Well, whiskey, come and take my pain, the moneys my brain.
Oh whiskey, don't you let me.
Here?
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 blow where you're feeling in love? Down and load.
Welcome everybody to the three Whiskey Happy Hour where we are going to begin as we are supposed to discussing whiskey during our happy hour, and it's actually happy hour for a change, so we can have whiskey and that coffee or something done like that. So we're starting with. This is the youngest whiskey I'm having today. This is the cask of a Monteata whiskey. Very excited about that. Then the next youngest is yeah, none of them are old enough to vote? Is this fourteen year old Glenn Fittach.
And finally the one I'm actually drinking is I'll show you. This one is the fifteen year old Solera fifteen Warm and Spicy, fifteen years in bourbon, new oak and sherry casks so none of that nasty old cigarette ashtray scotch free.
Welcome gentlemen, John Oh, I think have the best looking bottle. I've got this gigantic will It pot still, which I think I haven't even opening for the first time.
Yeah, you know, I think when you smells really sweet when you pulled it off your shelf, it looks like, what is he getting a bomb?
I mean it looks like only you refugees from the seventies would think that.
Okay, Steve, tell us what you're drinking while I put my dogs outside.
My first glass is a Lefroy quarter cask, and then my backup for later is a Balveny doublewood twelve. But I think Lucretia can hear us. I think she's got her earbuds on. This is this has been a week for drinking. I have to tell you because it's been so crazy. I dusted off Kingsley Amos's great book on every Day Drinking, which is all its best alcohol writing. But knowing that Lucretia likes Glenn MORAINGI I thought she's gonna want to hear this, I mean be able to
respond to it. Uh. Here's here's what Amos says about Glenn Morange. He says, Glenn Maring, for example, a well liked brand has been called delicate and mild, even faintly sweet. Now that seems like the wrong whiskey for you, Lucretia, because no one would confuse you with delicate, mild and even faintly sweet, right, but.
Not mild, definitely not faintly sweet.
But he also says Glenn Fiddick brute and well balanced. I'm not sure that fits you either.
Well balanced, that's me.
Well, okay, maybe the problem.
Is you guys think I'm not because your squishes. As somebody said in the air in the chat, we.
Sque are they living?
Do they just need?
Do they just only live in Montana? And don't leave this don't leave the state.
John, you haven't figured this out, were It's lucretious universe. We're just living in it.
So actually, the interesting thing was, Steve, last time the three of us got our all of us got our own share, all three of us of positive comments and negative comments. What was even me? My negative comments got down arrows and your guys just didn't. But you know, but yeah, women.
Why did you become a social scientist? To start counting these things.
I was just laughing about it. It was because there's a woman who finds me objectionable because I'm fun of other fat, ugly, stupid women when they.
Are pass.
I can't help myself, and I can do it because, you know what, I am a woman. That's why the one of the big things going across social media this past week has been this fight on the right. Where else, because that's the only place that they ever fight about anything. Whether we should concentrate on Pamela's really awful background policy failures to the extent she has any at all. Uh, you know, talk about a record, keep it on the
up and up, keep it not personal. Don't talk about the fact that she slept with Willie Brown to get ahead in politics. Don't talk about the fact that, you know, on and on and on that she's dumb, that she's inarticulate, that she speaks in word salads. Talk about her policies, and of course, you know, then then the then the left turns around and says all sorts of uh, really horrible personal things about JD. Vance and about Donald Trump. Yeah,
but we can't be like them. They don't follow the John you rule of fight fire with fire, though, I think.
There's so much material to work with on how left wing she is that we don't even need to state the obvious about that. She's being picked for diversity reasons and has been her whole career. So, I mean, I was a piece looking at her criminal procedure record when she was DA and HGA California, and there's so much material to work with that. I mean, why would why would the rest of the country want to elect a California Marxist to the presidency given what they've done to
the state. We don't need to do much more than that.
I'm an anecdote. You hear, John, You didn't know that was a verb, did you.
So?
When she was chosen for the VP slot, I walked into a colleague who was a retired brigadier general who said, isn't the most this is the most exciting thing you've ever heard. I had tears running down my face when I saw the fact that the United States of America had finally nominated as a nominee for a major party for president, a woman of color, a woman of an
African American. I said, she's not African American. Well, but she's a woman of color, she's and I said, she's a DEI candidate, she's unqualified, and she's there to make the Biden ticket look better. And I swear his face turned the color of Steve shirt, which, for those of you who are listening to the recording, is white. I don't think he ever, I didn't know him very well.
Ever expected somebody to push back and say, what a pussy you cried because some scum boh sorry, got nomine I think we should talk about it every single day. The fact that she's unqualified because she was chosen for reasons other than qualifications.
Well, well, the obvious irony here is well, first of all, it ought to be pointed out relentlessly that once Biden settled on nominating a black woman to be vice president, a person of color, he has ruled out ninety percent of the American population from consideration. You know, nobody seems to think that this is outrageous and absurd and offensibly.
Because of the populations had all the benefit in the past.
Well, well, they'll I understand that. But then the other one is nowadays, I thought DEI is supposed to be a good thing, but to point it out now is racist and sexist and horrible. So the contradictions are now impossible to paper over and deny, and so that's why they're not going to be able to escape it.
Maybe this is why I am a squish. I don't have any problems if people, for political reasons want to put up candidates who are a certain race or gender, but then they can be criticized for it. You know, that's just part of politics, right. I'm sure when the when in Boston, when they first started putting the first Irish candidates on the ballot right to get the Irish immigrant vote, that's fine, it's just politics. But then you can criticize them for is maybe not being the most
qualified people. So I don't think it's I don't think there's anything wrong with politicians saying, oh, we're going to have a black woman. Although I was thinking about that, Brigadier general, is he going to cry for every ethnic group when they first get numb and put on the ticket, because that's going to he might do a lot of crying every for that.
I actually think it was just too much in one package, you know, toom you know, as we like to call it on the other when we're making fun of it, A two for three for whatever you want to call it. I think after Kamala, who cares?
What?
What can you do that's worse? I guess you're gonna have Pete booty juice.
I'm hoping he's the running mate. That would be perfect.
Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be great? Actually, I think the funniest thing. I don't want to spend anytime on this. It wasn't on my agenda, But I think the funniest thing is the whole simmering under the surface controversy about the fact that nobody thinks he's really gay.
Oh yeah, well really, I hadn't heard it.
Yeah it was. I mean, Tucker Carlson said it, and of course he was lambastad for it. But it was on the American Mind podcast this morning from our friends from Claremont discussing it. Yes, because supposedly some.
I oh no, I remember this now. Back in twenty twenty, there were some writers at the New Republic who attacked him for not being gay enough. They called him like I'd never heard. I didn't even know what any of these things meant. They called him like the house gay. I swear and they had like some name for him that got the writer in a lot of trouble, but I can't remember what it was, but yeah, they attacked him for being too conservative, a gay person, or too conventional.
