Well, whiskey, come and take my pay money all, Oh whiskey, don't you let me? 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 bloon when you're being in love down and low. Welcome everybody to the three Whiskey Happy Hour. This is a very very
very special edition tonight. I don't know why, but just because I'm going to band back together. Yeah, that too, That's part of I was gonna say all the reasons, dread, I wanted it to be a very special edition. But it's so great to see John, except that John of course is again out partying in a hotel without sufficient bandwidth, so we can't see his face because his video is too choppy. So he is back from Egypt. It's a good thing in Egypt. Who said I was in Egypt?
I Biden? Biden said you were in Egypt. Yeah, you were down in Mexico. But you know, in Mexico it's also a difference, right, yeah, exactly. I'll tell you one way probably thinks were in the middle of the War of eighteen forty eight. That's with Midrands as commanding general. But you know how you can tell John's back from somewhere, John is McDonald's stock rally this week, because you know it's last week while you were gone. So down one hundred, No, just just a lot.
I didn't say a hundred, it was just down a bunch. So actually they said that the reason that the stock fell was because the uh oh, the corporate people admitted that their prices had gone way way up. I guess because they admitted it, then their stock fell. I don't understand how that worked. Oh no, no, I thought you guys would have liked this
story. So I read a story while it was in Mexico. Actually from that said Starbucks and McDonald's said that they were the subject of boycott's and misunderstandings about their position on the war in Gaza. Right, yeah, yes, because is this right? The McDonald's in Israel are giving free food to all the soldiers fighting. Made me want to go there, and I did, and that's when I was disappointed. But still yeah, but now they're walking
it back, is what you're telling me. John. No, they were saying that was the cause for some of the loss because other people are not going to McDonald's anymore because they object to what McDonald's Israel is doing. That's what I meant, Well, this is for them. Those were the whole intersectionality business is breaking down because the left hates McDonald's, right. It's you know, they had the Super Size Me movie and you know, beef and
all the rest of that. On the other hand, so if they weren't cutting them or attacking them for some tie to the Middle East, they'd be attacking them for something else. Which, by the way, who had the worst well, Biden had the worst week. Maybe we'll come to that. Think of what it's like these days to be a climate protester. You show up somewhere to block a road and the moss protesters are already there and they've beaten you to the punch. So's tough times for certain segments of the left
right now. Actually, I turned against McDonald's a long time ago after Ray Crook's widow. Oh yeah, what ah. I can't use the word I want to use, and I can't think of another one that would replace it. But how despicable is that to get all that money from your husband's genius and then completely misuse it in ways that he absolutely would be She became a
big lefty donor. Uh in the eighties she started giving seven figure contributions the Democratic National Committee and all kinds of other left A good conservative at least a Nixon conservative, right, which is you know those are pretty good these days. Yeah, anyway, enough of enough of McDonald's. I had pizza tonight for dinner because it is National Pizza Day. I heard that. Yeah. This is also I believe the fiftieth anniversary of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan,
which I never remember from my youth. But yeah, yeah, And we didn't even discuss the fact that the other day it was a fiftieth anniversary of Blazing Saddles, Right, the best movie ever made? Are you guys talking about things? Nobody who listens to this show knows? Oh god, everybody there's There is nobody who listens to the show who hasn't seen and loved Blazing Saddles. Upte you John, Yeah, I saw it once once. Yeah,
I didn't think it was that funny. I thought it was funny, but I didn't understand why it was such a why it's, you know, such a landmark in humor films. So, first of all, John Blazing Saddles as cannon, which means you' to study it and read it over and over again, like play those republic and it gets better. And caddy shack, you know a caddy shack guy find funnier. I find caddy shack funnier. Okay, I think we need to do sort of top ten cannon movies
for a future episode. Not right now, but no, no, right now. But I don't even know how you talk to somebody if you can't speak the language of Blazing Saddles exactly. That's right anyway, great game of life. Okay, I've got well most of the things in Blazing Saddles. You can't stay on campus anymore. Maybe that's the one I still say them.
Gabby Johnson speaks authentic frontier gibberish. It sounds like a faculty meeting anyway, does And I have often actually said when I get asked some question by by faculty that you know, I don't have the answer to because I'm only you know, mid level administration, And I'll say, mongo, just pawna and just like you said Steve. So I thought you were going to say, quick, we've got to do something to save our phony loney jobs. That's one of the greatest Oh now I would say, quick, you've got
to do something and save your phony baloney jobs. But okay, so ah, last week we never even got to most of the important issues of the day, like, you know, the start of World War three with the you know, the much too little, much too late bombing of drone attacks. Whatever. We're not even going to have time to go there today either. But I just wanted the listeners to know that all of us are actually cognizant of what's going on in the Middle East, even if we don't spend
a lot of time talking about it. Because this week had so much news. It started off with and I'm not going to go in order, we're going to discuss se scenes. But it started off with a whole bunch of really important things that we all knew we were going to discuss, like the fact that the turtle looks like everything I said he was, and worse, I'll come back to that because of his by part is an immigration deal falling
apart? And then he had to bet I'm getting ahead of myself. There's all his news, and it just kept rolling at us, and we were prepared to listen to our esteemed constitutional law professor, who was in fact the Premier Amika's brief writer for the Colorado case. Everybody on the court cited his arguments. They didn't necessarily sign him by name, but there were John's arguments,
and we want to hear what John has to say about that. But it was a lot of I have to give credit to Yeah, I have to give credit to my co author, Robert Della Hunty, who is a Claremont Institute fellow, by the way, because we wrote up these arguments back in May, a long time ago, because we saw the case coming and we raised I think several of the arguments eventually got a lot of the attention
at the court. I'm not saying we invented them. I mean a lot of other people saw them and what would have seen or would have seen them had we never written. But the first one, theeenth fourteenth Amendments text, which says certain people who've had federal or state office swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then engagement insurrection cannot then hold federal or state office. Again, that amendment lists all the offices that it applies to, but doesn't mention
the presidency. So I think that got a lot of attention at the Court, even from liberal justice to Tanjie Brown Jackson. Then the second thing which a number of justices focused on was that the amendment itself doesn't define insurrection, doesn't provide a process or forum for how you decide whether someone's committed insurrection. And so we made this argument back almost a year ago, Congress should define insurrection, Congress should implement the amendment, which we often rely on Congress to
do for lots of parts of the Constitution. I think the fourteenth Amendment, which has a congressional authorization clause. Sorry yes, exactly, Section five of the fourteenth Amendment says Congress shaw of the power to carry in to affect the terms of the Amendment. And so that I think actually got the attention of both liberal and conservative justices, because otherwise, what happens you have fifty states, fifty states defining insurrection for themselves, and fifty states deciding who gets to
be on the ballot not on the ballot. And keep in mind, the Fourteenth Amendment, even if it applies to the president. The more important thing is it applies to basically every office in the federal and state government in the country. So if Congress doesn't implement it, then you're going to have states knocking off Sunday candidates, what else, candidates, you know, candidates for dog catcher. Every office is going to be subject to this, and you
can imagine this or chaost that would create. So both liberal and conservative justices said, shouldn't this be implemented by Congress so that we have a single definition of what's an insurrectionist, we have a single process laid out for how someone gets to either you know, gets to defend themselves from this kind of charge by the government. And I think that's I think though both of those grounds
are the ones that the Court's going to go off on. I think, having listened to oral argument, I don't know what you guys think, but it seems to me that Colorado is going to lose, and lose overwhelmingly.
