Well, whiskey coming thing my pain, Oh don't. 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. Have you gotta giving? Let that whiskey flow when you're being in love, down and load. Welcome everybody to a special Civil War edition
of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour podcasts. And I'm not just talking about Texas's effort to secede from the Union over the border back when we are going to carry out a long, long promised discussion about the nature of the Civil War, about whether it's slavery or was it about the Union? We're both. It's pretty salient right now, John, And just say you're you're You're in You're in big trouble tonight, John, Just say that. Bring it on,
Bring it on. Followers of Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, one of whom I am witched? Is that stupid old syntax from I saw on sea spend once on the floor of the house. Look, the Civil War discussion is suddenly very salient with what's going on in Texas right now, that's all. It's blessed. No, no, no, no, And you think I thank Governor Greg Abbott for making our discussions civil war timely and relevant. And I'll just say John here, you know, as we will discover shortly,
you're in deep trouble too. To paraphrase the what the great Charles Dickens line, Uh, the positive law is an ass, which of course is your position in all this. So this is Charles Charles Dickens said that he said the law is an ass. Yeah, you don't know that, really, no, because I mean that's like the shortest sentence Charles Dickens ever wrote. Done right, it doesn't sound like Charles seconds. Yeah, that's sentence goes on for like a whole page. Anyway, Hi, everybody, I'm
drawing you. I'm here with my co host Steve Heyward. Hey, Steve, how are you? What are you drinking? Good? Val beeting the twelve year old Doublewood. It's very nice and I need to right now. And the international Woman of Mystery, Lucretia, how are you and what are you drinking? Well? I'm well, John, thank you, I'm drinking a very nice twenty sixteen Brunello di Monticino, because I have to be up long, long, long before the crack of dawn, and I often don't
sleep well. Scotch tends to wake me up a little. That's that's one of the good old scotch. Farmers used to drink it. You know, they go out early in the morning, they get to work it. You know, four in the morning, they'd be in the fields and they'd come in about nine and have a couple of DRAMs of scotch to give them energy for the rest of the day. Sounds like a It sounds like a few professor as you've guys had a Claremont from what I could tell anyway, So
I have the honor of setting the agenda for today. So the first issue we're going to talk about is the crisis at the border, which has suddenly turned into a constitutional crisis, sparking discussions of Central High School in Arkansas and Arkansas and the nullification crisis and the Civil War and the nature of the Union. I can't believe this is all has just happened in about a week.
How did this happen? So the basic facts of the issue, and you guys correct me if you're wrong, If I'm wrong, but it just started out with Texas laying a very sharp form of barbed wire concertina wire, which is used in war usually concertina, along the banks of the Rio Grande River, and the federal government has been trying to cut parts of it, and there's video and pictures available. They want seem to allow illegal aliens to cross
through the wire. The State of Texas has has sued the United States and said that this amounts to a violation of state sovereignty, of Texas's control over its own territory, Texas's right to defend itself. The federal government says it has a complete national power over the borders and over immigration. Texas says it has the right to engage in self defense against an invasion. This has gone
already to the Supreme Court just on emergency motions. People making a big deal of this, but this is just the question that Supreme Court decided earlier this week, was just whether to stop the federal government from cutting through the concertina wire while arguments go forward in the federal courts in Texas ultimately to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did say that the federal government could go on and cut through the barbed wire, did not say how it would vote on the
actual merits between federal controller immigration versus the state's right of self defense. But yeah, they didn't decide. But the interesting thing is four justices dissented and would have allowed Texas to continue laying down the wire and would have stopped the federal government from cutting. And this was Justice Thomas Alito, Gore Sutch, and Kevin Awe, and presumably therefore the five justices who wanted to allow the
federal government to continue, according to Texas, trampling on its sovereignty. Not only were the three liberal justices but also including Chief Justice Robert and Justice Barrett. Surprisingly, I think so that's where matters stand right now. But things are escalating right because, according to to news reports, Texas is either refusing to allow federal officials to get near the barbed wire or is dragging its feet
or delaying things. Governor Abbott has invoked the state's right to self defense, has said that the federal government should not have complete authority over immigration, citing Justice Scalia's dissent in this case, I'm sure we're going to talk about Arizona versus United States. Let's start with Lucretia, is this really a constitutional crisis? Is this really a dispute that really raises these fundamental questions about do states
have some kind of inherent sovereignty still under our union? Do they have a right self defense that exists outside of federal control? Okay, so let me begin this by saying that I was in a rental car with no option for
any streaming media. So while I had the car for a couple of weeks, I was listening to a bunch of our old podcasts, and I have to say that my favorite line of my own, at least from a podcast, was when we were discussing this back I think in February, when we were discussing the Supreme Court opinion that established late, late, late into our republic that somehow this was a federal only responsibility. And we were talking, talking, and you said, but it has to be this way, because
you know that's the law. And I said, no, it's not the law. It's what some stupid judge said. And what do we care about what some stupid judge said? Right, I had a kind of judge for you, Lucretia, that this stupid judgement Clarence Thomas isn't stupid. Oh ever,
correct, I don't think he's ever been stupid. But anyway, No, actually I do have a serious point, John, and you're going to be a little surprised by this, But if we're going to move somehow into the possibility of Texas seceding and civil war, whatever, I actually think that a much more moderate position, consistent with the constitution and the rule of law, is to say that, in fact, Texas has every ability to enforce its own safety, the safety of its citizens, enforce the borders that are
Texas borders, and that it's certainly the governor's decision to say that we do not believe for the sake of the safety and so forth of our people, the federal government is adequately protecting them, and we are going to do so. That to me is a much less extreme position then you know, the Biden administration coming in with, you know, threatening force to use force against the Texas National Guard for simply trying to keep criminals out of their Let's not
forget we are talking criminals. We are not talking poor, helpless, oh people who want a camera for a better life. They are criminals. They are breaking our laws. They're felons. Why do we want people whose first act entering the country is to commit a felony? Okay, sorry, rant, but my point is Texas has every right to do so, and there's
nothing in the constitution that says they cannot. There's only a stupid Supreme Court decision, ill decided, no basis for it other than this silly also made up Supreme Court precedent of preemption, and I think that the best thing to do would be for the Supreme Court to step in and say, yeah, as a matter of fact, Texas can prote their borders. As a matter of fact, they have an obligation, a closer obligation to the safety of
their people than the federal government ever did. And one last thing about it, I still maintain the position that cars. You made the comment that Carsantina wire is something used in war, implying I am assuming that you know this is a radical or extreme measure. My position on the border is we should put out a shoot on site order let people know that within X number of hours, anybody attempting to cross the border anywhere but at official border crossings with
official papers, et cetera, will be shot on site. I think it is the most humanitarian thing that we could do as a country. Because again, let's not never mind the fentanyl crisis and everything else that's happening to our own people. What happens to the small percentage nowadays that aren't military aged young
men, but are indeed families, women and children. They are so abused, So the human suffering, the human abuse that they suffer, the child sex trafficking, the women sex trafficking, that all of that is so egregious, so horrible that anybody who doesn't think that we should close the border down completely and never let another soul in is just complicit in that evil operation. So that's my thought on the matter. So let me bring Stephen here.
