Well whiskey, come and take my pain the moneys all ray Why why think alone when you can drink it all? In with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia where they slapped it up and David, ain't you busy? On the show? Tap you guy it Give.
Welcome listeners to the second episode of the new, reformulated New Coke version you reimagined, preconceptualized, preconceptualized UH version of a three Whiskey Happy Hour UH in our New Guys as an independent podcast based on the Ricochet Network. Steve, I don't know how many episodes did we have under old? Can I say this is episode like eight hundred or something?
Well, I'm starting over again at number one, number two we were up to well, I don't know, because I think we're up to like five hundred and twenty two power Line shows, of which it was part of. But I think it's it's got to be. I think we did at least one hundred and fifty shows. We've been doing this since twenty twenty one, that's three years, and so.
This is like the French Revolution and when they started the calendar over to the years exactly exactly word Episode two, and you start from one of my co hosts, Steve Hayward, and the other co hosts, the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia. How are you doing, Lucretia.
I'm doing very well, Thank you, John.
How are you? Where are you guys?
Well, I'm actually in suburban Seattle tonight and I am chilling out the end of this crazy week with some dura eighteen year old single mall.
Sure it's quite good.
Yeah, yeah, good.
How about you, Lucrecia, what are you drinking?
I'm finishing the rest of a bottle of some sand you VC. I forget what the name of it is from twenty sixteen, So from dinner twenty sixteen.
That was pretty good.
Yeah, yeah, it's delicious. Actually it's a I don't remember. I'd have to go get the bottle, but I just remember it's Sandy VC and it's twenty sixteen and it's.
Doocg ah good.
So it's from Italy.
Yes.
Oh, we are once again sitting back in awe at all the incredible news that's happened since our last podcast, And so I think we just dive right into it and start off with Steve. In this format, Unlike last week's where we spent all our time on one issue where I want to about immigration, now we're going to spend our episode here on one issue that each of us chose. We're going to talk about three different issues.
And Steve, the egalitarian, equality minded person that he is, as you can tell bomb his latest entry on his sub stack in round ten of our debate on natural law, he wants to talk about the Equal Rights Amendment. Of course, he wants to talk about the Equal Rights Amendment. Steve, what so I said, Maybe I set up for you saying the news was today at the end of the day that Joe Biden had declared that the Equal Right Amendment had been ratified and was now added to the Constitution.
At the same time, he said he wasn't ordering the Archivist of the United States to officially find that the amendment was ratified, and in fact, the archivist has said the amendment did not get enough votes in the time period that Congress provided for the ratification of the amendment. There are serious scholars like Larry Tribe, our favorite, who says that Congress can't put a time limit on ratifications of the amendment. All they can do is say, here's
the text of the amendment. They don't have just he just says there's nothing in the text of the amendment itself that has the time limit. It's Congress doesn't have any power in the Constitution to condition the amendments. That throws out there, So Steve.
Well, look, but all right, I'll just I'll start where he left off. Article five, which gives the amendment procedures, doesn't say Congress can't put a time limit on an amendment ratification period. Nor does it say, by the way you talk about emanations and numbers, the famous phrase from the sixties. Somehow they've discovered in there that you can either have an Article five convention or ratified by three quarters of the states, or if the president sends out
a tweet. That's not how we amend the Constitution. I mean, you know, well, I mean, first of all, just mention and then leave aside. You know, is Joe Biden himself really behind this or is this another of his woke staff and thought they could get away with him and these He's like Governor Laptamine and blazing Saddles Will sign anything you put in front of him. But it's really quite extraordinary for several reasons. I'll try and give four or five very quickly. One is, what's that great blind
of PJ. O'Rourke, that the mentality of the liberal is the spoiled child. They want what they want, They're going to get it. The more sinister version is this shows their will to power. They really want this. They think that it guarantees abortion. I suppose third this idea, All right,
let's suppost tribe. And by the way, let's bring in our own Dean Chremerinsky, you know who has said for quite a while now that the Supreme Court ought to declare the electoral College and the US Senate to be unconstitutional. Why because it violates one man, one vote and the equal Protection clause. In other words, the Supreme Court can just pick and choose and put in a hierarchy explicit, black and white text of the Constitution right, which is amazing.
