supreme Court's going to be doing. As
Jack pointed out, and this is an absolutely key point,
although it will be completely ignored by the media, is
this is an incredibly interesting and important question because you
(02:18):
could go back everybody from Barack Obama to George W
to every president has ever served, and without even being
a great historian or lawyer, you could come up with
something that they did that could be actionable as a
criminal charge.
Speaker 5 (02:32):
The Wall Street Journal went through a list. Abraham Lincoln
suspended habeas corpus. No one suggested Lincoln be prosecuted for
false imprisonment, false arrest, are kidnapping like you could.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Harry S.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
Truman seized domestic steel plants during the Korean War, and
it was suggested that that was a conspiracy to commit
an offense against the United States, the exact charge that
Jack Smith is charging Donald Trump with. But that didn't
happen because they believed he had immunity. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush,
Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all unilaterally ordered military actions
(03:04):
as commander in chief.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
Nobody suggested they be well, not nobody.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Some people did, but it didn't actually get off the ground.
The idea of them being prosecuted for murder, torture, war crimes,
misappropriation of government resources, et cetera, or even with judges,
because this would apply in that situation. Also if of
a number of judges make a ruling on something, then
(03:30):
years later somebody decides a different court decides no, that's
completely unconstitutional. Can you go back and charge the judges
with something is on the line, According to the Wall
Street Journal.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Wow, that is interesting.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
So Trump's team wants sweeping absolute immunity for any act
as president.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
You could shoot Aaron Burr.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Well, yeah, exactly. The examples that have been given. Oh,
that's before I want to get to that. I think
the Obama killing an American citizen via drone is a
perfect test case. I mean that is I mean, you
don't have to be well acquainted with constitutional law or
criminal law or anything to understand whoa that's controversial because
you can't like drone somebody and kill them just because
(04:15):
you think they're a criminal. You gotta let them surrender.
You got to try to arrest them. You don't just
kill them.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
Yeah, particularly that case because it was a sixteen year
old American citizen, right, that's right, that was the son
of the guy who is going for because they were together, right,
So anyway, that's a pretty clear opportunity to prosecute there.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
But anyway, so Trump's team is calling for sweeping immunity anything,
and as Jack indicated, you could, you know, show up
to your opponent's stump speech and shoot him in the
belly under the Trump lawyer's doctrine, which seems crazy or
send the Navy seals to obliterate the Democratic National Headquarters.
That sort of thing seems like a bit of a
(04:57):
stretch to me. Let's see the the Smith's team wants
a very very very restrictive idea of immunity. And it's
a heck of an interesting question, and I hope the
justices actually take it on, because they might not. They
might kick it back to the prior court. But Jonathan
(05:18):
Turley has some interesting thoughts on this. We'll let him
have the floor for a moment.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Sixty two.
Speaker 6 (05:23):
First, Michael, and what's often been discussed in the media
is how extreme the Trump team's arguments are, bringing up
Seal Team six and things like that. But the justices
may be equally concerned about the extreme nature of the
lower court decision that it leaves a president without protection.
So they've got cliffs on both sides. Either they go
(05:45):
over one side and a president has no protections at all,
or you go over the other side and a president's
total protections. It could do most anything. There's a good
chance that some of these justices are going to want
a third option, something more nuanced to where a president
has some protection.
Speaker 5 (06:02):
Yeah, the idea that the president could only do things
within the outer perimeter of their duties. For instance, shooting
your opponent would not be within your presidential duties, so
clearly out of bounds. Droning a terrorist within the presidential duties,
so you have immunity for that, but that will always
be a gray area where you know you'll have to
(06:27):
any one of those things could end up in a court.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Right.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, it would be easy to argue virtually every aspect
of this, which would be an endless segment of the show,
which we're not going to do. But I could see,
you know, you could. Centrality to your duties as president
was the term. One great legal thinker I read months
ago was writing about this. I wish I'd kept it around,
but the article he wrote, but if it's if it's
as you were saying, central to your duties as president,
(06:54):
then there's got to be sweeping immunity for it. But gosh,
I don't know. You're the manner in chiefs right there
in the constitution. You're fighting the Russians, God forbid, along
the front with NATO, and you decide, you know, America
needs better and fresher cheeses. We're going to invade Belgium
while we're there, we need just to confiscate their delicious cheese.
(07:17):
We need better fresher Jesus just trying to come up
with it an example on the hoof there, and I
didn't do terribly well, but anyway, eternally, yeah, well doing
the going against what I said myself the opposite, making
it just about Trump. So the question would be did
(07:37):
his speech rabble rousing there by the capital that led
to the insurrection? Was that within the outer perimeter of presidential.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Duties or not? That's one of the questions.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Yeah, I think they've got a really weak case there
the speech. I just think the speech is way way
too defensible on First Amendment grounds. But anyway, one more
clipate turly than I have. What's really the baffo comment
on this? Sixty three Michael.
Speaker 6 (08:06):
Let's say that the court wants a third option, something
more nuanced. This is, after all, an incrementalist court. They
tend to try to take small steps, not great leaps.
If that's the case, the most obvious thing for them
to do would be to remand it back to the
district court to say, we need you to look at
more carefully at this record and what here is really
(08:28):
related to his office. What you know, where do these
questions fall. If they do that, I don't think that
they could try the president.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Before the election.
Speaker 6 (08:38):
And if they don't try the president before the election,
Jack Smith may never see a jury in either of
these cases.
Speaker 5 (08:46):
Right, Yeah, So that's interesting. So the Wall Street Journal
editorial board. Their suggestion was the Supreme Court should draw
a line and extend absolute criminal immunity to actions within
the outer perimeter of the presidential duties. Then lower courts
would decide on individual actions whether they fell outside that
perimeter or inside the perimeter. And Turtally's saying, well, that's
(09:08):
what he's recommending. But if they do that then and
then they rule in June, Okay, So then you're saying, okay,
now another court needs to decide whether or not what
Trump did is inside or outside the perimeter. Well, that
can't happen before the election. There's just no way, h correct.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
Yeah, So two more comments, not trying to argue one
side of this or the other, because again, I think
it's a complicated and nuanced question.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Number one. I was thinking about this earlier today.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
One of the most consequential acts by a president in
my lifetime was when President Ford pardoned President Nixon, and
there was absolutely nobody that I can recall making the
argument that, no, that was unnecessary because Nixon had absolute
immunity for everything he did in the office. I don't
(09:58):
remember anybody arguing that other than Nixon when he said,
you know, it's not illegal if the president does it,
which was a roundly who did at like universally, who
did at both at the time and later. And the
fact that Nixon accepted that pardon, now that might have
just been you know, prudent, But I don't recall anybody
(10:19):
ever questioning whether it was necessary that he'd be pardoned.
So that's there. Secondly, speaking of the Wall Street Journal,
they wrote that anybody, Yeah, and so that's interesting. I've
never I've never heard that even come up either.
Speaker 5 (10:35):
God, and I've taken in a gazillion hours of reading
and watching Watergate stuff, I don't remember anybody ever making
the argument that was within his presidential duties.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
I didn't, I didn't. I mean, he was making that argument.
