Well Whiskey coming thing money.
From power Line blog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot Com. This is the Three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John You and power Lines International Woman of Mystery Lucretia Cat.
You gotta give me let that whiskey bloon where you're being in love down hellon. Welcome everybody to what will soon be part of the very best of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour series. Because we are steveless, Steveless at last. You may remember, dear dear listeners, that I got on this podcast because Steve Hayward went on some drinking tour of Scotland and Ireland, and in his absence, I elbowed my way in and tell, let me tell it's not
easy to elbow way your way past. Steve Hayward by elbowed my way in and took his seat on the podcast, and they have been unable to get me out ever since. I'm like a tick on a dog. I'm never giving up this co hosting job. This is John You and I am joined as always by the International Woman of Mystery, Woman of Mystery Lucretia, and we are without Steve Hayward, who is off gallivanting. I think Iceland or Greenlander somewhere. So what's a just a head.
He's a float and starlink has failed him. He's on the ocean and starlink has failed him. I'm a little disappointed with Elon Musk, but it does mean that we get to have an entire podcast John without any lame or inapt inapt historical analogies because analogy man is not here.
And no name dropping, right, no name dropping.
Now it's funny how you can do it because you know, you know a lot more important people than Steve does. He'd never admit it, but there's you have a way of doing it without it sounding like you're being a pretentious name dropper. I hope Steve's listening because I hate to talk behind his back.
Oh no, we remember we rely on Steve actually to produce the show and post.
Oh there's that.
Oh well, we have a great show today, a lot of I mean, gosh, every week it seems like more and more happens. So let's start with the latest in the law Fair campaigns. Today, this is Friday, were recording Judge Wan mar Shaan in New York City, just announced that he was going to delay the sentencing of Donald
Trump from in September. It was just to be about a week and a half from now, from then until November twenty six, and he said in explaining his decision that he didn't want people to get the impression that the court was making any decisions with an eye to the political consequences or the effects on the race, and so therefore he decided to push sentencing off to November.
Not completely related, but in this general vein. Also Hunter Biden, out of nowhere yesterday decided to pleat guilty, And not only did he plead guilty, but he played guilty with no plea, no deal from the Justice Department. He just wanted to avoid a trial. Which they leaves me with the question to ask you, lupretia, what is going on with the law fair campaign against President Trump? What's the larger meaning of all this.
Let's talk about Hunter for a moment. I'm a little surprised that even the appearance of their corruption was enough egg on their face for the prosecutors to stand as firm as they did. But they did, and they stood firm. Remember that Hunt, excuse me, Hunter actually pled an Alfred plea, I'd let you explain that to our listeners, but that just means you plead guilty, but I'm really innocent kind
of thing. And the prosecutors wouldn't accept even that because and so they had to go out for three hours and they came back and then they read for ninety minutes, I'm told, the fifty six page indictment that included a whole lot of stuff about where Hunter got his money, which quite by the way, the judge not necessarily said was relevant to the case, but they read it anyway, making Abby Lowell very angry about everything. I'm sorry, sorry
about that. I thought it was off. And so then Hunter just came back and said, okay, I plead guilty to all of it. After to each one of the counts. How many counts was it seven or nine? Seven?
A lot? Three were felony counts. That's the ones that matter. The three were felony counts with jail time attached.
And he could get a million dollar fine in seventeen years in jail on this one. Is that right?
I think yeah, if you add it all up, it's definitely more than ten years. Although you would think he wouldn't get it, but you never know.
You never know. So there's my first question before we go back to Trump. Do we does Hunter's conviction in the tax for tax fraud case, that is, pleading guilty to the tax failure to file his income tax and failure to pay his income tax. Does that go back to the lying about being a drug addict on the weapons form conviction. Everyone says it could have. I think it's a twenty five year up to twenty five years in prison, but he wouldn't get it because it, you know,
first time offender and so on. Does either judge add those two things together to look at sentencing? So he wasn't a convicted felon in the first case, now he's a convicted felon in the second case. I mean prior, I'm saying prior. Does either judge look at the fact that he's been convicted now of two separate in two separate felony trials to say he's really not a first time offender. Does that make sense?
Yeah? No, I believe what you're asking about is extremely important because under the sentence so the there's a system called the sentencing guidelines which control all sentencing for federal crimes, and if it's your first time offense you are, you are more leniently sentenced than if you are already a convicted felon, which has long been the practice in throughout the country. And this is a familiar practice in most
states too, I would think. And so all right, if you think about the famous California three strikes and you're out, that's just a tough version of if you're a former felon, you'd get sentenced to longer rather than your first time. And so I believe the way it would work is that the and this is why I think part of the reason Hunter was going to trial in LA is that he was convicted first in Delaware of the firearms charge.
He might get no jail time for that, who knows, but he would definitely get jail time in LA because by the time he gets to LA, he is now a convicted felt and so I don't think it counts in Delaware, but he counts in LA, and so he should. I you know, I was on a show yesterday right when this was coming out, and I was like, this is crazy, because you know, Hunter basically just wasted everybody's time right by deciding to plead guilty with no deal.
I mean, he could have done that. He would have been better off months and months ago trying to get a plea bargain. But now he's opened himself up to going to jail. I can't imagine he won't have to
serve a jail sentence. One, and the second point is I think he's doing it on the assumption he's going to get a pardon or a commutation of his sentence from his father, because otherwise where if he really doesn't want to serve jail time, then he should go to trial, right Like, I don't understand what changed, right, The only thing that changed was that his father withdrew from the presidential election, And so I could read that in Hunter's
camp as, oh, well, now that he's not a candidate anymore, he doesn't have to keep that promise about not pardoning his son.
Who's going to be He says he's going to, But he's broken a lot of promises before. If the judge had really wanted to put it to Hunter, he could have made the sentencing date in January. And then you know that you have to wonder. Scarcey, the judge in the case, didn't seem to be totally uh uh biased and against Hunter in any way, he seemed to be mostly fair.
I guess he was just going by the book as far as I could tell.
Right, But he could have actually made January rather than December the date. What what determines how long out judges actually set sentencing? Why do that? Why did they not sentence at the same time? What's what's the reason?
Like in the movies, Like in the movies, verdict and then you're here. You are sent as a hang by the neck until dead or whatever dead And those were the good old days. So the thing is then you you wait often for a report. Right, there's a probation office. They make a recommendation the plank to the prosecution, and the defendant make their own recommendations to the judge about what the sentence should be. The sentencing could be its
own little mini trial. The worst examples of this are death penalty cases where the Supreme Court has said, you must have a second proceeding to go into you know, whether the killer was you know, subject to abuse as a child, and that.
