Well Whiskey coming Fake by Paine's brain Let from Powerline blog dot com and produced by Wricochet dot com. This is the three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and powerlines International Woman of Mystery Lucresia's Gotta give Me and let that blow where You're being in love down and Lowell. Welcome everybody to a new episode of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour with your hosts. I'm John You and my fellow host Steve Hayward and Lucresia, the International Woman of
Mystery. Hi guys, Hi, John, could could you? I know you're on the East Coast and it's late, but could you be any sleepier? Or is that the Canadian maple flavored cloud of smoke getting to you? I was gonna say, it's hard for me to see you through all the haze. You guys look vaguely orange. To me, everything here looks orange. It's like I bought fake Viagra pills from China and everything looks orange instead of blue. Is what I'm told the Vira pills do. But it is
incredible. This is like, remember guys, in twenty nineteen, this happened to us in the West coasts. Yeah, we're all the big forest fires. And this is when we first learned about N ninety five masks now here
being in DC. People are wearing ready wearing the stupid masks because they're still wearing them here about COVID, Yeah, so they ready didn't they really have to put any new masks on. But it is strange to see this huge orange smoke cloud descend on Washington, d C. I've never seen anything like it in all the years I've been traveling or living in DC. Well as a well, I mean, yeah, John, you mentioned I think it was twenty nineteen when you know, the big forest fires in California blew out
of the Bay Area. It looked just like the pictures we're seeing now in New York. And so we shrug our shoulders because I've been through this many times in life. So has Lucretia. Out in southern California, you went through some of the same fires, right. So it was just that nearly burned down my house and burned half a dozen houses at people I know right here in my little uh bodunk town in southern Arizona. There was a fire
that lasted for three and a half weeks. It was started by illegals trying to on the other side of the mountains in Mexico, trying to create a faint so they could get away with their drugs. Well didn't didn't you used to get some fires pretty close to you there, And wasn't it didn't you live like to hunga canyon or something? Do I have that right? Yeah? We got fires and floods and you name it. Yeah. And I used to watch San Gabriel Mountains above Pasadena burned down every five or six years
with regularity. So it is amusing to us Native Westerners to watch the Easterners cavetch about this. But they don't have fires, They just have smoke. Yeah, there's a difference. What do you What do you think about the ever in the media to say this shows that global warming really is a problem, because now you've got forest fires on this side of the continent. It
has nothing to do with forestry management. Yeah. No, all I can say, John, is aren't you glad that we have a certain statute that is banned from this podcast that protects us from these things in the United States? Uh? Huh No, Oh Jesus. If the air was like the air grew up when we were growing up in the seventies. We wouldn't even notice this. Yeah, this would be like clean air to us. Well,
that that's not quite true. I mean, well, I won't bore you, especially you or listeners with the data, but I can see the numbers that I'm reading about the concentrations of particulars in the east are really shocking. I mean they're like the worst days in Beijing. But this is not from industry and from normal sources. It's from something extraordinary. But you know, a bad day in La. I'll just give you two numbers, a
bad day in La. Oh, let me do it reverse order. I've seen numbers that I think are reliable, that particulates get the dimensions are reaching, you know, four hundred four and fifty parts per million in parts of the East Coast. It's a bad day in La if we get up to thirty parts per million. And so that you know you're seeing in the East Coast really is quite extraordinary. So, Steve, how many times tonight you're going to break your promises? What I've done for us? Oh that well,
oh, that promise. I thought you meant that you're talking about be honest, I don't know what the those numbers. I'm just teasing you what those numbers were though. When I was growing up, when you know, you simply did not even think about exercising at four o'clock in the afternoon, regardless if you could stand the heat, because you just couldn't breathe. Yeah,
and it's much much better than it was. It's the only thing I think about California that's better than it was when I was growing up there. Yeah, yeah, correct, that was more ozone than particulates. But I will stop here because I will become a bore if you you know you you did it. It's your fault, Lucretia, because anyway, because I made you boring. Yeah, well, at least I've been in Washington all week
and I've been walking around in the stuff. And frankly, when I was a kid, and I don't know if we can do this in California anymore. I remember smelling right when people were running, you know, we're building fires in their fireplaces. Oh yeah, that was far. It seems far worse than what's going on here. I think this is a lot less smoked, a lot less Bernie would smell then from a fireplace, although I don't know if we can use our fireplaces in California. We might have been banned.
I wasn't sure they've been banned. Yeah, you cannot build an old fashioned fireplace in California anymore. Can you use your old one if you have If you have one, yes you can, but they're you know, Bakersfield, you can't. Yes? Correct? Yeah? Is there in the valley? Sits there? Until? I mean, I thought maybe the news of the podcast would be the giant orange smoke cloud, but instead it's demand with
the giant orange hair. That's cool, okay, but but one last footnote here is obviously I'm not I know, I sorry, but look, we do have to get in. Since it's the three whiskey happy hour. You have to drink an a club, and I'm not going to drink the Florid because that would be redundant at a moment like this. That's all I want to say. So, yeah, do anything Canadian, Canadian club, Canady whiskey? What is what is it? Why is it not just American?
What makes you Canadian? It's I think that the can Canadian whiskey's like the worst thing in the world. M h Sorry. I hope we hear from Canadian listeners because I haven't had nothing, because I know lovely Canadians, but their whiskey sucks. Well they all moved to the United States anyway. Yeah, so back to the other big orange news. Donald Trump got indicted just an hour or two ago, So we are really on the front line of
the news. And it comes to us from Donald Trump himself, who announced the indictment and a post on his truth social media network, but has since been confirmed. But I looks like law enforcement sources and by the lawyers and Donald Trump's own camp. Donald Trump's defense attorney went on to cable news tonight to confirm that the indictment had is coming and to claim that Donald Trump's innocent.