Yeah, and so what do you make about the Constitutional provision Article one, section ten, which we've talked about before, which says no state shall, without the consent of Congress, engage in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. So doesn't that provision actually have been a state's right to self defense, the one that Lucretia has so eloquently defended. But it says you're right to engage in this war self defense?
Is you need to be actually invaded or imminent danger, as will not admit of delay. This doesn't seem to be a sudden attack or a problem that's suddenly befallen. The country in Washington can't react fast enough. This is an issue that's been going on for years, years, decades even. Yeah, so let me backstop Lucretia. By the way, Lucretia's going to get her chance. She's almost shaken, no, so hard that she's almost like the
Little Girl and the Exorcist and spun her head completely around. She's mussing her hair and a whole bit. I'm aside with Lucretia here, and look even later when we go to New Hampshire and making it maybe if we get there. Well, first of all, just a brief comment, listeners, and you are likely shocked at her suggestion of a shoot on side order. But I recall it the late great Edward Banfield of Harvard, who liked the shock people. He said forty years ago or more, the only way you stop
illegal immigration, you said, John had gone for decades. Bamfield, decades ago said the only way to stop illegal immigrations to shoot people crossing the border. That was Banfield. I think it was long retired by the time you got to Harvard. And anyway, so look, John, let me do it this way, Steve, just quickly. All I want to say is, I'm not even suggesting shoot on site orders to protect us. I'm i
am suggesting I'm get deterrent. No, yes, as a deterrent, but as a deterrent to keep what I know, what I see on a daily basis is happening to people who are encouraged by this corrupt administration to come here for their corrupt reasons. But what they suffer because of that is it's horrendous. No, you don't your stories. Well, first of all, yes, if there were serious border control, whether it goes to the extreme that you and I just endorsed, it will stop. People will stop coming.
That's the first fact. The second one is you do hear interesting stories starting to rise. So people who've come across the border. By the way, let's leave aside what's wrong with the asylum process, but some are making the legal claim of asylum that has been blown wide open. Some of them are leaving and going back and they said, gush, we thought we were this is gonna be great, and that kind of sucks. So all right,
Johnyway Steve back on point. Yeah. Sorry. Does a state have the right to decide to use some kind of military level force against aliens trying to cross the border despite Article one, Section ten, despite what the Supreme Court has said about the division of authority of immigration being wholly in the hands of the federal government. Right, My answer is yes, we are in a constitutional crisis about this. But first of all, John, let me make
sure that I state your position in general terms accurately. In our you state your position. You state your position. They'll not come at the end and state my position. Well, but see, I'm gonna I've got to this. I'm doing this like Thomas Aquinas who state the objections and then rebuttals to the objections. Right, That's how I want to proceed here. You said in the past to two things. I think One, is this actually an invasion? There's they're not armed, they're not backed by a foreign power like
a formal arm rate one. Two, the supremacy clause essentially immigration and enforcement of the borders of federal responsibilities solely and preems the states totally cogent arguments, purely positive law and why I think that we are in a moment of constitutional crisis is simple through us a lot of ways. But let me just give you John to start out the argument. One clause from the Declaration of Independence. Remember those dietments against the king and all the things that he'd done to
degrade the self government of the colonies. One of them rings just follows quote he meaning King George, he has four bidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. I think that end quote, by the way, I think that sentence applies perfectly to the Bide administration. They're saying, Texas, you can't do this.
We're going to take down those concertina wires or whatever the floats in the river, and then we will do nothing and will just continue to let people come in. I do think that we are now on the cusp of the higher law of a right of revolution. I should add twenty five Republican governors have gone forward in the last forty eight hours said we are on Texas's side. You know, we had a couple of discussions in the last several months, how could there be a civil war? Well, you know what,
we're pretty doing close to it right now. Last comment, Oh, come on, do you really think so? You really think we're close to a civil war? Well? Are you high? Is that fedan nol brought across the border in your balveny? No, let me let me play out the practical workings like this I said before. I can see it either, but let me do it this way. The left right now is saying, well, if Abbot persists, then what the Biden should do is federalize the National
Guard the way Eisenhower did in nineteen eighty seven and little Rock. And then my response is, at that point Texas calls up the good old Texas Rangers and says, go arrest those federal officers. And I bet a bunch of governors twenty five Republican does Really we have we have the public saying by about an eighty percent margin and polls that Biden is wrong on the border. We could talk something about the right of revolution and why and the declaration is important
that it's the right of the people and not individuals. I think with that many governors do you really want to have the practical matter. I think that's what Steve. I think. So, Steve, I think he went too quickly to implementation, like the pragmatics, like how would this actually work? No, but but I want to hear you guys explain to be Steve like, so you think you guys think? And I'm surprised to hear this from
people who I take to be generally supporters and fans of Abraham Lincoln. So you think when the States entered the Union, right they retained some kind of natural right of self defense that the written Constitution could not regulate or narrow in the way that Article one, Section ten does. So this is even before you get to the question this is I'm just explaining the objection. I'm just explaining the objection. I'm the moderator. How Steve, how come you don't
have a You've gotten on here? So no way? So think the only thing I'm saying is we we you know, because if you go into is this an invasion? Is this imminent danger? And I noticed Steve didn't argue about that, because that already consists an opportunity to go on No, no, no. Before we get to Article one, Section ten and what those terms mean. Do you think that there's a right of self defense in a state in this circumstance that goes beyond what's in that clause. I think there's
a right of self defense in the people. That's that that Article ten I see mean the Tenth Amendment guarantees in the people of the rietal of Texas, the people of Texas right, not the people of the United States in our in in the tenth Amendment specifically says are reserve to the states respectively or to the people. And one has to easily concede that. When it says to the states respectively or to the people, that means that the people can decide
at what level they want to exercise those rights. I'm talking about the tenth Amendment. So then why why why is the Confederacy effort to leave the Union on constitutional Do we really want to go there first with very good argus argument you're making, but the right to the right to defend themselves against the federal
government. No, they did not. They made the argument that consistent with the Constitution, there was a right for states to secede, and Lincoln's argument was, okay, fine, if you want to write, if you want to exercise your right to revolution, you can do so. That can that's an inalienable right. But that is not It was a sophistry by the South to sort of confuse the issue of secession with the right to revolution. And what he said was the states did not create The states as entities did not
create the Constitution. They were basically administrative entities for ratifying it. The people. The Constitution was ratified by the people. But the people can as part of their state if their safety is that's what Article one, section ten tells us that they are in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
You want to say that because this has been slowly boiling like the frog in the water to the point where well, because there was a problem forty years ago with Steve Steve's Banfield quote, and it illegal immigration has always been a problem that somehow the most illegal entries into the United States by day, by week, by month have occurred under the Biden administration, to the point where the city of Chicago is housing thirty thousand immigrants in the city, illegal immigrants,
illegal aliens in the city of Chicago. That's the size of the town. I grew up in thirty thousand people that have now gone to Chicago. What Texas goes through because of this, It's much worse in Texas than it is where I am. But I see it all of the time, the imminent danger. As will not admit of delay, even some stupid Supreme Court opinion that says, yeah, the government can, the federal government can cut the Carcentina wire. I would be just like Abbott and say screw you.