So mitigating circumstances.
Oh my gosh, you know all the words. I'm sorry to hear that, Yeah, you have new bottance was called mitigating versus aggravating fact aggravating Yep, souh that that could that that's why you don't have sentencing anymore right away like you see in the old days. You have this almost like this second procedure. Uh. So you'll you'll see more arguing about and that'll be another sign about whether Hunter expects to be pardoned, because they really push hard
for a lower sentence. Maybe they don't think he's gonna get a pardon. If they're like, ah, we don't care, just like this trial going and say I don't care enough. I'm not even asking for a deal. I'm just gonna plead guilty. I mean, I can't even remember the last time I saw something that like that. That seems to me, the sort of capricious nature of it seems to me to suggest, oh, Hunter thinks he's getting a pardon or he's going to get a commuted something.
So maybe we look at this like that scene in Godfather. We always like to bring Godfather back into this when we're discussing the corrupt nature of our legal system.
Maybe apparently Nancy Pelosi's favorite movie.
I have no comment the scene where they convince the guy that they'll take care of his family for the rest of his life if he doesn't testify, and he you know, he slits his hands, he slits his wrists in the bathtub. Maybe Hunter has been promised something that isn't necessarily a pardon from his father or a pardon from Harris. I guess, I guess Kamala and ding Dong
says she's not going to but who knows. But maybe it just means that if he does go to jail for a short amount of time, it didn't bring all of the corruption of the Biden crime family out in the trial in public, which it could have done. And maybe you know that, since we know you even told me this, and I'm still shocked about it when I think about it, that you can divert ill gotten gains through your family members and almost always avoid any kind
of criminal liability for doing so. We know that the Biden Cried family has done that because we know they've got all these shell companies that have you know, they've they've funneled money off to grandchildren and so on. Maybe the deal is for Hunter from the DOJ is we won't go after that money if you plead guilty. And I don't know, I'm just speculating about why he would do this if his father's promising not to pardon him or commut a sentence.
Yeah. I mean, we'll always wonder what things are said to Biden and his family in the days leading up to his withdrawal from the race. And you wonder was there some kind of understanding that if he withdrew in favor of Harris that now this is actually where Steve would jump in because he was around for the Ford
administration apparently. But remember Ford actually was investigated by Congress because the Democratic Congress then accused Ford of making a deal to become president and exchange pardon Nixon and Ford. I think under oath said no, that wasn't true, and that was accepted. But there were some people who thought at the time that's what was going on with Nixon and Ford.
There are other people I might have believed that of even if they swore under oath that they didn't. But you know, all else being equal, Ford Ford acted pretty admirably in the whole thing he did that he said that our national nightmare is over. You know, his speech about it was was compelling. In my view, I have
a hard time. I see Abby Lowell, I see even Hunter himself pretending that they have been equally concerned not only about their family, but about you the damage it will do to the country if all of this has aired out. Yeah, give me a break. And then, of course, on top of that, where some political had an article this morning, it just made me want to scream saying that, you know, poor Joe the only thing, the real reason
that he dropped out of the race. It wasn't because he's senile, and it wasn't because his polls were dropping. It was because he thought maybe this would end the unfair persecution of his son Hunter.
Unfair persecution by his own justice department.
By his own Justice department. Yeah, I know, I know, but oh man. Anyway, So speaking of that, so our friend merch On did what I said, by the way, and you guys laughed at me, and you said, Andy McCarthy says he's going to sentence Trump too, But he didn't.
Yeah, didn't sentence Trump.
Or he's delayed the sentencing of Trump until.
What is it, November twenty six?
November twenty six, so the day before the two days before Thanksgiving Thanksgiving week, and that's after the election, so that's significant. Why do you suppose that happened? Why do you suppose that even though let me actually before I
ask you that, let me throw something at you. A couple of us were speculating earlier in the week that the smart thing for merch On to do, given everything you guys said about why he will sentence Trump, would have been to levy a big fine against him then he could and I'm a little surprised he didn't do that. So let's say he'd levied a huge fine against Trump but didn't have any jail time. Said, look, this is
how it would be done in any other case. Because the defendant doesn't have a criminal history, so big fine. He's then convicted, everybody can say he's a convicted felon, and then the items on appeal have to work out later that I'm very surprised he didn't do that, and I have my reasons, but I think you probably understand better than me. Why do you suppose Murchon didn't decide to sentence him next week?
I think this shows I think, first of all, I think it is the right decision, but it shows how political this judge was the whole time, because in the letter he sent to the parties, he says something like, I don't want I am going to delay the sentencing till after the election, because I don't want people to think that the decisions of this court have been politically motivated. Well, by doing this, you're showing that you're paying attention to
the election calendar. And then the question is, if you are going to delay the sentencing because you're worried about the effect on the election, why aren't you making decisions about all the other things that you have to do and push the trial until after the election. He rushed the trial to get to a verdict before the election, and he's refusing to obey the Supreme Court's immunity decision, which I think requires a new trial. Well, and so
he should decide that now. But he's going to, I think, decide that after the election too, which I think he's going to get reversed on appeal on the merits eventually. I think he knows that. But right he got what he wanted. They got the conviction so that you can call Trump a fellon. So at the same time, he's not going to d cause the Megabase to go crazy by sentencing Trump to jail.
I heard, don't know if it's true that he included in the letter because I haven't had a chance to read it, that he was also having to look at how he could square the actual trial that happened with
the Supreme Court's decision. And the most egregious example is the testimony of our friend Hope Hicks, who of course was testifying about things that happened officially during the during twenty seventeen, during the Reagan during the Trump presidency, and so he would have to be able even to pass sentencing.
My understanding is he would have to be able to show how it is that the evidence intro used that balls under the Supreme Court's immunity opinion did not color the jury's decisions decision about all the counts in the case, and that he was actually asking for extra time to be able to do that.
Well first exactly right about the legal issue. That's why I think the case will eventually be reversed, the verdict will be reversed, the scheduling. I do not understand why he needs more time. He's had since the end of June, right, so it's been three months already. What is taking so long? And all you got to do is read the damn opinion, you know, Like, unless he's like reading one word today, I mean, it doesn't take too long to figure out that you have to hold a new trial here, as
you as you said, lucreeship. The Supreme Court immunity decision, it almost reached out to smack Judge Merksham, but not by name, when it said, not only do you get immunity as a president from prosecution for your official acts as president, but those official acts and statements you make can't be used as evidence against you in a prosecution
for your non official activities. The only case going right now that that's about that is the merchan case and Mershon you allowed in evidence from as you said, Hope Picks. He allowed in evidence describing what Trump was saying and doing in the oval office as president. The Supreme Court case directly says you can't use this evidence in a trial.