Apparently there's seven counts which include illegally retaining national defense information, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice. Lucretia, what do you think about even we've had you know what I think about it. There's some sort of big story that supposedly, uh Meadows, they were they were doing something with Meadows, and Trump was bragging about some sort of something that was classified. And that's what is the thing over the top the president. The president
cannot break the Espionage Act with respect to classified documents. It's absolutely impossible. And so uh, you know, the things that matter, like the fact that when he was vice president, Biden took documents he had no business taking that when the vice the last vice president under Trump. They just was it two weeks ago, a week ago. They're not going to indict him, but they're going to invite indict Trump, which they cannot do if they followed
the law. I'm so tired of it. The president is the final and only only authority for classifying and declassifying documents. And if he wants to get out there and talk about our nuclear secrets, our deepest nuclear secrets, on CNN and nobody will watch it. But on CNN anyway, there's nothing anybody can do about it. And everybody knows that's true, but they're going to pretend it's not and drives me crazy. So there you go. That's mine
final. Steve. Do you think, Steve, do you think agree with Lucretia that the president just cannot violate the statute because the president's in charge of classifying. So if the president takes document out, he's automatically declassifying it. Who could create a process? Who could create a process. It would be a violation of the separation of Powers or Congress to create a process whereby the president had to follow it in order to declassify something. If none of it
makes sense. So I have to say, John, Um, there's something comically absurd about you, the premier defender of the unitary executive asking me that question, because I'm going to throw it back to you. But it seems to me Lucretia's right now. There may be a minor technical question, I say, minor strike minor. There may be a technical question that, well, did he actually wave his hand in the right way when he took the documents with him or did it happen after January twenty? Okay, maybe that's
a technical violation of some process. I still think that's pretty small beer. Doesn't even that's not even a bud light beer be a process, though, Steve, I agree with that's the problem. But Julia, go ahead, say let me playum prosecution council here. Oh oh oh, Lucrecia's already shooting out the laser eyes at me. But for the moment, they just pretend as counsel oh that makes it worse. Linda always, I'm sorry. Lucretia
always smiles right before the knife goes in. I've not from watching her interaction with Deep but now here, so I would actually I agree with Lucretia and that I don't really think the documents charge is the serious charges. She says, Biden and Pence are not going to be prosecuted for violing the documents when they actually did. Technically they did, yeah, I technically they did. No. I think the real legal threat to Trump is going to be obstruction
of justice. And I think the key this is just my tea leafree. I think the key thing that happened was when the prosecution and the courts forced Trump's own attorney to testify against him, which usually it is not permissible because usually you have attorney client privilege. And so my guess is what they're going to the prosecution is really going to focus on, is Trump lied to the grand jury by getting his lawyers to submit a document, remember saying we searched
and we're turning over all the classified documents. There aren't any other And then remember then the FBI went and searched mar Lago found a bunch more, and even that's not really obstruction. What the obstruction is is telling the Justice Department that they had searched and found them all when they're going to say, oh, Trump was really secretly hiding more of them. That substruction of justice and lying to the government. But but let me ask you this, John,
I guess I know the answer to my own question. How can you be charged with obstruction of justice when there is no crime that you were obstructing justice on? Oh? I just have to ask Scooter or Libby that one. I was just going to say, But I mean, but we all know that was a travesty. That was an absolute travesty. And I guess what it really takes us down to is that that this Justice Department is willing to weaponize its prosecutorial powers in any way it has to to make sure that Trump
never ever ever gets into power again. They tried to keep him from getting into power the first time, and they are so fearful about what Trump could bring to the table in terms of actually this time maybe exposing how just deeply corrupt the whole, the whole god awful situation is that they're willing to do anything and just hope that something sticks, because this one is so silly to
me. It would be silly if it wasn't so awful, you know, So, I mean it is. It's so trite to say it's banana Republic stuff, but it really is. This is not what Americans do, and they certainly don't prosecute a former president on such slim charges and just and expect everybody to think, oh, yeah, this is great. Except the problem is there's too many people out there talking head saying well, maybe maybe drives
me crazy. That's why we need you, John, we need I think one thing she says really important to underscore, which I think is getting lost at the and the arguments on cable TV get they're going right now, is that this is a momentous step. Right, this is the first time a former president has ever been indicted by the Justice Department. So even bragged this is the first time ever. But these are whacka doodle, stay prosecutor.
Yeah, this is the first time a former president's indicted for a federal crime. And I think it's the first time a major party presidential candidate during the campaign has also been indicted by the Justice Department. And it's another second, yeah, second serious step. Not only is he a serious candidate, but he says, if you believe the polls, he's he's got got the most support both in amongst Democrats and Republicans. He's got more support than any other
candidate running right now. And that does seem a little bit like election interference, now, doesn't it. You remember he was prosecuted, indicted by Bragg for trying to influence the outcome of an election. I mean, I think that's his secondary felony right after the business, you know, I mean the hypocrisy of these people there. I can't I'm the words, and that that doesn't let me, Steve, let me see what should the Biden administration or
the attorney general be doing here? Well, oh gosh, I mean two things come to mind. One is, uh, maybe we think this is a mistake in retrospect, or maybe not. We mean us three or people who think like this, But the wider world we know that when James Comy got up in July twenty sixteen and said, we looked at Hillary's email business and are not going to charge her. No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. The next sentence that was silent was because she wouldn't get convicted because of
who she is. But you know, the case he laid out was devastating and it was clear to anyone paying close attention that she violated the law, and any other person would have been charged and convicted for that. Okay, the point was he decided many other persons have been charged and convicted in gone
to jail for much much less. Correct. Now, The point is is that at the back of that was the decision that you know, boy, when you know, the line is blurry of when the Justice Department crosses over into things that ought to be left up to the American people who decide. And by the way, in a certain way, Comy was right. How did the American people decide? They decided we want Hillary Clinton? We don't like her right now? So fast forward to today, and it seems to
me you can do the same logic. It's got its same defects. On the other hand, noticed that just in the last ten days since Ron de Samis formally became a candidate, he's actually gained a bid on Trump. And if you believe the cynical theory, and I say cynical, I think there's reasons to believe it that the Democrats really want to run, want to run against Trump, and I, by the way, I predict that Trump's going to get a bump in the polls out of all this in the next few
days. And the deciding factor might have been you know, you could maybe plausibly credit them saying, you know, Comey really should have charged Hillary Clinton. You know, I'm not sure we believe that, but the cynical theory is, you know what, we better charge Trump because we want him to be the nominee and we want to just absolutely mess up everything for everybody.