The only question is whether it's going to be unanimous. Yeah, and I think it's so to my or who might go funny, I could see that, you know, because she's the only one I think who didn't ask any questions that seemed critical of Colorado. All other ah Justice most of their questions were sharply aimed at the Colorado. And this was remarkable just as a matter of Supreme Court advocacy. The lawyer for Colorado, this was his first time
ever arguing case at the Supreme Court. This is not the kind of case you put the rookie out to play the starting position in a major league baseball game. And I think he frankly did a terrible job. You had three justices say to him, stop evading my questions, stop changing my hypotheticals. And one and actually he Court for Justice Gorsiction, and Gorsis got so frustrated he said, I see you're not going to answer any of my questions.
Well that's the way you want it. We're just going to move on now. That's really really harsh, Like that is basically telling you to stop and take a pause and change your complete approach to the argument. And this guy didn't. And so I think, you know, a lot of time, the advocate doesn't matter. You know, the merits and the briefs are going to take their course. But if there were a chance an advocate could make a difference, for his side. This guy lost that chance. So why
didn't they hire Michael bod and Michael Paulson to present their case? Why didn't Colorado? Well they're both law professors, so they probably would have done even worse. But you know, you they'll give the good question their dumb argument that everybody got excited about though, you know, because they're conservatives and all
that. But this is an interesting question, is why didn't the Colorado side of things hire any one of the number of outstanding liberal Supreme Court right advocates and like any of the number of people who've been solicitor general under the Obama administration or even the Clinton administration. They're still around there. They argued lots of several cases a year, these guys, and they're excellent. So did I have a theory? I wonder what you think about it. I saw
a couple of articles. One began talking about this ninety one year old woman who vote, who cried when in nineteen sixty four when Goldwater lost the election, which is supposed to make us think, you know, she's some hardcore conservative who was one of the leading plaintiffs in the Colorado case, you know, to get Trump off the ballot, and there were a bunch of articles similar to that, trying to trying really hard to make the case that this
was these were conservative Republicans who were arguing this rather than you know, crazy lefties. The same thing happened, by the way, in Arizona with Katie Hobbs and Carrie Lake, where all over the state of Arizona there were these billboards and there were these horrific ads with these fat, ugly people where lifelong Republicans and we don't want Carrie Lake, we want Kadie Hobbs, and we're stupid, but we're stupid Republicans, so you should listen to it. That's
not what they said, but that's what I heard anyway. I'm just wondering if that's the new if that is sort of the central never Trump strategy, which is to try to say that it's all these Republicans. I mean,
you said yourself the guy was a clerk for Garset. I don't know, well, you would have thought, John that Seth, this is the perfect case for Seth Waxman, right, who I think is probably actually I think he's so annoys Chief Justice Roberts. It's probably a bad idea, but On the surface, you'd say, why wouldn't you hire Seth Waxman to do this or someone like him? Right, Yeah, there's like Verilli, who was this priser general under Obama won the Obamacare case. And there's a whole bunch
of others. Right, there's no So that's curious. I think part of it is Lucretia's right. Maybe the Democrats wanted to sort of have Republicans be the frontmen and women for this so that it's seems like it's not Parson. Maybe the Progressives knew this was a loser and they were just throwing this up as see how it worked a low probability win. Well, I don't know.
I mean, I think there's a story arc for this week that's connected to a larger story arc, which is one more thing about the oral argument. Though before I do my story arcs about why we're seeing another instance of trunk dearrangements and Rome backfiring on the never trumpers. The one thing I did not see coming, which came from both the Kagan and Brown Jackson, is they realized that gush if states can come up with new qualifications to be on
the ballot. Wait a Minute's that starts to point toward a restoration of states. Right, So they both said the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to take power away from states. And the next sentence, unstated, was and concentrated in Washington, D C. And so what you're opening a can of worms here if you actually have judicial interpretations that say, oh, well, the work might allow more latitude for states to do X and y. I didn't see that, you do. I get what you're saying. I'm not disagreeing with
what you're saying. But I wonder, because of our oft repeated argument that the left doesn't really care about standards, the left doesn't really care about principles, they really don't care about institutions. They're willing to manipulate or do away with any one of the above if it means they'll get what they want. And I don't think Katangi falls outside of that. Really, maybe not, but you might be right, Well, I could see them being deeply worried.