I guess, okay, I have let it go off the rails. But I'm going to bring us back to reality here for a moment, because John, one of the complaints, not against any one of the three of us last time, was that we didn't actually talk about the Canon, the Judge canon decision of dismissing the case against Trump, and a lot of people wanted to hear your analysis of that.
How you think, what you think about her decision, a bit of analysis of her decision, but also how you think it might affect the other persecution, I mean prosecutions of Trump that are still more or less ongoing.
Well, you know, when I first heard of this argument, I thought it was kind of a hail Mary argument. But that's because the d C Circuit had already rejected it. It had been brought against Robert Mueller, and the Supreme Court had refused to grant certain hear the argument. But Judge Cannon's in Florida, which is a different circuit, When I say circuit, I'm referring to the federal appeals courts, so she's not bound by what the federal Appeals Court
in DC thinks. I think she's written maybe the most thorough opinion that's ever been done about special councils. She goes through the long history of them, talks about the different ways they've been appointed. But the basic fact of the matter is that she says, there is no congressional statute that authorizes an employee to be special counsel. So it's just illegal to say, Jack Smith, you're from outside of the government and we're going to put you in
the job of special council. Then her second argument, I think, actually that's pretty good. I mean, I don't see any I didn't see Jack Smith actually make a compelling argument against that. The second argument is tougher. I think she has the better the argument, but I could see both sides. And this is, even if he is an employee, he has so much power. He's almost equivalent to a cabinet officer because no one can tell him what to do.
And usually when you have that kind of policy making authority, you are an officer of the United States who's considered a principal officer, and principal officers have to be appointed, usually by presidential nomination and Senate consent. Sometimes it can be people who are appointed directly by the president. Smith has so much authority he's not really under the control
of the Attorney General Merrick Garland. Merck Garland keeps usefully saying that he's not telling telling Jack Smith what to do. So all those statements played into her hands, as she said, he's an unconstitutional officer. Now, the one thing about it is that it's actually pretty easy to cure, which is kick Jack Smith out of the job and appoint some
US attorney is the special counsel. That's why David Weiss, who's investigating Hunter Biden, he doesn't raise any of these problems because ever before he became Special counsel, David Weiss was nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate to be the top federal prosecutor in Wilmington, Delaware. So Garland can eat Garland, and Biden can easily fix this by picking some other Justice Department person now who's already been
confirmed for office and give them the job. In that case, then the word special council is in reality just window dressing, right. You don't even need the term. You could just say, David Weiss, I'm not going to call you special counsel, but I direct you to investigate Hunter Biden. It would be the same thing. So that's why I think her opinion is right. But in the end, it doesn't really stop Biden and Garland from continuing the Special Council of
Investigation into Trump. Now, I think politically the wise thing for Biden and Garland to have done was this to declare defeat and move on and just say there's no way for us to complete this Special Council of vestigation because the Supreme Court has already struck down one of our main charges, which we discussed before, was this tampering with evidence, and the Supreme Court is granted President Trump immunity for all his official decisions with his constitutional powers.
We disagree with these decisions, but we recognize we can't really continue now. And then this is the last stake in the heart of the Special Council, saying Jack Smith's unconstitutional. They should just say where it's over, Well, law fair, dawn work, and we're just gonna throw it over to the November elections. Let the American people decide.
We're going to throw it to the battle box. Before I concede over to you, Steve, and maybe we're going to make the same point. When we discussed this last before this decision came out, I mentioned that I thought the problem with the Special Council was that it was in effect given unlimited resources to prosecute, and that one of the you know, one of the limitations on normal, everyday prosecutors is that they have to use their limited
resources wisely. Those decisions can often be political, and often are political, but nevertheless, year you know, and we see that with Alvin Bragg and all the soils prosecutors. But otherwise, if you're a prosecutor and you have limited resources, you pick the worst crimes, the crimes that maybe are the things that people are most upset about, because if you prosecute them, you'll get reelected. However that works. You guys
all get it. But in this case I argued that the resources given to Smith were essentially unlimited, and you said no. But that was an argument that Cannon made and said, I'm not going to reach it because I don't have to. But he had and I don't remember the term you probably do. John. Basically, he had money that was never allocated by Congress that he could spend as much as he wanted. Of am I wrong, No.
I think no. I think You've got part of this right. And this shows the contradiction that the Biden Garland Justice Department put it. They put themselves into it. So if you say, the more they were saying, oh, Jack Smith's independent and we're gonna let him spend just as much money as he wants and hire as many people as he needs, then that falls into Cannon's argument he's really just on a part with the Attorney General himself. The more they say no, actually, he has to obey Justice
Department guidelines. The director, he's directed by the Attorney General. He's really just an employee, then they get no political benefit because then it's obvious as it is that he's just doing the bidding of Biden and Garland and that it really is a political prosecution. And so you're quite right that one thing Canon said is that because there's no law that creates his position, you know, you just can't bring an outsider in and say he's special counsel.
She also said, and there's no money appropriated for such a position, and since there's no money appropriated, it's illegal for him to spend federal dollars. That's how she worked it in I mean, I think that part of its quirt. And in that way she didn't address this bigger constitutional issue. She could just say there's no statute that creates his office or funds his office. Therefore she doesn't reach a bigger issue, which is and he would be unconstitutional because he's got too much power.
So you know, John, I I was. I still haven't read through the whole ninety pages, but I did look at the excerpts about what violated the appointments clause in the Constitution, and I started having flashbacks to oh, come on, you know the Independent Council case from the eighties. Thanks, right, and there I'm having flash and of course, right now,
how that turned out. It was what eight to one, with only Scalia dissenting, and people later saying, ah, even Linda Greenhouse New York Times says, gosh, you know, really Scleia might have been right after all, right, But of course that dissent rested upon Larry Silberman's fabulous Appellate Court opinion. When that case first came up. So my question is a simple one long setup, sorry, on the Silberman scale of one to ten, ten being full Silberman, where do you rake this opinion?
The reason is he's asking me this because I clerk for Silberman or in the Lower Court, and I think this is not as good as the Silberman opinion itself in the Morrison versus Olsen case. And people should realize the Olson in that case is Ted Olsen, who later became Solicitor General and you know, very famous, one of the founders of the Supreme Court bar in a way, so I would say this was an eight out of ten. This is pretty damn good, not quite as good as
I've always said. I always like I always to tease Scalia because I always told him the very the most important line in his Morrison descent. It was the second sentence where he said something like I can't do justice to all the great reasons that were provided by the lower Court as to why this is unconstitutional. That's great, which Silberman loved that line. But look, you actually one other question, which is what does this make of the
investigation going forward? So I take it Smith is appealing the decision in Eleventh Circuit, but I think other than that, he should pretty much shut down his operations. I mean, he's been a federal judge has found him unconstitutional, and I think, is you know, she's dismissed the indictment. I guess that's not going to happen in Washington. But if he were acting in good faith, he should cease all
all of his activities other than pursuing the appeals. Question about whether he's allowed to exist.