And my point is is Trump ought to say, fine, if that's how we're amending the Constitution. Now, I am going to claire that birthright citizenship is not constitutional. He could try that. He may try that anyway, or why not. In my last comment, why don't we just skip straight to the world of Harrison Bergeron and have Trump announced not Trump, it'd be a leftist. But why don't we just go straight to the two hundred and tenth, two hundred and twelfth, and two hundred and eleventh Amendment of
the Constitution that Harrison Bergeron wrote. If you know the story, it's what gave us the handicapper general and made us all equal by four. So it's a classic. It's one of the greatest anti egalitarian or anti socialist short stories or long stories ever written. And you know, you don't really think of Vonnegut as a conservative, but it's certainly a conservative piece of fiction. And it's absolutely devastating. If you've not seen it or read it, it's only ten pages,
you should read it. John, So that those are my opening remarks on this. Absolutely incredible on a day with lots of incredible things happened too, but what a day.
There's only aial amendment that have not been that have been proposed through Congress. At thousands of amendments have been proposed in Congress but made it through Congress that haven't been ratified by the voters. One of which is something called the Corwin Amendment. Do it, either of you guys
know what that is. The Corwin Amendment was I want to say, eighteen sixty one, and it would have it would have been sort of an Article five qualifier, I guess you might say, but it would have prevented the thirteenth Amendment. It would have it said something to the effect that no constitutional amendment can in fact take away the power of the state or the right of the states to own slaves, to make slavery legal within their states, something along those lines. And it was actually never ratified
because the South. That was one of the reasons why the South was so adamant about populating the territories and making them slave territory so they would become slave states. Because the opposite, of course, could have happened. But they could have ratified in eighteen sixty one the Corwin Amendment, and it would have been impossible ever to amend the Constitution to get rid of slavery. That I'm sorry, that's so obscure, but I just thought i'd bring it up
because it seems like a Steve thing to do. I do want to mention that with respect to the era my little tweak. The thing I take a little bit of satisfaction from it is that are leftists really sure they want this? Because the ERA doesn't say that the equal rights according to gender, although believe it or not, I looked it up and Wikipedia actually says that as if that's what the language of the ERA is is
that somehow it guarantees equal rights regardless of gender. It guarantees equal rights regardless of sex, which would mean you could take it to mean females, males. You might even take it so far as to mean sexual orientation. But it could never mean gender. You choose your gender. It could never mean seventeen genders. It could never mean you
choose your gender as they them. It could never mean any of those things, and it would never protect those things, and it would codify in our constitution the idea that sex and not gender is what is important. That's my you know, sort of snarky answer to the eer people.
Today, Critia, you don't feel different. Now you're brimming with new rights that you didn't have a few hours ago.
We feel the nineteenth Yeah, there you go.
But you know, it's I think it's actually an interesting intellectual question. I think by practice, we have always accepted the Congress can place limitations on the process of ratifying the amendment. But tribbrais is an interesting question is can Congress actually place a time limit? So there's two interesting questions. One can Congress place a time limit for how long the amendment is out there essentially to be approved by
the states. And also can states there's another question, remember, can take their votes back?
Right?
Because I think is a three states change their minds and withdrew their ratifications. What do you guys think of that? Steve, Steve whon't start.
Using Well, it wouldn't seem to me that a bunch of states could now unratify, say, the fourteenth Amendment, right, I mean, that's sort of settled. But I think we said this before that we've never had any litigation or lawsuits about whether during the ratification period a state can take it back. Right. You would seem to me that you could, But I don't know. That's that one's a
little beyond me. Can I raise them? It's not quite related question, but there is this peculiar maybe it's not peculiar, but at the end of Article five, you know, does the amendment process the very last clause of it says, no state without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Now, I've often been I've often been curious as to whether that means, as I've heard some people claim that you cannot amend the Constitution
to abolish the Senate or change its composition. Curely, it means at least that Congress could not change the composition of the Senate, say we're going to give some states extra senators or something. Right, it's tu per state. But I don't know why you would need to specify it's stronger.
No, No, I think it's stronger. Actually, I think that provision the Constitution says cannot be changed by I mean, that's actually permanent. Yeah, so it's not just that the state could give it up. If it's also that that is the only provision a constitution that can't be changed. And then I think it also said, I misremember, but is it also the slave non importation clause, which expired of
its own terms, right, also could never be changed. Right, But that seems contrary to the idea of a constitution that can be amended.
Yeah, So it just really quickly there was a very serious amendment brought I want to say around the year two thousand. It didn't get through Congress, but which would have abolished the Senate entirely, entirely. And so my question is it's one thing to say that you can't take away certain things, but could you abolish the Senate entirely if you had a constitutional amendment in all fifty states agreed to it?