Well, and let's remember the last big Fourteenth Amendment decision was the Harbor case last June, which they were routed on. And they might be parently worried. I don't know, but I did not see an argument coming out. Let's just put it that way. But I'm saying that the lesson of the whole week to me is, don't get your lesson before we've had all the stories, Steve Saving, I'm not stories the rest of the news stories. Oh well, okay, makes more sense, Okay, I will hold
it. Then, I'm not telling you to be quiet. I'm telling you that you'll have a better case if you wait. I want to ask John. Then the next thing is the immunity case, which I totally kind of spaced about again on the grand scale of news this past week. It was kind of a minor issue by the end of the week. I mean, all things confuted. It was a you know, it was a circuit court case. It was one we expected. It was decided exactly the way we
expected. I'm told that both of you have some insights into that that I'm totally missing, But go ahead and give me those insights. Well. First, it's first, it's such a striking change in the fortunes of Trump and Biden that we started the week. We started Monday talking about Trump losing this immunity case. Then on Thursday, we started Thursday morning talking about the Supreme Court deciding whether Trump should be disqualified by Thursday afternoon, and through till today,
all we're talking about is whether Biden should be removed from office. Look at that huge change in political fortunes. I mean, Trump has had the best week in politics that I can think of in a long time for himself. But on the immunity question, the two things. So one is I think that this argument is going to fail for Trump at the court, but it doesn't mean he's not going to be able to raise the arguments he wants
to in the proper way. So first, the Court has never had to decide whether a president has immunity from criminal prosecution because no president has been charged before. But I think it's fair to say a lot of the precedents and a lot of the lower court opinions imply, as a DC Circuit found earlier this week, that a president doesn't have that kind of immunity. Presidents do
have absolute immunity for from civil cases for damage actions. And the reason why would there be a difference, Well, the reason why is because the Court says, we don't want presidents when they make decisions worrying about getting sued by the plethora of private people out there who could just make up reasons to assume
them. The thing with federal prosecution, right is that it's under the control of a president, and so I think what the courts believe is those presidents will take into account the interests of the executive branch so that people are not former presidents are not harassed because the current president is going to someday be a past president or former president, and so in the civil context, we don't have any way to give force to the interests of the executive branch making decisions
free of the threat of litigation. But with criminal prosecution, since that's only in the hands of the president, the current president himself or herself, then I think with the the courts assumes that that president will take account of those interests when they decide whether to prosecute or not. I think I got to push back on that, or the listeners will never forgive me John go go
ahead, go ahead. I'm just gonna say that might to the extent that the court should be considering secondary considerations consequences of these things, like what you say that you know, people could just be constantly bringing civil suits against the president, but the executive will not do that because they don't want to have turned around as fair play whatever put it a little bit too simplistically. We've
seen that's no longer true. So if the Supreme Court is using that particular or uses that particular caveat as an excuse to say, no, presidents don't have immunity from criminal prosecutions the way they do from civil prosecutions, that may or civil suits. Excuse me, that may make zero sense in the current political context. Is the courts of basic completely ignore that political context, which of course is going to lead us to the next item of discussion, but
I don't want to get there yet. I'm just saying. I mean the fact that how many criminal counselor against Trump right now ninety one, well, are all brought by enemies, political enemies of the president. All of that, Well, what should distinguish though, between the prosecutions by state elected das, which against what you could have you might have an immunity. That's a totally that's a federalism issue. And then charge is brought by the US Justice
Department, which are under the control of the current president. So just a backup first, I think there's a good textual argument that they don't have immunity because there is one kind of immunity from prosecution in the constitutional text, and it's only for members of Congress when they are engaged in speech and debate, which implies that no one else gets criminal immunity right because they don't give one to the president or remind you to judges, although the judges of course created
one for themselves when they had the chance. But that's you know, textually, you could say, well that that suggests that there is no immunity allowed. Then the federal's papers do talk about presidents being removed from office by impeachment and then being subject to prosecution. So I putting aside this functional argument, I think just the normal youth, the normal sources we used to interpret the constitution suggests presidents don't have this kind of munity. Well, then make my
second point just one. Let's say the second point is, but I think actually Trump has valid arguments, but they're not immunity. Immunity means I can never be prosecuted for anything. That's different than saying I'm being prosecuted under a statute that's being applied unconstitutionally to me. So take for example, the famous statute which led to President Andrew Johnson's impeachment. It was called the Tenure in Office sect. It made it a crime for the president to fire a cabinet
officer. That's unconstitutional, right, That statute is just unconstitutional. So Trump could be prosecuted as Johnson was appeached, and you could say that prosecution is an unconstitutional prosecution. That's not immunity. I think that's a winning argument. So Trump could say, look, I'm being prosecuted for exercising my free speech rights when I gave a speech at the Ellipse. That's not precluded by this
immunity. By losing on immunity, he could say, these criminal charges you're using against me, like fraud against the United States, are disenfranchising all voters, or interfering with congressional procedures, None of those actually apply. You're making up readings of those statutes which they can't bear, and they don't apply to what happened on January sixth. Those are still valid arguments. That's different than saying I have immunity, which just means I could have done anything, and
I could have violated any law, but I just can't be prosecuted. Have his chance to make I think actually valid constitutional arguments, but I think immunity just went too far. So I think that Steve, that John was influenced by that dumb judge, Judge who said, oh, if you if you sent the whoever it was, the Navy seals, whoever it was out to murder your political opponents. I mean, that was just a reducdio ad absertin argument if you ask me, well, yeah, well well there's the problem,
I think, or one of them. So first of all, John, once again, looking for just the text alone without thinking beyond the text, leads you into a constricted dead Endustreet, So just to work backwards. The speech and debate clause for members of Congress, I believe, correct me if I'm way wrong, only applies when Congress is in session or when they're doing their official duties like traveling to and from Congress to work there. That's
the way it works in state legislators. I know. Now the president is the president all the time, right, so the sim or you know, collateral immunity would be attached to the presidency because it's the office of the president. And my point isn't I was just going over this with students in class this week, as I was explaining the whole concept of executive prerogative from Locke,
the whole idea of immunity descends from the idea of executive prerogative. Now, the abstract problem is, yeah, you would say, if you know, if the president walked down the street one day and robbed the bank and shot up some people, you couldn't really somebody, Yeah right right, that famous line you would You would have to say at that point, yeah, that'd be hard to say that could qualify the presidential community. And the Court