Yeah, Well, a quick follow up question which actually someone in the chat suggested, I've lost track of who it is though. To what extent do you think that the judge was reinforced by hints from Clarence Thomas and what the community case? Maybe I forget which one it was, the Trump versus Unis versus right And should we expect or hope for more hints from Thomas to the lower side judges. I think yeah.
So, you know, if you look at the timing, it does work out very nicely. I think Justice Thomas's concurrence comes out two weeks before this opinion, and he laid out and very brief formed the logic of finding Jack Smith unconstitutional. And I think there was talking about before. You can see that when Thomas spends his concurrence on an issue that's sort of tangentially related to the case, and they're sending a signal this law fair business is over.
As we discussed, I think the Supreme Court went farther than it needed to in the immunity case, but it makes sense to me. They're sick of this guy, Jack Smith. They won his investigation shut down, and they're sick of people going to Supreme sick of Smith trying to get to the Supreme Court fast to accelerate a partisan prosecution before the election. He was the worst guy if you really wanted to have a really decent Special Council investigation. Garland and Biden picked the exact wrong guy.
I agree, but they're dumb. As successful as leftists can be, they always end up being dumb in the end. So, speaking of.
Dumb that you're gonna ask Steve a question now.
I'm going to ask my two favorite co hosts from California. They're my only co hosts, but they're still my two favorite co hosts from California to give us their impressions of our newest, most impressive politician that's ever walked the face of the earth, who is, of course, if you believe I have to do it. Steve, the media gasm about her.
Oh my god, she is.
In fact the most impressive person ever to run for any office since before the beginning of time. So tell me what you think about her, gentlemen, Steve, you go first?
Oh heck, I was hoping you're make John go first.
Well, okay, John go first. Why haven't you been writing a piece about her record as attorney general and district attorney?
And I think it's gonna be like du Kaka after the Bush and of Bush was done with him, when you go back and look at her actual record, I think people will turn away from her because despite the you know, the makeover, you know, the extreme makeover we're seeing right now, which would outdo any of these home TV makeovers that are on every cable channel every night for hours, They're going to see the real Kamal Harrison, see what she really believes in because she had to
make hundreds and hundreds of decisions when she was in those jobs, and her preferences came through two cases that really I think, well, I expect a Trump campaign will make a lot of use of these A certainly shocked me. Was she was despite California law. She was an opponent
of the death penalty. And there's a famous case where a gang member killed a San Francisco police officer and seriously wounded his partner, and she refused to seek the death penalty, in fact delay the case for years and years and years so that it actually wouldn't forward until she left office. I think that when you put up I think it's a totally fair ad to say that she caddled cop killers. I can't it's I think that's
worse than Willy Horton. Yeah, I think that's the Willie Horton commercials from nineteen eighty eight.
Diane, Fine, Well, she has another Willy Horton to come. We'll come to in a minute. Maybe she got attacked publicly for that stance by Dianne Feinstein, which I think they could just roll Feinstein's tape in an ad. I think, right. Yeah, So that's that's just I mean, that's just one case.
There's another, I mean, really well known case where another gang member, lucretiall will be interested in this because who was an illegal alien and a member of the MS thirteen gang, and he also he had been convicted including attacking pregnant a pregnant woman, He committed murder of a grocery story manager and their two children and his two children. And again Kamala Harris would not see the debt penalty. Again sat on the case for years. I think this
is just devastating. Right, she's going to say, oh, I was never in favor of to fund the police. I've always you know, she's going to turn her back and all the things she did in the Black Lives Matter's case, But she has a record here of being light handed on some of the worst murderers in our system.
Before I turned to Steve Can, I add to that by saying, the thing that actually has become sort of it's so prominent to me, is this whole abortion issue. Now we know that as Attorney General, she did not prosecute people who were you know, abortion doctors who were selling baby parts. Instead, she prosecuted the journalists who did a sting operation to discover that that. You know, she's when you ask Elizabeth Warren, what has she done, she
visited an abortion clinic. But one of the other things she did, and I really do have a point to this, when for the or when when she was Attorney General. She also call it hassled without going into all the details, pregnancy clinics. I've started putting most of my charitable contributions towards the Life center here in my little town that takes care of pregnant women and so on. But this is the thing that I still can't quite quite wrap
my head around. The left is so rabidly radical, rabid being the operative word there, that they cannot even allow anyone a to oppose abortion, to pray outside of an abortion clinic, or to provide options for women. Because to options for women so that you know, maybe they don't want to have an abortion, but that seems like the
only opportunity. But there's all these good hearted, wonderful people out there volunteering their time and their money and their resources to give them those opportunities, and the left wants to shut them down. Can anybody explain that to me other than abortion itself has become a sacrament for the left. That's a question, Steve, Why are you looking at me like a pass I.
Think Steve's trying to find ammo against you and the reader questions, but there is none. It's all ammo against Steve. From what I can tell, No.
There's actually I want to bring up our pal, the Goora from Sydney has a good question here, but that takes us working with Maybe.
Let me try to answer. Can I throw out a response to Lucretia, which is I think one thing about this abortion thing, to show how radical she really is, is not only that she's radically pro choice in California. There I don't blame her because that's what Californians wanted. I mean, we live in one of the most right
pro abortion states in the country. But I think she just said that she would sign national legislation to impose a uniform pro choice ro versus wade rule across the whole country, which one won't be unconstitutional, I think, I think Dobbs, I think makes clear that this is a question for the states, and all of us can participate in a democratic process to create the you know, create
the abortion rules for the states where we live. But second, I think she wants to take the California abortion regime, which I think is a real political outlier, and oppose it on the whole country.
You know, I'm reminded of you know, when I was going to college in Oregon in the seventies, and they were worried that too many Californians were coming up there, and the popular bumper sticker was don't California Kate, Oregon. I kind of like it, sort of like Lucretius, I'll see your media gasm and raise you a California Kate. I think a nice attack would be Kambla wants to do for the whole country what she and Gavin Newsom have done for California. I think there's some On the
abortion question. We've said a lot in previous episodes about how Republicans and pro lifers have fumbled this issue. There's no reason to revisit those arguments right now. But from a purely analytical point of view, when the issue is a referendum in Ohio or even other red states it's only about abortion, then right now the pro life side is losing. However, a presidential election, people make their choices on a more a broader spectrum of things they care
right now, more about immigration, the economy, crime. Abortion is lucky to be fourth or fifth on the list, and it's way down. So, in other words, it's not what we call in the polling or political science business a high salience issue. So I think the more they talk about it, the more they're going to actually turn a lot of people off who say, yeah, I agree with her, but I'm more concerned about their record on crime and
the economy and so forth. Well, that's why I think it's not going to work for them.