I don't see how Merchon can allow the verdict to stand now, I mean, unless he just wants to provoke another constitutional crisis and have this case, his own case go all the way to the Supreme Court and force the Supreme Court to reverse him in order a new trial, and maybe that's what he wants to do, but he's just going to drag it, You drag the whole country through more months and months of this because he's being pig added.
So is he being pigheaded because he's worried about his reputation amongst the left or is he just himself so invested in getting Trump that he doesn't really care about the political the political ramifications of his decision from the point of view of, you know, the larger politics of it. He just he doesn't care. He wants to get Trump
no matter what. Or has he been doing most of this all the time in the same way Bragg has just to please the left and knowing that they could get away with whatever they wanted as long as it pleased the left, at least in New York.
I don't know. I don't know. And you know, one thing is will learn when the sentences date comes around. Which of these two. Neither account is a good one. But think about what happens if Trump wins. If Trump wins, then is Merchank going to sentence the pre guy was going to become president of jail? Right that's going to evoke a huge constitutional crisis between the federal government and
the states. What if Trump loses? If Trump loses, is Marshank, what's he still has to decide whether you right to vacate the Dury verdict and order a new trial. So I think, well, which I think would? I don't think the left will care as much at that point because Harris will be president and they'll be so over your tongue, by your tongue.
Okay, one more question for you about the Bragg case before we go onto the chuck Kin disaster. Chuck Kin, right, that's her name. I can never truck him to commit it to memory. So Bragg's state case against Trump involved misdemeanors that had uh the statute of limitations had expired. The way he was able to bring this case was to bring in a felony of election interference, right am? I am? I right? So far? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Even though they the jury didn't technically find that Trump had actually violated that, I forget it was all these dumb and jury instructions and all that other stuff. But my point is if he was charging Trump with those misdemeanors to get but could do so only because he was ultimately charging him with the felony that he was convicted under. Or maybe I don't even have that right.
Why can't Trump pardon himself if ultimately it was a federal violation and not a state violation, or do I have it wrong?
No, So the reason he couldn't pardon is because, actually this is because of the One of the other constitutional defects of this case, which we talked about before, was that, as you said, the state criminal process acution escaped the statute limitations by pretending that Trump had committed the accounting shenanigans to cover up some other crime that in New York law that elevates accounting mistakes, accounting not mistakes, counting
misrepresentations into a felony when it's usually just a misdemeanor, which is just a fine. Misdemeanor means no jail time. But they didn't have a felony. So what the felony they had to The other law they said that was broken that had to be covered up was federal election law. The first problem.
Yeah, convicted under that law.
No, he was never investigating. I mean, they are the Justice Apartment and the FEC are the federal agencies in charge of that the federal election laws, and they did not charge Trump with anything relating to this. You know, the gossip out of the Southern District of New York was that, which is the US Attorney's office that would hand the case, is that they interviewed Michael Cohen and they thought he was an unreliable witness and they couldn't go to court based on a case that was you know,
basically came all out of Michael Cohen. So I think you're righty, So you can't. Trump can't pardon himself of the federal election crime because there was no crime charged or prosecuted and convicted. He can't pardon himself of the New York prosecution because the pardon power does not extend to state crimes. It only applies to federal crimes.
So I should have established that at first.
But this is you can see, like this is the very narrow path that Bragg and Mershawn are trying to right walk in order to escape all the legal problems
that this prosecution has. And so one thing about the immunity thing, even if Mershan goes ahead and denies the force of the Supreme Court's immunity decision, and even if he goes ahead and sentences Trump to jail, Trump still has that argument to make that the whole prosecution was based on unconstitutional arrogation of the power to prosecute federal law. Why this, you know, Bozo local day.
Okay again, it's amazing. The whole thing's amazing. Uh. And to give breg some credit, the confusion, because I've read it a thousand times, I still can't explain it. I need you to explain it for me correctly. The confusion of that whole tangled mass has allowed the argument to be made that, you know, Trump's just guilty, He's guilty of sleeping with a porn star. And that's the the the you know, the the public narrative that comes out
of it. Refuting it with the actual facts of the of the case, the facts of the charges is nearly impossible for just ninety nine point nine percent of the people, those not named John You. I mean, honestly, I don't know that brag was clever enough to have thought through that part of it. But the outcome is clearly the case that you know, I try to remember how it all worked together and even I can't do it, and I have a little bit more experience with the law
than the average person. I do want to go on for just a moment to the to the reindictment of Trump under Jacksmith's case. Give me some give me your your higher thoughts, your analysis thoughts, not necessarily the legal part of the case, but what you think about that from having been a former member of the Justice Department. What exactly Jack Smith is trying to do here?
I mean this is this is a embarrassing for the Justice Department because they are just daring the Supreme Court to smack them down. Again. If you read the new indictment, it's almost as if they looked only to the letter of what the Court said and ignored the spirit of what the Court has been telling them. The Court clearly wants the prosecution to end, and they gave several examples
of reasons why the prosecution was flawed. And so what jack Smith did is he basically just took like a black magic marker and just crossed out exactly those examples that the court provided without thinking more broadly about why the Court reached It went out of its way to smack down the prosecution. So that's you know, it's just that's embarrassing for the Jets Department to be treated that way, and then for it to respond in this way, which I think is just going to invite more losses for
them in the courts. And then the other thing, the Barter point is that this just shows the whole lawfare effort by the Democrats, Remember, was an effort to try to drive Trump off the November ballot deprive the people of their right to make their own judgment about Trump and sort decide the election, you know, have it funneled through into the courthouse rather than the ballot box. Was a complete failure. I mean, I think it cost Trump
some political points. But on the other hand, I think you could make a plausible case that all these prosecutions won him the primary. And now you're seeing the cases are all collapsing and this is yet another example. And then one last point is I think it also shows that Biden is not in charge because any you know, theoretically Jack Smith works for President Biden and Attorney General
Merrick Garland. They got to know that this whole thing has been a disaster, and yet they're still letting Jack Smith run on as if nothing had happened in the Supreme Court immunity case. Smith is walking around like, oh, we're still going to bring saying basically the same prosecution.
