That's friend says, good morning everyone, and happy post super Tuesday. Yes, indeed, it's all in the morning, and it's common Sense Radio, and it's pretty much everything that we expected. And President Trump is on his way to a delegate swamp. Last night was Nikki Haley's last stand. She has said nothing throughout the evening, hasn't really even messaged or anything on the social media's. She wins Vermont and she has won DC, both pretty much
the same. Vermont could fall off the face of the earth for all I know, and she's done or is she follow up on that in just a little bit. Meanwhile, President Trump, with his victory speech, I realized that there were some people on the air last night even before he like Hannity, even before he made his victory speech, these people all calling on him
to be conciliatory and to be this and to be that. And again, you know, I don't want to cause chaos and cause fights and do all this kind of stuff, But is this really the time that Donald J. Trump needs to be conciliatory and start reaching out to people who wanted to undo
him? Is this really that time? Maybe at some point, but give the dude at least a little bit of a chance to celebrate his victory, to celebrate his hard work, to celebrate his accomplishments, and the rest of you pro clutters out there, it's calm down for just a second in your calls for him to be conciliatory, to be this, and to be that. My goodness, gracious, I'll never understand. Just tell us what you think about what's going on, and leave your advice for another time. Let's
celebrate now the victory. He's the worst president in the history of our country. There's never been anything like what's happening to our countries today. It was announced that three hundred and twenty five thousand people were flown in from parts unknown. I mean, notice, by the way how Donald Trump gets right into it on the facts. You don't hear some flowing we're on our way to victory. This is America, where this is who we are we're gonna do.
You don't hear that kind of thing from him. He goes right into the heart of the issue and the meat and the potatoes of America. That's one thing that I really like about this guy is that he doesn't mess around with all the phoniness and all of the other stuff. He gets right into it and explains exactly what's going on and why he's up on that podium as
a victor on Super Tuesday. I like that. It's funny how everybody talks in the in the news beating and beyond, they tend to kind of talk about, you know, him being scurless and him being vacuous and eating taco bells, salads and you know, but this guy's one of the smartest guys in politics that we've seen in a long time. And and he's probably the most authentic as it relates to a politician Republican one that we've seen in a
long time. You could try to knock him on the orange hair or the spray tan or whatever happens to be, give me all of that as long as you give me substance. And that's what last night was. Surprisingly, he didn't take any time to do any kind of glow fast or fake little stump speech or what have you. He got right into it. Migrants were flown in aeroplane, not going through borders, not going through that great Texas barrier that I was with the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbertt the other day
and we were looking at the job they're doing. But in the meantime, they're pouring into California and they're pouring into Arizona because those governors aren't doing anything. They're doing nothing. Yeah, this is the kind of speech he gave after des Moines, and all the pundits were like, it was a very dark speech. It was very sullen and Trump seemed like he was down, and it's like, no, he's just laying out the facts, and the
facts are what they are. He talked about California. He swept all the delegates in California. Nicki Haley. It has been determined that eighty five percent of the people who voted for think Biden's doing a good job. Eighty five percent. And the reason why Nicki Haley didn't show up well in California. And of course, as I told you, the polls showed him at seventy six percent victory. He wound up walking away with about seventy four to seventy
five percent victory. But it wasn't It was a closed primary in California. You couldn't have independence voting, you couldn't have Democrats voting. And when it came time to have primaries where Independence and Democrats couldn't cross and vote for Nicki Haley. She lost. That's how worked. And I realized, yeah, she had twenty five percent of the vote, but that's because there was a preference. That doesn't translate to those twenty five percent of the people not voting
for Donald Trump in the general election. So Carl Rove and all these other votes can calm down just a little bit, because those twenty five percent voting for Nicki Haley take a big chunk of them, and they will vote for Donald Trump in November. The rest of them we don't even want in our foxhole. If you can't bring yourself to vote for Donald Trump in November, there's no hope for you if you're a Republican. But yeah, this is
a this is a great speech substance substance substance. But today Fax Fax Facts just announced before I came out, it was unbelievable. I said, that must be a mistake. They flew three hundred and twenty five thousand migrants flew on and over the borders into our contract. So that really tells you where they're coming from. They want open borders, and open borders are going to destroy our country. We need borders and we need free and fair election.