Steve the Gore's question is very much related to that, and that's the fact that by training her fire on JD. Vance, it's a little more difficult. You have to lie about Trump in order to make it sound as if Trump is some you know, rabid anti abortion activist that wants to you know, execute mothers who seek abortions. They try, but I mean people know better than that.
Yeah.
But Vance, because they can tie together more of his pro family, let's call it that pro family policies that he's been very vocal about. They can play the handmaiden's tail game and make it sound as if, you know, if you elect JD. Vance, the next thing, you know, you will be unlike Kama barefoot in the kitchen having seventeen children, you know, And so the whole thing is tied together. But they tie it in of course to
reproductive health. Wait one quick sorry tangent. Here, I attended a very small meeting of people affiliated with the military base, a community group that's committed to keeping missions on the military base I live next to. So you can imagine who the popular, who the members are of this committee and what their concerns are. And we we did a talk with the Democratic candidate for the congressional district where
I live. She's a law professor from the U of A and the first so she's going to come in, she's going to talk about herself and then she's going to tell us what her priorities are. So to this group of people caring about what missions are kept on Fort Wachuka, she says, my most important issue is reproductive health and the fact that if Trump and Vance get elected, they will take away women's reproductive health. Is there anything more?
There are no.
Words for me to describe how asinine a statement like that is. It's not gaslighting, doesn't work, There's nothing. So really, I don't know, Steve. They believe it in their heart of heart set it's a winning issue.
Well, I know, but I think that you know, Trump was very good on this issue. In his debate with Biden, he figured out that they're the extremists, and he was very effective that. I think maybe his most effective answer of the entire night was on that particular question. So I have confidence in him. What Gorera is saying is, look what the media and the Democrats are doing is they're trying to do to Jdvance what was done to Dan Quayle back in nineteen eighty eight. Nobody knows who
Jade Vance is. Maybe some people saw the movie and heard of the book, but he's being defined, and he's being defined very in a very adverse way right now. And you're Dan Quayle. I mean, let's say something good about Quail. He was a very accomplished legislator by the time he was nominated to be vice president, and his reputation was ruined very quickly. He made a couple of little mistakes of his own, you know, in office, the miss spelling potato and the Murphy Brown speech. It don't work.
But look, this is the same thing's happening in the Vance, and I think he needs to get out and do a sixteen minutes interview by himself, not with Trump and so forth, and and fight back on it very hard, which I think he's able to do, because I do think this is a problem for them.
I just don't think Vance is gonna make a difference. I think people are going to vote about it's therefore against Trump. He's such a dominating figure, right, you know, everyone knows what he stands for. You know, maybe Vance might marginally help in the Midwest. Maybe Kamala Harris counters at by putting up a right, a VP nominee from the Midwest, you know, white male from the Midwest. And that's what all the that's what all the inside we're gonna people think.
I was asking, we are going to at the end give our predictions. But I'm not going to take your guys as seriously because since we all know, I've been right about everything, I have predicted every single thing.
So yeah, so who's your prediction, Lucretia.
Oh, I don't have one yet. I'll think about it and I'll decide by the time we get it. But what I do want to do, you guys will love this because you would never buy me.
For people listening this way.
People listening unbelievable, Lucretia. Now, oh my gosh, a tinfoil cowboy hat, because I think that's what we're going next, right, and well, I.
Think, Steve, I think we've been there for a few years. What are you talking about.
God, I just want you everyone to know they've been promising me my own designer. The only person who designed this was me for a song for years, and they never will buy it for me to.
People, people can't appreciate the fine Italian like handiwork that this to the point where not only is the top, but she's also done the underside of the hat and aluminum too. I saw that it goes on the inside of the hat as well to provide full full installation from the X rays by the government.
None of those waves are getting into my brain. I promise you it's not so much. This is not necessarily a conspiracy. Yet. We kind of get to the conspiracy at the end of my examples here. But I do want to talk about the fact that the let's call it the regime media. I won't use the word against Steve right now, and.
No, I agree with that phrase. Now go ahead, sorry.
No, the regime media that the links to which the left is willing to go, which we expect, but that the media is willing to go to lie to erase history, to erase their own history. I'm certain everybody who's on this call or listening to it understands completely that what
I'm talking about. You know, Axios, she's not a borders are, she never was a borders are when, of course, you know, you can pull up their story now that's been a raised, of course, but the internet's forever saying she was a borders are because of course the disaster at the border, about which she did nothing. We've been to the border. Well, I don't understand your question. We haven't been to Europe either. What's your point? You know, the dumbest interview ever by
any person on the planet. So how do we get to this place where they just get away with these kinds of lies and altering the truth, altering their own record, their own publications. I don't even know. I don't know how to wrap my head around it, and people believe them. Well, I want to know what you guys think, honestly, Well.
If there's any small consolation, it's that a public respect for the media is at an all time low. It's down around used car salesman, and this is going to make it worse. I don't think they realize how badly they're screwing this up. But I think Charlie Cook had a great comment a couple of days ago. He said, well, it was nice having somewhat honest and half way objected media for a month. We'll remember that month, you know,
when they're after Biden actually reporting about his senility. Right now they're back.
But no shame whatsoever about refusing to support it when it was obvious to everyone anyway.
Yep, yep, no, that's right. Yeah, No, we have a you know, there's uh, well, you know there's the recent article which we've mentioned a couple times in casual chat, of Neil Ferguson saying we're the Soviet Union now and he's got a demographic but we really are become the Soviet Union. And this is positively stalinist the way we erase Kamala's record. You know, if you google Kamala Harris borders are, you'll get thirty one thousand hits returning the
phrase no, no, she was never the borders are. Of course my joke. Maybe you read it was strictly speaking, maybe it's true. You can only be a czar if you're from the Tsarist region of Russia. Otherwise you're just sparkling Habsburg aristocracy. But look, you.
Show off, you outrageous show off.
But look, we've been using the.
Phrase leagasm is better.
Well look in British politics, the person who does the interagency process is called a supremo, and there's a whole episode of Yes, Minister, while you never want to be a supremo because it's a losing assignment. We have been calling people policies are I think since William Simon in nineteen seventy four, who was Nixon and forged Energies are and they've had him ever since. Right, will Bill Bennett
was the rugs are right. People joked that Obama had more Czars than the Romanovs as he was trying to centralize as much policy as possible in the White House. And so suddenly to say, oh no, they're not trying to do is they're trying to give her an out from being responsible for the border. So final comment is I'm getting this ironic flashback to nineteen sixty You may remember, if you know the history, famous comment.
We're born in nineteen fifty nine. I know, but I read you're not having a flashback.
Well, I lost my reading. Oh well that was precocious. So a reporter asked, Eisenhower, can you tell us what the content rebutions a vice president Nixon were to the Eisenhower presidency, and Eisenhower and a flip moment, said well, if you give me three days, I might think of something which is thought to have been very damaging to Nixon and eyes and how later was sorry and regretted that he answered thoughtlessly. But now that seems to me
the answer about Harris. Oh, Harris has nothing to do with the Biden record, So clean slate is all new. She had nothing. By the way, the next thing they're going to try and to race is all of her claims that she was part of the decision to get out of Afghanistan. She was in the room when the key decisions are made. It'll be interesting to see how they try to wiggle her out of.