But yes, so then why the pardon? Okay, yeah, yeah,
well I'm here all week. I'm happy to please have
you to do a surf so they write in The
Wall Street Journal, a trial judge in the January sixth
case and the DC Court of Appeals blew through the precedent,
and it's another case I'll bore you with the details
(11:04):
dealing with presidential immunity as if it didn't exist. The
three judge circuit panel also wrote its opinion is if
mister Trump is Swede, generis a unique threat to democracy,
and thus no other former president would ever be charged
with the crime. Which my comment is, that's an incredibly
naive view of the current politics. The Wall Street Journal
agrees this ignores the reality of our current politics. Four
(11:27):
Democratic prosecutors have decided to charge mister Trump three on
criminal charges. In doing so, they have.
Speaker 4 (11:33):
Unleashed partisan furies that future prosecutors will exploit. If Democrats
think President Biden won't be at least investigated for crimes
by GOP prosecutors after he leaves office, they aren't paying attention.
I don't think he'll be alive. You'll have the same
defense Lincoln had. What are you trying before? I'm dead?
But yeah, this will this sort of law fair will
(11:55):
never ever end going after former president unless something is
done in the courts.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Fall on to this road lies madness.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
Sure enough, Professor Turley, sure words have never been spake.
Speaker 5 (12:11):
That Harry Truman example they give in the Wall Street
Journal is a good one. And then all the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden,
all of them with the unilateral drone strikes and stuff
like that. It is amazing how much power we give
the president currently on that. Practically anywhere in the world,
you can just take somebody out because you're until you started,
(12:32):
you're the intelligence you've got, which you're not going to
share with us.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Says it was a good idea. And don't get me
started on FDR.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
A guy subverted the Constitution with his morning coffee like
every day.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
So well, we'll see it'll be interesting. Joe Getty beating
up on a handicapped guy.
Speaker 5 (12:49):
Wow, wow, you ought to be a college professor, speaking
of which, we got to talk about that among other
things on the way. Yeah, yet another behind the scenes
at NPR story for you a little bit later.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
That's amazing and not surprising. At the same time.
Speaker 5 (13:15):
This Americans check their phones one hundred and forty four
times a day, according to a study.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
That sounds low to me. That might be higher. I'm
trying so hard not to be a phone junkie.
Speaker 5 (13:27):
I'm miss specially, Yeah, I'm especially trying to catch myself
when I'm not scrolling for purpose. I don't mind looking
through news headlines for my job or to see what's
going on in the world or whatever, actually reading, but
when it slips into not for purpose, it's just killing time.
And it's so easy to slip into that. I'm really
(13:48):
trying to stop that. Fubbing is what I'm really paying
attention to. Phone snubbing. If I'm with.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
Somebody and I have that urge to look at my
phone or whatever, because it happens all the time, folks.
We all do it, and we all have it done
to us, and it doesn't feel good.
Speaker 5 (14:01):
No, it feels I'm pretty good at that because I
hate it so much when other people do it to me.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
It's just it's just it's painful. It's painful.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
My kids are now old enough with their watches, got
my my my teenagers just constantly trying to have a
conversation looking at his what because he got a text?
And we all know doesn't matter what you're talking about
and how important the relationship is with who you're talking about.
If you got a text from some random person about
nothing important that takes precedence. Weird, we got we all
(14:32):
got to get over that consumer alert The FBI warns
of a tech scam targeting toll road users across multiple states.
I've gotten several from toll road stuff that I've been
on my uh fast track is what we have in
the Bay Area that I wondered, what I don't even
think i've been then might be fake. I'm glad I
(14:52):
didn't click on it. I could have very easily clicked
on it, because they they text me, I get I
opted in for text updates from me. But there's a
bunch of the those scams going around because they know
you click on them, and so I guess stop. And
then this, which I wouldn't have known unless the Wall
Street Journal told me.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
We all know.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
Title inflation has been a thing. Like wherever you work,
everybody's a vice president, right, You got like ten vice
presidents in the building. The new one is senior, the
senior jobs that require little or no experience. There are
many senior jobs out there. And maybe if you're younger,
you should know this so you don't get fooled into
thinking something big just happened for you, or maybe if
(15:33):
you're just dealing with a business and you've you've been
I'll give you a Jim. He's a senior something or
doesn't necessarily mean it, and Jim shows up, Hi.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
How can I help you with your problem? Right?
Speaker 5 (15:43):
Many senior positions require a year or less of experience.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
The Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
Searched entry level openings on a job board, a national
job board and got more than eight thousand results for
senior job opening that are entry level openings. So it's
h one earthy outher you're too senior if it's an
entry level job.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Yeah, I saw that.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
And they also get into the concept of what's being
called the dry promotion, where you are advanced from senior
sales associate to senior vice president of sales associates and
get no raise.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
I had that happen to me. I think many people
have had that happen to them.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Once you very quickly realize, wait a second, I seem
to be I have way more responsibilities, I'm way more
stressed out, but I'm not going getting more money. So
what just happened?
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Well, you use it as a resume builder planning on
moving on, but any company who does that thinking, Hey,
we gave them a fake promotion with a fancy sounding
title to keep them around.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
No, you're doing the opposite.
Speaker 5 (16:55):
I'm senior administrator in terms of talking on the radio
right now.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Jack arms Strong, congratulations, it's very impressive.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
We got a lot of craziness going on campus still,
tons of people rested in Texas they're trying to figure
out how to deal with USC and a bunch of
colleges all across the country. We got to check in
on that story, among other things.
Speaker 4 (17:15):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
I say, is the main goal with tonight's protest?
Speaker 7 (17:21):
I think the goal is just showing our support for
Palestine and demanding that NYU shops.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
I honestly don't know all what NYU's doing.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Is there something that NYU's doing.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
I really don't know.
Speaker 6 (17:30):
I'm pretty sure there.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Do you know what ny is doing out.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
Where?
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Protesting here? I guess that was more educated. I wish
I was more educated. I thought that was hilarious.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
So that's on one of the most you know, the
hottest campuses in the country right now. And you got
cops and fights and DOV disruption and all these different
sort of things, and you interview two girls, and one
says it's something with Israel. I don't know. I know,
since she turns her friend, well, what is NYD doing
with Israel? And she said, I don't know. We should
probably be more educated on this. So how many of
(18:06):
the protesters are that, Well, I can just to fill
you in a little bit, you're standing here in support
of one of the most evil organizations on Earth.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Hamas is what you're doing.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
So you might want to think that over they would
kill you or certainly not allow you to live the
life you're living now, where you get to have an
education and a job and blah blah and then not
be raped in all those sorts of things. And if
you're gay, God help you, they would murder you.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
Right right, a point we'll be making coming up in
a couple of minutes with more detail. But if this
were twenty years ago, I would just be amused because
so much of the marching and chanting on campus is
a mile wide and an inch deep. These people a
don't know what they're talking about. And I don't believe
those girls we just heard her are unique at all
(18:53):
and be just the whole Look at me, I'm a
brave campus revolutionary I'm going for a Marxist future. That
were so far few of those people. It was just
it was pathetic more than it was anything else. But now,
having been in doctrinaid, we've had a couple of generations
of American kids indoctrinated and in this stuff, starting in kindergarten.