in the opinion said something I think kind of troubling. They said, well, yeah, there's kind of a problem here, and I forget the exact words, it was close to this. We think the thought that that constricting immunity or scanning it back will lead to future presidents being harassed as fanciful. In other words, what they're saying is this only applies to Trump. By the way, my new rule, John, which I'm borrowing for yours,
is is all the presidential parrogaterives apply to every president not named Nixon. And now you expand that to every president not named Nixon or Trump. So that's where we are now and now you need to go back to what is he being charged with. He's not being charged with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
The charges from Smith are interfering with the congressional proceeding, disenfranchising voters. I think that's a reach, But I think the first one rests on the idea that it presumptively invalidates Trump's defense that he was defending the Constitution by contesting the results of a corrupt election. The comeback and their factual claim, as I understand it, and the pleadings is that Trump knew that wasn't true. Trump was totally lost the election. In other words, that they are saying that
Trump's state of mind. They're doing a men's rey argument about him, which I think is extremely weak when it comes to bringing a case against any president. And so that's why I think what's going to happen here. Trump is going to appeal to the Supreme Court on my day. That's the deadline, isn't it, And then we'll that's going to start a clock. I think this is going to go a while. Right, Well, it's actually quite complicated. He could normally and this does go to your point about Trump being
treated differently. Normally you would have actually a former government officer would normally have forty five days to appeal to the entire d C Circuit. So this is just a decision by three of the judges of the entire DC Court of Appeals, which I believe has twelve judges. And so you have the right if you lose a case before panel to petition the whole court to come together, which it does maybe once a year in some cases sometimes it goes years without
doing. And that's the court I clerked on before I clicked at the Supreme Court, so I know how the procedures were. But this panel said, nope, you don't get those forty five days. You got to appeal like in one day basically, or we're going back down sending it back to the lower court. So what Trump's going to have to do is go to the Supreme Court, I think, and say order the DC Circuit to stop sending this trial back so it can start, so I have time to even appeal
use my appeal rights in that court. Because it's so strange that that court said, Nope, you don't have the normal time to appeal. We're going to let the trial start, right away. Then if he loses that in forty five days, then I think he then he could say and then I
want to appeal to the Supreme Court. So I figure he's got maybe if the Supreme Court agrees, he probably have another two months to go before it gets to the US Supreme Court. Of course, as interested I think is to you know, not have this go to trial at all before the election. If the court were to grant certain take the case, maybe they would treat it like the Colorado case and try to decide it quickly, or they
could stay the whole trial and take the regular time. Right it's say, you know, we're just going to do the No, you know we're going to grant certain heard in the fall, So correct me if I'm wrong. The status quo right now is that the whole thing has stayed until something happens. Now does this is what's really unusual about what this panel did is that they issued what's called the mandate back to the trial judge, you know, Judge Jack, Judge chuck In, which would allow her next week to restart
the trial proceedings. Oh that's not normal. That's usually you're allowed to appeal to the whole court and then go to the DC the US Supreme Court, and I'm going to have to he's still allowed to do that, but then she has permission to go ahead to restart the trial. Yeah, got it. So that's that's that's a little bit of dirty pool. I think that yes, people wouldn't notice or understand, but it's actually kind of important if your goal is to stop Trump from right going all the way Supreme Court and
holding the trial in faces. So there's so many for the boring discussion, and I wanted to ask you about Jack Smith's move to try anyway, I don't I want to take a moment for our incredible sponsors, which for John always include McDonald's on State Farm and I don't know what the other one is mine. They're always in Spanish, so we'll see in a moment, Okay. So gosh, there's so much to talk about. I think that we probably want to move on to the big news of the week and see if
we can pick up the little things afterwards. The big news of the week, of course, as John mentioned earlier, was the special counsel that is investigating Garland was more or less forced into appointing a special counsel to investigate Biden's misuse and uh it responsibility about the use of his keeping of classified documents in his garage, you know, with his treasured corvette and whatnot, and a garage frequented by the esteemed Hunter Biden, and you know, the whole thing
was just vile. But the Special Council her h u R, not h e R. It's not her pronoun thank you. Charles Lipson came out and said, yes, as a matter of fact, Biden quite egregiously mishandled classified documents documents he probably should not have had in his possession because he was no
longer vice president and he was not the classification authority. I don't know that her got into that, but he should, and sharing those documents with his ghostwriter who did not have a security clearance, right, Okay, important, Never mind what kind of his mishandling of those documents actually might have led two with all of the shady characters in and out with Hunter. We won't go there. But he didn't go there either. But those are real, very
real kinds of concerns. Anyway, he said Biden was was very much at fault. Biden committed all sorts of crimes in the course of not handling classified documents as he should have. And some of this was, of course the result of carelessness, but there would be no point in bringing charges, no point whatsoever in bringing charges, even though we there's this whole section he talks
about, Oh gosh, you know, we're not bringing charges here. But we've got this other situation, the first time it's been done against a presidential candidate. But I'm not going to get into that. This one's a wholly different case. It wasn't clear all how it was different at all. But and then he said, I can't bring charges because if if the president, the current president, went before a jury, they would look at him as
a well meaning elderly man whose memory was very, very bad. Is that was that the right phrase, Steve, which, first of all, what a liar he's There has never been a single movement in Joe Biden's life where he's been well intentioned. Okay, senile, ugly mean as we saw last night Thursday night, but never well intentioned if you ask me. But anyway back to I heard John today on Fox News as I was in my car. It's my favorite thing that happened in the car by the way, John,
when you come on on Fox News. But John made a brilliant point, actually several, one of which was what else was her going to do? Either he was going to have to recommend prosecution or he's going to have to have a rationale. So talk about that from go ahead, Steve, if you had to say, go first, and then John can correct me. Active a question for John about one one specific aspect of the report.
First of all, it does sound, and some people have made this point, it does sound a little bit like James Comey's conclusion about Hillary and her private server. So no reasonable prosecutor will bring this case because she won't be convicted, is what he's essentially said. And her said, no, there's
no way that we could get a successful conviction against Biden on this. So, first of all, it does sound like there that maybe Trump doesn't get immunity from the DC circuit, but there does seem to be Democratic Party community matters that are similar. Wait a minute, let me keep going here,
because it's the same point. Sorry, Well all right, Well, I was gonna say two questions John. One, is it sure seems to me like this completely blows up the case against Trump, But I know there are distinctions that Biden cooperated and Trump was stubborn about it, but I don't I don't think that works very well case. And then second our Eliot Shapiro made a claim on Twitter. I don't know if this is true, and I wonder if you know, he said that Garland did not have to release this
report. He could have I suppose kept under wraps all those very damaging parts about Biden's sanility and what I suppose issued a summary that's said, we released a conclusion that it doesn't arise to a prosecutable crime. And I don't know if that would have stuck or not. But is that true that the Attorney General could have withheld the public release of the complete report? Do you know?