Well, can I add that? Stic It says that no state without its consent. So suppose you actually asked, well, but again, what if a couple of states said, if you say, abolished a senate, a couple of states said no, sorry, we're going to keep our senators. So you had six senators from you, O, Wyoming, and Idaho and they would run the whole thing. Or I mean you could see I suppose well, I don't know. No, no, I can
withdraw that spec but yeah, that's right. That's an important point, John, is that the Clauset's in says that no amendment may be made prior to eighteen oh nine for ending the slave trade, or no amendment. By the way, I did say that another clause that, of course Congress could now legislate on that, which they did on January first, eighteen o nine, the banded slave trade right, so by a near unanimous vote, as I recall.
Anyway, it's also interesting that John brings it up because there are still calls to abolish the Senate because of its undemocratic character. But do you ever hear anyone push back and say, but guess what you can't do that, you can't do that. You know, I can't even believe to this day that the idiots on the Supreme Court and Baker versus car and what's the other one, Westbury versus Sanders, one person, one vote is required by the Constitution.
Which freaking constitution are they talking about? Those morons on the Supreme Court? For God's sake? What the hell is wrong with those people? Oh my god? Sorry, Okay, I'll be quiet now.
That's all I have to say about this, that it's.
One man, one vote. By the way, it's not one person, one vote. It's one man, one vote.
Well, okay, I mean, but man man, okay, Well, I'll do this as my final thought if you want to continue or move on, John, I seem to recall I can't remember vaguely whether it was about very Goldwater or Richard Nixon and William F. Buckley wrote back in the sixties that when they finished taking the oath of office, either one of them should then turn to Earl Warren and say, and I hereby place you under arrest. And
you know, I think it'd be fun. It'd be so trumpy if Trump finishes taking the oath of office and then has the federal marshals delivered the arrest warrants and the handcuffs to Biden and a whole bunch of Biden people. They're on the Capitol steps. I guess they're doing it in indoors.
But anyway, we still have a few days left for the pardons to issue, so don't they don't get excited.
Yetday Lucretia last thought, No, last thoughts.
Okay, so why don't we take a break and for our sponsors and then we'll be right back. Well, Stephen Lucretia both alluded to how Biden's I don't know what you would call it, non ratification, ratification of the era. I mean, I don't know what it is, is part of this said effort to grasp at a legacy. Well, who's in charge, who's in charge? Why do something like this? But This is all part of a whole series of
things that have been going on Lucretia. Just mentioned right before the break the pardons, right, Biden also part of a whole bunch of what he called non viol Island drug offenders because they are sentences when they were convicted
are much higher than what would be imposed now. I think some of this has to do with the big complaint about mass incarceration caused by the sensusing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, amongst other things Biden's been up right, But this followed Biden also commuting the sentences of almost everybody except for three people on death rout. Biden also declaring national monuments left and right, pulling public lands out of the possibility to development or oil and glass gas exploration,
and then on and on. So Lucretia, this is the topic you suggested. What is going on here at the end of the Biden presidency.
It's it's awful. I don't know how else to say it. And I suppose, is your right, John, that it's either Biden or his his you know, little elves that run around and actually do whatever it is they do, that have decided that this is a good idea. What one quick comment. You offered this opportunity to me, and I missed it. I'm sorry, but I do want to say that the fact that the archivist, who agrees with Biden that she wishes that the era was part of the Constitution,
stood up to it. I'm not sure if that's because there's actually somebody on the left with a little bit of a spine. I think it's more likely that the archivist, the office, the entire office of the National Archives has suffered such a blow to their integrity after their obvious collaboration corroboration with with the Biden administration on the whole Trump Document's case. I don't know what it is, but that was a bit of a surprise to me. I thought maybe she might go for it, but she didn't.
So good for her. The let me mentioned those twenty five hundred pardon of pardons of so called non violent drug crimes. That's very misleading because in fact, most of those people who were pardoned were drug dealers, gang members involved in very serious crimes with drugs related to them, of course, and they were given plea bargains. They given plea bargains because our whole entire judicial system is a mess.
Just they can afford to take them to court, take them to jail, I mean, scuse me, go through a whole trial. And so most of those people are just really horrible, terrible people, just like the people that Biden pardoned on death row, you know, child killers, killers who are so evil, murderers who are so evil and awful that they can't be in prison because they just murder everybody around them in prison too. I don't know how to wrap my head around anything as evil as what
Biden is doing. And then, of course, you know, trying to undermine Trump. I get that that that I don't find nearly as offensive as trying to undermine Trump's possibilities for success by you know, I'm told that the amount of land that offshore offshore land, what is it when you're in the sea offshore space is equal to the
size of Texas and Alaska. Yeah, so, I mean, you know, and Trump is going to be able to overturn some of this stuff, but it's going to take months, it's going to take legal battles, it's going to take court cases, and so he's just hamstringing Trump at every opportunity Okay, but to what end, right, I mean, it's awful.