Now I think they actually have the bulk to be
(19:15):
fairly dangerous to the institutions of our country. And so
as funny as it is and satisfying it is to
hear those two little twits, I'm afraid that were past
the point of it being purely funny. Having said that,
I was reminded of, you know, a principle you know,
(19:36):
if you study revolutions, radical politics, and that sort of thing.
The great James Lindsay reminded me the other day that
in revolutions the same thing always happens. Like the Red
Guards in China, they're in cultural revolution. That's the militant
young people that now they don't send out to root
(19:59):
out the intellectuals and the bargeoisie and the counter revolutionaries,
drag him into the streets, beat them down, have their
struggle sessions, make them disabout moved everybody to the collective.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Farms the rest of it.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
That went on for two years, and then the Red
Guards were all put in re education camps, concentration camps,
or killed. Why because they were trained, They were molded
as young people, as disruptors of the status quo. They're rebels,
they're breakers of things. And once the Marxists get in charge,
(20:31):
and this is always true. Ask Jay Guavera's corpse whether
this is true. As soon as the Marxists take charge,
the one thing they must have is stability, to the
point that they take away all of your rights. So you,
having been molded and trained as a destabilizer, are the
worst thing in the world for those who actually take power.
(20:52):
And so Lindsey's point was that these poor dopey kids,
especially the ones who are like really into it and
have a big online presence and are on the record,
if your brave revolution succeeds, you're going to be up
against the wall because it always happens, always, and you
lose if your brave revolution fails. Not only are as
(21:14):
you out there as a Jew hating Hamas supporter, but
you've passed on getting a real education. Your education has
been Marxist studies and gender studies and the rest of it.
So you have no equipment to function in the world
when your Marxist revolution fails.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
So either way, these kids lose.
Speaker 5 (21:35):
So Speaker of the House Mike Johnson went to Columbia today.
Why is the Speaker of the House going and giving
a speech at Columbia? Is that a common thing where
a Speaker of the House shows up to controversies and.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Gives a speech. I don't remember. It's not super common. No,
it's not, although I will tell you this. Johnson is
impressing me more and more. He's starting to remind me
of Harry Truman, and that he's kind of a quiet,
unassuming guy.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
But he keeps doing the right.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Thing anyway, So, you know, putting aside how common it is,
he saw some reason to go speak.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
He thought it was important. And let's let you hear
some of what he said. We'll start with eighty one. Michael.
Speaker 7 (22:12):
We are standing here right now on the steps of
the Low Library, in this very building right behind us.
Columbia University once awarded Winston Churchill in an honorary degree,
and it was Churchill who said, it is manifestly right
that Jews should have a national home where they may
be reunited. We believe in that principle, and today I'm
(22:33):
here to proclaim to all those who nash their teeth
and demand to wipe the state of Israel off the
map and attack our innocent Jewish students this simple truth.
Neither Israel nor these Jewish students on this campus will
ever stand alone.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
So he's being heckled and shouted at, which he addresses
in the next clip.
Speaker 7 (22:57):
Today Hamas issued an endorsement statement of the protest on
this campus. They call them the future leaders of America.
It is detestable. All of this has to be said
because the Cherish traditions of this university are being overtaken
right now by radical and extreme ideologies. They place a
target on the backs of Jewish students in the United States,
and here on this campus, a growing number of students
(23:19):
have chanted in support of terrorists. They have chased down
Jewish students, they have mocked them and reviled them. They
have shouted racialests. They have screamed that those who bear
the Star of davit enjoy your free speech. They've told
(23:41):
Jewish students to wear the Star of David to leave
the country. And shamefully, some professors and faculty have joined
the mobs. Things have gotten so out of control that
the schools canceled in person classes, and now they've come
up with this hybrid model where they will discriminate against
Jewish students. They are not allowed to come to class
anymore for fear of their lives, and it's detestable. Es
(24:02):
Colombia has allowed these lawless agitators and radicals to take over,
the virus of anti Semitism has spread across other campuses.
By some counts, as many as two hundred universities have
a similar form of protest right now.
Speaker 3 (24:15):
Wow, I didn't realize the number was that big. What
were they chanting?
Speaker 4 (24:19):
We can't hear you, which is supposedly funny because if
they chanted enough, nobody can hear him. So Johnson then
called on the Columbia president to resign if she can't
bring order the campus, and if she doesn't do that,
we'll end up with eighty five Michael.
Speaker 7 (24:32):
If this is not contained quickly, and if these threats
and intimidation are not stopped, there is an appropriate time
for the National Guard. We have to bring order to
these campuses. We cannot allow this to happen around the country.
We are better than this. We are better than this,
and I'll ask the president to do that, and I'll
tell them that very same thing.
Speaker 5 (24:47):
Yeah to what he said about some faculty members teachers
joining in the protests, it was either NYU or Colombia.
Did you see where the teachers locked arms to keep
the media from being able to get onto the campus
and report on the protests?
Speaker 3 (25:02):
Nice? Yeah, beautiful.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
So the comment Speaker Johnson made enjoy your free speech
was a good one. I wish he had elaborated a
little bit of all people Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe
decided to elaborate for him.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
This is pretty good. You have that, Michael eighty six.
Speaker 8 (25:24):
I bet you seventy five percent of Americans and close
to one hundred percent of parents with kids on college
campuses agree with the speaker. The line that Speaker Johnson
said that should have cut through that crowd was enjoy
your free speech.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Enjoy your freedom of speech.
Speaker 8 (25:45):
Get know, because you don't get that with Hamas.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
You never got that with AMAS.
Speaker 8 (25:49):
If you disagreed with AMAS, to take you to the
top of the building and push you off, or just
put a bullet in the back of your head.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Same thing with the Palestinian authority, same thing with most
of the the regimes in the Muslim world.
Speaker 5 (26:04):
How do they not know that? I completely understood when
this all started. The you're on the side of Palestine,
you're watching the evening news. You see all these people
starving in hospitals and all that sort of stuff, and
blah blah blah. You hear something about they were there
first and Injuril took the land. Okay, I get all that,
(26:25):
But how do you end up ever chanting we are Hamas?
Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (26:30):
It shows you how delusional people become when they're swept
up in an radical ideology. They've decided we're so right
and the other side is so wrong. We can exercise
the tools of oppression because we deserve to, but everything
will be fine once we get power, because we are
so wise and benevolent, which is just delusional. Only an
(26:53):
idiot or a college student could hold a notion like that.
One more comment or I want to get to this
is a professor at NYU. He happens to be a
Jewish Man. But that doesn't make it doesn't affect this argument.
This argument is one hundred percent ironclad, and every university
president in the country ought to answer what he is,
(27:15):
in effect asking Scott Galloway in seventy five.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
Michael, and I do think there is a double standard.
I walked by NYU last night. What I saw was
peaceful protests. But I can tell you if I went
into the NYU square with a white hood on and
said lynch the blacks or burn the gays, my idea
would be shut off by that night, and I would
never work in academia again. There would be no need
for the words context or nuance. I wouldn't be protected
(27:39):
by terms like First Amendent or free speech. I would
be out of the world of academia. It seems like
we have a double standard when it comes to hate speech.