So you may remember this actually came up during the Robert I mean the Robert Muller Special Council investigation of Donald Trump, because remember he had a report, and then Bill Barr took the report, issued his own summary, and then only a little bit later, I think maybe a week later, released a redacted version of the report. So I think it is corrected. Under the regulations, the Attorney General is actually the one ultimately responsible for transmitting the
report. To Congress and the public. But what are you going to do if the Special Council sends report to Congress anyway? So it's I think that's why. But I think practically attorney generals have always known that if the Special Counsel wants to report release, they're going to release it because there's nothing you can do to them. They're just there, right, The Special Council is just there for that one case. Wouldn't you have released it on a Friday
night, which is when you typically try to bury bad suits? And I was actually joking around with the producers at Fox because I was actually on shows to talk about the Colorado oral arguments and then never talked about them because we
spent the whole time talking about this report. And so one of the producers said to me, I bet that the Biden people wanted the report released today because they thought that the Colorado case would steal some of the attention from But they were just totally They didn't realize that the Special Council thing just overshadowed everything because of what it said about Biden's mental incapacity. But they were hoping, like you know, some of the oxygen in the room would be taken away
by the Colorado case. They really really misjudged that well that whoever was the staffer also who then thought, after watching all the damage mounting on Biden, thought it was a good idea to send him out for that press conference where he started yelling and screaming at the press started forgetting things about and misstating who the various presidents were that guy should or when that man or woman should be fired and never be allowed to work in politics. You can't. I want
to come back to that, John. I first want to go back to what Steve said about Hillary, because that was exactly my thought was. But remember that Hillary actually got away in the Bengazi hearings with and several other Democrats or may as well have been done. Democrats have done the same thing Fauci with the answering questions over and over again with I don't recall, I don't recall, which I suppose is the weasliest of getting out of you know,
a method of answer getting out of questions. But that's what I was thinking of that with the I don't recall, and you know, if I'm Komy, well she's you know whatever. But the point is, how can how can a refusal to be forthcoming be such a successful strategy for Democrats other than the fact that our Justice Department just simply allows it. And my second question that was really more of a commentary. Sorry, that's amazing, that's actually
that's an important question I just mentioned. So this is I think there's a huge difference here actually between Trump and Biden. So you know, Trump's of course facing all these right legal problems to in New York City, Georgia, Washington. So somehow Trump has taken a strategy which has provoked huge legal losses in the courtroom, Like he's getting clawbreed in these defamation suits by Jeene Carroll. He's going to get clawbered in this attorney general lawsuit against him for inflating
his assets and mortgage applications and so on. But somehow he turned those into political gold, right, Like he used those political these legal setbacks where he took where he refused to cooperate or comply with the court, and he lost. He's going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. But it took all the air out of the primaries and all the attention away from everyone else and focused it on him. Biden's the exact opposite. I'm sure he's following his
lawyer's advice. They probably told him, if you don't remember anything for sure, then say you don't remember, right. That's that's like a stand. Don't never say anything in these interviews that you're not absolutely sure about. That's that's standard litigation practice. But it's killing It's going to kill him in politics.
Yeah, I mean that's where I don't. I mean, I understand your point in the creature about no legal consequences for Hillary and Benghazi, but I do think in Hillary's case, that report and the way you call me that was very damaging her and arguably cost her the election. Right, So there's cosmic justice at leads in her case, and I think maybe we're seeing it in Biden's case too. I'm hoping you're right, not damaging enough because
she's still out there instead of hiding somewhere was in shame. But okay, so let's talk about whether or not first there was an alternative if her wanted to avoid prosecuting Biden and still leave open the possibility that Trump could be prosecuted on the same charges. Of course, they're not the same charges Biden can be guilty. Trump obviously cannot be guilty of the charges of mishandling his own classified documents. I don't know how many times I have to say that,
but anyway, let's pretend that they're equal. Was there any other possibility, John, in your opinion, could he have made a different argument. Is there another argument that could have been made by her about why why he's not going to move for charges to be brought against Biden other than he's senile and a jury wouldn't convict him. Actually her addresses in the report. It's interesting.
I don't think a lot of people paid attention to it, but in his report he basically says, yes, it's going to be an obvious question to people that were recommending not to prosecute here, whereas the other special counsel, who was not responsible for me to me, as you know, indicted President Trump. And he does say the conduct might appear similar to most people.
And he says, and this is a reason he could have said, I'm not going to prosecute Biden and Trump should be prosecuted, as he says, there actually seems to be a long practice of presidents not really being very let's say careful and they're handling. And actually, Steve, this is interesting.
They go back. They actually say Reagan actually kept diaries which had a lot of classified information in them, and you know, so they say, we can go to Reagan, if not further back, and just show Look, presidents keep diaries at notes and they take them home and no one's ever thought about prosecuting for them. So he could have said, we could give these presidents a free pass on that, just like we've given all the presidents in the past. So what hers says is but the main difference is the
level of cooperation. That Trump is not really being prosecuted anymore for the classified documents and they're handling. He's being prosecuted for obstructing, just says, for trying to hide the documents from the FBI and for telling his staff to lie to the FBI. Uh. And so that's actually that is a big difference,
right. The Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution really, I think is going to center on claims of obstruction of justice, refusing to comply with warrants, hiding things around the FBI, lying to the FBI, rather than the actual rather than the fact that he cas know that it's not a crime that how can you obstruct justice when there's no crime? Well, there's no crime here, you know that, right, John, But I'm not actually, I'm
not sure make crime. I don't actually agree with that. But whether there is a crime or not, it's still a crime to lie to FBI officer or to lie to Congress, regardless of what it is you're lying about. I guess I like, it just seems to me that even if you stipulate all those distinctions, it's going to be very hard to find a jury in
Sound Florida that's going to convict Trump. I don't know. But at the end of right now, look as you guys know, I thought it's a mistake to bring the case because the only thing that should matter is January sixth. If you want to indict Trump for insurrection and prove it, that's a good use of federal prosecutor resources, don't I've never thought that prosecuting Trump for this, you know, classified documents makes sense. That's a good use of
resources. Yeah. Well, I don't know if you want to do this, Lucretia, But I mean, at the end of the week, Trump looks stronger. I can't wait for the next round of polls, which may not show Trump's surging, but it's going to show Biden falling sharply, I think. But Trump came out after the Colorado opinion and gave a little talk and then answered questions, and he was masterful. I thought, one of
his better performances ever. And then Biden here a few hours later, has what I'm calling I'm calling that press conference in the evening is I'm not a crook moment, you know, like we had with Nixon, right, that
was a big thing different. I can live with a criminal. I can't live with I mean the idea we have a you know, a brain dead if I can't even that's always when my old rule a free I've had this rule for forty years, which is better to have a crooking office than a liberal because a crook cannot steal as much as a liberal can give away. And never heard of it, You've never had sell that one. Job. That's a good one. I like that. I would to death. Job.