Well, this is a pattern that goes all the way back to it. Yeah, at least the Carter years is now the practice of democratic administrations to rush out a lot of controversial regulation that they couldn't probably get through or that would have been extremely controversial if they were either running for reelection or while you know, they were still in office in the conventional way. You know, Carter declared the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I believe the lame
duck period in nineteen eighty Bill Clinton. I mean we look back and say, well, gee, all Bill Clinton did was tear the W keys out of all the White House computers. But that's not quite true. They left some real landmines for the incoming George W. Bush administration.
That what the w kew?
That's true, They really did that. Yeah, the Bush people came in and all the w keys have been removed from what else computers? I think it's a little bit.
Of the maturity of who's in charge in the Clinton at the end.
Yeah, but it does seem to be getting worse. And yeah, so that's a practice that they have and I don't know, you know, again complaints. These are the same people, whether it's amending the Constitution by executive FIAT or moves like these who say, oh, yeah, we're for democracy, except when we're not. Yeah.
And there's just a word about the Sorry, sorry, John, I just want to mention a word about the Farewell address, although there have been several Farewell to the command as commander in cheap anyway, shut up, go home, go to Delaware, Shut the hell up, go buy Jill address that looks like a tablecloth. Just get out of Washington and leave
it alone. Anyway, back to the Farewell Address, I don't think it's possible for one person to engage in so many lies and so many hypocritical statements in one small speech. I wonder if he thinks that we're all just manifestly stupid, you know, to say something like, oh, we're gonna be ruled by oligarchs. I get just shut up. I mean, you gave a damn medal of freedom to George Sorrows. I don't need our listeners are too smart for me
to have to go through all those things. But I do just want to point out I'm sick of Biden and his my word as a Biden means he is lying through his teeth. He is incapable of telling the truth. Sorry, go ahead, Well.
I'm going to give your sort of historians analysis. By the way, John, do you recall if George W. Bush gave a farewell address? I don't know if he did or not. I don't remember if he did.
Every every present I think every president.
Lincoln, Well, no way, that's just it. I don't think it's true that every that every president did, every president who was al I don't think people followed the George Washington tradition. I think it was revived in modern times. I think, excuse me, I think it was revived by Eisenhower, and who's modern, at least in modern times. His is the one a farewell address that we recall, Right, And it's only because of the one line that is called right. That was and I was about to say that was
quoted out of context. The full context of that paragraph is very much an attack on the expert, elite government of a scientific ball that wanted to rule over us, and the left grab the military industrial complex and the anti war days of Vietnam and ran with it.
And I'm in favor of it. That now By the way, Steve, I agree with the left. Oh yes, right, Sorry, Sorry, I didn't mean to rupt. I had to get that out there. Sorry.
My point is is most presidential farewell addresses are not memorable. I think Reagan's had some memorable passages in it. But you know, Jimmy Carter, as I vaguely recall, he said, oh, outgoing presidents have to pick a cause. And I think his cause was the ecological crisis or something crazy, right, and you know, scarcity and all that nonsense from the seventies. I don't remember what Clinton did. We've just sort of forgotten.
But Biden's still the White House Silver.
Well, there's that, right. But in Biden's case, I mean, let's remember that he went for the flattery of all those liberal historians like John Meekham who was writing speeches for him on the side, saying, you can be the next FDR with you know, razor thin majorities in Congress, right, uh. And that went to Biden's head, It went right to his ego, and so he thought, oh, I have to have a profound, outgoing speech. So what did he warn
us about, Well, threats to democracy, artificial intelligence. Gee, he's really giving us a novel thing to worry about that no one's thinking about right now. Right. In other words, the rare word that I'd like to use whenever I can is that speech was unbelievably jejune, even by Biden's standards. But how many podcasts use jajune? I love the word. The Eveland Wall like to use it in his novels.
So now that's probably two. Here's the thing that and you mentioned it when you talk about the liberal historians who were advising Biden in earliness term to be this kind of groundbreaking president, is maybe we should be worried about president who are thinking about the historical legacy while
they're still in office. Right, that causes them to try to you know, swing for the fences rather than just you know, maintaining basic you know, public safety, you know, do the do the basics of the job, and not worry about the historical legacy. But you have a Biden who was elected because he wasn't Trump elected during the COVID crisis, and rather than right being the transition to younger people they promised, he thought he was FDR LBJ, which.