Yeah, and now you know why. Now you know why. Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC didn't want to hear President Trump's speech and actually on the air attacked her network for airing it on the air yesterday, where it said, this is one of the finest run campaigns that anybody has ever seen. That's pretty good, right, that's pretty good. It's purely a statement, and we have no choice. Yeah, okay, you know it's it's it is okay. I will say that it is a decision that we revisit constantly.
This poor girl is a child. The seething, sore, losory attitude that she had yesterday, it was a that of a petulant, spoiled, rotten child who didn't get her way. It's pretty crazy how brazen these people are in showing their rears to the entirety of the world. It's really weird. I mean, it's a blowout in terms of the balance between It's a breakdown
mentally, emotionally, everything else. In allowing somebody to knowingly lie on your air about things they've lied about before, and you can predict they are going to lie about, and so therefore it is just it's she's in the middle and there are a bunch of the syncophants around her, joy Read who is her little lap dog, and O'Donnell is over there, and a couple other
people I don't recognize, but I know they're on. And she's kind of like the class bully, you know, the you know, the the in like West Side Story or in any other television show where you have kind of like the gang of bullies, you know, and there's always like the one guy, the one little greaser guy with the leather jacket, you know, and he's kind of the he's kind of the lead bully. That's what That's what Rachel Manow reminds me of. You guys know what I'm talking about.
It's able to allow them to do that. It's a balance between knowing that that's irresponsible to broadcast and also knowing that as the de facto soon to be de facto nominee of the Republican Party, this is not only the man who is likely to be the Republican candidate for president, but this is the way he's running. Well, here's how to balance it. Why don't we fact check the hell out of him. Yes, and we do that after the fact, and that is the best remedy that we've got. It does not
fix the fact that we broadcast it. But honestly, yeah, she's that mad. I mean, it's pretty crazy, but it is. It is really super fun to watch the mental collapse of the left as we move on into the week. Good morning, everybody, it's all in the morning, and it is Common Sense Radio. Jamie Allman here with you. It's one
all four to nine the Patriots, Common Sense Radio. As I said, good morning, This boarding post super Tuesday, and Nicki Haley slated to give some kind of response to what's going on at right about probably eight o'clock our
time, and I'm not quite sure. It's nine o'clock Eastern, I believe, and we'll see if that's eight o'clock our time, so we might know before the end of the show what Nicky Haley is going to do and whether or not she's going to keep up with this fool's errand somehow in terms of continuing her fight. We talk a lot about this so called party unity thing
and that Donald Trump's job is to unify the party. And that may be true, but the reality is, as I've said before, donald Trump can do this without a lot of the Republicans who are clutching their pearls and who just can't stand the reality that he's the inevitable nominee. And that is something.
I'm not a bitter, sore winner or anything of that nature, but I've been hearing more than a couple of times these people in the commentariat in conservative circles saying that it's Trump's job now to unify the party, and if anything, it's Nicky Haley's job to unify the party after the kinds of torch runs that she made through the Donald Trump campaign and her efforts to burn this thing down. I'm just not quite sure that it's Trump's job to really reach
out to her. But again, I don't want to get into petty politics or whatever. I mean. I think that the sooner the better that everybody gets on board the Trump train. But I'm not really thrilled with this idea of spending the next seven months or so kissing the rear end of the Nicky Haley people. That's not going to be happening, not on my end at least. And there will be people, and you'll hear them in just a couple of minutes here who are on the Trump train and who maybe haven't been
before. And for the nicky Haley people who still can't bear to support Donald Trump, then stick your head in the gas oven and leave us alone, because this isn't going to be what we're doing for the next seven months up through November. This isn't going to be what we're doing. Our job right now is not to make you happy. So if that's what you're expecting,
it's not going to happen. Just letting you know. Carl Rove with this suggestion last night for Donald Trump in a campaign having said that the high command of Team Trump ought to be concerned about unifying the Republican Party because as we see in these states, a third of the vote in Virginia, forty three percent of the vote in Massachusetts going to Nikki Haley. What kind of a surprise is that, mister Whiteboard, Virginia is chock full of swamp people.