I would have thought you'd say, if you're out there holding press conferences and all your people are out there saying the president is not seen now, than you're losing. Oh yeah, the Vice President is out there saying you're not seeing now it's gratuitous to say that. I actually find the whole thing fascinating the way that it came down. But I do want to go back
momentarily to Trump's excuse me, Biden's press conference last night. I mean, he started off the week saying that the reason that the bipartisan immigration bill fell apart was Trump's fault, and all of the immigration problems. We're seeing that
that Biden finally admitted to all the legal immigrants is also Trump's fault. That was an interesting attempt by Biden at the beginning of the week, But by the end of the week, we're talking about the fact that the guy's brain dead and that we wouldn't you know, the joke has always been, we wouldn't hand over the TV remote control to a guy as senile as Biden, but we let him be president. We can't let him stand before a jury, but we let him be president. So that has led people, Republicans,
especially to start talking about the twenty fifth Amendment. I did go back, John and find your Wall Street Journal article, and I read it that you wrote about what the actual circumstances were if if we if somebody decided to push for removing Biden temporarily for his work permanently for his disability, which is of course that he has no brain. And want I want you to when we come back to outline those procedures, which are a little more complicated,
then most people understand them to be at least that's what Steve says. That's probably a strong man argument. But I mean section four. I mean, John, do you want to do section four? Or me? I find them I want I do want to take a break here, Steve, because you had to So John, do you want we want us to go into section John, you want to talk about section four? Or me? I find it really remarkable when you read it. Well, I mean, most
people think the twenty fifth Amendment, they've heard of it. It's a majority of the cabinet says the president is unable to discharge the duties, the vice president becomes the acting president, and the suggestion is, well, the president can come back if it has been I think invoked a couple of times for mere hours, like when a president's been under anesthesia for surgery and stuff. But you know it's happened to you three times in the last forty years.
But if you read to the whole thing, what it says is the president can contest this. The president can transmit a letters saying no, no, I'm fine. And then if the cabinet insists and reiterates from stating this right, they're find that the president's unable to determine, unable to discharge the duties
of the office. Then what happens is they send that to the Congress, to the President pro tem of the Senate, and Congress has three weeks to assemble and vote on the matter, and by a two thirds vote, Congress can say no, no, the cabinet's right, the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office, and the Vice president remains as acting president. So you can imagine stubborn as a mule Biden saying of course, I'm
fine. He would clearly contest this, and then things would get interesting. You think there's a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress to side with the cabinet, I mean maybe, I think a lot of Democrats in charge. Well, that's just it. So you want to put her in charge? If you're a Republican, do you want to do the Democrats a favor, although I actually think that if something like this happens, it will wreak havoc on the Democratic Party and their chances of winning the election. I think
they're doomed either way. They're doomed with Biden, they're doomed if they replace him. But I think that I read that whole section and I thought this is not as clear cut as people seem to think it is. From all the headlines you read about the twenty fifth Amendment, What have I, mister not gotten complete there? John? No, this is I think you were at the actual amendment if you read the Texas biased in favor of the president.
Yeah, right, So to even get a president, I think of it as the suspending, you know, putting the president in the penalty box. Right, So it's like putting someone like in hockey, you put someone in the penalty box. They're only in there for a certain amount of time, right, and then they can rushing out, right, they skate out so fast and try to make a difference. And isn't that the same thing here? So one thing that's hard is that both the vice president and a
majority of the cabinet have degree that the president is unable to. And you remember, like there are things like this comes up in twenty four and in the Harrison Ford movie I can't remember what it's called. That takes place on Air Force one. No Air Force one everywhere? Right, Oh, it's the vice president. Majority of the cabinet going to say the president's incapable performing the duties of the office. But notice it takes both. It's not one
or the other, both the vice president. And so I'm I could easily see Harris already at her computer typing up the finding. But do you think like a majority of the cabinet would agree? You'd have to like rustle up people you haven't heard of before, Like who's the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in this administration? I got no idea who is a secretary? I know what transportation is. Yeah, that's true, but like you know, there are
some pretty obscure federal agencies. You know, who's the Secretary of HUD in this administration? By the way, and then abrupted there for second John, it's actually even less clear than that, because I've said cabinet, that's what most people think, But in fact, the first sentence of Section four is more ambiguous whenever the Vice President and the majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide.
So this is a little bit like section three of the fourteen Amendment. Congress has not specified a body, but they could. They could say we appoint four doctors. Right, they've never dined. Right. And by the way, you executive departments. Often presidents make the head of the EPA a cabinet rank person. This is finally going to restore the unitary executive because all these losers who've been on these various commissions are suddenly going to say, yes,
yes, actually, we've been executive departments all along. Let us vote, Let us vote. Any thing about the amendment is noticed that, as Steve said, after a certain time, right, even if the cabinet and the vice president continued to declare that the president an't discharge office, Congress has to vote by two thirds to agree with them to keep the president out of office. Otherwise the president goes right back in. That's how heavily the amendment actually
runs in favor of by favor of Biden. Actually, right, all Biden has to do is find thirty four senators who want to keep them in office. Well, here, to me is the grand irony of this whole scene, because if you go back five six years ago when Trump is first went into office, and the left and the medium, and I repeat myself, they said, oh, you know what, clearly the twenty fifth Amendment should
be invoked to remove Trump from office because he's obviously unfit. And there was all that talk and some law professors, right, and so here we are at the end of all this, and now the twenty fifth Amendment is being talked about for Biden. I mean, the irony is so delicious here. And the point is is that every time the left launches a torpedo to use navy analogies at Trump, it turns around and sinks them. You know, the me Too movement was started to take down Trump. Instead it took down
Al Franken right, right. And you know there's another example of everything the left does ends up boomeranging and blowing up in their face, which is what makes life. Yeah, it's because we still do have a constitutional republic and they want to twist and manipulate and do away with the constitutional protections that are there, the institutions that are there, the remedies that are there. They want to do away with it all to get the power, to keep power,
to get what they want. And I think I don't think it's a trend or a boomerang effect. I think it's just to some extent, our constitution still works to some extent, and especially in these kinds of things. I mean, you can't bring up the twenty fifth Amendment in the case of Trump and then not look at someone like Biden and say, wow, you
know, I mean, it's just you. You can have all the Trump derangement syndrome in the world you want, but a guy who can't remember the date that his own son died, who can't remember the Afghan War, I mean, all the different examples that her gave in his report, there is and then what we see is Biden being such an irascible, such an ugly vindictive, mean spirited kind of jerk convincing I'm assuming, I mean Jill had to let him go out there. I don't know who's who's claim, probably
never would have let it happen. I don't know. I can't remember the chief of staff's name, but there are as and obviously not you know who knows if Obama had anything to say about it, probably, But what an I mean the I told Stephen John I was going to resurrect my dumbest person