As long as it's against Jews.
Speaker 5 (27:50):
I would say so, and you're right, everybody should have
to answer that. Basically questioned, So, why is that or
is that happening where you are?
Speaker 4 (27:58):
I mean the cafe on the face, that's the klan
hood a. I'm a militant, but I don't want you
to know who I am. And I'm chanting for the
death of a certain ethnic group.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
It's a clan meeting, it's a clan rally.
Speaker 4 (28:14):
Now it's under the guise of Israel's being too mean
and there are too many civilian deaths. I get that,
But there's always a pretext for a clan meeting or
a meeting of whatever ugly extreme historicans. They always have
an excuse. So don't get distracted by that. Just recognize
it for what it is.
Speaker 5 (28:36):
That is extraordinary. So you've got the uh, well, I
wish I had the slightest idea. How many of these
college kids who are chanting the we are Hamas sort
of stuff, know what they're talking about. How many of
them are like the girls we heard at the very
beginning of this, who don't even know why they're there,
but all their friends are there and it looks like
a party. It's basically what's going on with them. And
(28:59):
then you got the very very top as we've been
talking about for days, flat out Marxists who are utilizing
all these people to try to get that going right.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
And you've got organizations based in the Middle East funded
by the Qataris, your Students for Justice in Palestine, the WOL,
which stands for within our lifetime will wipe out Israel
and take over the land that's what they're referring to.
All sorts of Middle Eastern groups are funding and organizing
this stuff too. I mean, this is not a bunch
of innocent college kids running this. They are being used
(29:32):
by the powerful, So they are the expendable foot soldiers
like I was describing Mao's Red Guards.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
So well, first of all, do you think we're still
in that this is growing stage?
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Depends what you mean on college campuses. Yeah, yes, so
I think so too. And it's almost may.
Speaker 5 (29:56):
Hey, all you administrators, you better figure this out fast
or you ain't having graduation.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
It just ain't. You ain't gonna be able to pull
it off. If you think you are.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
These disruptors would love nothing more because that's a big
giant splashy parents here way to get attention. You better
get him. Get your head around this, figure out how
to deal with it. You ain't gonna be able to
pull off your graduations. That's gonna get a lot of
that's gonna get crazy.
Speaker 4 (30:23):
I think it was the president of the USC University
of Southern California who sent out a note to all
the students saying, hey, graduation is important. You gotta be cool,
you gotta be polite there so he can celebrate everybody's
graduation like Hamas and the various Katari groups or whatever.
Like they give a crap about comportment and good manners.
(30:44):
Good lord, how naive or you they think they're up
against some kids who just got a little enthusiastic Good lord,
this is going to be interesting to work through. A
great column by Daniel Henninger I wrote read that the
how to revolt has finally begun. More and more Americans
are becoming aware of the insanity the neo Marxists and
(31:05):
the d I crowd and the Black Lives Matter crowd,
and how they're not anything close to what they're pretending
to be. More on that to come. Uh, it's not
the beginning of the end, it's the end of the beginning, oofs.
Is a fight that we will be engaged in for
a long time.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
If you have insight on this text line four nine
five kftc.
Speaker 8 (31:31):
Donald Trump still thinks windmills cross cancer.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
That's what he said.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
By the way, I remember who was trying to deal
with COVID, So just subject a little bleach in your veins.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
He missed it all went to his hair.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
I should have.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
Said, man, where we are with our discourses. Not good,
just not good.
Speaker 5 (32:09):
Anyway, here's the old man yesterday, with a not particularly
good moment, reading off the teleprompter.
Speaker 8 (32:15):
Folks, imagine what we can do next four more years?
Speaker 5 (32:23):
Yes, he said, four more years?
Speaker 3 (32:31):
Pause? Well, and what's really weird is he said, and
again pause.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
And he and he read it slow enough that you'd
have thought you could have caught it.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
Of course, if your brain worked it would you would
have been right. Yeah, exactly, he ain't gonna live four
more years. That's the thing.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
I am willing to take a wager of any size,
any odds you bring it, bring me that action, I
will take it. If the question is, will Joe Biden
serve out four years if elected. He doesn't get elected,
everybody gets their money back, that's fine, but if he does,
I'm gonna have your money.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
I couldn't get that action. Can you imagine what you'd
have to pay?
Speaker 4 (33:17):
What the odds would have to be at a casino
or whatever? Please Kamala, good God.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
My parents would listen every day, and they were listening yesterday,
and they sent me an email. They particularly liked my
story that so we watched the Simpsons episode last night
in which the Simpsons killed off a longtime character is
a character. I'm a huge Simpsons fan, and I don't
even remember the dude. I guess he sat at the
bar regularly over the years, but I never noticed.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
And really never had any lines. Right, No, he died.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
On the show anyway. So I mentioned Henry, a character
dies on the Simpsons. He said, is it Lisa? No,
he said, I was hoping that at Lisa. I said,
how come? He said, because it's a liberal Wow, my
twelve year old said, which my parents thought was hilarrious.
She's kind of funny. But man, the Simpsons isn't unwatchable,
the new Ones. And not to review the Simpsons, just
(34:13):
that so much of the media you take in has
got so much of a political angle to you, and.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
Just it's so hard to ah the song, the movie,
the TV show that just ah. Can I get away
from it for a second? Ah? Quit ah?
Speaker 5 (34:27):
Oh yeah, the number eight I went to over the weekend.
Can I get away from it?
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Ah?
Speaker 1 (34:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:33):
I guess it's unfair, given that we make a living
doing this and convent everything that we want. But the
idea that you as a songwriter, banjo player, or actor
or parade marcher or trombonus or whatever you do.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
You really need.
Speaker 4 (34:50):
To throw some politics in there. No, not really, athlete, No,
don't please, don't.
Speaker 3 (35:00):
Needs in a lot. My allergies are going wild.
Speaker 5 (35:02):
I would think at some point the national audience is
going to demand a break from all this.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
But maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. I didn't live
through the sixties. Maybe it lasts a really long time.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
Those of us who would live through the nine to
eleven e remember that the summer before that happened, everybody
was talking about shark attacks.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
It was ridiculous. We were ignoring the gathering storm.
Speaker 4 (35:22):
I think I know the analogous thing going on right now,
really Armstrong and Getty
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Shoe Getty Armstrong and Getty show,
we have.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
A big case that in the Supreme Court of Presidential Immunity,
a president has to have immunity.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.
Donald J.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
There addressing the question that will be before the Supreme
Court today in a case that I think is just
going to be crazy interesting. Is it within the outer
limits of the presidential duties?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
That's the whole question.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
That's kind of one of the questions. Well shouted sir,
thank you. So the perimeter, what what the outer perimeter?
Speaker 3 (00:49):
That's it, isn't it. It's the is it within the
outer perimeter? That's the whole question. That's that's redundant.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
As a wordsmith, I object to the phrase outer perimeter
as if there can be an inner perimeter.