That's not what the constitution says. The constitution says a state can do what's necessary, engage in war. Engage in war if there's such imminent dangers, not will admit of delay. I there's anything about it had to happen all of a sudden. Well, this is that what the word imminent means. No eminent means. It's it's happening. It's right there now. But it's
gotten so much worse. John, It's that okay. So it wasn't as much of a problem when Bush was excuse me, when Trump was president, because he had, you know, he enforced policies that that that idiot Biden immediately overturned. He enforced policies in a way that essentially slowed down, seriously slowed down in legal immigration. That's not the situation we're in. It's woman in danger. I honestly think imminent danger is the idea of a surprise attack.
Putting it also in the eighteenth century context, you could have an attack across the border Washington did, and SEC wouldn't know for weeks, if not months, and then it would take a long time to raise an army. So I think there's a difference I think between a surprise attack or some kind of unforeseen event and a social problem that has been going on. Maybe it's getting worse, but it's not imminent in the sense that nobody knew about it
or could prepare for it. The problem I think you have is not it's that definition of imminent. Where do you get that from? What? Other? Actually eighteenth century dictionaries of the time. I mean, I looked into this. I was actually let me, let me look to my unhorn. But before all this immigration stuff, I was one of the only people in legal scholarship to write about this provision. Although I was curious about what because you know, I write about the declare war clause, so obviously this is
a little different. It actually admits that you don't need to have a right declaration of war in these circumstances. So I was curious what an imminent danger or actual invasion was. But my point is what you're I think the claim here and Governor Abbis's claim is not that the danger is imminent. It is that Biden is allowing this problem. It's not like this danger erupted exogynously or outside our system. It's that Biden has decided not to enforce the immigration laws
fully in the way that Abbot would like. It's, if anything, the danger is coming from Washington, d C, not from beyond the border. Well, if you Steve Well, if you wanted to ring, if Texas wanted to ring Washington, d C. With Concertina wire, I would probably approve of that idea. But here's a question. They already have this response. They already have the consent of Congress to keep troops in time of peace. They already have that permission. Now I heard josh can which can be
federalized by the federal government, Biden taken away from Texas. Essentially, that's that, but that's lost. Yes, But as it stands, they have the consent of Congress to have a national guard to respond to emergencies in their state. Uh So, I don't see any problem with uh Abbott sending the national Guard to protect the border. I see no problem with that. I see no problem with doing what they need. So let me let me ask you this. Then, Okay, go ahead, I mean, go ahead.
But the idea that this is not a danger. What I was going to tell you was Josh Holly today said he's actually going to introduce into into the Senate. It probably won't pass, but he's going to introduce Maybe you never know if Steve's polls are right. The idea that as a matter of fact, Congress is going to give its consent to the Texas National Guard, to the Arizona National Guard. Not that our stupid excuse for a governor would do it, but to secure the border. That would make it easy.