That was in this the problem all vice presidenting vice president's house when they got to create their own independence. But they're you know, you're just going to hang the current administration around them. The only one who survived it, right since you know, the founding period was George H. W.
Bush.
And that's because everyone wished they could have re elected Reagan to a third term. Right, but otherwise, right, she's gonna I mean, I don't see how she escapes it.
I think, and you know, our mutual friend Jim Pearson had to beat me to it. The great article of the New Criterion this week saying, look, Ducaucus tried to say this election was about competence of that ideology, which meant he was trying to obscure his ideology. He came out of the convention seventeen points ahead of Bush, and Bush on election day beat him by a points, a twenty five point swing, and all took with some ads telling the truth about what Docaccus had actually done in office.
I think the same thing will work. I think the electorate's now more rigid, and you know, we picked our teams, but I think the same dynamic is going to take place.
Look, all they're going to do is play back issues of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour, because for a whole year we ended our podcast with our favorite cognalism. Now you just take all those fifty two of them and just run them inn ads.
There's a couple of videos out there with exactly that. John you can watch the whole. There's one of them that's like four minutes and fifty two seconds. And it's not just the passage of time or unburdened by what has been. It's all of them, and some of them are I didn't put this in the agenda, Sorry, my two co hosts, but I have to say, are you guys up on the brat thing?
Oh, I've caught up with it today, but go ahead and tell us how you are.
I'm not fully caught up with it either, because I've never heard of the person who sings the song. I've certainly never listened to the song. Oh but some twit pop star from the UK has a song that is about women and they're called The name for them now is brats. And what they are are emotionally unstable women who are awkward and say dumb things some of the time, but they rally back and they're emotionally weak. And this is who Kamala Harris is saying. She is an appealing
to gen z brats. She's the brat president dential candidate.
Oh see, I heard a different account of it which was out of the opposite of that, which is a brat. Well, maybe that's fit a brat is someone who just does what they feel like without caring, which is what kind of closer to the old definition of a spoiled brat, which usually have to.
Pay for all their stupid stuffs. Yeah, stupid, But can I just throw one thing? Just put the pitch for my home state of Pennsylvania. I can't see how my people in the home my home state Pennsylvania are going
to go for any of this. Like, the only reason I think Biden won Pennsylvania by the whatever one hundred thousand votes is because he makes a claim from being from Scranton, and you know, maybe he spent a little bit of time scrant He's not really from Pennsylvania, but whatever, what people in Pennsylvania and Michigan and wiscons are not going to go for a California Marxist.
They're just not. I can't about.
How about the girl who is a little messy and likes to party and maybe says some dumb things sometimes, who feels herself but maybe also has a breakdown but kind of like parties through it.
Yeah, that's the definition of thet.
Yeah, okay, sorry, mine was closer than your Steve. Okay, good enough. I don't Yeah, I'm too old to figure this stuff out.
I know. I had to look it up again, even though I've seen it a dozen times.
I'm actually interested. How would you so, how would you make an ad that would appeal to these people, that would not that generation, that would not turn off the entire rest of the electorate who has to pay for it? Well, maybe play the song?
Well, but do you most seriously you remember the Life of Julia video that the Obama campaign put out in twenty twelve. By the way, you cannot find that anywhere now. It has been scrubbed from YouTube. I can't find it online any place. I've tried several times. Because of course, that thing was cradle to grave socialism. Julie decided to have a child. There's no mention of a father or how she got pre you.
Right, and then the government was the father.
Exactly but apparently inseminated. And I think it's we're now to that point except on steroids, right, we can't. Okay, that's what they'll that's what they'll try it.
Okay, I went off on that horrible tangent. Let's get back up. Maybe something a little bit more serious about the lies the most liberal senator in the Senate in twenty nineteen actually and twenty twenty. But what's the name of the site, Steve.
You'll write, I don't know.
It's something of supposedly nonpartisan rating senators zero to one hundred. Zero is far left, one hundred is far right, Kamala zero, Bernie Sanders is only ninety nine. Two weeks ago, two weeks ago, they discovered that their methodology may have not really been all that scientific because they were going year by year and you really have to look at the bigger picture of their legislative proposals and the things they
co sponsor. So they decided to take the page down. Yeah, because what I want to know is, why is the left leftist if they don't think that the people want that?
Well, they, I mean they who they are.
I don't want to hide who I am.
Well, because you know a pseudonym.
Look, I mean, I think I think we've been through this. We've been through this many times before. The progressives understand that their views are not popular, so they must conceal them. I don't care about that, because their premise is they're smarter than the rest of us. And you know, this goes back to Woodrow Wilson. We need to anticipate where the people need to go and lead them there. That's their view, and they're othertheless, the slightest bit guilty or
conflicted about ignoring the actual opinion. That's why you call people the deplorables. Right, It's okay, I don't think this is a real mystery at all.
Okay, was Trump hit by a shravelel or a bullet? And why does it matter?
Wait, they're people really seeing he wasn't saying he wasn't hit by a bullet.
You're your good friend. Christopher Ray said it before Congress. When tested before Congress yesterday or the day before, my days get mixed up. He said, we have not determined that President Trump was hit by a bullet. He could have been hit by shrapnel.
Yeah. I wonder if he's like trying to actually take his word for it. Actually, Oh, come on, lose so many listeners with that.
No, I mean like he's just he's just saying, we haven't figured it out yet, that's all. He's probably got some kind of time.
I've seen I've seen the video with the bullet piercing his ear. It's on the internet, and I'm sure the FBI has heard of the internet.
I just assume he's just being cautious. He's got he can't he's a headed law enforcement he can't state things as fact until he absolutely sure.
Yeah, he would have just said, from all appearances, it seems he has been hit by a bullet. That's what the doctor said, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, since we're talking about the FBI and I am trashing the FBI as usual, we are very very happy to welcome to our podcast, John Hinderaker, who's going to get us up
to date on the investigation into the bombing firebarmbing. I guess is what you would call it of the Center for Experiment, John, That's happened months ago, and I've heard nothing since then.
And so, you know, suspicious minds wonder if the FBI, as nice as they were to you and polite like they are, are slow walking this Is there any news? What's the update for us? I haven't heard about this.
First of all, happened on January twenty eighth, so it's been as exactly six months. I was talking to the lead FBI agent on the case the day after the fire bombing was obviously an arson. No one ever questioned that, and so the investigation has been in the works now for about six months. And the FBI did the things, the routine things that you would always do, so they subpoenaed records from the cell phone towers in the vicinity. But these criminals were very disciplined. They were not dumb,
dumb criminals. They didn't they left their cell phones at home. They checked the video from cameras on the frontage road that you have to drive on to get to that building that they that they set on fire. They they got footage of the car. They know the make and bottle of the car. At two o'clock in the morning, there's only one vehicle on that frontage road. They've got it, but you can't be the license plates. The license plates
are obscured. And I gave the FBI suggestions as to types of people that they should check out on social media, the local ANTIFA chapter, eco terrorists, Projmas people. There has been zero social media chatter. A lot of criminals get caught because they can't keep their shut These criminals have been silent as the tomb. They're very disciplined. We have one hundred thousand dollars reward out there, and I think at this point the.