Is ridiculous except that you know, you're you're writing your book on Alexander Hamilton John And remember Hamilton's very clear about this, so is Madison. Actually that that sense that of you know, being a critical part of history, fame is the greatest of the ruling passion of the greatest minds, the noblest minds, I think, is how it goes. There is a sense where wanting to make your mark on history by doing good things, by doing things that are good for the country, is in fact of the noblest
path that one can take, according to the Founders. Now, the problem is that they I don't know that they could have ever imagined an ideological hack like Biden, who somehow could believe that, you know, all this crap he wants to do is good for the country. I don't even know how left is sync this way, but go ahead.
Sorry, well yeah, I mean, look, the Founders I think clearly anticipated the demagogue. That's always their worry, of which Biden is a prime example. But a footnote about Eisenhower. I mean, you know what, what is the model of true fame? And in other words, this is a test of character? Be able put it that way. Farewell addresses are maybe our test of character as well of intellect
and thoughtfulness. Eisenhower hated giving national speeches on TV. His aides always wanted to go on on TV because he was popular the general rest of that, and he said, no, I don't want to do that. And then a few times he said he would, he said no longer than twenty minutes. So there's kind of an irony here that Eisenhower did give a farewell address, and that's the speech he's most remembered for in probably his entire career, and it's in many ways the best one ever made in
modern times. And and well that's because he ran the government exactly as you said they should. He took care of making sure that we settled down the government did things and got things done like, oh, I don't know, interstate highways, you know, modernizing our military forces, staying out of the Vietnam War when the French wanted us to bail them out, et cetera, et cetera. And that's one reason why the left attacked him for not being a
visionary and not being, you know, a new dealer. And now we all look back and say, gush, if we could have a guy like that again, we take him in a second.
I had two thoughts I had to write a chapter for a book about Eisenhower. Eisenhower's presidency, and you know, there's this huge it's all over now, but there was this huge burst of Eisenhower revisionism which showed that not rather than this sort of grandfatherly golf player, which was the image that liberals attacked him with, particularly you know the Kennedy people. You know, he was very effective but behind the scenes leader, which is not surprising. The guy was,
you know, the supreme Allied commander in Europe. I mean, you know, he was a very capable guy. And Eisenhower's approach, it ties him with the speech, but very different than the way presidents think today, was that he should limit the amount of times he used political capital only to whin it's important and otherwise put out other people in front to take the arrows, and then the president would come in at the end with the you know, the most of local capital intact and use it to great effect.
And the country I thought, actually did really well during the Eisenhower years, certainly better than the sixties the decade that followed. Second point, I wanted to, you know, follow on what Lucretius said about Hamilton, so I have been reading and thinking about this passage that Hamilton wrote where he says that you know, fame is, you know, sort
of the ruling passion of the noblest minds. I think is the phrase, and he's it's it's in this part of the when he's and there's a claire Monster, one of your people, Douglas Adair. I guess I don't know if he counts as one of you, but I think he was a professor Clairemont, and he wrote a book called Fame and the Founding Fathers, right, which is it's a brilliant book. I thought you got to take a
picture of that and post it in the show. With this show, so the book, but you know, it's a the context sometimes has forgotten about why Hamilton says this, and so I believe it's part of a debate where the anti federalists are attacking the Constitution for not having a term limit on the presidency right there. You know, they wanted one term or two terms and so, and
their criticism is kind of interesting. They said, if you don't have a term limit, then you know what is going to constrain a president, especially at the end, you know, at the end of his term, you might just do anything right, and so Hamilton says, So for him, the interesting thing is this idea of fame and legacy is not something, is not a goal. It's actually a limit on presidents, he says, because they will be worried about
their fame, their reputation. They won't act out at the end, they won't try crazy things at the end because they want it now. However, legacy and history causes presidents to go in the opposite direction. It's a yeah.
See, this is another area where as much as I like Hamilton a strong natural law man, I always like to point out to you.
Everybody was. Then that doesn't prove any Well.
My point is, my point is different, which is Hamilton as good as he as great as he was. I think this is one of his arguments that was weak and incorrect, like his argument that we don't need a Bill of rights because you know, we haven't given any power to contents. Disagree what you disagree with the now Okay, well, I think I know why you disagree, and I sympathize.
That debate to have about whether it was a mistake or not to write down the bill right.
So yeah, okay, we should do that right, that's.
Another one, another, another one in the long list of single episodes, single issue episodes. Well, and look, we have to take a break now. We'll take our break for our sponsors now, and then when we come back, let's continue on with what Steve was just about to mention before we go to our third topic. For once, it wasn't Lucretia interrupting Steve, it was our sponsors. And now we're back, Steve, what were you about to say?
Well, I was just going to make another quip and jest at your expense that the argument about whether we should have a bill of rights falls perfectly on the axis of our debate between natural law and positivism. That's all, and to be continued.