No, that would be that would make the problem go away, because, as you say, it says, without the consent of Congress, if you have the consent of Congresses, you're putting in stipulations that aren't in the constitutional provision. They are really interested troops. No, I know, but it's not a question of keeping the troops. Is a question of whether you can use them to engage in war. Is it engaging in war if you put up wire? Yeah, I mean border you're using the military to put up
wire. And then you're also talking about using the military to balk federal officers from wait an order. You know, when we have these natural disasters or you know, the hurricane Katrina, and we send the military to help the sandbags, that's not engaging in war. I agree, that's actually that's the legitimate use of the state of its ahead. Wait a minute, I mean you engage in but they're not engaging in war. They don't need congressional permission
to do disaster relief. Let's see that if they wanted to shoot Canadians or Mexicans, that would be engaging in war. Yeah, let's let's leave aside. I'm okay with that requiring consented but not putting up Carzantina wire or buoys or standing at the border and turning people back. That's not, in my opinion, engaging. Let me let me but let me ask, let me
ask you both, and let me ask Steve this. Then this is what the Bide administration is saying in court, and they are going to continue to say this politically too, is you know, the states can't do this in opposition to the federal government. That's so you could read this provision as something terrible happens, That's like the notion of self defense. Something terrible happens to you, you have to act immediately to preserve yourself self preservation. But the
federal government sayings, but this is different. We have a border patrol, we have agents there, we have facilities there. We are telling the states to stop, and you are defying a federal order in an area of federal control, foreign affairs, national security, on the border. So it's a little different than I think. This imminent danger has arisen, a state must
respond. Federal governments not able to get there in time. How can you justify doing this against the commands of the federal government not in the absence of any action from Washington. Does that mean that there has to be some states, right, commands of Congress, maybe the federal government. No, it doesn't say it says it has to have the consent of Congress. It doesn't
say it has to have the consent of the Executive Department. Difference, and so if you read, if you read the the arguments that the that the Bidmentstry is making. Congress has passed a law that says border agents, the federal government Department Homeless is allowed to have free and unfettered access to the border, notwithstanding whither the land is owned by state or even I was actually surprised. I hadn't realized this. Even private parties, they are allowed to cross
and no one is allowed to obstruct them. That's an act of Congress. I say, let me be more succinct than I was last at Steve. I think the clausey point to an Article one, section ten about states can engage in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. That's not a legal judgment, that's a political judgment at the end of the day. And even if Congress doesn't speak, if the federal government says, hey, you can't do that, that's our job, and
then they don't do that job. At that point we are in a revolutionary situation exactly is contemplated in the Right of revolution and the declaration of independence. That's a radical thing to say. I think is equally radical in the level of theory as saying, let's stand on the border and another, the federal government's not to do that. The states have the people acting through their agents
and the state governments. And now it looks like a majority of the state governments in the country is saying, you're absolutely right, are absolutely right to do that. By the way, I should add here, you know what's
an imminent danger in the invasion and so forth. It is a curious thing to me that you're you know, Governor Rabbit, and well mostly Governor Rabbit had the wit to send, you know, a few tens of thousands of migrants to New York and Chicago and a few other places, and all, who's, oh my god, we can't handle all this, but El Paso
can There's something wrong with this picture? And if you know, if the courts can't, you know, this is actually I'm actually kind of thinking this is analogous in a reverse way with Roosevelt attacking the Court in nineteen thirty seven. He lost the political argument, who won the battle? As we all know, right, the Court changed and reversed its course and started saying,
hey, I guess you can. I think the courts here if they if the courts do not slap down the Biden administration, I fear you we're going to have some very bad things happen there. First of all, there I don't think that the I think Texas is going to lose this case. They might have a lausible case about getting Arizona overturned, although that's not going to happen immediately. That would have to happen in the normal course, which could
take a year or two. But here I want to go back to say you said, Steve, because I don't want you to get a get away with your radicalism. I want you to get full credit for it. So when you say that this is evoking a state's right of revolution, the people actually people's right of revolution. So what does that mean? What do you mean by that? Exactly? So you mean that the people who are in Texas or the people outside of Texas who are supporting Texas, have the right
to refuse to obey federal law or the commands of the federal government. And they're not doing it because they're saying you're wrong about the constitution. They're saying we have the right to overturn the constitutional order on this point. To say
that that's the constitutions, that's the right of revolution. Yeah, the Constitution is supposed to protect the purposes outlined in the declaration, but sorry, infinites sent the right of revolution means that the people have the right to vindicate the ends for which the constitution is written. Uh. And that's why I go back to the article one said, there's political judgement, not legal judgment. They are political judgments about what those phrases of military force, imminent danger,
and so forth mean. It's an interesting thing, you know. I was just talking about this, not the immigration cases, but I was talking about this interesting turn in the Declaration of Independence paragraph too. We talk about the individual rights of natural rights of life, liberty, and property, and that these are the ends for which governments are instituted. And then you go on
and that's the right of the people, not individuals the people. That's always a problem with you know, this is why Edmund Burke didn't like things like the Declaration, Right, it's too abstract. I think we see here a con create example of when the government is failing in its job to protect the ends for which governments are instituted. That's my point. And so this does this can be a view, this can be a view held by a minority of the people in the United States, and I think it's held by an
overwhelming majority of the people. So this is so, this is the this is what Biden was saying, and this is why I was that. Yeah, no, this is why I was. That's why I did raise a civil war because I think Brighten would make the argument that Lincoln made about elections. He could say, we had an election in twenty twenty. I was clear what my policies about the border were going to be, and he was, and he'said, you know, there was a huge difference between Trump.
Yeah, he was. I thought they were pretty clear. They were going to restore DACA and DAPPA, they were going to end all the Trump immigration restrictions. I mean, there was a he didn't say. He didn't say he was going to stop all deportations, which is all of the first things he did. But they haven't stopped all deportations. Well it was a six month moratorium. That was his opening day. But what say the word no? But Biden is going to say, we had an election, and we
had a midterm election, and our policies were clear. The voters made a choice, and the voters made their choice, and so the majority, he can say, the majority of the United States and two elections, has you know returned this you know has returned this administration to office. Are you not allowing a minority, maybe a majority of the people in Texas, perhaps by a minority, to say we do not want to respect the will of the
national electorate and those two elections on a matter of policy. That's what Lincoln said. That's one of the problems with secession. God, you are stubborn. We're gonna have to revoke your Claremont card. Oh you can have it, you can, I really do. Why is that? Why is that different? What would you say in response to Biden? It's a very much more complicated argument. And I don't think we need to go there. When you say imminent, you're acting like it happened all of a sudden, And
that's the only definition of imminent. That is not the definition of imminent. And it's certainly not the definition of imminent. What is the what is it? Definitely? Danger? Threatening, menacing, perilous? It says imminent danger, So imin cannot be dangerous because that would be dangerous danger. Imminent is a temporal concept, right, I mean, but it happened all of a sudden, It means that the evil from it is imminent. That's what it
means, the evil. And so you can have a little bit of illegal immigration and it has no widespread effects on society, the fentanyl, c all that sort of thing. You can have a little bit more and then a little bit more. But at some point the massive illegal immigration that is overwhelming municipalities, that is bringing in terrorists, that's bringing in cartels and all of that. At some point the danger from the policy is so great it threatens
imminently to destroy the country. That's what people are worried about, John. They're not worried about this person or that person crossing the border. They're worried about the fact that it's hundreds of thousands of people who are not vetted, who who are treated better than citizens. You know, you've you've paid attention. I hope to this whole business in the airports where if I go and I forget my extra special ID, government approved ID, I can't get on
an airplane and I have to stand in a line. I actually don't I have TSA, but they put they put illegal immigrants with no IDs. They come with these little packages. I've seen it in the airport and they put them right through the airport and on the airplane, they escort them onto the plane. Why the hell does that happened? What the hell kind of country do we live in? I read a story today where they kicked out special
needs children in a community to house illegal immigrants in their school. What the hell are we allowing this corrupt excuse, for pedophile excuse to go ahead and try to force this whole change. Appreciate it. This is why I think, this is why we have elections rather than I don't think. I don't think that that justifies states using military force to interpose the federal government. Who's it hurt? I mean, if you're going to have the Texas Rangers come
in and try to stop official, why are hurting? Can I answer the question that you're posing or you're just going to answer it for me? Who is it hurting? Though? The answer is there are federal officials who want to get to the border and they cannot get This is what the government's claiming and papers before the Supreme Court. I do not think they're lying. They are saying that Department of Homelands. If they're lying, then they can be
disbarred and actually punished for lying to the court. It's a felony. So these are federal officials who are paying for the Supreme Court, and they're saying, the DHS officials want to get to the border and they cannot because there's Concertina wire. Now, you disagree with what they do when they get there.