Speaker 5 (01:04):
So we won't get a ruling till June. But this
is a big deal for all presidents. This is something
that should have been ruled on a long long time
ago and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court
for presidents going forward. So it's not just Donald Trump
that's on the line here, though the media will treat
it like it's all about Donald Trump and Trump's court
(01:27):
outrageous MAGA controlled court.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Is going to rule in his favor or not that
sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
Right, Yeah, I'm not one hundred percent sure we've made
clear what's happening here. But the question before the court
is can the president be prosecuted for acts he commits
as president at all or sometimes or just once in
a while. Now, in this case, you got old Jack
Smith targeting the president for conspiracies that culminated and converged
(01:55):
on January sixth, seeking to prevent Congress from certifying Joe
Biden's victory. And we could go into the details of it,
but that's not really the important part. Relitigating that is
not what the Supreme Court's going to be doing. As
Jack pointed out, and this is an absolutely key point,
although it will be completely ignored by the media, is
this is an incredibly interesting and important question because you
(02:18):
could go back everybody from Barack Obama to George W
to every president has ever served, and without even being
a great historian or lawyer, you could come up with
something that they did that could be actionable as a
criminal charge.
Speaker 5 (02:32):
The Wall Street Journal went through a list. Abraham Lincoln
suspended habeas corpus. No one suggested Lincoln be prosecuted for
false imprisonment, false arrest, are kidnapping like you could.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Harry S.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
Truman seized domestic steel plants during the Korean War, and
it was suggested that that was a conspiracy to commit
an offense against the United States, the exact charge that
Jack Smith is charging Donald Trump with. But that didn't
happen because they believed he had immunity. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush,
Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all unilaterally ordered military actions
(03:04):
as commander in chief.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
Nobody suggested they be well, not nobody.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Some people did, but it didn't actually get off the ground.
The idea of them being prosecuted for murder, torture, war crimes,
misappropriation of government resources, et cetera, or even with judges,
because this would apply in that situation. Also if of
a number of judges make a ruling on something, then
(03:30):
years later somebody decides a different court decides no, that's
completely unconstitutional. Can you go back and charge the judges
with something is on the line, According to the Wall
Street Journal.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Wow, that is interesting.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
So Trump's team wants sweeping absolute immunity for any act
as president.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
You could shoot Aaron Burr.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Well, yeah, exactly. The examples that have been given. Oh,
that's before I want to get to that. I think
the Obama killing an American citizen via drone is a
perfect test case. I mean that is I mean, you
don't have to be well acquainted with constitutional law or
criminal law or anything to understand whoa that's controversial because
you can't like drone somebody and kill them just because
(04:15):
you think they're a criminal. You gotta let them surrender.
You got to try to arrest them. You don't just
kill them.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
Yeah, particularly that case because it was a sixteen year
old American citizen, right, that's right, that was the son
of the guy who is going for because they were together, right,
So anyway, that's a pretty clear opportunity to prosecute there.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
But anyway, so Trump's team is calling for sweeping immunity anything,
and as Jack indicated, you could, you know, show up
to your opponent's stump speech and shoot him in the
belly under the Trump lawyer's doctrine, which seems crazy or
send the Navy seals to obliterate the Democratic National Headquarters.
That sort of thing seems like a bit of a
(04:57):
stretch to me. Let's see the the Smith's team wants
a very very very restrictive idea of immunity. And it's
a heck of an interesting question, and I hope the
justices actually take it on, because they might not. They
might kick it back to the prior court. But Jonathan
(05:18):
Turley has some interesting thoughts on this. We'll let him
have the floor for a moment.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Sixty two.
Speaker 6 (05:23):
First, Michael, and what's often been discussed in the media
is how extreme the Trump team's arguments are, bringing up
Seal Team six and things like that. But the justices
may be equally concerned about the extreme nature of the
lower court decision that it leaves a president without protection.
So they've got cliffs on both sides. Either they go
(05:45):
over one side and a president has no protections at all,
or you go over the other side and a president's
total protections. It could do most anything. There's a good
chance that some of these justices are going to want
a third option, something more nuanced to where a president
has some protection.
Speaker 5 (06:02):
Yeah, the idea that the president could only do things
within the outer perimeter of their duties. For instance, shooting
your opponent would not be within your presidential duties, so
clearly out of bounds. Droning a terrorist within the presidential duties,
so you have immunity for that, but that will always
be a gray area where you know you'll have to
(06:27):
any one of those things could end up in a court.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Right.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, it would be easy to argue virtually every aspect
of this, which would be an endless segment of the show,
which we're not going to do. But I could see,
you know, you could. Centrality to your duties as president
was the term. One great legal thinker I read months
ago was writing about this. I wish I'd kept it around,
but the article he wrote, but if it's if it's
as you were saying, central to your duties as president,
(06:54):
then there's got to be sweeping immunity for it. But gosh,
I don't know. You're the manner in chiefs right there
in the constitution. You're fighting the Russians, God forbid, along
the front with NATO, and you decide, you know, America
needs better and fresher cheeses. We're going to invade Belgium
while we're there, we need just to confiscate their delicious cheese.
(07:17):
We need better fresher Jesus just trying to come up
with it an example on the hoof there, and I
didn't do terribly well, but anyway, eternally, yeah, well doing
the going against what I said myself the opposite, making
it just about Trump. So the question would be did
(07:37):
his speech rabble rousing there by the capital that led
to the insurrection? Was that within the outer perimeter of presidential.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Duties or not? That's one of the questions.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Yeah, I think they've got a really weak case there
the speech. I just think the speech is way way
too defensible on First Amendment grounds. But anyway, one more
clipate turly than I have. What's really the baffo comment
on this? Sixty three Michael.
Speaker 6 (08:06):
Let's say that the court wants a third option, something
more nuanced. This is, after all, an incrementalist court. They
tend to try to take small steps, not great leaps.
If that's the case, the most obvious thing for them
to do would be to remand it back to the
district court to say, we need you to look at
more carefully at this record and what here is really
(08:28):
related to his office. What you know, where do these
questions fall. If they do that, I don't think that
they could try the president.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Before the election.
Speaker 6 (08:38):
And if they don't try the president before the election,
Jack Smith may never see a jury in either of
these cases.
Speaker 5 (08:46):
Right, Yeah, So that's interesting. So the Wall Street Journal
editorial board. Their suggestion was the Supreme Court should draw
a line and extend absolute criminal immunity to actions within
the outer perimeter of the presidential duties. Then lower courts
would decide on individual actions whether they fell outside that
perimeter or inside the perimeter. And Turtally's saying, well, that's
(09:08):
what he's recommending. But if they do that then and
then they rule in June, Okay, So then you're saying, okay,
now another court needs to decide whether or not what
Trump did is inside or outside the perimeter. Well, that
can't happen before the election. There's just no way, h correct.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
Yeah, So two more comments, not trying to argue one
side of this or the other, because again, I think
it's a complicated and nuanced question.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Number one. I was thinking about this earlier today.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
One of the most consequential acts by a president in
my lifetime was when President Ford pardoned President Nixon, and
there was absolutely nobody that I can recall making the
argument that, no, that was unnecessary because Nixon had absolute
immunity for everything he did in the office. I don't
(09:58):
remember anybody arguing that other than Nixon when he said,
you know, it's not illegal if the president does it,
which was a roundly who did at like universally, who
did at both at the time and later. And the
fact that Nixon accepted that pardon, now that might have
just been you know, prudent, But I don't recall anybody
(10:19):
ever questioning whether it was necessary that he'd be pardoned.