So you know, we'll come back to the same phenomenon when we get to if it's on your list, John, the Voting Rights Act case and whether John Roberts has capitulated once again the political pressure, but whether stay, whether got up Lucretia will get to that, why in time to do that or maybe not this week, in future weeks anyway, Sorry, I'm rambling a bit, John, But the point is is it's hard to find a dividing
line here between serious application of the law and the political undercurrents of it that so many people distrust with very good reason at this point, So can I ask both of you though I get the point of trying to create some sort of equivalence between what happened with Hillary Clinton and Comey in twenty sixteen and now, except that Hillary Clinton actually did a lot of seriously bad things, and she had been doing seriously bad things for a very long time, for a
very long time, things that undermine our national security, you know, selling iranium to the Russians, etc. On and on and on. Never mind all the stuff that supposedly happened years before that. The fact that the Justice Department wasn't willing to even look into any of those things till she had already gotten the nomination is a huge indictment. And what I'm saying is there's no
analogy between the one and the other. You're probably right by the time it got to that place in the campaign where she was the major, you know, right, not far before the election, the major candidate of a major
political party. Maybe it would have been election interference for the Justice Department to have indicted her at that point, But what they should have done is actually a year and a half before, gone to her and said, look, you are corrupt as hell, and we will expose you if you even think about trying to run for president. But of course they weren't going to do that because they were all linking her. You know what, And I'm not going to say it out loud. That's the difference between then and now.
Well, that's the way Jaker Hoover would have done it, surely, yes, right, and it would have been the right thing to do, right, Yeah. I mean, maybe you don't indict her, but you go to her and you say, we have massive evidence that you are a corrupt, vile, excuse for a human being, and we will expose you if you try to run for president. Go play with your grandchildren, plan another wedding, do some more yoga whatever she said she was doing. Yeah right,
yeah, right. So here's one another point I'd like to throw both your ways. I think if you agree with Lucretia about this is what we call selective prosecution. The argument is that the government is prosecuting is choosing much cases to prosecute unfairly. The problem is that's usually a political argument, not a legal argument, in the sense that Donald Trump can't get up in court as part of his defense and say I'm innocent because you aren't charging the other
guy too. Usually that doesn't work. So what is your think is what's Donald Trump's defense? What's his strategy here? Is it to actually wage the war in the public arena, you know, make the arguments Lucretia's making, but make them in right debates, campaign ads, speeches. That's really where the fight should go on, because I think most of the things Lucretia said
really aren't going to be even immissible in court. Judge won't even allow Trump's lawyers to say those things to the jury because he would say, it doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton's guilty. What matters is whether you know this person before us right now is good. And I'm not saying Trump should ever try to make that analogy. I was responding to Steve making it. But let me ask you both this question. No, and I don't mean that like a
nasty I really don't. I'm just saying that's often said Steve, and it makes sense. But the problem is is that it doesn't anyway. Here here's my question for you. When uh, when back in with the Saturday night massacre, right, Uh, why did those attorney generals all resign rather than do a corrupt president, or so they thought a corrupt president's bidding. Why can I just ask you Lucretia too. For listeners who may not know exactly what you mean, please say a little bit about the Saturday. This is
your area, Steve. This is wants for you to make an historical analogy for me. No, I want to do that. I tell the story. Come on Watergate. Here. The water gate you're referring to is the October weekend in nineteen seventy three when President Nixon wanted to fire the special counsel, not an independent council. We didn't have that yet. Archibald Cox was
an old Kennedy you know, partisan uh. And the Attorney General I think it was, was a client needs I think Elliot Richardson Richardson, and he refused to fire him, and he said I would resign, mister President. And then Richard Kleindienst was the deputy attorney general. He refused to fire Rockles House. Ruckles House Okay, raucles House Okay. Ruckles House refused to fire Archibald Colox, and he resigned. And then the Solicitor General was Robert Bourke,
and he fired Archibald Colox. Now it is where Sorry, I didn't have to do this Lucresia being you know, it is worth pointing out that both Richardson and ruckles House told Burke, you should carry out the president's order because the president is correct on the constitutionality of his authority to fire the special counsel, but we object on political grounds, not legal grounds. That was a huge important point. Sorry, Lucisia, I just wanted to listen to
No. Absolutely, I appreciate it it actually because it helps us actually discuss what's different then versus now. Actually, I think Lucretia's lu Christian makes an excellent point that applies here because in that case it was President Nixon who fired, right the attorney general who fired the deput and then the deputtorney General resigned
it. I mean, they wanted to fire Archibaldcox and so on. But what that makes clear to me that I think we should underscore here tonight is that this is really President Biden's responsibility, and it's actually Marek Garland's responsibility. They can't go and say, oh, this is some guy named Jack Smith who's a neutral prosecutor and is just exercising, you know, the objective judgment
of the administrative state. This is a political that this isn't part of political decision, just when it decides what the prosecute decides whether it's in the public interest, so it's really under the constitution. Still, Ultimately, Marek Garland's decision and President Biden's decision to prosecute someone who's running against them in the presidential election is the most sensible thing you have said in weeks. What has that
much? But that's exactly the point, and that's why I guess that's where I would see an analogy that you know, of course Nixon was trying to save his own bacon, we get that, but people in people in his administration understood that to make the Justice Department appear to be that politicized was so damaging that they wouldn't do it political, legal or otherwise. You're right,
it was a political argument. But but that makes it even more compelling in my opinion, that someone like uh, Elliot Richardson would say, I work for this guy, but I'm not going to do it because it is destructive of the rule of law. It is you know, it's a bad look. Whatever you might want to say, Why isn't anyone looking at Biden and saying, well, exactly what John just said, which is, you are allowing your Justice Department to go after your political opponent, and that is the
lowest of the low when it comes to corrupt government. That just doesn't get any lower than that. Can I ask us, Steve, playing off of lucrecious point, I think the political consequences of this are going to be if it it becomes clear to everybody, as I hope it would, that Lucrecious point about right, This is the incumbent party right using its power prosecution to interfere with the challenger's ability to make it, you know, to kick them
out of office. You mentioned earlier Stevie thought that Trump might actually get a bump out of this in the polls. That seems to have Finn what happened when brag prosecuted indicted him. Do you think this actually helps Trump when the primaries? Well, I mean, we'll see the primaries are ways off yet, however, what I do, but yes, I think it helps him. But even just steps out, can I just ask you, how does
being indicted by the Justice Department help you go up in the polls? Here's how I lets say, step back from front for just a minute and look at again. Put in my old caveats about how crappy polls are. But there have been several polls now our friend Glenn Reynolds likes to bring attention to these that find, you know, increasing numbers of Americans say they do not
trust the law enforcement apparatus of our country. There's actually one pole. It might be rass Mussin, and okay, rass Mussin is a little dodgy in some ways, but often accurate in others. And the point is they've had a pole where they very pointedly try to direct people to have to confront the question is the Justice Department, is the FBI? Are they the personal political praetorian guard for Biden? They actually said, are they like the secret police
for Biden? And a very large number say yes. I don't think you could have gotten that kind of number even in the Nixon years or any other time in American history. So I think, you know, while liberals are desperate to do anything to damage from I think that this does great damage to public trust for American institutions. One quick conclusion to this, I've been talking
a lot lately, and I do it in class. I have for years about the the trust question as it's called or the confidence in government questions that posters have been asking since the late fifties. So you may know this. In the late fifties, Gallup, Harris, the other big people. They found that almost eighty percent eight zero eighty percent of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing most of the time. So, yeah, numbers
around fifteen percent. What's going on right now, it's going to drive fifteen percent. Well, I'm gonna say, I'll bet now that's going to drive that number under ten percent. And then liberals are gonna wonder, why do people hate the government? We want to do all these good things with government.