Can I say you disagree with them when they get to the border, But federal law says they are to have un option, they have unfettered access to the border, right, And then you disagree with the policy that's being pursued by the bid administration. I disagree with it too. I don't think they should just say we're bringing these people across the border and then we're going to quote unquote process them. But that's a disagreement about the policy that the
federal goverment's engaging in. Now. I don't want to see them like I'm cheating and bringing the debate to an early clothes because we're just going to take a short break. Well wait for a yes, we are going to take a short break for a sponsor, and then after the sponsor comes, we come back. Steve, you get the first comment, then we come back.
All right, Well, the joke is on John, because we're going to actually do this episode ad free, because there were no good places to break to put in the ads up to this point in the show, and we're already running long. So in place of an outside ad, everyone go out and buy John's led us book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court, and we'll just leave it there and be back next week with McDonald's and all the other national ads, the John Prizes. Okay, now we're
back, Steve, go ahead. Look, so you know, I'm thinking, John, we're not going to reach consensus on this. We're gonna LUCRETI not gonna mark you down as undecided. I'll just mention the last comment. And I don't want to play this out, but there is a certain hypocrisy here, not on your part, because I think you agree with us on
this point, and let's celebrate that if we can. We've had for twenty years now all these liberal sanctuary cities not just making a virtue signaling declaration, but declaring in many cases we're ordering local and state law enforcement not to cooperate with the federal government. And in California as a whole, is a sanctuary state right, and it seems status and so that the liberals are now saying Texas can't do this is federal law. I think this is such rank hypocrisy
that's really quite disgusting and revolting. Oh that's you know, I can go on for a while. That and lots of other things. By the way, I'll bet this is not over. I mean, the Supreme Court is still going to hear a complete or Appeals court maybe Supreme Court with your complete case. We'll see what happens the next twenty four forty eight hours, and you know, to be continued. I think that's why I was hoping to make that clear when I was introducing this topic, although I did want us
to get into the deep issues. Is that I think a lot of people reading too much into the Supreme Court just saying allow the case to come up through the lower courts and we'll hear it in the normal course, which is basically what they did with the Trump immunity claims too. So it's you know, you have to show extraordinary circumstances for the Supreme Court to say we're going to reach all the way down short circuit all the lower work deliberations and pull
the case up immediately. So they just said we're not going to do that. So my only point is you can't prognosticate on how the court will eventually come out on this Arizona versus the US issue about whether immigration is solely federal or whether it's joint federal and state policy. I agree with you about all of that, John, My question and it really kind of is a question, although it contains within it some real disapproval. You didn't have to say
that ahead, and the side of you you could just do it. I should just do it more or less a procedural. They overturned the injunction that had been put in place by the Fifth Circuit. They offered no explanation for it. Often you get, you know, the Fifth Circuit itself said that we believe there's a very strong likelihood that the actions of Texas will be upheld, and that's why we are issuing this injunction against the border patrol, the
federal border patrol cutting the Carcentina wire. What I don't understand. I understand that this isn't the long reaching decision or anything like that. It's not overturning Arizona versus United States or that other eighteen whatever, decision eighteen seventy something. I get all that, but what on earth would have ever possessed somebody like I get Roberts because he's just awful, but somebody like Amy Care I can't even have seen certain I know her name. I just was trying not to
say all the horrible words that people have used about her lately. What would possess somebody to think that it made sense to do that, it made sense to overturn the injunction instead of just leave the injunction in place until this case was decided. What harm would have been done? That's what I was trying to ask you. I mean, you can't tell me it's because the law has to be executed, because they are not executing any of the other laws,
and the stupid Supreme Court has to know that. Why would they make I get the decision is temporary. I get the decision is not far reaching, but it was still a horrible decision. There would have been nothing against technical This is a technical legal thing, actually, so, and that's what I think. Want to know. Yeah, The unusual thing about this is that this case actually started not with the Biden administration suing Texas, which would
have been the normal way to bring this up. Texas acted I think prematurely, and sued the federal government and then I mean made up a claim which I think is not going to work in the end. They said, we are suing the federal government for a torque for an injury because you have misused state property. That's their claim. I think that's a big mistake. I think if what Texas should have done is kept doing what they were doing putting
up the concert Teina wire. Even people have suggested to the point of every time the federal garment cuts it away, replace it and force the Biden administration to suit Texas. But because Texas sued first, I think this is probably what Amy Cony Barrett thinks is the status quo before the judicial process got involved, was Texas was laying the wire and the border patrol were coming up and
cutting it back. There's photos and video of this going on. So Amy coming Barr apparently is a critic of the court using its emergency docket, you know, these emergency appeals as a way of really deciding important questions. If she believes that, then it's somewhat makes sense to say, if we remove all federal judicial involvement. Then the status quo anti was States put up the wire, and then the Border Patrol cuts it away, so they were just
getting all of the injunctions out. Now I agree, I'm not clear. I mean, I could see it the other way easily, because you could have left it in place. And the Fifth Circuit's going to hear an emergency pill. Ironically, they're hearing it the day before the Trump qualadi Colorado disqualification case at the Supreme Court February seventh. They're hearing it and the Trump cases on February eighth, so we'll have to have a double header episode of the
Three Whiskey Happy Hour on February ninth. But I agree with you. The Supreme Court could have left the injunction in place and said we're going to have this come up pretty quickly. Anyway, you have four descents, interestingly, which is unusual for this kind of procedure, which is essentially guarantees that the Supreme Court will take the case next, because that's all you only need four
votes to grant. Sir, you and I had a lovely, lovely walk one evening on our way to dinner, and we discussed this idea that certain justices. I hope that you just put me on the FBI watch list. By the way, Oh I know, no, No, I think it'd
be okay. I actually will to give your conclusion. But you were explaining to me, not that I didn't know this, but you were explaining to me that there are some justices who believe that they sort of have to play this balancing act, especially conservative justices or you know, ostensibly conservative justices,
moderate justices. Let's just say that where if they're going to decide a political controversy as a judicial a judicial controversy that's got very serious political implications, they'll decide this way for the right, and the next one they'll decide for the left as a kind of balance. That was what you explained to me. Are you worried in any way, shape or form that's these two cases are going to be heard, the two of the biggest political controversies that have now
become judicial controversies. And like Steve's going to tell us his favorite quote about it, I know he will that that you know this you talked today on when I heard you on Neil Cavudo about you know, I think Neil asked you a question about the does the Supreme Court really want to be involved in these kinds of political controversies. We know they really don't for a variety of
very good reasons. But thinking about the fact that immigration is the number one political controversy that has people more riled up than anything else, and second to that, of course, is Trump and whether or not Trump is eligible for the ballot and et cetera, et cetera. And the Supreme Court's going to hear cases day one, day two, hear oral arguments. Day I'm sorry, February seventh is when the Fifth Circuit is going to hear the case.