So I think that's quite right, I mean Hamilton, but Hamilton. So Hamilton's view was, however, that we you could take it one or two, as you could say, Well, because he believed in natural law, everyone else did, so they all knew what the rights were. Hamilton also thought, though, that you write down bill of rights and Congress will
just you know, take away everything that you don't write down. Correct, Yes, and yeah, he may well be have been right about that, right because now we don't assume there are any rights that exist there outside the Bill of Rights. It was the courts to I mean, he might well have been writing his prediction.
As you suggested a moment ago. John, let us put this off to another longer occasion. You're you're dangling that bait and I'm not going to take it.
Wait a minute, I just want to say, Steve and I have had this debate once a long time ago, and one of our listeners, the incomparable g in Yarborough, disagreed with me on this one. Do you remember, Steve.
Not very clearly, No, don't anything.
But anyway, so so in case Jean's.
Listening, pardon, what was Jean's point?
Well, it's hard to do, probably not appropriate right now, but my argument I can't. I can't give her point without giving mine. So let's put it off till we do this whole episode.
But well you're really yeah, we're gonna have to have a sequel to this one too. Okay. So the third issue, which I picked I would say earlier in the week, although now it seems like it was years ago, was on Monday this two special councils released their reports. The Special Council for the Hunter Biden case. David Weiss, the US attorney in Delaware, released his report, which was soon
swamped in the news coverage by Jack smith report. Half of his report was released by Merrick Garland, the attorney Dreneral. So it's an interesting point. So David Weiss's report was odd, I thought, because he didn't really need a report because he prosecuted. Unlike Jack Smith. He actually prosecuted and won
the conviction of Hunter Biden, and he's spent. I wouldn't say the bull but the most interesting parts of his reports of his report was attacking President Biden for his President Biden's attacks on the Special Council claims that the investigation was political, and then his use of the pardon
to wipe out all the convictions. That was very interesting jack Smith's and then you know the commentaries has come out, not a lot actually, but Jack Smith's report the news media attention on it because Jack Smith said, I think I could have gotten a conviction. Now people may not realize this, but prosecutors are not supposed to prosecute a
case unless they already believe that. So it's actually no news at all for Jack Smith to say, I think I could have gone a conviction because you were not allowed as a federal prosecutor to even file charges if you have not already concluded that you think that, I think so. So much of the evidence in the jack
Smith report was not new. But and this is in a weird way similar to the Weiss Report, and I had not seen it before in Special councilor course, like Robert Muller report, a lot of it was spent defensively attacking all the attackers on the Special Council, where there was an inordinate amount of oh, we're actually very neutral and we don't pay attention to the elections. And no one into my office was considering that President Trump was
writing for this was just buy the books prosecution. So, Lucretia, what do you think of these Special Council reports? Maybe this is is this the how do you think about this?
As?
What does this say? In other words, if this is the concluding chapter or the afterward to the whole campaign of Wall Rarey watchings four years.
I don't want to pretend to be have any expertise on this, John, I really actually want to turn the question back on you and say, first of all, do you see a qualitative difference between the Weiss report and the Smith report, and Weiss actually got convictions and you know, had those convictions superseded is the right word I suppose? I don't know by a pardon Smith. On the other hand, there's nobody who can think that Smith just was an utter failure, that the charges he tried to bring on
Trump were trumped up. Excuse the expression that, you know, over and over even his legitimacy as a special prosecutor was determined by Aileen Cannon as I recalled to be illegitimate, you know, so it really didn't. From a purely objective point of view, Smith should have never released the report because as a prosecutor, you have one side, and if you didn't try the case and win the case, what's the point of issuing a special Council report? Am I
wrong on that? I'm asking you? As the lawyer, John.
Oh, Well, you know, traditionally you would never issue report on people and things you didn't charge. It's actually considered quite unethical because you know, prosecutors spend a lot of time investing someone. They don't bring charges if you announce charge. While but there's this implication that the person's guilty. And yet at the same time, since it never went to trial, Trump never had the chance to put out his own
side of things. All we really have is the prosecutor's indictment, and so your federal prosecutors are really only supposed to speak about what's in the indictment and nothing else. A lot of Smith's the things that Smith wrote in the report or already in the indictment, So what's the point? And then the things he's saying outside the indictment, like, oh, we're neutral and we follow the rules, blah blah blah, and why is everyone attacking us? They shouldn't say anything
about that at all. It seems to me prosecutors are you know, better seen and not heard in this respect. You know, put the put the evidence before the public on trial and leave it at that. So the reports this real element.