So that's there. Secondly, speaking of the Wall Street Journal,
they wrote that anybody, Yeah, and so that's interesting. I've
never I've never heard that even come up either.
Speaker 5 (10:35):
God, and I've taken in a gazillion hours of reading
and watching Watergate stuff, I don't remember anybody ever making
the argument that was within his presidential duties.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
I didn't, I didn't. I mean, he was making that argument.
But yes, so then why the pardon? Okay, yeah, yeah,
well I'm here all week. I'm happy to please have
you to do a surf so they write in The
Wall Street Journal, a trial judge in the January sixth
case and the DC Court of Appeals blew through the precedent,
and it's another case I'll bore you with the details
(11:04):
dealing with presidential immunity as if it didn't exist. The
three judge circuit panel also wrote its opinion is if
mister Trump is Swede, generis a unique threat to democracy,
and thus no other former president would ever be charged
with the crime. Which my comment is, that's an incredibly
naive view of the current politics. The Wall Street Journal
agrees this ignores the reality of our current politics. Four
(11:27):
Democratic prosecutors have decided to charge mister Trump three on
criminal charges. In doing so, they have.
Speaker 4 (11:33):
Unleashed partisan furies that future prosecutors will exploit. If Democrats
think President Biden won't be at least investigated for crimes
by GOP prosecutors after he leaves office, they aren't paying attention.
I don't think he'll be alive. You'll have the same
defense Lincoln had. What are you trying before? I'm dead?
But yeah, this will this sort of law fair will
(11:55):
never ever end going after former president unless something is
done in the courts.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Fall on to this road lies madness.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
Sure enough, Professor Turley, sure words have never been spake.
Speaker 5 (12:11):
That Harry Truman example they give in the Wall Street
Journal is a good one. And then all the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden,
all of them with the unilateral drone strikes and stuff
like that. It is amazing how much power we give
the president currently on that. Practically anywhere in the world,
you can just take somebody out because you're until you started,
(12:32):
you're the intelligence you've got, which you're not going to
share with us.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Says it was a good idea. And don't get me
started on FDR.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
A guy subverted the Constitution with his morning coffee like
every day.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
So well, we'll see it'll be interesting. Joe Getty beating
up on a handicapped guy.
Speaker 5 (12:49):
Wow, wow, you ought to be a college professor, speaking
of which, we got to talk about that among other
things on the way. Yeah, yet another behind the scenes
at NPR story for you a little bit later.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
That's amazing and not surprising. At the same time.
Speaker 5 (13:15):
This Americans check their phones one hundred and forty four
times a day, according to a study.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
That sounds low to me. That might be higher. I'm
trying so hard not to be a phone junkie.
Speaker 5 (13:27):
I'm miss specially, Yeah, I'm especially trying to catch myself
when I'm not scrolling for purpose. I don't mind looking
through news headlines for my job or to see what's
going on in the world or whatever, actually reading, but
when it slips into not for purpose, it's just killing time.
And it's so easy to slip into that. I'm really
(13:48):
trying to stop that. Fubbing is what I'm really paying
attention to. Phone snubbing. If I'm with.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
Somebody and I have that urge to look at my
phone or whatever, because it happens all the time, folks.
We all do it, and we all have it done
to us, and it doesn't feel good.
Speaker 5 (14:01):
No, it feels I'm pretty good at that because I
hate it so much when other people do it to me.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
It's just it's just it's painful. It's painful.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
My kids are now old enough with their watches, got
my my my teenagers just constantly trying to have a
conversation looking at his what because he got a text?
And we all know doesn't matter what you're talking about
and how important the relationship is with who you're talking about.
If you got a text from some random person about
nothing important that takes precedence. Weird, we got we all
(14:32):
got to get over that consumer alert The FBI warns
of a tech scam targeting toll road users across multiple states.
I've gotten several from toll road stuff that I've been
on my uh fast track is what we have in
the Bay Area that I wondered, what I don't even
think i've been then might be fake. I'm glad I
(14:52):
didn't click on it. I could have very easily clicked
on it, because they they text me, I get I
opted in for text updates from me. But there's a
bunch of the those scams going around because they know
you click on them, and so I guess stop. And
then this, which I wouldn't have known unless the Wall
Street Journal told me.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
We all know.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
Title inflation has been a thing. Like wherever you work,
everybody's a vice president, right, You got like ten vice
presidents in the building. The new one is senior, the
senior jobs that require little or no experience. There are
many senior jobs out there. And maybe if you're younger,
you should know this so you don't get fooled into
thinking something big just happened for you, or maybe if
(15:33):
you're just dealing with a business and you've you've been
I'll give you a Jim. He's a senior something or
doesn't necessarily mean it, and Jim shows up, Hi.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
How can I help you with your problem? Right?
Speaker 5 (15:43):
Many senior positions require a year or less of experience.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
The Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
Searched entry level openings on a job board, a national
job board and got more than eight thousand results for
senior job opening that are entry level openings. So it's
h one earthy outher you're too senior if it's an
entry level job.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Yeah, I saw that.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
And they also get into the concept of what's being
called the dry promotion, where you are advanced from senior
sales associate to senior vice president of sales associates and
get no raise.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
I had that happen to me. I think many people
have had that happen to them.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Once you very quickly realize, wait a second, I seem
to be I have way more responsibilities, I'm way more
stressed out, but I'm not going getting more money. So
what just happened?
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Well, you use it as a resume builder planning on
moving on, but any company who does that thinking, Hey,
we gave them a fake promotion with a fancy sounding
title to keep them around.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
No, you're doing the opposite.
Speaker 5 (16:55):
I'm senior administrator in terms of talking on the radio
right now.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Jack arms Strong, congratulations, it's very impressive.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
We got a lot of craziness going on campus still,
tons of people rested in Texas they're trying to figure
out how to deal with USC and a bunch of
colleges all across the country. We got to check in
on that story, among other things.
Speaker 4 (17:15):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
I say, is the main goal with tonight's protest?
Speaker 7 (17:21):
I think the goal is just showing our support for
Palestine and demanding that NYU shops.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
I honestly don't know all what NYU's doing.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Is there something that NYU's doing.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
I really don't know.
Speaker 6 (17:30):
I'm pretty sure there.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Do you know what ny is doing out.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
Where?