They're the ones attacking institutions and the Supreme Court. Maybe we'll come to that, John, But the point is is that they wake up and never mind their It's a big complicated story, but one part of it is the
relentless attack on our institutions from the left. And now suddenly you do a stunt like this, You know, they even if you think Trump was reckless to take those documents, and who the hell knows what the facts are about all that, it's a political mistake for someone like Biden and the Democrats to say we're going to indict him for this, that that is a political malpractice.
One on one, can you ask a mundane question for just a second, how important do you think it was that Biden and Pence also we're found to have mishandled old classified documents. This might have been a lot more successful of a prosecution. And maybe I'm never gonna say that it would have been right, but the idea that they did it. Anyway, a week and a half after they said no, we're not going to diet Pence, he took it to his house. We know Pence never had any kind of security
like like there is at marl Largo. We know that, we know where, we know where Biden kept it there with his treasured corvette that his drug adult son took all of his prostitutes out in. You know, maybe the
prostitutes were safe. I don't know. But anyway, my point is my point that might just makes it I know it's a mundane point, but it makes it so much more obviously corrupt and foul when you think about the fact that if this had been an isolated incident where nobody in the history of the universe had ever no president, no national political figure of any kind it ever mishandled classified documents, you know, never had a server in her bathroom that
she wiped clean with the rag. Then maybe, But but it's so obvious in this case, and you just have to be the most kind of rabid anti Trump partisan not to see it that way, don't you. I mean, you don't just have to be like a lefty, You have to be a lefty who just has no brain. Well, can I use that moment
to segus actually to the next topic. No, No, because it ties right into the next topic, which is all the people jumping into the race for the Republican nomination, and one in particular, Mike Pence, and actually the other one, Chris Christie, are making a big deal about President Trump's legal problems. Imagine, I believe, yeah, yeah, But in contrast to the other other people writing who been treating this very gingerly right or not
talking about it at all. Pence yesterday, I think, after he announced said something like no one who would violate the Constitution should become president again, right, it's obvious who he's referring to, Um, Chris Christie coming in also attacking Trump. You shouldn't be allowed to be president. So I my boys, just is this going to help their candidate caes? Is this actually the reason they're getting into the race? Um? What effect do you think
this is going to have with regard to the other candidates? Did you see did you hear you said you listened to last week's podcast where you dissed us and didn't show up. Um, but you listened and you did you hear? You know? I was in there. I there, I was in the air, and I thought that you were wholly taking it easy on Steve. I was shocked. I was got off so easy, I know. But but did you hear my Babylon be about Chris Christie can eat everyone's lunch?
That was so funny on? Yeah? But but does it? But doesn't? But doesn't this indictment tonight give Christie and Pence more fodder? Or see? Or they almost gonna be like see I told you no, they become they joined forces with the corrupt FBI and Department of Justice. When they do that, we hold on a minute. I mean, uh, well, let's separate the two uh pence of speech. I think you didn't mischaracterize it, John, but I think you left out or or overlook the main
part of it, which is he's going to go full January sixth. He's gonna stand up on the debate stage with Trump and say, your reckless actions threatened my life and the life of my family and people in the Capitol. Okay, I'm fine. You may think that's right, somebo that happens. Well, but wait a minute. We'll see how Trump responds to that. He's gonna do that. That's his main line of attack, not this other I think sort of silly stuff. Christie, of course, holds paper on
the fact that, uh, Chris, how would that work? It was Jared Kushner's father was prosecuted by Christy when Christie was the US attorney was attorney. Okay, so there there's some bad there's some personal stuff there, bore. And Christie thinks himself a giant killer because he supposedly, the legend goes, took out Marco Rubio in twenty sixteen. Rubio, by the way, this week had a bunch of tweets disputing this, which I thought was very
weak Rubio to do. But never mind. H So, anyway, those two guys are gonna be after Trump in a big way, and we'll see if it works. I mean there, I don't know. That doesn't help Trump. If everybody's after Trump, I think he gets to he'll swap them away Pence becomes president. I can never have dinner with you guys again, Why whoa whoa whoa whoa wa way, why you Scott? What's and Scott to do with? Because he said Laurel and he would never do it.