Yeah, I I do. I think that the point I
want to there's a lot, there's so much there. But the one point I want to bring up immediately is when you say that you don't think Biden's in charge, I, I honestly do think that there are those at the top of the Justice Department, Ray and Garland and so forth that really are, regardless of the legal side of things, desperate to keep Trump out because I don't think Trump is going to be quite as scorched earth about it as you and I would probably advise him to be,
and as I think he should be. But they have every reason to worry that he might be. And if we I mean, just looking at this nonsense for the last couple of days about uh implying that that the Russians who spent ten million dollars, you know, you just want to do this one million dollars. You know, in this Campaignia.
Lucretia does a wonderful imitation from the Austin Powers of the villain in Austin powers and that was Undy.
I mean seriously, ten million dollars, okay, And how much is being spent in this election cycle this time? I can't even you know, we're told Kamala ding Dong, Kamalama ding Dong's raised three hundred and sixty million in this last quarter for her campaign. That doesn't include any kind of outside spending as well. Anyway, ten million dollars spent by Russia, and the whole implication, of course, is that it's being spent to make sure that that Trump wins
and Harris loses. Crazy idea to begin with, right, But they don't talk about Iran's attempt to manipulate our elections. They don't talk about China's attempt to manipulate our elections. Mister Lucretia of the opinion that this is actually not as much about election interference, although it is, it's more about yet another pretext for the government to censor what's happening on social media by closing down accounts and whatnot. Anyway, do they think that Americans are going to be fooled
into Russia Russia Russia hoax again? And what are they thinking to come out with?
You I'm so this is so embarrassing for the Department that they think it's a good idea. I mean, after their last experience with Russian elections, you think they would keep their head low and just take whatever measures are necessary to deter anybody, not just Russia, but China and Iran, who are equally malevolent actors. Here and right, he quiet about it in public, and I wonder if.
This came out because you're the host, I shouldn't move us to the next subject. But the next subject that we were going to discuss was a state of the race. You and I disagreed three four weeks ago that about whether or not Kam Lama ding Dong's support was really as great as it was being made out to be.
I don't know who's right. She might have had that moment momentary, joy and vibe and all of those wonderful things on her side, but the polls are clearly showing the momentum moving in a different direction.
Can I, yeah, please, Can I throw in some poll numbers to ask you your interpretation. So, just looking at the real Clear Politics averages, it has Harris up forty eight point three percent to forty six and a half so Harris one point eight. In the battleground states, Harris is up by point two percent, forty seven point seven
to forty seven point five. But the real clear politics betting odds have Trump up fifty point eight percent to Harris forty seven point seven percent, which means I assume that's what when people bet these sums about prediction, you know,
these prediction markets, that's how they're predicting them. So I, Lucas, do you think that we've now reached the steady state of the race, that there's not going to be any significant changes, That all that really happened maybe was that Harris made up the ground that Biden lost after his disastrous debate performance, but that we're just back to where we were before.
To some extent. So that one. Let me give you the most radical tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and that's that they consistently use the polls that are tweaked to show Harris doing well to create a p text for why she wins when they cheat. Okay, we don't have to go into that, but I just want to put it out there for all of my listeners who believe the same thing. What we do know by the way, and
this is not a conspiracy stuff. What we know is that traditionally, even when Trump lost in twenty twenty, the polls under undervalued his support by anywhere from from four to eight percent in really critical places. I don't remember what the difference is between the popular vote, but it's it's a little bit less than that. But in battleground states and so on, or even places that he won, you know, he won by a lot more than the
polls had predicted. So a lot of people are saying, if you look at a national poll, that Harris poll that says she Harris is one point eight percent up, Okay, that probably means Trump's winning by read a five points. And so I think that the whole thing about Russian Russian interference in our elections was yet another desperate, desperate attempt by our current Justice Department big wigs, not the whole thing to try and change the momentum in the
race again, change the where everybody's paying attention to. You know, they've been paying attention to. You mentioned it yourself, We're going to tax unrealized gains. When we had our podcast about that, what was it maybe two months ago, we weren't even thinking about Harris speculating about making that part
of her campaign promises. We were talking about the Supreme Court cases, I recall, and you guys had to explain to me how this concept of taxing unrealized gains actually works in our in our tax system, and that you can actually if you tax unrealized gains, you can tax you can claim unrealized losses, but at a much lower level.
Right anyway, proving it's a hard problem.
It is a hard problem. Why would you do that? And then an interesting thing, let me this is a total aside, John, but I interested what you think. So the people who attempted to justify what Harris was proposing. The idea of taxing unrealized gains is no different than a property tax in the sense that when the value of your house goes up, they will increase your property taxes to follow that value. But the value is unrealized
unless you sell the house. Correct is the analogy? App Let me ask that first.
Yeah, so it is equivalent to a property tax, because you think of the property tax is a tax on the value of your house now, and so that is the idea behind the warrant and propose which Harris you know, has endorsed back then. Doesn't sound like she does now, but you.
Never know, U changed.
Yeah, you know her ideas like, well, you can uh tax the value of your assets stocks and bonds or houses, property, even though you haven't bought or sold anything. It's just based on what we think the value of it now is. Right, here's another just make one point about the capital gains issue, is that before you even get to this, you know, can you tax people's wealth and property? Right? Uh? You know, Trump and Harris have both made have both delivered these competing speeches about the economy.
Uh.
Yesterday, I actually happened to be on Fox Outnumbered while Trump was speaking, and which was kind of it was cool to be on the show because it's, you know, for beautiful Fox women hosts and one guy and the guy sits in the middle, and they kind of gave ahead of time. I'd never been on this show, and so I was like looking so for an hour, but
half of the hour got preempted by Trump talking. But let me tell listeners, by the way, even though I was on the show with these four great Fox hosts, four Fox hosts do not want Lucretia May.
Let's see you watched the episode and I was texting you that I was listening to you on Falkner. You didn't tell me you were going to be on it right afterwards. I would have found a way to watch it at work.
But then it wouldn't have mattered because Trump preempted half the show by.
It doesn't matter watched the other half.