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Protesting here? I guess that was more educated. I wish
I was more educated. I thought that was hilarious.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
So that's on one of the most you know, the
hottest campuses in the country right now. And you got
cops and fights and DOV disruption and all these different
sort of things, and you interview two girls, and one
says it's something with Israel. I don't know. I know,
since she turns her friend, well, what is NYD doing
with Israel? And she said, I don't know. We should
probably be more educated on this. So how many of
(18:06):
the protesters are that, Well, I can just to fill
you in a little bit, you're standing here in support
of one of the most evil organizations on Earth.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Hamas is what you're doing.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
So you might want to think that over they would
kill you or certainly not allow you to live the
life you're living now, where you get to have an
education and a job and blah blah and then not
be raped in all those sorts of things. And if
you're gay, God help you, they would murder you.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
Right right, a point we'll be making coming up in
a couple of minutes with more detail. But if this
were twenty years ago, I would just be amused because
so much of the marching and chanting on campus is
a mile wide and an inch deep. These people a
don't know what they're talking about. And I don't believe
those girls we just heard her are unique at all
(18:53):
and be just the whole Look at me, I'm a
brave campus revolutionary I'm going for a Marxist future. That
were so far few of those people. It was just
it was pathetic more than it was anything else. But now,
having been in doctrinaid, we've had a couple of generations
of American kids indoctrinated and in this stuff, starting in kindergarten.
Now I think they actually have the bulk to be
(19:15):
fairly dangerous to the institutions of our country. And so
as funny as it is and satisfying it is to
hear those two little twits, I'm afraid that were past
the point of it being purely funny. Having said that,
I was reminded of, you know, a principle you know,
(19:36):
if you study revolutions, radical politics, and that sort of thing.
The great James Lindsay reminded me the other day that
in revolutions the same thing always happens. Like the Red
Guards in China, they're in cultural revolution. That's the militant
young people that now they don't send out to root
(19:59):
out the intellectuals and the bargeoisie and the counter revolutionaries,
drag him into the streets, beat them down, have their
struggle sessions, make them disabout moved everybody to the collective.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Farms the rest of it.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
That went on for two years, and then the Red
Guards were all put in re education camps, concentration camps,
or killed. Why because they were trained, They were molded
as young people, as disruptors of the status quo. They're rebels,
they're breakers of things. And once the Marxists get in charge,
(20:31):
and this is always true. Ask Jay Guavera's corpse whether
this is true. As soon as the Marxists take charge,
the one thing they must have is stability, to the
point that they take away all of your rights. So you,
having been molded and trained as a destabilizer, are the
worst thing in the world for those who actually take power.
(20:52):
And so Lindsey's point was that these poor dopey kids,
especially the ones who are like really into it and
have a big online presence and are on the record,
if your brave revolution succeeds, you're going to be up
against the wall because it always happens, always, and you
lose if your brave revolution fails. Not only are as
(21:14):
you out there as a Jew hating Hamas supporter, but
you've passed on getting a real education. Your education has
been Marxist studies and gender studies and the rest of it.
So you have no equipment to function in the world
when your Marxist revolution fails.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
So either way, these kids lose.
Speaker 5 (21:35):
So Speaker of the House Mike Johnson went to Columbia today.
Why is the Speaker of the House going and giving
a speech at Columbia? Is that a common thing where
a Speaker of the House shows up to controversies and.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Gives a speech. I don't remember. It's not super common. No,
it's not, although I will tell you this. Johnson is
impressing me more and more. He's starting to remind me
of Harry Truman, and that he's kind of a quiet,
unassuming guy.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
But he keeps doing the right.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Thing anyway, So, you know, putting aside how common it is,
he saw some reason to go speak.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
He thought it was important. And let's let you hear
some of what he said. We'll start with eighty one. Michael.
Speaker 7 (22:12):
We are standing here right now on the steps of
the Low Library, in this very building right behind us.
Columbia University once awarded Winston Churchill in an honorary degree,
and it was Churchill who said, it is manifestly right
that Jews should have a national home where they may
be reunited. We believe in that principle, and today I'm
(22:33):
here to proclaim to all those who nash their teeth
and demand to wipe the state of Israel off the
map and attack our innocent Jewish students this simple truth.
Neither Israel nor these Jewish students on this campus will
ever stand alone.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
So he's being heckled and shouted at, which he addresses
in the next clip.
Speaker 7 (22:57):
Today Hamas issued an endorsement statement of the protest on
this campus. They call them the future leaders of America.
It is detestable. All of this has to be said
because the Cherish traditions of this university are being overtaken
right now by radical and extreme ideologies. They place a
target on the backs of Jewish students in the United States,
and here on this campus, a growing number of students
(23:19):
have chanted in support of terrorists. They have chased down
Jewish students, they have mocked them and reviled them. They
have shouted racialests. They have screamed that those who bear
the Star of davit enjoy your free speech. They've told
(23:41):
Jewish students to wear the Star of David to leave
the country. And shamefully, some professors and faculty have joined
the mobs. Things have gotten so out of control that
the schools canceled in person classes, and now they've come
up with this hybrid model where they will discriminate against
Jewish students. They are not allowed to come to class
anymore for fear of their lives, and it's detestable. Es
(24:02):
Colombia has allowed these lawless agitators and radicals to take over,
the virus of anti Semitism has spread across other campuses.
By some counts, as many as two hundred universities have
a similar form of protest right now.
Speaker 3 (24:15):
Wow, I didn't realize the number was that big. What
were they chanting?
Speaker 4 (24:19):
We can't hear you, which is supposedly funny because if
they chanted enough, nobody can hear him. So Johnson then
called on the Columbia president to resign if she can't
bring order the campus, and if she doesn't do that,
we'll end up with eighty five Michael.
Speaker 7 (24:32):
If this is not contained quickly, and if these threats
and intimidation are not stopped, there is an appropriate time
for the National Guard. We have to bring order to
these campuses. We cannot allow this to happen around the country.
We are better than this. We are better than this,
and I'll ask the president to do that, and I'll
tell them that very same thing.
Speaker 5 (24:47):
Yeah to what he said about some faculty members teachers
joining in the protests, it was either NYU or Colombia.
Did you see where the teachers locked arms to keep
the media from being able to get onto the campus
and report on the protests?
Speaker 3 (25:02):
Nice? Yeah, beautiful.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
So the comment Speaker Johnson made enjoy your free speech
was a good one. I wish he had elaborated a
little bit of all people Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe
decided to elaborate for him.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
This is pretty good. You have that, Michael eighty six.
Speaker 8 (25:24):
I bet you seventy five percent of Americans and close
to one hundred percent of parents with kids on college
campuses agree with the speaker. The line that Speaker Johnson
said that should have cut through that crowd was enjoy
your free speech.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Enjoy your freedom of speech.
Speaker 8 (25:45):
Get know, because you don't get that with Hamas.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
You never got that with AMAS.
Speaker 8 (25:49):
If you disagreed with AMAS, to take you to the
top of the building and push you off, or just
put a bullet in the back of your head.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Same thing with the Palestinian authority, same thing with most
of the the regimes in the Muslim world.
Speaker 5 (26:04):
How do they not know that? I completely understood when
this all started. The you're on the side of Palestine,
you're watching the evening news. You see all these people
starving in hospitals and all that sort of stuff, and
blah blah blah. You hear something about they were there
first and Injuril took the land. Okay, I get all that,
(26:25):
But how do you end up ever chanting we are Hamas?
Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (26:30):
It shows you how delusional people become when they're swept
up in an radical ideology. They've decided we're so right
and the other side is so wrong. We can exercise
the tools of oppression because we deserve to, but everything
will be fine once we get power, because we are
so wise and benevolent, which is just delusional. Only an
(26:53):
idiot or a college student could hold a notion like that.