He would never have dinner with a woman that wasn't his wife. No, alone with dinner alone with both of you. Yeah. Well, and we're still recovering from the bruises. I know. But yeah, I'm not. I'm not entirely sure Pence is wrong on that one. Have I I told you the story that I'm responsible for Mike Pence and politics about No, No, it's look, it's a grotesque exaggeration, of course, but not inaccurate. I met Mike at a Liberty Fund conference about thirty years ago when he
was a radio talk show host from hart Wayne, Indiana. It was in I think Montana or Wyoming, and we're sitting around having a beer around the fireplace and he's saying, you know, I got friends think I should run for Congress. And we've been all day and he's seminars where he was really good, and I said, oh, you should absolutely do it. And I so they're saying, oh, you should be great at it, you should run for office, run for Congress, and no, look he was
going to do that anyway. I mean, I'm kind of being facetious here, but that conversation really took place between me and a then unknown Mike Pence around the before or after he started Johnny quest Wait, what's he started from? Johnny, Old, Johnny, what's Yeah? That's true. No, no, that's true. He's like the older guy with the short white hair and the in the cartoon. Oh yeah, there are lots of great memes about that. Yeah. Right, Oh, I had no idea. So
I think I think very well with the guy's abilities. H And I mean he has other defects on the sort of superficial level that are important in politics, right, I mean his his speech, his opening speech yesterday, he sounded like he was doing a William Shatner pausing contest. You cannot go. You can't insult the shot like that. I know he's called. Actually, to me, it sounds like Pence doesn't really like what he's saying like it's
like it's like it's just like he's forcing the words out of himself. My my hunches. Pence has entered the race to take out Trump and Christy also and maybe at some point behalf Well. I don't think they're coordinating directly with because actually it would be technically illegal. But I think at some point they might drop out and embrace the santis. But they wouldn't do that until after they've landed. Some body blows or drive to one from That is my speculation
right now. So okay, well, just let's turn to a second topic that was gonna originally be listeners the first topic except for Trump getting indicted tonight, which is maybe this will make I don't know if this is going to make Lucrecia happier. It's the Supreme Court. Oh god. The Supreme Court issued two opinions today of note one that Steve is super super eager to talk about, which is Jack Daniels Properties versus VIP Products. Steve, take it
away about this case. What interests you so much about this case, which, for the legal junkies out there, involves the land em Act and trademark rules. Normally, this would never make it under the agenda, onto the agenda of the three Whiskey Happy Hour. But as Lucretia said before, Steve is wanting to talk about anything that has the word Jack Daniels in the time right, it's Jack, she said, it's Jack Daniels property versus VIP products.
Actually it's procedural a case which says can this case be brought into lower court for trial? But I just love the beginning of Justice Kagan's opinion. I'll just read a couple of sentences, the first sentences. This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence. But you know, Lucretian, I being fans of both whiskey and dogs. This perks up our ears and gets our tails to wagging. That's all. It's about what or somebody could do. What was the bad sit uh?
They used sort of the Jack Daniels made toy out of a bottle of Jack facts simile of a bottle of Jack Daniels bad Spaniels instead of Jack Daniels. And and you know what I told Steve. I told Steve that I get around these trademark problems. I just give my dogs real bottles of Jackdive. And you know it wanted to all surprise any listeners that Lucretia's dogs chew class because inspires me and yeah, follow her along, to follow her around slavishly
slavish. Yeah, that they do. My dogs effect when you said something mean to me, because they're used to Steve saying something mean to me. But when you said something you mean to me a little while ago, I don't remember what it was my dog started doing outside. I never say anything.
And listen, we're gonna we're gonna delete that from the serious The sub serious case, i'll describe it briefly, is Alan versus Milligan, and this was a challenge to the state of Alabama's congressional district drawing and the newspapers. Also In a surprise decision where Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Cavanaugh joined the three
liberals, the Supreme Court today struck down the districting map for Alabama. Now, the reason why I think it is fair to say this is a surprise is the Court, in an earlier case a few years ago called Rucco, said we're not going to review district maps at all. It's too hard. There's no legal standards to review whether one map has too many Republicans versus Democrats or has two few. What's the benchmark? In other word, of course, what do you compare it to? What's the perfect objective map? Of
court says this is not a legal question. It's too hard. But in this case, which is not brought as a redistricting case, a simple redistricting case, it's brought as a violation of the fifteenth Amendment as enforced through the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty five. So what happened here is because of the census, Alabama game population, but it didn't gain enough population to change
the number of congressional seats. So Alabama continues to have seven seats. But according to the court, the movement, the look the density of the population in the state changed, People moved around. And so whereas before there was what you I hate even calling it this one black seat out of the seven mclaim here that you do that I hate of itself, not you personally, but the facts what the court, that's what the court case. And yeah,
I even hate using the language of the court here. Right, So then the courts is the claim is that you could actually draw two black districts now out of the seven, and so the Court actually says this is a remarkable thing. The Court says it is a violation of the nineteen sixty five Voting Rights Act for Alabama not to try to They don't use the word maximize, but this is kind of what is to maximize the number of minority of
black congressional districts in Alabama. Now, Justice Thomas, I think wrote a very vigorous descent. In his descent, it repeats the points he made in a case called Holder versus Hall from he points out decades and decades ago. But he says, how do you get the right to draw districts out of the language of the nineteen sixty five Voting Rights Act. Let me just I'm not trying to get too legalisted, but let me read you what the sixty
five Acts says. It says a state can have no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or a standard practiced or procedure which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of as citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. So that sounds to Justice Thomas, that sounds like literacy tests. That sounds like just preventing blacks from getting to the ballot booth. Yeah, poll techs That sounds like the battle days when they would make
blacks who wanted to vote recite the Constitution from memory. And there were horrible practices. There were terrible practices. And then, just as Thomas's point is, how do you get from that language to a requirement that the state must draw districts to create more districts where minorities are sure to win the elections? Can I interrupt here for John and say you understand it. What you just
read is the single sentence of section two of the Voting Rights Act. And when I read the news today that, oh, they rested the decision, I haven't. I haven't a chance to read the decision yet, but I read in the news they rested it on section two. I thought section two. I know Shelby County restricted section four. Section four is quite long. Section two is the sentence you just read. It's the shortest section in the Voting Rights Act. And as you say it just it just says no voting
qualify vacation are prerequisite. And then last the last few words are vote on account of race or color doesn't say anything about what essentially this means is proportional representation. Sorry, I'm going on too long. I have more to say about this, but continue and no, no, no, no, no, no, that I was over, And then can I say something simple about it? Oh? Go ahead, which I think it goes to what you were saying when you didn't even like to use the language of the court.