of the week, my stupidest person of the week. I would resurrect it if I knew who that person was who said, yeah, it's a good idea for uh, the you know, the brain dead Biden to go out there and try to defend himself that he's not senile, insisted on himself. He might have. He might have. So tell me what you do is you put him out there, and you put a bunch of fake journalists and you let the fake journalists. That's what I would have done. That's redundant,
and the fake journalists is are done for. That's a classic without real cameras. I guess, Ristia Lucretia, the Biden White House is going to be calling you and hiring you on in a few minutes because that is brilliant. That is brilliant. Can I just make one or two comments about that? So one is right? You've got all the Biden people, including Biden himself, attacking the special counsel whom they appointed, right, whom they picked
for being partisan or for being inappropriate and so on. So here's my solution. If they, if they really think that the Special Council is making stuff up, is misrepresenting this, then have Joe Biden ordered the release of a transcript of the interview that was conducted. Have the Justice Partner release any audio
or videotapings of the interview. Let mark let people, and let people read the transcript and they can decide whether they think the Special Counsel was actually misrepresenting whether President Trump camera President Biden can't remember things because you're an evil man,
John that people said it too. Yeah, yeah, I think the Special Council probably downplayed how bad it was because if you read carefully what he said you could get you would get the mis impression that the interview started with the Special Counsel saying, Okay, tell me the dates you are vice president. Okay, tell me the days. It's not that's not what it looks like. It looks like Biden's just his mind. He's saying, Okay, something
happened in twenty seventeen. They ask him about something to say it happened in twenty seventeen, and Biden spontaneously says, was I Vice President then or not right, it's if he's the one sticking the knife in himself, then I bet the interview is much much worse than what we've seen in the Special Council
for Yeah, Christ, the worse things. Can I add one little minor detail to that John the whole idea when he was so offended and everybody wanted to jump on his being offended about bringing u uh it is none of their damn business about when my son died. I can't believe they asked me that. I mean again, what a hypocrite. He brings up the death of his son bo at the most inappropriate times. Every time you turn around,
he lies about it. He lies how it happened. He undermines the the a ceremony that's for a soldiers actually killed in battle because of his stupid decisions to talk about how his son Bow was killed in Iraq. And you know, the idea that he's going to be offended because somebody asked him about it as an attempt to say, yeah, this is important event in your life. When did it happen or how did it happen? You know, I think I think there's actually a worse aspect of the story or worse detail than
that. I mean, that's been well known now that he lies about that, and and he just doubled down on it. But one of the things he and his people have said, I think he said to this and his people have been saying it the last forty eight hours, is well, you know, those interviews were done with the Special Council right after October seven, and you know, by I was distracted by a you know, a global
crisis. Well, the point is presidents are supposed to be able to do more than one thing at a time, and you know, you know the contrast here was. I forget it might have been Peter Wallace and John who you know well of course, who told me this story, because Watson was White House counsel when Iran contra broke, when Reagan was in office, and
you know, the Washington's going nuts. I forget what day it was, but when one of the really the lid blue office with the North and the diversions, whatever it was, and he said he went in and saw Reagan at lunch, that he had Furgod Marshall in. So I don't know what the event was, but he said he couldn't believe how serene and in command. Reagan seemed to be and so untroubled and unruffled by what everyone else was running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Right, And of course,
you know he had some very rough months ahead of him. But the point was he never said, gosh, I was distracted by this, that and the other thing. He was able to do lots of things at once, as we saw. The analogy is so far from being apt here, Steve, because you're talking about Reagan and you're talking about Biden. Yeah, I know, right. I'm trying to remember Reagan has some real choice things to say about Biden's diary. I don't remember him on the top of my
head. Uncle looking, I'm going to tell you what Paul Mgala said about after the whole thing that came out from the Special Counsel's report in Biden's response to it, was I slept like a baby last night after I heard it, and I wet the bed every two hours. Oh no, you, I mean Carmel, David Axel, Rod Magala. There being kind of public with their alarm about all this, and okay, well, I mean, never mind the twenty fifth Amendment. What do they do? I told Steve,
no more damn historical analogies. He didn't listen to me. I said, you got one choose Wisely, he ignored me. You've already had five. But I do want him for a moment. So a lot can happen between now and summer. We've got what this is February, what four months before four or five months before the conventions? What happens if we get to
Chicago? To Chicago the last time we had a truly brokeren convention where Hubert Humphrey was chosen as a Democratic nominee after not even entering a single primary in the Democratic election primary season in nineteen sixty eight, and it led to riots, et cetera, et cetera. So what's going to happen if Biden stays in the race all the way through and we get to Chicago, or if
he drops out? Steve, Well, look, I mean, by the way, it wasn't really broken in sixty eight, and then you still had party bosses controlling delegations, so they were able to deliver in the nomination. And you know if Kennedy, I mean everyone said, oh, Robbie Kennedy would have wanted he hadn't died. I think that's very doubtful because Johnson hated Kennedy and still had lots of power with the party and would have moved heaven and earth to keep them from getting Okay, But look, I mean there
are supposedly procedures. I haven't looked into them. I've read articles. I forget the details. But the parties can change their rules and the continues the rules of the drop of a hat. Right now. Usually it's a long but they can change it quickly if they need to. And the real drama is that how they're going to go about doing this. I mean, they're going to release the delegates and I don't know. I have no idea what
will happen. I think we're in completely uncharted territory. We've never worked john because I think the only element of government he never worked in was the Federal Election Commission. Well they don't only I only worked for constitutional branches of the federal government. I love it. I should listeners. Yeah, Have I been losing them? Have I been losing listeners already? I think you're a
squish on the border. That's all on the border. In the January sixth, in the Justice Department and and Okay, gone, what do you think happened with the with the Democratic of primary? John? I'm just you know, so I was getting a little I was getting kind of ticked off about all this last night when I saw what was in the report, because I don't know about you guys, but my Democratic friends are always saying to me things like, how can you allow someone like Donald Trump to be president?
Yeah? Right? And all I was thinking now was, well, now you guys have proof, how can you allow someone like this to be you my Democratic friends allow this person to remain as president when now we have this is not just people speculating for what they see on videos or hearing. This is a This is a report of the Justice Department, Like this is a
fine. I mean, can't me how important this is is that the special counsel said he would otherwise have prosecuted this guy but for the fact that a jury would sympathize with him because he seems like everybody's senile grandfather, right, so or father? So, I mean, it's not just like political speculation anymore. So I would think if you really had a democratic party with responsible officials, with responsible people in it, they would figure out a way to
write to pose Biden just like they didn't have Trump. I mean, I'm sorry, just the way they didn't have Truman run for an additional term, just the way Johnson didn't run for additional term. They've got to use the inside party politics of their own party to try to persuade Biden to step down. Look, you could say, you could say to him, Look, you did what you promised. You saved the country from Trump being re elected. You became the bridge to the next generation of democ politicians. You brought
us through COVID. So you did what you said you were. You're going to be an important figure in American history. You're going to ruin all that if you try to stay on for a second term. Right, So why not send them off the stage with applause and then swap them for somebody else? Hit Democratic Party leaders? Do that? Do they? Really? Is the whole Democratic Party really under the control not of Biden, It's of Biden's staff. Really. Yeah, I think it's a classic collective action problem.