One more comment or I want to get to this
is a professor at NYU. He happens to be a
Jewish Man. But that doesn't make it doesn't affect this argument.
This argument is one hundred percent ironclad, and every university
president in the country ought to answer what he is,
(27:15):
in effect asking Scott Galloway in seventy five.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
Michael, and I do think there is a double standard.
I walked by NYU last night. What I saw was
peaceful protests. But I can tell you if I went
into the NYU square with a white hood on and
said lynch the blacks or burn the gays, my idea
would be shut off by that night, and I would
never work in academia again. There would be no need
for the words context or nuance. I wouldn't be protected
(27:39):
by terms like First Amendent or free speech. I would
be out of the world of academia. It seems like
we have a double standard when it comes to hate speech.
As long as it's against Jews.
Speaker 5 (27:50):
I would say so, and you're right, everybody should have
to answer that. Basically questioned, So, why is that or
is that happening where you are?
Speaker 4 (27:58):
I mean the cafe on the face, that's the klan
hood a. I'm a militant, but I don't want you
to know who I am. And I'm chanting for the
death of a certain ethnic group.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
It's a clan meeting, it's a clan rally.
Speaker 4 (28:14):
Now it's under the guise of Israel's being too mean
and there are too many civilian deaths. I get that,
But there's always a pretext for a clan meeting or
a meeting of whatever ugly extreme historicans. They always have
an excuse. So don't get distracted by that. Just recognize
it for what it is.
Speaker 5 (28:36):
That is extraordinary. So you've got the uh, well, I
wish I had the slightest idea. How many of these
college kids who are chanting the we are Hamas sort
of stuff, know what they're talking about. How many of
them are like the girls we heard at the very
beginning of this, who don't even know why they're there,
but all their friends are there and it looks like
a party. It's basically what's going on with them. And
(28:59):
then you got the very very top as we've been
talking about for days, flat out Marxists who are utilizing
all these people to try to get that going right.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
And you've got organizations based in the Middle East funded
by the Qataris, your Students for Justice in Palestine, the WOL,
which stands for within our lifetime will wipe out Israel
and take over the land that's what they're referring to.
All sorts of Middle Eastern groups are funding and organizing
this stuff too. I mean, this is not a bunch
of innocent college kids running this. They are being used
(29:32):
by the powerful, So they are the expendable foot soldiers
like I was describing Mao's Red Guards.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
So well, first of all, do you think we're still
in that this is growing stage?
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Depends what you mean on college campuses. Yeah, yes, so
I think so too. And it's almost may.
Speaker 5 (29:56):
Hey, all you administrators, you better figure this out fast
or you ain't having graduation.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
It just ain't. You ain't gonna be able to pull
it off. If you think you are.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
These disruptors would love nothing more because that's a big
giant splashy parents here way to get attention. You better
get him. Get your head around this, figure out how
to deal with it. You ain't gonna be able to
pull off your graduations. That's gonna get a lot of
that's gonna get crazy.
Speaker 4 (30:23):
I think it was the president of the USC University
of Southern California who sent out a note to all
the students saying, hey, graduation is important. You gotta be cool,
you gotta be polite there so he can celebrate everybody's
graduation like Hamas and the various Katari groups or whatever.
Like they give a crap about comportment and good manners.
(30:44):
Good lord, how naive or you they think they're up
against some kids who just got a little enthusiastic Good lord,
this is going to be interesting to work through. A
great column by Daniel Henninger I wrote read that the
how to revolt has finally begun. More and more Americans
are becoming aware of the insanity the neo Marxists and
(31:05):
the d I crowd and the Black Lives Matter crowd,
and how they're not anything close to what they're pretending
to be. More on that to come. Uh, it's not
the beginning of the end, it's the end of the beginning, oofs.
Is a fight that we will be engaged in for
a long time.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
If you have insight on this text line four nine
five kftc.
Speaker 8 (31:31):
Donald Trump still thinks windmills cross cancer.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
That's what he said.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
By the way, I remember who was trying to deal
with COVID, So just subject a little bleach in your veins.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
He missed it all went to his hair.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
I should have.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
Said, man, where we are with our discourses. Not good,
just not good.
Speaker 5 (32:09):
Anyway, here's the old man yesterday, with a not particularly
good moment, reading off the teleprompter.
Speaker 8 (32:15):
Folks, imagine what we can do next four more years?
Speaker 5 (32:23):
Yes, he said, four more years?
Speaker 3 (32:31):
Pause? Well, and what's really weird is he said, and
again pause.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
And he and he read it slow enough that you'd
have thought you could have caught it.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
Of course, if your brain worked it would you would
have been right. Yeah, exactly, he ain't gonna live four
more years. That's the thing.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
I am willing to take a wager of any size,
any odds you bring it, bring me that action, I
will take it. If the question is, will Joe Biden
serve out four years if elected. He doesn't get elected,
everybody gets their money back, that's fine, but if he does,
I'm gonna have your money.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
I couldn't get that action. Can you imagine what you'd
have to pay?
Speaker 4 (33:17):
What the odds would have to be at a casino
or whatever? Please Kamala, good God.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
My parents would listen every day, and they were listening yesterday,
and they sent me an email. They particularly liked my
story that so we watched the Simpsons episode last night
in which the Simpsons killed off a longtime character is
a character. I'm a huge Simpsons fan, and I don't
even remember the dude. I guess he sat at the
bar regularly over the years, but I never noticed.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
And really never had any lines. Right, No, he died.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
On the show anyway. So I mentioned Henry, a character
dies on the Simpsons. He said, is it Lisa? No,
he said, I was hoping that at Lisa. I said,
how come? He said, because it's a liberal Wow, my
twelve year old said, which my parents thought was hilarrious.
She's kind of funny. But man, the Simpsons isn't unwatchable,
the new Ones. And not to review the Simpsons, just
(34:13):
that so much of the media you take in has
got so much of a political angle to you, and.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
Just it's so hard to ah the song, the movie,
the TV show that just ah. Can I get away
from it for a second? Ah? Quit ah?
Speaker 5 (34:27):
Oh yeah, the number eight I went to over the weekend.
Can I get away from it?
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Ah?
Speaker 1 (34:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:33):
I guess it's unfair, given that we make a living
doing this and convent everything that we want. But the
idea that you as a songwriter, banjo player, or actor
or parade marcher or trombonus or whatever you do.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
You really need.
Speaker 4 (34:50):
To throw some politics in there. No, not really, athlete, No,
don't please, don't.
Speaker 3 (35:00):
Needs in a lot. My allergies are going wild.
Speaker 5 (35:02):
I would think at some point the national audience is
going to demand a break from all this.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
But maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. I didn't live
through the sixties. Maybe it lasts a really long time.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
Those of us who would live through the nine to
eleven e remember that the summer before that happened, everybody
was talking about shark attacks.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
It was ridiculous. We were ignoring the gathering storm.
Speaker 4 (35:22):
I think I know the analogous thing going on right now,
really 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.