How patronizing and paternalistic is it to assume that the only way that, first of all, minorities are represented is to have somebody who looks like them, who that only blacks can represent blacks in congressional districts. And then another problem you have with this, and and you know, back in the when they were talking about the ninety sixty five Voting Rights Act and extending the Voting Rights Act all that kind of stuff, this was a common argument, but
it was always overlooked. And that is imagine, say an at large election in a decent sized city. An at large election means that everybody goes to the polls and votes, and whoever, let's say there's five seats, whoever
gets the top five vote winners become city council persons. Okay, And these were considered on the face of them, prima fasciat evidence of discrimination, because they often resulted in UM because if you've got five city council seats and that they wouldn't they wouldn't be proportionally representative of the minority minority populations that might be within that city. Well yeah, sorry, really quickly, here's what I
mean. No black person is going to get elected, so right, and so they carve out these minority majority minority districts so that it would be certain a minority person would get elected, and all that often did, especially in um you know, smaller city council in the South, was ensured that that one person represented all the minorities had no real influence inside the city council because it was one vote out of five and the rest of the council persons who
were elected in their white majority districts didn't have to give a damn about what the interests of the minorities were because they didn't they were they had no opportunity to represent them. Why should they, And so it's just a stupid idea. Never mind the idea that that you would only vote for someone who looks like you, or you're only represented when somebody looks like you. Never mind the idea that that's not what the Voting Rights Act says, or the or
the fifteenth Amendment. It's a denial of the right to vote, not the denial of the right to have somebody who looks like you be voted into office. So let me cause you just to make a point that Justice Thomas not so clearly in this case, but in the one he wrote back in nineteen ninety four, I think he wrote an opinion on this point saying, isn't the assumption of all this equally racist? Because of what Lucretia just said.
You're assuming that people of a race would want to only vote for someone of their same race. Isn't that racist? And then he says, and you're assuming that someone, say, you have a white congressman, that white congressman only wants to represent what white voters want. Isn't that racist too, because you're assuming that race means certain ideas or viewpoints. Um. Yes, And it's before you get to the point even yeah, well yes, Robert Justice
Roberts wrote the opinion. So, oh gosh, there's a lot to say here. So John at two points for starters, One is Lucretian ire. Wow, we're a heated agreement about all this. I think she'll sign some defective when I say, maybe I will worry just make you feel better. This all traces back to the original sin of excuse me of discrete and incident minorities and Carolean products. But second, look, I'll restate what Lucretia said in a different way, which is, oh, all right, let's just
let's go forward from this decision. They're now going to be two black districts in Alabama. We think, okay, great, you're gonna have two black representatives. They'll be Democrats. They'll join the Congressional Black Caucus. The Congressional Black Caucus is dominated by the far left, and they'll have to go along
with them. They want to prosper in the House of Representatives. I guarantee you that the Democratic leadership publicly will swear up and down about how great the Congressional Black Caucus is and privately complain about their radicalism none the words they're this
self marginalizes black representatives much better if you have districts. To restate Lucresia's point, where it doesn't matter what color you are, where people are saying, you know, gosh, twenty five percent of the voters of my district are black. I ought to pay attention to their opinions and their interests in my campaign and in how I govern an office. If you put them in one concentrated district, as Lucretia said, you don't have to do this. This
makes our politics worse. And the problem here is, maybe this made some sense. I'm going to make a concession here that Lucretia will quarrel with. Maybe this made sense sixty years ago because of the problematic history of the South. However, how does this apply to California today? You know, sixty years ago it was really black and white America with a handful of Hispanics. How do you do this in California? Already whites or minority in California.
Are we going to now have a lawsuit saying that forty percent of the congresional districts must have white majorities and you know ten percent Asian problem is, Steve, you've forgotten that it's not anymore because, as we all know now, Hispanics can be white supremacists too. No, you have put together exactly, of course, Asians, Asians and Jews too. So really, you know, we're back to square one where umm Asians are white, Asians are white
adjacent congressional aggressional in the adjacent. No, this is a my somebody said it me. Somebody sent me a text today, a friend saying what the hell? And I said, this is the electional equivalent of Rowe versus Wade, and I think it won't last as long as Roe versus Way. This is going to have to be overturned. But okay, we have why John just left us, If you want to go ahead, I hope everybody sees John on Well I wan't. No, no one's seeing I know, I
know, but no tonight. If I hope that when they're listened to this on Saturday, that they know that John left us to go be on Fox used to talk about this very thing we were talking about earlier, which is Trump's indictment. I hope everybody sees him and he didn't hurt our feelings by saying he had to leave. So right, yeah, But so it's now just me and Lucretia again, you know, with our boxing gloves on, and we're all that stup. No, but we don't disagree on any of
this, Steve. You know, and you know, I don't know how I would have felt about things. I will tell you, you know, for you remember, Steve, listeners won't know. But when I was very young, my mother got very sick and I was sent to live with my grandparents in the deep, deep backwoods of Alabama. And I experienced in a way that not very many people do, the kind of abject racism that was still very much a part of that, you know, m rural Alabama.
My mother would never go back there, she I mean, my mother. But anyway, so I can say that I know what that looked like in some sort of, you know, kind of primal sense. Certainly I didn't understand the politics of it back then. Maybe I would have been willing to abandon the important principle of racial equality and equality before the law in order to say things have been so awful for blacks in the South for so long, we've got to do something. So that's why I wanted to concede the point
you made just a few moments ago. Steve. Maybe I would have, But what we know now is, of course that was probably bad. It would have been well intentioned, but it was a bad idea. Because you
abandoned the principle. It's very hard to get it back right. And the worst part of it is is that it has had exactly the outcome that you just mentioned, which is it's you know, it's in many ways it's marginalized decent otherwise decent representatives who've gone into Congress and are sort of forced into that whole awful situation. Well, I'll say two last things and then I'm taking
over now listeners, we'll see. So at two last points, which is, let us remember this is a Democratic Party mess that we were trying to clean up with the Voting Rights Act. Oh yes. And second, if you look at black Republicans have been elected over the years to the House, they usually come from districts that are either swing districts or Republican districts where guess what the voters said, Oh, that's the best person for the job.