You get in a lot of trouble with some of our listeners, John for your lawyer's approach to some questions. And I'm I'm not saying that to be you know, insulting at all. I mean that that's sometimes listeners have a really hard time with your inability to see perhaps the political side of things and to see only the loyally side of things.
But that's why I want to ask you mean the readers would like us to dispense with the law and let Lucretia have free reign. Sure of course.
They would, don't be ridiculous, But anyway, I really my point was this, that that that from the point of view of an actual lawyer, uh you know, a serious a very serious and well respected lawyer, I was really interested to see what you had to say about that. And it's and your comments confirm, of course what what what I thought was true. But from again, from not I should have.
Qualified, but I should qualify it the So the reason why the reports are done is because the Justice Department regulation that creates the Special Counsel requires there to be a report. Now here's think the Attorney General doesn't have to release it to the public, right and so in that respect it's not that different, it seems to me, than what prosecutors would tell the Attorney General about any high profile case. Right if the Attorney General is the
one ultimately charge of the Justice Department. So you're investigating a senator, of course the Attorney General is going to want to know did you charge them why did you charge them? What did you do in the investigation? So I actually don't think the report itself, you know, is that different. The part that's inappropriate is allowing the Justice Department to release something like that to the public, because that really does cause the implication that the target, the subject,
is guilty. So both of these reports sought to do so.
If Lucretia sums that up, it was a totally political act and not a legal or other.
Yes, oh no, no, fact, it's quite a yeah, it's quite anti legal. Actually it's oh, it's holly political. Well that's that's why, and that's a decision for Merrick Garland.
Yeah, ste well that's why I was going to say. My first impression of the whole thing was this sounds like a Scooby Doo episode. I would have gotten away with it one for you meddling voters, right. And you know, we we have, by degrees, I think you can trace it back to Watergate. We have, by degrees, moved where what it's always a difficult and problematic prosecutorial process when involves politicians and politics, we've now moved to this one
where it's impossible to disentangle them. And by the way. I think that we're going to look back now on the you know, the Trump prosecutions and some others, and maybe even the you know, the mull report about Trump
and the Russia hoax business seven eight years ago. Now, I think we're increasingly starting to have second thoughts about the whole Watergate business as we learn more about how, you know, the whole Independent councils I was Special Council then before the Independent Council, right, but the whole staff was borrowed from Ted Kennedy's staff. Nixon hating people who were determined to drive him from office no matter what. Now, of course Nixon gave him plenty of rope to hang
him with, as he admitted himself. But the more we learn, has more documents become available after they've been released from
confidentiality or whatever the restrictions are. You know, Jeff Shepperd doing all the work on this is the bad behavior of the prosecutors and Judge Serrica presiding over the whole thing, And that's looking more and more now like the political crimes created by the Justice Department going after Nixon are much worse than the Watergate break in or any of the cover up, and so now here we are, and I think the whole process regardless of the you know,
the legal merits. And by the way, I think it's significant that Smith did not said there was not a case against Trump were insurrection didn't it's not in the report. I didn't read much of it, right, That's extremely important because that's what, of course drove this whole thing, and what gets the Democrats all worked up is Trump's an insurrectionists. That's why they tried to ban him from the bout
in Colorado and Maine and so forth. But I think now this has gotten so bad that fortunately, I think we had the right outcome, which is the voters had the final say on this, and I hope they always do.
So let me when you watch the confirmation hearings for.
A pointed Sorry, yes.
I know, and I know that this is kind of a separate thing, but I actually have a question for both of you about this. Do you ever find yourself like you're feeling like you're living in an alternate universe because you see these Democrats sort of I know they're grand standing, okay, but you know, asking Pam BONDI what you know, is she going to be and of course Pam Bondy is smart and she you know, she can turn it around on that pencil like Adam Adam shifts. I know, I'm trying not to say it.
Right.
I don't even necessarily want to go into all of these things. But these Democrats, I know, I'm a partisan, I get it, but sometimes I'm I'm utterly flabbergasted at at their hypocrisy, at their Do they really think anybody takes seriously what they have to say?
Well, I think no. But I think the notable thing about well we do it this way. When I first visited Washington as a student back in the seventies, and I watched some committee hearings and I'd watch remember I think I saw house hearings and I thought, God, are a bunch of buffoons, and the witnesses was sort of take it and parryot and I remember asking a professor was there with a student group. As the professor, why don't the witnesses ever talk back to them? Why don't
they ever say you're full of crap? You know, and and and you know, Professor Paton explained, well, that's just the protocol, and it's the you know, the culture and all the rest of that, I said, well, okay, but this week we and we've been moving this way too, but this week you really saw a lot of Trump appointees talking back very bluntly, especially BONDI to Adam Schiff was very direct, but some of the other I mean, there was some real mic drop moment into this week
from the responses from Trump's people, and rather than being courteous and deferential and pretending to have some common ground of agreement somewhere and I'll be happy to work with you, no, it was just boom and I mean really embarrassing responses from the senator's point of view. Right, I could go through someone I won't.