But by the way, I will mention that this will should cheer Lucretia in a certain way. There are more and more stories starting to leak out in this week about what an awful person Joe Biden is and about how she yells at staff. Jill. Sorry, I had doctor Jill Biden should have I should have done a proper title about how she You know, Nancy Reagan used to have a bad reputation for being tough on staff when something went wrong.
Supposedly Jill Biden is a lot worse. And so that's an interesting little tidbit. We'll let's see at the media now, CNN, there's a CNN segment I saw, Yeah, there, you go, right. They went on for like, they took a six to seven minute segment fact checking Biden's press conference and saying, no, he's wrong about that. That's also wrong.
This isn'tcorrect. And oh and the New York Times Friday morning five stories on the front page about Biden's memory problems in the fallout from the Special Counsel's report.
And you know, good grief. So if you're a loyal seat CNN watcher who sometimes reads the New York Post, I mean New York Times, you know you've got you've got to be going through some kind of mental anguish at this moment because you've been lied to for so long and had the truth obscured from your view for so long, this has to be just a mind blowing I would think. But anyway, we have so much more I would love to talk about. But we've been going for a very long time.
And I'm going to have to ask John if he heard Kamala's full throated defense of our esteemed president and if he was persuaded by it off side. I was going to offer that as the comalism, so I guess i'd have to wright he said no, because maybe people didn't hear it. Well, she said that it was you know, mess representation, but it got worse, and she said he was unprofessional based on her own, you know, deep experience as a prosecutor, and that it was a direct partisan attack on the
president. And gratuitous. Yeah, oh yeah, that was a big word for her. Well, you know what, for her being the vice president. I think she was grateful that this whole thing happened, So she was gratuitoust towards Robert her that he did this. Yeah, I just have to wonder what she's thinking. Okay, I'm gonna go to the Babylon b Steve.
So Steve sent me as if I hadn't seen it already. The Babylon Bee is is a national treasure, as just what I'm going to say right off the bat, and if you're not subscribing to it, you should. So this one's new, Steve, you might not have seen it. Forty chess. Trump four his judge to grant full immunity after he speaks gibberish and shakes hands with the air. Okay, that's kind of funny, all right, you guys should laugh. More Man ruled too senile to stand trial,
Still fine to run country. You know that's not even funny. That's a layup. Yeah, yeah, but Biden calls for the president to step down, right, okay, a little bit back to an earlier story, Catangi Brown Jackson pauses oral arguments to ask Clarence Thomas, what is a constitution? Actually? I think it was Molly, Molly, Molly Hemingway. But a tweet, who is just I mean, it was just perfect. It was what's the guy's name from CNN who came back? I shouldn't use those terms
for master baiting on all. Oh, Jeffrey Tubman, the Tuban missile crisis, as I always call it. Yeah, so Tuban has this long, despicable rant against Clarence Thomas, and Money comes back and says, he's I guess he's taken a break from masturbating on camera to blah blah blah. And it was, it was, it was perfect. But he was the only one at CNN who seemed to want to, you know, take anybody else's
side in this for a CHANGETANGI Brown. Troy passes that we didn't even get to the bipartisan by the four scariest words in the English language, Bipartisan Immigration Reform bill. Yeah. Troy passes border protection law limiting entrance of wooden horses to five thousand dollars a day. Thers is a day? Right, Yeah, sorry one day. And then finally, because there's so many senators say, senators say they're not super worried about running up national debt as most of
them will die of natural causes in the next year or so. And it's a picture. And then and mcgarth, yeah, you get it. I did want to say, Steve and I had a back and forth this week about whether or not if McCarthy was still Speaker of the House, there would have been a successful impeachment vote against New Yorkis. I think Steve's wrong and
I'm right, but well beside, they may still get him. I mean they were missing a vote, they had a Democrat they weren't expecting to show up, and then they were missing Steve's calise, who was has been ill. They and they can bring it back up again because they did the parliament re maneuver and they may yet do it, so we'll see. Okay, Uh, Steve, I want you to end this. So I'm going to tell listeners, today's my birthday. Oh, happy birthday. Thank you.
I'm six. I was just with you a few days ago. I don't see. I wish we would have celebrated. That's okay. But but the reason I mentioned only is because I want bumper music from Steve so wh ice in my life. So when I turned sixteen, my best friend, believe it or not, she's she was my best friend. There was a radio station in my little town that everybody listened to, and of course everybody listened to when they're getting ready for school in the morning. That's back in the
days when you listen to the radio. And she dedicated Ringo Stars. She's sixteen, you're sixteen. You're beautiful in your mind? You know the Ringo Stars song you Know It Right? And Go Star had any songs, but but she asked the DJ to say, this is for my best friend Linda, who's sixteen and never been. Well, half the guys in Mason City know what Linda's never been, which she thought would be hilariously funny and wasn't.
But I've never forgotten it, and I've never forgotten that song. The only other song I know of that actually refers to someone's age is the other Beatles song I'm not a Beatles fan at all and I'm sixty four? Will you still need me? Will you still feed me when I'm sixty four? Yeah? And you don't want Whiskey Girl from Toby Keith. Whiskey Girl could
be the start because it was really sad about Toby Keith. Yeah, I'm not a huge country Western fan, but some of Like I heard a song the other day that was a duet between Kobe, Toby Keith and god him I forget his name now that he's a big rodeo guy. The songs called Copenhagen, and it's singing about the virtues of the you know, the chewing
tobacco. Oh not Danish socialism. Okay, no, no, no, no no. And the funny thing is that, you know the great thing about chewy tobacco, It cures warts and freckles, It makes childbirth of pleasure. Just it's a funny song. And then Toby Keith says, us, sure is better than singing all them old love songs. And then the other guy says, yeah, Toby, that is a love song. So anyway, I miss and he died of cancer as well, and I can't believe I can't remember his name. But you know me, I can never remember
names. So a lot of we lost a lot of people lately. Yeah, yeah, that's right. All right, John, you want to launch us out, I'm trying. Oh yeah, So always drink your whiskey, meat and let's go Brandon and Steve God save the queen. Mano. I'm going to come up with some new bidenisms after this week rotation. All right, bye, bye, guys. When I get older, losing my hair many years from now, will you still be sending me a Valentine Birthday greeting
bottle of wine? If I've been out till quarter to three? Would you lock the door? Will you still need me? Will you still feed me? When I'm sixty four? You'll be old, dirty, And if you say the word, I could stay with you. I could be handy, mending a fuse when your lights have gone Ricochet. Join the conversation.