They reflect my opinions better. Right. So absolutely, yeah, you know, it's really not that hard to get there. It's not. Maybe it was a hundred years ago, it's not today now here. Let's let's believe
me. Between now and the end of the Supreme Court term at the end of the month, we're going to come back to this a bunch just Chief Justice Roberts was the I who, as I recall, wrote the majority opinion in the Shelby County case, which was a voting rights at case ten twelve years ago, and that cut back on section four, which is much longer and I've kind of forgotten, and the left was outraged. So very much of it had a bunch of very specific what's what I'm looking for? It
outcomes that had to be complied with. It much more specific, like you
say, much longer than section two. I think that this is another I honestly think I have only read a part of the case that this is another example of Roberts caring more about the quote unquote integrity of the court and he thinks that maybe this isn't that important, and he gives a concession to the left and maybe people will back off and won't try to pack the cord and keep trying to under It's not going to work that way, because Ian Millheiser
is going to write, surprise, the Supreme Court did this, but of course they should have been. Then tomorrow, when the Court overturns affirmative action, he's going to go back on the warpath and so with every other Yeah, see, that's exactly what I think is. You know, we know that he worries about I mean, we know from twenty twelve that he initially cast his vote in the first vote after the oral argument to strike down Obamacare
and then changed his vote under political pressure. And now we're seeing this massive political pressure on the court from the left, and he does this decision, and yeah, you really do wonder if he's saying, oh, I want to do this to throw the left of bone when we strike down affirmative action. And it also emerges because it was so for listeners who don't know, it was a five floor decision, and so it was Roberts and Kavanaugh going
with the three Democrats. So Kavanaugh is now the median justice, as we suspected he might be. And if Kavanaugh had said that frat boy by no, I agree with all that, I mean it. We'll leave that aside for now. Sorry, I'm just trying to lighten the mood a little here, Steve, Oh, I know, But the point is, if Kavanaugh had said, no, I'm voting with the other four conservatives, Roberts then
might have thrown in with him. I don't know, he might have done like he didn't dabbs and try and strike out a steak out some in coherent middle position. All right, let us because John was bad at this, let us take a quick break for a word from our sponsors, and then we'll come back with our last topic for the week and our closing items as usual. All right, listeners have been as mentioned before, asking for a while about could we give a look list of you know, ten best books
to read on this and that or so forth. And we've been trying to think about this and thought, well, we'll try to offer you know, a good book or two in certain category, so you know, philosophy, history, biography, political science, economic literature perhaps, And I offer to go first this week with a recommendation for philosophy. John, you, by the way, said I have nothing to say about philosophy, which is obvious
dating its listen for a while, and so this is a problem. So I'm going to give my book that I when someone asked me what one book should I read in philosophy? Very tough to make a recommendation, but I have one, and I think Lucretia is going to we'll get back to our usual mode where she's gonna say why I'm defective or what's missing, which is fine, Okay. My book is a book from nineteen eighty one. It's Alistair McIntyre, the book called After Virtue. It was a big sensation when
it came out forty some years ago. It's now in its third edition, and of course it's not perfect. And so here's the problem. Lucrisian And you know, of course i'd like to say to somebody, well, really want to read you know, Plato and Aristotle and Locke and Hobbs and everybody by you know, you really can't read those books by yourself. We had great teachers for them, and I think you need those those difficult books. After Virtue is a challenging book, but really what it's about is the decay
of moral virtue from antiquity up to modern times. And I can say more about it, but I will just say the central chapter. Let me pause here and say answer an objection. Already, he totally ignores Leo Strauss and that's a mistake and that whole line of understanding of political philosophy. But the central chapter of the book is called Aristotle versus Nietzsche, and I think that
is one of these central quarrels in philosophy across all of human existence. And I think a lot of the explanation of the decay of moral thinking is really good. It's a pretty readable book, even though it's difficult in places, And that's why I recommend After Virtue by Alister McIntyre, who is a complicated figure. And I'll stop there. La can either. By the way,
Blue you give me what's your book? I mean, if you don't like it, probably if I had to for a reasonably too exceptionally intelligent person, I would probably tell them to read Natural Write in History, which does a much better job, I think than that chapter on Aristotle Nizza, which I haven't read in a hundred years, but I don't remember being especially impressed by it. Not that I thought it was really wrong, but it wasn't it. He doesn't have the facility for writing. In my opinion, He's a
little harder to read. But Natural Write in History will introduce you to thinking about things and give you a framework where you can actually begin to tackle some of those some of those philosophers on your own, and it points you into the direction of other things. I mean, I read Nietzsche as a as a kid, as you know, like a twenty year old, and yeah, well you're really good at this stuff. And no I wasn't. But I wasn't. I really wasn't, and you know I was. I struggled
with it. And then of course I read some of the commentators on Nietzsche and whatnot. But I would I guess that because things are How do I say this? Because the left is so pervasive, and you know, everywhere we go we're told truth is relative, and we're told all those leftist tropes or modern tropes or postmodern tropes, however you want to put it. At least, if you start with natural right and history, you have a new
way to think about things that you may not have thought about before. And if that interests you, you're very likely to go look at some other things. And if it doesn't interest you, maybe philosophy is not your thing, well, yeah, it's not the thing for a lot of people. You people are all can I should I read Mortimer Adler's Aristotle for everybody I've gotten in trouble with listeners for dishing on that in the past, or the Copplestone
five or eight volume history of philosophy, which I don't care for. Yeah, yeah, let me just say Steve that you just made me think of something. The difference is and maybe that's why, and I didn't do a very good job at all of articulating it. If you want to be serious about it, you read natural right in history. If you don't want to be serious about it, then you you know, you get some Harvard Classics
collection in leather and you know, work your way through it. But there's a difference between actually being seriously interested in the deep philosophical human questions or dabbing in philosophy like you would um, you know, art criticism or you know that music appreciation. That's what I would say the difference is. And I'm not going to accuse MacIntyre of being in the latter camp, but he's closer to it, much closer than than Leo Strauss. Is all two things I'll
say about McIntyre. You know, he was as a younger man. He's still alive, he's very old now, but he was a Marxist and he's shed that to become a serious Catholic. And he's a critic of the liberal tradition and wasted. By the way, you're very current now with people like Pat the Dean, who I'm going to be talking to tomorrow. And it's not a book of political full lots, so that, by the way,