But here's the here's the key thing. There's a huge difference in how they approach the question of capital gains taxes. So Trump basically said I want to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. They're going to expire no matter who's president next year. But then this is interesting. Harris went out and said, I'm going to cut capital gains taxes for the top, you know, for the innovators and the entrepreneurs,
right and not increased capital gains tax to forty four percent. Now, that actually isn't the capital gains tax right now, that is actually what Biden wants it to be. The capital gains tax is twenty three I think it's twenty three something percent. She still wants to raise it to, you know, twenty eight percent or more. And one point that I read that was made, which was really interesting to me. I had toite forgotten. This just shows how the you know,
our context has changed. That would be the highest capital gains tax rates since before Reagan was president. Like this really is dragging us back to the economic policies of the nineteen seventies. So even though you know, we've got these you know, these sort of polls out and people are complaining that we're not having enough of a substance of pol discussion, we really did have some very clear differences come out this week about Texas and their attitude to the economy.
Okay, it's a start again. I don't know that, but do you think that's enough.
I don't think it's to make any difference in the polls.
But we do have a debate coming up, and uh, you know, the the it's been pretty funny listening to people who don't like Kamalama ding Dong make fun of her demands because you know, the whole we we talked about this when Biden and Trump debated. The Trump campaign asked for certain certain rules to be enforced, which everybody thought, uh, you know, this was going to help Biden, and they
actually ended up helping Trump. You know, the mute and microphones and then you know this and that because it kept him, Yeah, it kept him him uh focused, and it kept him a little bit more uh new, serious and a little bit less just a kind of thing about Trump that some people don't like. Right, So, yeah, he was disciplined. That's a good way to put it. Kamalama ding Dong doesn't want him to be disciplined because she wants him to take out after him so that
she can say, I'm speaking, I'm speaking. And you know, there are people at her young girls at a rally wearing at a rallies wearing t shirts that say, I'm speaking seriously, it's absolue, I'm speaking, I'm speaking. Yeah, that's I guess. I guess if you're a want to be feminist that you're Oh, look, the patriarchy isn't isn't keeping me from talking?
Isn't Isn't that a weird? What do you think about this? Isn't that a weird? Strategy is to say, you know, I'm I'm a woman prosecutor, I'm tough, I'm equal of a man. I don't even need to raise that. I'm
the first would be the first woman president issue. But then the tactic at the debate is to try to lure your male rival into saying something so that you can claim that you are mistreated and vulnerable and right like that, like they want him to cross some kind of line and they can say complain about it that he was being ungentlemanly.
I guess right, And that might have worked a little bit with Pence because Pence cares about those things, but Trump doesn't really, you know, and I don't think Trump's supporters do. I don't think Trump's supporter's mind a bit if he if he talks over Kamla Harrison says you're lying when she is, or something like that. But it'll be interesting to see how it is. Supposedly she's spending a week doing nothing but debate prep because word.
For Biden too. Yeah, remember Biden also will spend like a week preparing for the debate.
I think he spent a week preparing and sleeping. In the case of kamalameding Dong, I think maybe they're trying to get her sober over the week. But you know, so they're looking for zing's they're looking for her to do well. It's hard for me to say what's gonna happen because even on the in the unscripted moments lately, when she's been so controlled in every aspect. What the little tiny things she says when she's speaking off the cup,
cut off the cuff are just stupid. They're word solid, nonsensical. I don't know, but I do think that'll be something of a game changer. I think people will probably watch. I guess there's something funny going on that ABC has a dispute with DirecTV, and millions and millions of Americans if they want to watch the debate won't be able to do so because they're Direct TV's not broadcasting ABC. Right now, there's all this fun stuff going on. I
can't even keep up with it. I can't, But I do believe that Trump is on the ascendancy and will probably remain that way unless something changes in the debate, because you know, they're trying desperately to make it seem as if Trump and Vance are weird. And the more stuff that comes out about Walts, some more stuff that doesn't come out about Kamalama ding Dong because she has no policy views that she's willing to defend. I think voters are starting to get tired of it. Only but
you know, it doesn't matter. Voters who matters are those, in my opinion, not terribly bright people in the middle who for whatever reason can't make up their minds. I mean, how can you not make up your minds at this point? Which vision of America you want to see? Right?
Yeah? How much more information do you need? Well, let me ask you, Lucretia, about something that maybe isn't getting as much attention as it should, which is a state of the Senate races, because that's another important difference. And let me run some of these by you. So it looks like the Republican candidate in West Virginia is going to win handily. I don't think anyone's even considering that
a contest. But we still have several interesting contests which are much closer than you would think if you were just reading CNN or the New York Times. So we've got pulling out about the state of the race in Montana it's very close, Ohio also very close, Pennsylvania much closer than seems to be reported. And then the state where you're sitting right now, Arizona, apparently is much closer than is being reported. So what do you think or what do you what do you? What do you think's
going on? Why are these Senate races now not just we'll put differently, the Senate race races look very favorable for Republicans right now.
They do.
They are closing the gap. Even if they didn't win any of these other states. Senate control should shift because of West Virginia flipping.
But yes, because right now it's forty nine. Yeah, it's forty nine safe seats or not out for grabs for Republicans.
And they will get West Virginia. So all they gotta do is win one of these other states and they'll firm up a majority. What's happening? Why the shift and last few days towards these all these Republican candidates and the race is getting much closer.
I think there's a couple of things going on. I think Trump being I mean, Trump went to campaign, as I think we talked about a previous one in Montana. He'll win Montana handily, but he went there to campaign for Shihi. And he's in those places where Trump is popular but the Democrat was winning or it's a Democrat incumbent. Those places are the places that you're seeing Trump move excuse me the Republican candidate move up. Remember Trump lost
Arizona last time by eleven thousand votes. No comment, But right now he's the poll say he's approximately five points ahead in Arizona. Carrie Lake, who's running for the Senate against Ruman Gago, is in the latest poll, the latest poll only three points behind, whereas last week Fox newshead are like ten points behind. Trump has been there campaigning with carry Lake beside him every single time. He's been here a couple times lately. I do think that Trump
is gonna have some coattails. I really do. Now, it's gonna be tough in some places where you're gonna have voters who are gonna split their ticket on purpose. That does happen sometimes it's hard. I can't even understand that one. But I'd vote for Trump, but I want to make sure that the Democrats hold him accountable. Who makes that kind of decision, but supposedly some people do. Anyway, If
if Trump wins Arizona, he's at fifty. If Trump wins Arizona and Montana, I shouldn't say Republicans are at fifty fifty one if they win in Ohio and Sharad Brown, I have to bring this up. I told John I was going to do it. So, you know, the joke always going around about how Democrats are are very good at getting dead people out to vote on their behalf. Now, how do you say, is it Shared or Sharad.
Bared Brown?