The Supreme Court is not going to hear feb So they would probably hear in April if they were going to take the case. So, but it doesn't detract from your point, which is, you know, you think about this year. They're going to hear the disqualification case, They're going to get the
Trump immunity case. They've got Lucretia's favorite case, the January sixth charges Oh yeah, officians, and then they've got the Chevron case, and they've got is the sixteenth is the wealth tax constitutional case, And then they've got this potential case about is immigration still exclusively federal or should the court overturn Arizona? Given how you know, Scalia's theory seemed to be on the rise of the court these days. Scalia dissented in Arizona. He had the view you did.
He thought that he said before, through most of American history, states were the ones who enforced immigration law, and that the major question was does the federal government have any role in enforcing immigration law? And so he would have here he voted, he sent did in Arizona. Essentially, he thought the court was wrong. He thought that states could, you know, enforce immigration. He thought that states had sovereignty over their own territory and so they
could control who's allowed to enter and leave. So I could see this court overturning Arizona. You know, it was a close case at the time, and the court has only become more conservative. But I could also see this court saying, let's do that after the election, right play. If they're you know, want to stay out of politics, what they would do is say, why should we the federal courts get involved. Let let the federal let bidens still continue to screw it up, and there'll be an election.
This November, and the people can decide and they can kick Biden out, and then this problem will go away, because then you'll have a new the Circuit or just decide in favor of Texas, which it has which well, no, I mean it did. That's a preliminary matter. As a preliminary matter, it said it was likely to Texas was likely to. But that's not a guarantee for sure. Is it possible that as long as there's not a different circuit court case that that goes in the opposite direction. This is
really interesting. There's a great that's a great question to suppose the Supreme suppose a fifth Circuit finds for Texas. Then we know there are four votes on the Court that appear to agree with Texas. So the question would be, are there actually four votes on the court to take the case? And you could you know, if you're Chief Justice Roberts, maybe you don't want to
take this case right now. So they could end up denying it, and then, right, Texas can keep putting up the wire and the federal government can keep cutting it away, and then the federal government of the States could keep putting it back. And now there's another case that's looming behind this one, which is I think it's a Texas Senate bill. I think eight maybe, But Texas passed the bill which is based an effort to duplicate the Arizona
case. So they've passed a bill that is similar to the Arizona bill that was struck down by the court. They are trying to get the court to reverse Arizona. So that's kind of come after. No matter what happens with this, there's the federal government has suit to stop enforcement of this Texas law, which allows Texas officials to ask are you here in the country legally to
detain people who are here illegally. So it's like, I don't think the course can be able to get out of it, but they might want to be able to punt up past the election. So John, if I'm John and not a crazy ranting Lucretia, I think that the crazy ranting Lucretia worrying about what would be If I'm John, I actually think that the moderate course here, and the course that makes the most sense for the health of the
Republic on all fronts, is to side with Texas. Again, That's why I can sort of keep asking you what harm is done, whereas if if the Biden administration can continue to do what it's doing, You're seeing more and more people talking about civil war, talking about revolution. There's going to be a major what would you call it, rally days long rally, calling every MAGA person, calling every this and that that supposed to form down at the border, you know, the entire length. So I think this is well,
this is Steve's point. I think that Steve should correct me if I'm I'm misrepresenting him. But I think I do think immigration is primarily a national function, although the Constitution doesn't mention it at all, But then the people know, and this was a point of some of the Supreme Court cases. If everyone knows it's a national function, then they can hold the national government responsible for it. And I think the polls show Biden's getting killed in the
polling on immigration. It's one of the two, right that and inflation or killing his administration. He's terribly low, you know, right popular approval ratings, and I got to think immigration is one of the major reasons for that. And then they can hold him accountable and the Congress in November. Isn't that a better outcome than states? Sort of popping up with resistance or approval about immigration only if you assume that the damage that will be done between January
and November is inconsequential. John, that's the problem. I mean, this is me going against Lincoln, who said, don't you know you don't have to worry. Even the worst kinds of presidents are gone after four years. Right, that was Lincoln. So you're talking to the South. You know, this isn't the end of the world. Nothing's going to happen. It's
going to destroy you in the short space of my term. I actually think I maybe I'm crazy, Maybe I'm crazy on this point, but I see I see the devastation and the damage, and I don't know if we last until November with the Biden administration's lack of enforcement of policy that's like this, This is this. Here's something that's completely crazy, which is Steve's opinion about
movies. No, No, let's save that for another time. I thought we wanted to do see I'm sure instead, okay, here, right, I don't know, Okay, okay, for something even crazier than Steve's movie reviews, which we were going to include this episode. I'm sorry, fans, We're gonna have to wait till next week to hear Steve where Steve plays both Siskel and Ebert, So we're gonna have to get to that later.