Only okay, it's Steve, I confess it is partest Steve's grand scheme to take.
Over power line. Give me the money.
Yeah, yeah, right, So the only way the crime is going to be solved at this but I talked to the FBI guy like day before yesterday. The only way the crime is going to get solved now is if at some point a disgruntled ex girlfriend or something like that who knows who did it, is motivated by the reward to go to the FBI tip line and suggest they check out a certain person.
Well, I don't know. I mean, I try to resist conspiracy theories and the know you do, the complete rottenness of our investigating agencies. But it seems to me that well, okay,
what is what? What did they use? There's gasoline? I mean, there's something okay, because I mean, in the case of the unibomber, they knew, you know, all about what kind of bombs he was making and how he was hand fashioning the parts, and it still did take a break still to take an informant for them to figure out that it was Ted Kaczinski, Right, it's a fascinating story, but they learned a lot from the explosive resident.
Okay, I don't not to drag John into the debate we were just having, But John, you don't think this is an FBI cover up, do you?
It's absolutely not an FBI cover up. I was mildly chested friend, the FBI agent for what I said to the Daily you know, the the Go Show, what is it? You know, the Ben Shapiro outlaw Daily Wire. The people investigating this urs and I will simply say, are not libs and have no interest in and covering it up or failing to find the perpetrators. They absolutely want to
find the perpetrators. Nationwide, only about forty percent of all arson cases are solved, and I'm just guessing that the majority of that forty percent are cases where the owner did it.
Oh oh yeah, well yeah yeah.
And John, to be fair to the FBI, for which I've never am so for just a moment, nobody was hurt. No, oh no, nobody was hurt.
There was nobody in the building.
They both And so back to I don't know, you probably didn't hear what we were talking about earlier. If they can't put the full resources of the FBI to that it's obviously more more than likely it's a political act and it should be investigated. But because nobody was hurt, I can give them a bit of a pass for not agreeing, you know, not putting every resource they have
toward investigating it and turning over every stone. Our problem, I think, is that we see some very serious things happening with the FBI, and I'm one of those people that believe you and for you are far between. There are definitely good agents, I know them. It's it's just getting harder and harder for good Americans to look at the lies that come out of our government and believe the things that they say. Not in your case, I
don't think. But you know, when when Ray says something stupid like that to Congress, there's so I get what Steve is saying. You don't necessarily give out facts that you can't absolutely prove. But there's lots of ways to answer that question where you don't say something that's obviously designed to make it look like what happened to Donald Trump was not an assassination attempt, so much so that the FBI had to come back out and say no.
But Christa wasn't saying that it wasn't an assassination attempt.
I mean, and then why did the FBI come out because it was.
Maybe it was shrapnel versus a bullet. They got a conduct the investigation. Well, I'm going to speak against interest here. I think the reason why you could say John's agent is doing a fair job, and you could go through the litany of problems the FBI had that Linda's mentioned many times, like the Russia hoax and so on, is the problem when the headquarters gets involved and tries to
conduct its own investigations. That's the problem. That was the defect because all those people were the head of the FBI are politicians that they're there inside the Beltway. So I actually am glad that Chris Ray wasn't trying to go out there and say the investigation found this, or that he should just depend on what the field agents find. And maybe that's why he's saying I'm not going to say right now what the investigation here, you.
Don't get to speak on it. John.
That would be a first for this show. And then when did that become the rule?
Let me jump in and I, like a Democrat, make it up as they go.
I yield to.
No one in my in my contempt really for James call me and Andrew McCabe. They did a terrible disservice to the FBI and of the federal government. But you know that doesn't permeate all the way down. So a couple of days after our arson, the US Attorney for the District of Minnesota, who is a Democrat, called me on the telephone and expressed his dismay at the Arson. Said they were going to do everything they possibly could
to solve the crime. He told me he's calling me on his personal cell and any time I have questions about the investigation or want to talk about it, please call him. They're going to do everything they can to solve the crime. And I've been collaborating with FBI agents ever since. They haven't been able to solve it. But I am absolutely supportive of the people who have been involved in this case, the people that I've worked with, if they could have solved the case, and unfortunately.
Okay, Steve, so the answer, Steve, Well, step back.
For a minute. I mean, aside from your particular case, the Butler Pennsylvania episode, or also think about the Paul Pelosi assault some months ago at his house there in Pacific Heights. We have this problem now. It seems to me that the instinct of the government is to not be forthcoming with information they have. Now it's one thing that was ongoing investigation. But you know, the guy in Pennsylvania, he was dead. Crooks the kid. Maybe I think it
was a second shooter. They should tell us that. Instead they breed suspicion. But you know, I've been saying to Lucretian, others said, we ought to be a little careful about being too confident of asserting a conspiracy. And my example there is the Paul Pelosi thing. There are all kinds of very strange things about that episode, right, but it turned out that the conventional account at the end of the day was correct. But it took the police but four or five months to release the bodycam video and
to do out of the evidence. And they should have been saying in the next forty eight hours, here's what we know, here's what happened. Instead they were quiet about it. And all that does is make American citizens more That.
Would screw up the investigation, Yes it would, because you want to interview the witnesses without them being biased. You want to collect evidence. If you start going out in public and sing stuff like that, you're opening yourself up to getting really easily attacked by the defense. Well, oh, they're being careful. You want them to be careful. I actually would prefer they never said anything. That was Comy's big mistake. He was talking to the media all the time.
Look, look, if democracy is going to work, it has to have the maximum amount of transparency. So I'll give you two more examples at the highest level, not about our agencies, but you go back to two thousand and three, you have a sar's house break in China, a precursor to COVID, by the way, and just like COVID, they concealed it, they lied about it, and it wasn't until the World Health Organization and Canada said we're going to ban travel from China, which we didn't do with COVID
till they finally opened up to it the same year. Actually, sorry, go back to eighty six, and also two thousand and three eighty seven, when the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up
and when the second one, Columbia, disintegrated on descent. We knew within hours what the cause was because people who knew what the problems were came forward that day and said, we think and of course subsequent investigations fallady of this, but we were transparent about those, right, And when you're not transparent about some of these, From my mind, it's one thing about a conventional criminal investigation, but when you have something that's of world historical importance, like a plot
to shoot President Trump, I think you need to be transparent about it. And that's more important than a criminal investigation or criminal conviction down the road.
Just one man's opinion, one man's opinion.