Yeah? Okay, Shared Brown have been being accused by the Federal Election Commission, incredibly accused of accepting donations from a woman who's been dead since December of twenty twenty three. And so the Democrats weren' content just with getting dead people to vote. Now they're going to have dead people who are donating money as well. Actually, I want to stop there for just a second, go off on a tangent.
After kam Lamma ding Dong was handed coronated as the Democratic nominee by Biden, or however it really happened, you know, supposedly once she went spoke at Biden headquarters. That was her first rally that she went up, and that the Biden campaign, excuse me, the Harris campaign raised some god awful amount in forty eight hours, more money than had ever been raised in such a short amount of time in the history of ever. But then there were allegations
that that really wasn't quite the whole story. I do think that amount of money was raised, but that it was in fact raised by some shenanigans whereby money was basically laundered through small time donors. Did you see any anything about that, John.
I didn't see that, but I'm not surprised that happened.
Yeah, and I guess there's all.
Election finances basically an exercise and money.
Launcher in money laundering.
True enough.
But anyway, so the Democrats will do what they need to do to raise the money. Whether money will be enough, I think there's no doubt that even though Trump's doing pretty well on the fundraising, Kam Lama ding Dong will outraise him and outspend him. I don't know if that always matters all that much. I mean, if you think about Obama winning in two thousand and eight, he outspent McCain by what seven times something like that? Seven times? Yeah, enormous amount of money.
And Hilary Hillary outspent Trump, right, I mean, Trump barely had any money in twenty sixteen, right, And.
So I'm I'm feeling a little bit more optimistic all the time. Missouri is obviously going you know, there's no doubt that Holly's gonna win, I don't think. But you've also got in your state. What about your friend Casey, He's considered a toss up. I mean Casey's you look.
At the real clear Yeah, you look at the real clear politics average, it's only plus three Casey. And he's a long time incumbent. And not just that, but his father was a very popular governor of the state. I mean he was the Casey of planned parenthood versus Casey. He was one of the last, maybe the last prominent pro life Democrat politician in the country. And so for Casey to be only three points ahead, he's going to be running scared.
Yes, And Bernie Marino, right, that's who's running against Casey, Bernie marine.
No, the guy running against Casey is a Pennsylvania native who then his name is McCormick, who then went.
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, who had against.
One of the big Yeah. He ran against Oz lost by just a few hundred votes. And you know he's it raged guy. I mean, he's very six. Well, he was in the army, then he became the head of one of the biggest hedge funds in New York, came back home to run for Senate. The accusation that Casey's flinging at him is that, you know, he's a corporate
vulture who's really an out of towner. But Casey, I mean, can anyone name anything Casey's done or stood for a Senator kenn He's just living off his dad's political name here in Pennsylvania. So that's a very strong potential pick up. McCormick's running a very good race here, I think in Pennsylvania.
Yeah, And I mean there's depending on how much you trust the polls, we could see an absolute red wave. I honestly believe that, and that has to be scaring them more than anything else. The idea, I mean, remember, I think that whatever else is the case, that if the powers that be in the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi and so on, went there and said, look down ballot, you've got to get out down, Democrats are more likely to,
you know, to take a blood bath hahaha here. And it looks like that might happen anyway, because I don't think kam Lam ding Dong has any coattails whatsoever. How could she. She hasn't done any of the work necessary to build any of those relationships, those networks and so on. She just has to rely upon the Democratic Party apparatus.
Right, It's hard to see candidates and places like Montana or even Pennsylvania running for Senate trying to hitch their wagon tour. If anything, they'd want to distance themselves so far. But you know, we're running out of time, unfortunately. So let me raise one last issue that extends our discussion of prudence from last episode. We listeners, I don't know how you sat through the whole thing, but we went deep,
deep dive into the idea of prudence. And one thing we did is we sparked a letter from Hadley Arcis two letters. I'm sorry too, that's right. There was a first letter and then there was a follow up letter responding to Lucretia specifically. And let me, I want to give Lucretia the opportunity to respond to Hadley, because that's what Hadley mostly commented on, was about Lucretia's comments because he thought me not worthy, not really worthy of discussion,
given my defensive utilitarianism. I don't blame Hadley, but Hadley, if I could put it briefly, and I'm only summarizing what he wrote, to Steve and Lucretia, but he basically took them to task for their view that what Trump might be doing. And this is Trump saying that he would let the states decide the abortion issue. This is a response to Vance saying that Trump would veto a
national ban on abortion front that would come out of Congress. So, if you remember listeners, Lucretia made the argument that Trump was acting prudently because this isn't even though Trump may bee pro life, in the end, he has to act within the political context as it is to keep moving towards that goal that you can't win one hundred percent all at once. You have to take steps that you can get now and then eventually, over time persuade the
American people to change their own views to yours. Hadley took that seemed quite sensible to me, actually, and I thought we had no disagreement about that, no matter how we thought about prudence. That just seems like the right political way to go. And Lucretia invoked Lincoln for you know, as another example of someone who carried this out. Had They said, however, in his letter, and I don't mean it, but any words in his mouth, I'm just trying to
fairly summarize. We said it was that this was inact comparison to Lincoln, that this was not prudent, because he said, Trump is making a serious mistake. This is not prudence, saying that the right way to achieve a pro life goal was to make these kinds of compromises, but that this was some kind of there's a moral disaster actually
that you're conceding. I think, have those saying that you're conceding on the moral correctness of the pro life view, and then therefore it's a mistake to compromise on the abortion issue, just like he would say, you couldn't. Lincoln could never have compromised on whether an African American was an equal human being entitled to the same natural rights that all of us have. So, Lucretia, what's your response to Hadlee? What is your what is your view? Has he caused you to change what you were?
I honestly think that because this is a complicated, a complicated argument, set of arguments that we made more complicated by bringing in what we you know, what you and I actually thought might help us understand the issue better.