I haven't nothing bad to say about natural right and history. It's got to be one of the greatest books of the twentieth century, no question of that. The After Virtue is not about political philosophy directly. However, I'm going to spring this on music because they can't resist it. In the second edition, he responded to the left hated this book. I left that out. The left hated this book and trashed it all over the place. Because he's
really trying to make an argument for classical Greek and Christian morality. Now, there may be some difficulties there. And he takes it up in a postcript to the second edition. And I just want to read to you because I'm not sure you know this Lucretia. It's two or three sentences, so I'm going to read it. I'm just going to start to middle without any preface
to explain it. He says any reconciliation of Biblical theology and Aristotelianism would have to sustain a defense of the thesis that only a life constituted in key part by obedience to law would be such as to exhibit fully those virtues without which human beings cannot achieve their telos. That's a long complicated sentence. I'm breaking in here to say tels meaning the end of human beings their highest achievement, and law is important for that. And okay, any justified rejection of such
a reconciliation would have to give reasons for denying that thesis. The classic statement in defense of that thesis is of course, by A. Quintas, and the most coaching statement of the case against it is in an unduly neglected modern cla classic Harry Jaffa's commentary on Acquinas's commentary on the Nico McKeon Ethics, Tomism
and Aristotelianism Parentheses, Chicago, nineteen fifty two. So there, at the conclusion of his updated version, he gives a shout out to our great teachers, saying, this guy's go his finger on the problem that opens up all new cannon worms. But I'll just say that just to mess with your hand, Lucretia, because that's my chief purpose in life, I know. But
why so why not still go with something better? Well, that's right, in history doesn't really get into that problem directly, But the theological political problem, I don't think it does. I think it does. I mean, I think Jaffa carries on from there. But I think you begin to question that problem if you read Strauss, which is exactly why Jaffa began to question
it. So, yeah, well, or leaving out listeners is that it is alleged and it has complicated that Jaffa changed his mind about that book because that was his doctoral dissertation early fifties. But it's still a great book, and it is a great book. You can learn a lot from it. But I wouldn't I would argue that if one reads a New Birth of Freedom carefully and goes back and rereads Tomism and Aristatilia Aristotilianism, you will come to
the conclusion that Jeff at least did some evolving over the years. Yeah, and that's going to require an eight part series of power Line University with you. You won't do We won't do that, by the way, talk about Cornell West Yeah right, yeah, well, I mean, yeah, I had no idea, but that'll that'll wait, it will and my joke was
as Cornell West should run with Kanye West. I'd be West and West or West squared, you know it would be anyway, Oh Steve, what your jokes get worse and worse, They get more dad jokey by the day. All right, do you do you want to send this out? I mean, there aren't any new camelisms because she's being kept under wraps, as Noah Rothlan observe in National Review this week. So I just have to tell you
though that I got a little dig. You know, the opportunities in academia to get digs against you know, the leftist orthodox there are few and far between. But I have been appointed to I've been appointed as to lead a
working group for the university on integrity in education and artificial intelligence. Right, and so somebody from the university sends me this document from the White House, which there's some task force at the White House that is Undercamala Harris, who remember is now the new artificial intelligence are And you did make a bunch of dad jokes about that I won't repeat, But so I had the opportunity to say that I because they want they want input, they want people with expertise
in different areas of artificial intelligence to answer their deep questions. And I made one of your dad jokes about Kamala's artificial intelligence. And you should have seen everybody in the room turned white. Oh, I mean it was that nobody said anything because it was so obvious. Then she's so dumb and she anyway anyway, Sorry, I just got off on a tangent on it, but I thought you'd be proud of me for making a dad of your dad jokes
about Kamala Harris. So that's the best I can do for a Kamalaism this year. Who don't have one? Huh? No, I don't. I mean the point of no Robin's article is that the left is starting to complain to the Biden White House that they're not showcasing her enough, which is but is it the left? I mean, let me just say what you actually put in the email when we talked about was and be on the show, you said that the Camelas's supporters. Is that the same thing as the left?
Maybe not, but I mean that would be the heart of it. I think, I mean, you know, the identity politics folks and her. Yeah, but look, I think I told the story was at some point last year that I was so, I'm at this conference with some smart liberals. I know when I'm talking to a guy who's a pretty smart, sort of Clinton type liberal, he's really good on some policy issues, he's not a whacko disagreements. But then he was going on to me and Robert
Bryce, who's really great on energy stuff. He's going on to us about how great Camela Harris is and how she'd went in a landslide and blah blah blah. And I was like, how can you be so sensible on policy? It would be such an idiot about her. And he walked away, and Robert Bryce and I because we were speechless. I couldn't believe us and Robert Bryson are like, what mushrooms is he eating? We were stun We've known this guy for ten years and we were So. There are people like
that out there. There are people think Camel's great and the sort of left hand. I remember one of my colleagues saying that when she was nominated that that he sat and watched the television with tears running down his side. Oh I believe yeah, well that you know, people are yeah, okay, well wow, I want to send out. I do want to give my quick I have a bunch, but I'm just going to keep it to California. One ysome gets revenge on the Santis by continuing to send thousands of Californians
to Florida. Okay, Steve, Always drink your whiskey Neat. Not Canadian? Sorry my Canadian friends. Uh, why do you suppose it is that they always have to drink it with seven up if it was if it was decent, they wouldn't have to do that anyway. Always drink your whisky Neat. Let's go Brandon and have a wonderful week, Skeith. Oh wait, wait one last thing quick. I promise don't forget to celebrate Monday. On Monday, it is the anniversary of the execution of Ethel and Julius oh Rosenberg,
and we have the day off because of it. Yeah no, you really, you do at at your university? Your kidding? It's Juneteenth, right of course you mentioned that. Yeah, well that's the beginning of the summer season. I mean I want the day off for Hiroshim Day in August. That's the whole scheme. It's the you did the same thing last time, and you don't get it. It's a national holiday, now I know, yeah it's And it's a dumb holiday because it celebrates something stupid. Why
not celebrate the thirteenth Amendment, your passage anyway, celebrate it. Don't get out of bed because you're not allowed to in order to celebrate it. But tell everybody you're celebrating the execution of of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, because that's what I do. All right, everybody, we will see you next week. They asked me through the years, why I shed these teas, I, of course replied, when you live in Van Nuys, smarg gets in your ears. I thought I'd play it wise, so I closed my eyes.
But what do you suppose when both my eyes I close, smart gets in my no I went to price an anti smart device to put behind my car, but all too quick the smog became so thick I could not find my car. Ten million cars provide carbon monarchs. If they don't drive a horse, there'd be no smock, of course, but there'd be something worse in your eyes. Ricochet join the conversation.