All I'm going to say about it is, Steve is your analogies really are not on the same level as the kind of conspiracies we're talking about, And that was what I was trying to see to John John's I wouldn't call what's happening in with the Center for the American Experiment a conspiracy by anyone the Democratic DA or the FBI located in Minneapolis.
I wouldn't call that.
A conspiracy that they haven't solved the crime, or even go so far as I say incompetence, because they haven't solved the crime. However, it'd be nice to know what happened. It'd be nice to know so that you could avoid it something like that happening again to your building, to your offices. But it's not ultimately regime changing. The conspiracies that are being passed around. Uh, you know, the debate between incompetence and conspiracy over the Trump assassination or over
what's really going on behind Biden stepping down. All of those kinds of things are critical to the health of our republic and possibly even the future.
No appreciate you really think you really think there was a there's just like even a five percent chance that there was a conspiracy. Why the FBI and our government to assassinate president? That's crazy.
No, No, it's zero.
Nobody, nobody, the Iranians, whatever, nobody is going to hire this twenty year old kid to go I'd try to assassinate Trump.
I mean, so, what is the conspiracy you're talking about?
The conspiracy is that the left, the rabid left, the people at the top are so determined to keep Trump out of office, and they have so many loyal soldiers that they just need to do a few things that are very very clearly now in the public record that would at least have created the possibility that something like what happened to Trump happened. They did not consider it their duty to do everything possible to make sure Trump was safe at that rally. We know that they've admitted
to it. I get that they're incompetent idiots. I get that, But at some point somebody has to look at that and say, we need to do something different. This is the president, the former president, and the candidate of the opposing party. We can't let something like this happen. Instead, they don't show up for meetings with local law enforcement, they don't send out drones, they don't listen to community, they don't have communications, you know, on and on and
on and on. That's where you have to look at it and say, maybe it's not a conspiracy specifically to assassinate Trump at that moment, but it is definitely a conspiracy amongst the left power brokers in our government to do whatever they can to keep Trump from going into office, and all of it fits into that picture. That's what I'm arguing deliberate. Very few people have to be part
of that. I know the laws of conspiracy. The more people who are part of it, the less likely you could keep it quiet, but the top people had no problem with Trump being assassinated. That's what it comes down to.
That's not a conspiracy if people just say, oh, I don't mind if he disappears. But that's differently res deliberately not giving resource. Certainly, I think you can make a good case that the Secret Service has outlived its usefulness. You know, this is a civil war agency created to do counterfeiting. Somehow they're in charge of right personal protection of our political leaders. I could totally see an argument that they're under resource. They're not give their job, folding
them in or totally reforming, totally reforming them. That's different than saying there's a conspiracy in the government to let whatever harms happen to Trump happened because they don't want them to be president. That's intentional. I don't think this is the.
Secret Service has one job to prevent presidents and presidential candidates for big assassinators. There's nobody in the Secret Service that is indifferent. You know the things, Oh that would be okay if somebody we're protecting gets assassinated. This is a disaster for the Secret Service. What I do think, though, is that the left Democratic politicians with their constant vilification of Donald Trump, their constant reiteration that he's a threat
to the republic. If he wins, there will never be another election. He's an incipient fascist dictator. I think those people would like to see susceptible people like this twenty year old Thomas Crooks take a pot shot at Donald Trump. And I think similarly, when they attack the Supreme Court in the vicious way that they have in recent months, they would be quite happy as one guy we know showed up, showed up outside bet Kavanaugh's house, you know,
wanting to kill him. They would be quite happy if one or more Supreme Court justices got assassinated so that their president could appoint a successor.
That's all John. That goes too far from me too, You really think so? I mean, I see, I totally agree that rhetoric is over the top.
If you don't believe what happened to Michigan.
Okay, well, but just saying like you've unleashed the whirlwind and so that's over the top, that rhetoric, and they are acting irresponsibly there. Trump has deranged them. But that's different than saying they would be happier wouldn't mind if someone actually tried to kill a Supreme Court justice. I don't think even Schumer Pelosi that they would that they would actually want that to happen.
Let me give you a fear, is it? It might It might be.
I mean, I'm a squish too much.
I think they would be happy to see it happen. And I think they would be happy to see what are more Supreme Court justice is assassinated. There a president can apply to the place.
So, by the way, I mean, let's remember that someone has ordinarily sober and I think sound in a lot of ways, as John mcwarterer had said, maybe someone should assassinate Trump, and now he apologized and retracted that before the shooting, but he still said it, and he's a pretty serious and sober guy. I think Lucretia brings up the Michigan case with with Governor Whitmer. There's all kinds of evidence that the FBI incited a bunch.
Of there's a trapman issues and trapman issues.
By the way, that's not brand new. The FBI tried to do that with the New Left back in the late sixties and early seventies. So here's the thing, they find some people who might we are we absolutely certain that there wasn't somebody identifying this kid and encouraging them. I don't know. I recoil from that because it seems like a horrible thing to have happened. On the other hand, let's go back to the original conspiracy assassination, and that
was Kennedy. And you know, I've always I always thought that the real conspiracy here was not necessarily second gunman and all the rest of that, but the fact that Oswald was a Communist who had been seen recently before the shooting at the Russian embassy Soviet embassy in Mexico City,
had lived in the Soviet Union. And I think there's good, circumstantial evidence that the Johnson administration who succeeded were terrified that if they really unraveled all that, it would mean World War or three, and that's one reason why they had to be covered up and obfuscated. I don't think we're ever going to know about that, but that's different. That's one reason. By the way, the whole narrative from hours after the shooting was it was the climate of
right wing hate that caused Kennedy to be killed in Dallas. Right, that's still the narrative about the Kennedy assassination. He was killed by a communist, right, And so no wonder people don't trust what they see in front of us, and no wonder when you can point to things like Michigan and.
With Michigan looks. So Lucretia was saying, what happened in Michigan, So I guess there's some evidence that the FBI engaged. And so there's this is always the case with the FBI doing undercover action where they actually and trapping the people in doing something or are they going to do it anyway? And they were and they got taught. That's up to courts. Courts will take all the evidence. Some
of those people know what happened, some of them. But that doesn't mean like everything the FBI does is therefore illegitimate. Because in one case they did go too far or too that there was an actual conspiracy to kill the president, kill Donald Trump or allows assassination to occur. That's like, that's classic conspiracy theory.
Those are two different things, John, those are two different things. And John Hinderaker said, and I agree with it that if you if you know, if you show severed heads of Trump he deserves. He's hitler. He you know, Time magazine had him as a hitler, what three days before the assassination attempt. And if you have that kind of over the top rhetoric, and you have lots of the left, is all unhinged anyway, you know what you're doing. You
know it's called gas lighting. Watch the movie, and so you know, if.
I've watched it, it just takes so long for this for the movie to finish. I know she's still because it's a black and white movie and from.
The third you're too young, we get it.
But I watched it. I was like, this could be a five thirty second TikTok video wise, it's taking so long.