Talking about Churchill talking about those sorts of things, Yeah, got us away from my central point, and my central point was way back to the original tweets back and forth between Seth Dylan from Babylon B and me where he actually was the one who invoked Lincoln and said Trump can't take the position, he cannot do that. How can we vote for somebody call him pro life when he takes a position that it is up to the
states to decide if they want abortion or not. And that was what caused me to come back and say, that's exactly what Lincoln did, and you know, to talk about the prudential decisions that Lincoln made than when we had our discussion about it last week. Again we went off in a lot of different things, ended up what
I thought was a very interesting discussion about prudence. But my argument from to Seth Dillon and the one that I was going to try to carry out a little bit further in our podcast last week, was that the voters would be imprudent if they were pro life, strong pro life, life begins at conception, pro life voters that if they were to fail to support Trump, that could mean a lot of things, not vote for Trump, not support him, not praise him for the pro life steps,
he has taken all the way to voting for Kamala Harris instead. Now I don't know that Seth Dylan was ever advocating for the latter option. But my point is that a pro life voter has no choice whatsoever but to vote for Trump because the opposite, and this is what I said to Hadley, the opposite would be very much like had Lincoln not one in eighteen sixty, what
might have happened with the question of slavery. Would we have had a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision which Lincoln said, we were well on our way toward, much like Roe versus Wade, where slavery became legal in all the states and all the territories. That was essentially the direction that dred Scott put us in. So my comparison was the radical abolitionists were not happy with Lincoln
because he was not advocating radical abolitionism. They were unhappy Frederick Douglas others were unhappy that m.
Lloyd Darson said terrible about Lincoln.
Yes, yes, but if you're a voter choosing between in a binary a life, you choose this versus that, that's the prudential thing. To do is to vote for Trump. I also think Harry, excuse me, Hadley called me to task for not fully appreciating all of the faults of Trump's supposedly pro abortion argument, the moral deficiencies of his understanding of the case against abortion and the case for an unborn child from the moment of conception being a
human being. I did agree with everything he said there, but it was beside the point as far as I'm concerned. You know, Trump, he said, didn't adequately fight against the partial birth abortion legislation here or there. It did this, it did that, I said, Hadley, you're the one who said the place to start is to come out against
partial birth abortion. Why because most most Americans, most Americans, except the just really vile sort of human beings like at planned parenthood, believe that a baby born alive in a botched abortion should be should be given, should be considered a life right, whether whatever you think about it before that five weeks, fifteen weeks at conception. To have a baby in a bodged abortion be born alive and left there to die is I mean, it's cruel, it's gruesome.
There's no words to describe it. Had they got me for not going far enough, because the actual issue at hand was not partial birth abortion. It was a baby born alive and left to die. Okay, All of those things to me are points you bring in the political argument to move hearts and minds against abortion, and that's I think that if I'm a pro life voter and that is the most important issue for me, I vote for Trump. But I also helped Trump to understand that because of he got my vote, he can take a
more pro life stance. I think in some ways that's what Lincoln was able to do. Over time, he changed public opinion, and as public opinion changed, he moved more and more in the direction of being able to get eventually to the point of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. And we'll go into the thirteenth Minument because it takes us
really far afield. But that was my argument and the difference, the real only difference between you and me, John was talking about the ends versus the means and how we characterize the means. Right. Is that not a fair thing.
That you're because I was trying to say that the ends and means are not linked, and you were saying they were.
And I guess I would say that a cost benefit I'm going to put it in the stargus terms possible. A cost benefit analysis would say, what's the most effective that you put all the adjectives in you want, like least costly, et cetera, et cetera, means to get to this particular end, and whatever that end is, we should do the smart thing to get there. The difference between
that and prudence. If I could be oversimplified one more time and get I got as many negative comments, by the way as you did that time, John, I really did.
Well, there's a first for everything.
And positive ones for you. That's a second flare with your loyally way of looking at things that I was in my trunk tied blind but really quickly. If let me do do this as an example, if Trump really wanted to win in order to advance the pro life cause, the thing to do would be to have to send the National Guard out to blow up all the planned parenthoods, and then you'd be done with that part of it and you could move on. Right, they'd stop being able to spend money. Why would that not be prudent?
That's that's true.
I would, But I mean, there's a couple of reasons. One would be it might my backfire, but the other would be it would be wrong. Right.
So that's so that's a different argument I took you to make. So last time I took you to make the argument that prudence really only applies to people who have just goals in mind. So that like it would so just you know, put sorry, Like it's not possible for the Soviets to act prudently during the Cold War because they just have evil motives in the end, or evil's wrong, unjust, unjust.
Okay, So there's an opening for me because I actually saw the Ragged movie.
Ah, I haven't seen it yet.
I haven't been to a movie. People talk about not having been to a movie pre COVID. I have not been to a movie at the theater in probably ten years because I hate going to the theaters. And I'm reminded again why I hate so much going to the theaters. And we're going to that. But the movie does an interesting thing with Gorbachev and actually shows how Gorbachev has
different motivations. He's still pro Mother Russia, pro Soviet, all those other things, but you see that because he had some notion of justice however tweaked or perverted or whatever you might say. It was he could talk to Reagan where the other people couldn't, and Reagan could talk to him. And so I do think that you want to say it's the people I believe have a just end in mind, That's not it. But it is someone who is seeking
a just end. And most people that seek a just end are wrong about it, a little bit wrong, a lot wrong. But to seek justice and then to seek the means that get you there, that's what I would call prudence, as opposed to simply seeking an end and whatever means get you there. Does that fair? I mean you may not agree with that, I understand.
I understand no, and I understand your point. I just I think then that's why I was saying, you need to it would be worth having a fuller discussion of what prudence is because to me, it seems you could have someone who you disagree with, but they could act prudently to achieve their own goals, and you would say no. So I would say, could a pro choice person act prudently? I think you would say no, not possible.
I think I could say yes because what I what I said before their view of justice is in fact, in at least some of them. Some of the people who are pro choice, I think, have been duped into believing that somehow a woman's choice to do what she wants to do with her own body is somehow some great an end, and they could they could have prudential means of achieving that end versus you know what they really do, which is to shut down any conversation about
it and so on. I do think that that's the thing. I can't tell you this is a just end or an unjust and with any finality, I can certainly give my opinion about it, You can give yours. We can deliberate about it, maybe we get closer, but we can look at some ends and say those are unjust. The ends of wanting to impose sharia law on a Western democracy is unjust, and anything that those scum Islamic fundamentalists due to affect that end is by definition unjust and not prudent. Does that make sense?
I do understand what you mean. We are going to have to end the show, though, because we're about to launch into a whole nother hour.
That's and you have places to be and things to do.
John well, I'm in the American Political Science Association, where you should be because you're actually the political scientist, not me, And I'm here to at the Union League of Philadelphia, which is one of the great historical sites. I recommend people stop by. It has a great route. It was founded by supporters of the Union in eighteen sixty two and has a great a series of portraits, historical historical things.