We still have one big piece of news to talk about. But also has I think again, like this Texas issue, very you know, much deeper issues evolved, which is what do you guys make about the New Hampshire elections? What do you guys make about DeSantis dropping out beforehand? What do you guys make about Haley only losing by ten points roughly when Poles had her losing
by over twenty and Haley refusing to get out of the race. What do you guys make of Donald Trump's I thought ungracious, you know, bizarre, even a victory speech where it was mostly a rant against Dicky Haley rather than you know, I think enjoying his you know, his you know, quite large New Hampshire victory. What do you think about what this means for the
race? Is it now as the primary over and the general election? On Steve, oh, I want Lucretia go first, because I know we're going to disagree on this, I think, okay, but Lucretia go ahead.
So punting just a little bit on your question. And I want to point out to you guys that every time I say something derogatory about some squishy moderate Rhino Republican, like, uh, what's his name, who's the guy who's now on Fox, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Nicky Haley, whenever I say something, really you know that they're despicable, that they're this, and they're that. You guys are like, no, no, why would you say that. Oh, I think she's okay because and it
turns out we now know what a despicable excuse for a human being. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are Nicky Haley is, of course courting Democratic vote. That's why the polls. Ah, h walking into my trap. Lacretia good, keep going, And uh, she's you know, she's she's being funded by every left wing donor out there. I think she's a bit of a patsy in some ways. I also think he's just not solid. I mean, if if I were running for president, I wouldn't take money from the
people she's taking money from. I just wouldn't do it. But anyway, you know, she's going to stay in the race. Why shouldn't she These people want to make sure that the primary season for Trump lasts as long as possible, so he keeps training his ire on Nicky Haley instead of Joe Biden political consultants who get paid by all of that money that's being shoveled into her
campaign by the globalists and the rhinos and so on. They're going to tell her to keep going in it because if they don't what, they're out of a job. So there you go. That's that's my answer. But I do want you guys to I want you to confess that every time I say something about a rhino and you guys are shocked, I turn out to be absolutely right, well long before they're desp you know, I mean, okay, uh three three points three points one is observation in the general scene.
Point two is the genius of Trump, and point three is the genius of Nikki Haley. And I do this to annoy Lucretia. First of all, if you'd said six months ago that at the beginning of the votes being counted, everybody would be out of the field except for Nikki Haley, who would have believed that this this is the kind remarkable I think and I'm not going to do with ni Haley. Okay, I'm gonna say, let's leave that aside. I'm not that's I'm not convinced to that, but it is still
it is kind of you would have thought it was. You would have thought the early money was on DeSantis exactly right, Okay, point number So why what what happened to the guy? Well, I support of rhinos and lefties? Well, let me leave the whole defense standard thing. Guy. Okay, So we'll hear that. We'll hear that next. We'll have so you know, after the Iowa result, Trump, if you saw a speech, was very magnanimous. You know, Nicky Hayley and Ron they ran great campaigns.
And by the way, you know, Niggi Haley was fairly careful and restrained and not attacking Trump very much during a run up before Iowa, and then she took the gloves off right now, by the way, So people
thought the other day that first the genius of Donald Trump. Everyone thought that he made a gaff when he or you know, he's sena when he said Niggi botched the capital security on January sixth, and people are like, oh, that was Nancy Pelosi was in charge of security, and every thought that shows that Trump is cenw No, I think it's Trump's old genius showing up. What do you do by saying that, I think it was a deliberate mistake quote unquote mistake. I think, uh. I think what he did
was, first he links Haley and Nancy Pelosi in people's mind. That's very clever. Second, he made the media and Nancy Pelosi come along and say, oh, actually I was in charge of security to the capital, which point for part three or point C that reinforces in a subtle way for the people think there's something wrong with January sixth, right that And you know we've
talked about that at a long point. So I actually thought that was another one of Trump's very genius rhetorical news that people are totally misinterpreting, and he's really good at that. And I have a whole lot of examples of that.
Let me do points and I add one more to that, Steve, without demailing your whole conversation, and that is that, of course, the left immediately jumps on that to say he's senile because they want to draw attention away from the fact that the actual that the president actually is senile and demented and so on. Yeah. Right, But whenever they I mean honestly, whenever they tried to defend that whole thing, it just made them look like idiots, and it made it highlighted the fact that yes, in fact,
Biden is a decrepit, senile, demented pedophile. There you go. Yeah, I have to get that out every time. Sure. But now the third thing is the genius of Hayley. This is why I think, forget what you think about lucre to share her ideology and all the rest of that. I'm just thinking now, raw political skill. So you know, Trump had been very magnanimous after Iowa, and you know Haley ran probably I actually
thought Trump might romp in New Hampshire to sixty five percent. Oh, it is being said at some point, it's being said that I thought Lucrease she were going to say this, you kind of did. Seventy percent of her vote was independence or crossover Democrats. And I just like to point out to people that, Okay, but I remember nineteen seventy six and nineteen eighty where some of Ronald Reagan's strongest states like Illinois and Michigan and a few others is
where independence and Democrats crossover and vote for him. Actually, Illinois was the turning point in nineteen seventy six against Gerald Ford because it showed his ability to draw Democrats and crossover voters. And Trump does something like that also. But this case, Haley did Okay, okay, wait, wait, wait before I go on to the next no, no, no, no, what
I want to get Well, you're going to test me about Reagan. No, I'm gonna haven't finished about Haley. I mean yeah, I'm gonna contest you about that whole Jesus sorry, I can test you about that whole thing that somehow this is her appeal to independence and Democrats. They had a bunch of all of the above who said I wouldn't vote for Nicki Haley in a million years. I know, I just wanted to. I just wanted to twist your tail to get exactly that response. And then you were gonna let
me say anything. Well you know how that always worked, Steve, Are you finished? No? I'm not. The last point is this? So Trump was magnanimous after Iowa to resume my narrative that kept getting rudely interrupted, and then Nicki Hanley came out and attacked Trump in a way she's never done before in that dress. It is true that she wore a dress that was like what's in trust got to do with? I knew Trump was obsessed with
it. Here's the point. She she baited Trump in her speech and I'm sure and he grabbed the bait and said, you know, she wore that dress. It's not even a good dress, but I can you know whatever he said. I thought it was fine. I thought it was different from her usual wardrobe. I'll bet I can find pictures of Malaney or were in the same dress that might even come out, and a few did. She baited him and got the worst of Trump, the sort of indisciplined Trump who