But although they're probably not so let me just i'm you through an anecdote. They're probably not embarrassed at me. I'm gonna throw one at you. So I'm telling what I would call a somewhat disengaged friend of mine, disengaged from politics, about the whole Hank Johnson episode where you know, I'm gonna tip over that while right thing, yes, and you know, explaining how the whole thing went and how the admiral who was just kind of sat there and
said nice or we don't think that's gonna happen. And his reaction was, I can't use the terms that he used, because even Lucretia won't say there's in private, never mind on a family podcast, but he was. He blamed the admiral for not just looking at Hank Johnson saying, you're a member of Congress. How can you be so effing stupid that you could say something so maronic? And people you know and on a you know, the Admiral acted
with grace and so forth. But my thought, based on what you just said, Steve, is that Trump's election was based on the fact that there's more and more people like my friend who say, why are we playing these stupid games? These Marie Harono made not just the dumbest person in Congress, but the dumbest person in the country. How is that woman? Oh? Sorry, okay, I'm done. Wait, Oh no, I.
Okay. So we're almost at the end of our hour, any any other I just want to flag one or two issues that we're not going to get to today, but did happen this week, But they're going to go into another special one subject episode today. Also, the Supreme Court unanimously by nine to zero upheld the bill requiring TikTok to either shut down or to be sold as I predicted they would because of the overwhelming national security justification.
That's a I think actually one of the more important Supreme Court cases involving how our society is going to work for some years. And then there was another big free speech issue. CNN lost a defamation case where our jury awarded them five million dollars awarded a government contractor who was helping companies get people out of Afghanistan.
Well, John, I got three more quick bullet points for you from the news this week. One is, if listeners didn't hear it, Hunter Biden is claiming you lost millions of dollars in value in his artwork in the fires out in California. So you can add insurance fraud to the latest Biden bunker. Yes, you missed that one. Hear that. Hear that one right? When the other one is is you've probably heard the news that because of cold weather, Trump's inauguration is going to be moved into Rotunda in
the Capitol like Reagan did nineteen eighty five. And so what we wait for here is for the left and the media to explain to us why global warming has caused this to happen. That's inevitable, right, And then finally, and this is just too serious a subject and it could be a whole episode. But the Gaza deal that these cabinet ratified is well, that's I mean, we'll just have to see what happens. As Trump likes to say,
it worries me and bothers me a lot. But I also know people who'd also bothers who said, but it may have been necessary under the circumstances.
So also I should have thrown that in as another example of Biden reaching for a legacy, right, Yes, what enormous pressure on that deal to be done before he left his presidency finished.
Although apparently a lot to do with it.
But yeah, okay, but here we get we are at the end of the hour. And so Lucretia your Babylon b headlines of the week, gen.
Z upset about TikTok band for four point three seconds waitch, just the maximum amount of time they can focus on something thanks to TikTok Right, right, that's pretty good. Right with TikTok band, China force to spy on Americans by hiding little cameras and fortune cookies. Sorry we didn't we didn't actually get to Christy Nome, But this one's kind of funny. Senate Committee sticks to softball questions for shotgun toting Christy Nome. This one's my personal favorite. I only
have two more. In effort to improve Senate confirmation hearing, Democratic women replaced by rabid hyenas.
Difference God.
Finally, because this follows onto what you two didn't want to talk about. Biden takes credit for developing dementia, so Kamla would take his place and lose to Trump, so Hamas would release the hostages.
What that sounds about? Yeah, that sounds about right.
Okay. One one real quick one based on the farewell speech. Head of Biden crime family warns about dangers of corruption.
That's not I don't.
Know, it's not even funny anymore.
Okay, Well, we really are going to have to develop a new sign off with the change of administration. But it's still good for four more days, right, So always drink your whiskey meat. Let's go Brandon and.
Steve imagine and there's no Joe Biden. It's easy if you try. No Kamala Harris too. Bye bye. The picture around here still isn't settled, and is it great? The self same.
Hopes and self same knowing has passed away.
So glad you came by.
To check out the rumors that you'd heard.
I know you'll talk this away with important things that you've learned.
And the kids are still around here. But your kids aren't still around here, and the kids aren't still around here anymore any more. I'm tired of my own voice. Later on selling and warn bless you.
Ricochet join the conversation.