It has wonderful paintings. That has a room dedicated to Abraham Lincoln with a statue of Lincoln and the Gettysburg address inscribed in the well. Was really beautiful room. And so the Cleremont Institute is having its reception for the APSA here tonight and then tomorrow will have a panel
about the Supreme Court with Claremont friends. And I always tag along as the loyal Opposi, the loyal opposite opposing positivist in all this and happy to play a role not just on the three whiskey happy Hour, but at political conventions everywhere.
Well, you ought to. You never actually talk about the other role that you play, which is the resident conservative at a place like Berkeley. And you know, because I also think that would be an interesting role for you.
To play and you probably you probably play that one more often, right, all the time, one per One thing I will say is that I've seen this, this is a new theme coming out that the Maga crowd, shall we say, is much more accepting of people who believe some of what they believe, who share some of their beliefs than the leftist crowd is of people who share ninety eight percent of their beliefs and disagree with them
about two percent. And I would imagine that you will find yourself much more welcomed by the Claremont crowd than you are by your strident liberals most of the time.
And it's true. I think conservatives have become far more tolerant than progressives, and you see it at the university every day.
And let's I'm just gonna say a part of that is because we're willing to talk about it. We're willing to have an argument, we're willing to have a debate, We're willing to discuss things with someone we disagree with, and the left is not.
In many cases, I think is conservatives are not sure, they're ever sure they're right, and progressives are always convinced they're right. So if you're always right, and you have why would you buyples?
What do you need?
A discussion for Sofasia We always end with the Babylon B headlines of the week. What's your favorite Babylon B headlines?
Oh? My favorite? That's not fair. I've got a couple. Trump prepares for debate against Kamala Meedingdong by going to bar and arguing with drunks.
One of these days, you're gonna have to explain to me this meme about Harris being a drunk.
It's a meme. I actually don't know if it's true. I think part of it is based upon the fact that she she just comes off like such a moron, you know, the cackle and the inappropriate cackle at points. Yeah, yeah, so yeah, it's there's always.
People forget this is not that she's drunk. She's just Canadian.
Maybe that's it. But I didn't know any Canadians that The first thing I thought of them is that they were drunk. Okay, after motorcade involved in fender bender, Well was that all about? Tim Waltz adds purple heart to resume. You'd like that one. Just a couple more. Uh, it's a picture of Hillary Clinton and it says, grizzled veteran comes out of retirement for one last Russian Russian collusion hoax. Oh and we didn't even get to it this time.
F Sorry, it just disappeared. FBI says they were just about to get the school shooter, but they had to take care of a few dangerous pro life protesters first. We didn't even talk about that whole thing. Maybe next time because it'll still be in it. Hamas excited to learn killing Israeli somehow makes Biden condemn Israel took a second, U tangent for a real quick second. You know that meta,
the meta what's it? The their their censorship board, Yeah, Facebook, but their censorship board came out and said that no, from the River to the Sea is not hate speech, which you know, I am generally in favor of. Uh, it is hate speech, but it shouldn't be banned. No, I'm generally in favor of a lot hate speech because I don't believe right, that's what I meant to say. However, I think I think this is clever of me, and I'm not very often clever, you know, Steve, he's a
clever one. But I came up with if every time you see from the River to the Sea posted on Facebook, you should write from the River to the Sea full Israeli sovereignty. Can you imagine if I went out to ol hamas protest and started yelling that I think I'm
gonna do it? Okay, Final stop foreigners meddling in our elections says Party inviting foreigners to medal in elections, And that, of course is a picture of a Chuck Schumer arguing that we can't have the Save our Elections Act or whatever it is that they're going to put in the Continuing Resolution to stop illegal aliens from voting in our elections. Do you think we need that law, John.
Well, they're not allowed to as it is. I mean, the only citizens can vote in elections.
That's not in federal elections, that's true.
Oh you mean state and local? Well, you know, I actually do think the states should be allowed to make their own decisions on that. I mean I do. I'm a federalist. A federalist on that one.
I rather see a deeper philosophical issue there.
Oh well, I'm just being as you often accuse me, I'm just being a stray positivist about it or constitution just constitution just gives that to the states to decide in non federal elections, So let them. I'd have to think about it some more because to me, that's just a policy question.
It is a policy question, and whether or not the question is whether it needs to be done. You say that that it already that they can't. But remember it is states that that create the the requirements for voting. That it's each state gets to decide. Other than the nineteenth, twenty fifth, thirteen, fourteenth, fifteenth amendments, did I miss one, twenty second, twenty third, the poll tax, the eighteen year old, the nineteen the women voting and the people voting not
can not be denied on account of race. All of those restrict the states. But otherwise they can actually put a lot of restrictions or a lot of liberties in place. They could, in fact, I think, allow illegal aliens to vote in federal elections unless you know of a law that says they can't.
Oh no, no, I believe it's the case. In federal elections aliens are not allowed to vote.
According to what though?
So I think I thought there was a statute, but it's also is it not in the constitution?
No, it's not.
Really. Really, I have to go look at that thing again.
The Constitution.
Let's defer that to next.
Okay, we can, but but but my simple answer this is where you have to come back and correct me if I'm wrong. My simple answer is, other than those four amendments, the Constitution leaves voting eligibility.
Right about vote. Most of voting is up to this, most of most of the running of elections are up to the states.
Right, you really campaign finance where the federal government has gotten involved, correct?
I mean, although the election finance laws don't apply to state and local elections.
I got a great idea. And then then you can close out. Instead of having Steve back next time, let's have Allison back.
Oh I was worried you were going to say let's have Hadley because I want to see him. Okay, well, every way that brings to a close our Steve Hayward less episode of The three Happy Hour. Please in the reader's comments, of which there were many last week. Apparently I don't read them. Tell us whether you like the Steve list format, do we need hey We're back at all?
Should he you miss the historical analogies.
Where he talks all by himself straight for an hour. Do we need to have more people? Should it be more than the three of us? Let us know your thoughts on the lineup this week, let us know what we should be telling Steve about his absence, and let us know how the three Whiskey Happy Hour is doing. Thank everybody. See you next week, Lucretia.
See you next week, John, have a good time with my friends at Claremont.
Bye everybody.
So you think expony.
Is, it's far not too y.
Say all things.
Nobody who is in your fam?
Right? Right, you're bloody well right.
You gotta bloody right to say right, you're Paddy well right.
You know you got a right to.
Say you Paddy well right.
You know you're right to say.
Yeah, yeah you Pladdy weather Day.
You know Ricochet Join the conversation.
Mm hm