On my point, somebody said it in the and I'm sorry, there's so many there's so many comments that I'm not keeping up. But somebody said, you don't necessarily have to have people in on the conspiracy to get them to do what you want when they're rabid leftists who believe what you believe. Think about Lisa Page and who is that despicable FBI guy struck Struck, I mean, they didn't have to put them in on a conspiracy to get
them to do that. They hated Trump and they'd do anything they were told to do in order to get Trump out of office or make sure he didn't win. So from that, I am not saying there's a vast conspiracy inside the government, you know, machinations and this and that. I'm saying a few people can move things in one direction and the dominoes are likely to fall the way exactly the way they did with the Trump assassination. That's
what I'm saying. And that's a combination of a little bit of conspiracy or at least a little bit of malfeasance on the part of the people at the top, and incompetence. But you don't allow incompetence. You don't push DEI in fat ugly stupid female agents for right.
I just let it go on long enough.
I wouldn't win.
Anyway. You don't do that if you care, don't if you're boeing, you don't have DEI as your number one goal mission for the company. If you care about having airplanes and don't fall out of the sky.
Can we conspire about the vat pick Because we're running along.
I know people want to know what we think. Who do you think he'll she'll pick John Hendraker.
Well, she should pick the governor of Kentucky. What's his name, Andy. I think he would be a very very good choice for her, and I hope she doesn't pick him.
Yeah, I'd say she should pick a white guy from one of those three Midwestern states she needs to win, and so Basher's pretty good, but I think she's got to pick someone from Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania. But I agree with Steve, they're not gonna pick We didn't even talk about the areas where there really is a difference between Biden and Harris, like the Gaza War, like they're curious, Steve.
They're not going to pick Cohen. They're not going to pick the governor Pennsylvania because he's Jewish, unfortunately, and that would just accentuate the deep split in the Democratic Party about Israel. I hate to say that. It's a terrible thing that the Democratic Party is tolerating such anti Semitism, but I think you'll see that in the VP pick. So that leaves I guess Gretchen Whitmer, if you know, if the FBI is done using her as an a toy.
The Minute of the patrol is always a good pick done.
I don't see him getting any votes in the Midwest, though.
Our friends on the American Mind had a good point. I hadn't thought of though. If they so. One of the problems that the left has right now is that Trump became a hero and a victim of gun violence, and that that fact in and of itself be manipulated away from the gun controlled debate and all those other things.
If they nominate Mark Kelly and he does that despicable, vile thing he does all the time, which is trot her out even though she's physically not capable of those kinds of activities on the campaign trail for the sympathy vote, which I've seen him do so many times I want to throw up. They think this was the argument of not making it. I'm repeating it, that they could put a dent in what Trump is able to do with his assassination attempt. Because of course she's very seriously hurt,
She's her mind is still very good. I want to say that again. I hadn't seen her for fifteen years, and she remembered me, and didn't We weren't close, I mean, and we just worked together on a few things, and she knew all about my husband because they worked together closely. Again, not seen him for fifteen years. Her mind is very good, but she can barely speak. She can't stand for any length of time. She falls off chairs and it's sad.
But he trots her everywhere and you can just see the pain on her face.
Lucatia, one of our commentors, said he can't pick Kelly because two women on the ticket won't work.
Something ale and he looks.
Like to look. I think it's gonna be h. I'm gonna be Governor Cooper of North Carolina puts George in place, supposedly, but John hinder Rocker. People are mentioning Governor Waltz, which seems crazy to me. It must seem super.
With the wrong picture, wrong picture.
MSNBC that five you know file US for VP Governor TiO Walls Minnesota. They put up a picture of Mike Waltz, different name, Republican congressman from.
One of them, and handsome.
Yeah.
Yeah, he did not look the least bit like our pudgy Governor Tim Walls, which goes to show that Tim Walls is not a household name. I don't take seriously that he is a he's a real contender. He happens to be the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association right now. I think that's kind of a rotating thing. So he's been on the national media a lot in the last few months, and I think maybe that's why he's starting
to get some notice. But two of my colleagues in American Experiment yesterday in the Minneapolis Star Tribute had a brilliant, wonderful op ed what America should know about Governor Tim Walls. His record is so bad you can hardly believe it. The OpEd included some charts and grafts and you could
just go down the list. You know, you can talk about the economy, you can talk about education, you can talk about the migration, the fact that Minnesota is like California and New York and Illinois in that people are leaving instead of moving in. He's been a completely failed governor. So in that sense, i'd like to see I'd like to see Kamala pick him, because he would be a lousy choice.
Yeah, I'm hoping she picks Pete Booty Juice. All right, he's a he's from a Midwes.
All right, Steve all right, We're way over time here, but I know.
Thank you guys. Thank you, first of all, thanks for my co host and John Hinderaker for a great podcast. Thank you to all of our listeners for joining us live.
Yeah, do you like my hat?
Johan?
It's lovely.
I had to. I had to make it myself because even though Steve and John promised me one a long time ago, they never got me one. So we usually end the show with a couple of things. One of them is to highlight our favorite satire site, which is really no longer satire. They got to come up with what is it? Fake news you can trust? Yeah, fake news you can trust? The Babylon b Kamala Harris distances
herself from Kamala Harris Media Warrens. So if you don't, if you're not on Twitter, I got to explain this one a little for John.
You.
Twitter has this thing where if somebody posts something, you can put a community note, and then other people can add to it, and you can rate it and decide if it's helpful or not helpful, so that when when fake news or cheap fakes are posted, the community can decide. Not Twitter, but the community community can decide if it's real or fake or not true in that sort of thing. So media warrens community notes may make it harder for them to lie. I guess you have to be on
Twitter to appreciate. FBI director suggests Trump's ear just spontaneously exploded. I'm going to I'm not going to read Babylon, but I do want to end because I'm the host. So I get to do this with a call to boycott the Olympics. Oh at the Olympics, and to the extent you see any of them, boycott every corporation or company that does any kind of advertising or support of the Olympics.
The most recent atrocity, in your face atrocity is that they began in the opening ceremony with a recreation of the Last Supper with an extremely fat Okay, this is not lookism. This is a description obese woman barely clothed as Jesus, and then a bunch of trans and very on the Q side of Q people as the Twelve Apostles.
And it's just bile. And this is the same Olympics that seriously considered requests from both the Palestinians and the Arab States not even to allow Israeli athletes to participate. So if you're giving your money to the Olympics by watching them, I'm ashamed of you. Okay, I'm done, Steve.
Oh no, John, Yeah, John, always drink your whiskey meat. Let's go Brandon and Steve can't say that anymore.
What let's go Brandon. Oh that's right. We have to retire that. But I can still use our new clothes out, which is you have wasted another perfectly good hour with the three whiskey happy hour, which is unburdened by what has been.
Bye, everybody, thanks for tuning in, everybody, Conna and won the.
Conavi Jus.
Ricochet join the conversation.
Mm hmm