can't resist the insult. If you had the Trump you had in Iowa, you know he would have won over some people. Instead, he just can't help himself and he had to trash her. And I think it's over Trump's nominee period, full stop. But don't underestimate. Maybe he's got some political chops and that's why she's still here. Well, why she's still running then if the race is over, Okay, I'll give you. Well why still stick in. This is just prolonging the pain and wasting resources that could be
used against Biden. My latest theory, Sorry I erupted lucretia. My latest theory is everyone said the new No label's ticket would be Mansion and Romney, who were both in their seventy What if it's Nicky Hanley and Dean Phillips. Well, that would be a great way to end her political career. Sure, but maybe why would you ever want to be on a third party ticket given the history of the success of third parties. You know, my think
you could win? I don't know, well, save us from Steve's I actually maybe i'd have some respect for because she would definitely hand the election over to Trump. Then Oh well, I think that's uncertain, but it could be. I don't know, I don't There isn't a single person prepared to vote for Trump right now who would go for Nicky Haley. Oh no, that's a true And after Trump gets done with her in a few months of a few weeks, nobody who was even thinking about it. Would she'd get
Democratic votes? That's it? But but then again, the Democrats will come out against You're strong. I really can I ask you guys a question. I know I'm not the host, but I really am interested in this. Do you guys remember five six months ago? I think it probably was where we discussed what the DNC had done in New Hampshire and we discussed changing the order of elections primaries and punished New Hampshire by saying that the Biden wouldn't be
on the ballot. And nobody's talking about that. I mean, they spent money, spent a considerable amount of money to have a writing campaign for Biden at the last minute, and nobody's talking about that. Is it not worth talking about? Or don't you find the whole thing on just a little bit strange? Yeah? Actually, Henry Olsen has been talking about it. I know you're not always a fan of Henry, and he said he's a smart
guy. Yeah, and he knows the numbers, and yeah, Biden, when they finally count up all the writing ballots, he may get about sixty three And Henry argues, that's not that impressive for an incumbent. That's not Yeah, I mean how much how did what did Linda Johnson get? Well, he's got fifty but against the you know, sort of well known person in the fervor of the anti war movement. George H. W. Bush in nineteen ninety two, I think was held like fifty five percent against Pat
Buchanan and that sucked his campaign in a lot of ways. Right, It's what got Ross Perot in. So we're we're all those stalwart democratic, you know, stubborn New Hampshire Democrat saying you know what we don't want. We didn't want like the way you played the game, so we're not going to play your game. I don't understand why they go in and spend money to get a writing campaign when they said we're not going to participate, and then the whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Well, I think they
were I think they were called a dilemma. They didn't you know, they had a stupid idea, we got to go South Carolina for a diversity reason. But then somebody said, you know, we might get humiliated and embarrassed if Dean Phillips gets seventy percent of the vote in New Hampshire, it would be a big media story. That's why they did it. Okay, that makes sense. I'm just curious. I didn't have a theory. I just
wondered why nobody was really making much of it. Instead, it was all about how many Democratic and independent voters changed their party registration so they could vote for NICKI Hay Ricky. Well, guys, I think that we are well over time. Oh my god. We ever call this to close, we are going to have to defer to next week. I think both Steve's movie reviews he has some hidden or new Oscar picks. You know how engaged Steve
is with Hollywood big shots. And also by next Friday we will have by then the Supreme Court briefs in the Trump case, and we will see. In fact, one interesting thing is whether the Biden administration will actually live up to what President Biden's out there saying and file on the side of Colorado against Trump on the idea that he's an insurrectionist or not. So that's at least something we're going to have for next week. Yeah. So I have to
say, in all this excitement, I have no commalism. All I have is even need one at this point. I know there's it's like it seems like we should have actually replace him with bidenisms. I think, oh yeah, but all I have to do is warm warn the American people that Kamala Harris apparently is going on a abortion tour of the country. I wasn't going
to say that, and this is this is so weird. So you know, you got stories that are going to appear in you know, major city newspapers, like there's one in the Bay Area today that says Kamala Harris bringing abortion toward a San Jose. Just really, are these really the headlines that you want? Stee, I'm sorry, Lucretia, do you have a battle? Guys are going to have to stop me because there's just this afternoon, there's so many good ones, so let me start with and they're all perfectly
appropriate and relevant to our podcast. So first is Ted Cruz grows out mutton chops in preparation for civil war. So you have to kind of see the picture. John appreciate it. Laid off La Times reporter sits on street corner with sign reading We'll call you racist for food, so true. Okay. To bolster Steve's point, Nation celebrates after both presidential candidates forget their running Biden Abbott to face off in wheelchair joust to the death. Yes, I know.
Nikki Haley celebrates getting more votes in GOP primary than any other Democrat in history. All Right, all right, I saw one about ain'ty Cony Barrett because she needs Tony ruling for open borders has nothing to do with landscaping work she needs done this summer. Either way, I didn't have a commalism, but I forgot to mention I did have a little tidbit about Kamala. There's a new book out apparently that claims that doctor Joe Biden actually opposed Kamala Harris
being as vice president, that she actually wanted Gretchen Whitmer. And according to this book, when uh, Joe Biden told his wife that he had picked and Joe Biden still pissed at Kamala Harris for attacking by Joe Biden for being a racist during the primaries, and when Joe Biden told his wife that he had picked Kamala Harris, apparently, according to this book, she really said,
go blank yourself. Oh yeah, well, maybe she was just afraid that they'd find about out about the affair that she's having with Kamala's husband. What you remember that before we before we get sued for defamation, we're going to app don't you remember this seat of the Union address where where I forget who walked I think Joe Biden walked in and went up to Doug what's his name, m Hoff, Doug m Hoff and just kissed him right on the lips with a lingering kiss. Its weird, yeah, in front of us.
Maybe that's how you say hello in Delaware. That's how you say hi in Delaware, especially within families. I take it first and second families. Okay, sorry, time to go go. Okay, so always drink your whiskey. Meat, Let's go brand and Steve God save the queen man, because you know the thing. Okay, bye. Everybody was at the immigration scene, shine and feeling could it be a sin? I gotta stop by? The immigration man said he don't know what you can. Let me lead,
Immigration man. Can I crossed the line and bray and stay another day? And immigration man, I won't know your line today. I can't see it anyway. Ricochet joined the conversation.