That's where the swamp people live in Virginia. They live there, they live in Virginia. Is it any surprise at DC votes for Nicki Haley? Is it any surprise at Virginia is at forty three percent, or thirty three percent for Nicki Aley. Come on, I mean this is this is ridiculous. It's swampland a quarter of the vote in North Carolina. Maine has now dropped down to about a quarter of the vote, but it was thirty one percent for Nikki Haley Vermont forty eight percent. Yeah, whose problem is that it's
it's those percentage people. It's their problem. If they're not on board with improving this country and saving this country, then they've got another problem altogether. There's still some work to be done to unify the Republican Party. Yeah, by those people they lost. So this is not unlike when the Yankees the Cardinals win the World Series. They don't im imediately go and try to improve
the team that they beat. Oh here, you guys, I know, we'll put down our celebration here and as we move on and we'll come into your locker room and see where you kind of made your mistakes and everything else and try to help you next time. I was like, that's not how it works. Right now. It's the job of the people who try to defeat Donald Trump to now realize that they lost, They made their run. They lost, and now it's their job to get on board and get on
the stick and fight for this country. It's not our job to fight for their vote. It's their job to fight for this country. If you look at what's going on with a lot of people who otherwise might have voted for Biden. Before, I want to just I want to let you know about this woman who spoke to the Denver City Council. She's an elderly woman. I don't know how she votes. If I wanted to make my prediction, I would bet she voted for Biden last time. But guess what happens.
The border is absolutely porous. Illegals wind up swamping California, Colorado, other states, and their lives suddenly change, and suddenly the border actually becomes hugely important where it wasn't before. This is a vote that will replace any pearl clutching Nikki Hayley on the planet. This is her explaining to the Denver City Council what has happened to her in her life as a result of the economy poor as it is, mixing in with an absolute invasion of illegal advisors.
And they assured us that we were going to have enough money to survive. Well, I'll tell you how I survive on thirty thousand dollars. You have done such wonderful work with your housing that you have cost my taxes to go up to four thousand dollars sloops. I'm getting really close. Three thousand for insurance, three thousand for my car, ten thousand dollars extra. Take that out, and I live on twenty thousand. Now I go to have to go to get clothing from the Goodwill. Now I'm so poor, I have
to repair the clothing. I go to the food bank, and I'll tell you what I see. I see immigrants coming in shartling and pushing us out as the cut line, take more food than is they're required to do. And our poor staff that deals with those things are out of their every love in mind trying to figure out how they're going to handle it it. H Yeah, do you ask how I'm coping? For God's sakes, help me. Yeah. And guess who's going to help her? Donald J. Trump
and the Trump campaign. And she has something very very much in common with, for instance, a black person in the inner cities who are now more scared of Venezuelans than they are of gangbangers. That's the world we live and get on the train people. Good morning everybody, and for a lot of us, it was also a super Monday as the Supreme Court nine to zippo sides with President Trump on the whole Colorado battle ballot issue. And guess what it was? Probably I know, I may look a hope this snake,
but it ain't too bold. But you judging freedom, the great Judge of Politano. And first of all, I know, for the people who are on Facebook and who are able to see the judge, I hate to be mister Blackwell all the time with the judge's clothing. That's another great color on
you, you know, that rustic orange brown, rusted color. I could, I could, I did, I did think of you this morning about five point thirty when I selected this shirt to where I said, we find a shirt that I'm not going to take on my trip to Italy and I'll wear it for Jamie. All right, that's awesome, man, that is that is great? Well? Good now you know so I'm always checking it out, Judge of Politano. Yes, this was a big decision, but
not anything that you didn't expect. Correct, correct, you know, by
by ruling just on the meaning of the words in the amendment. The Chief Justice was able to get a decision that was unanimous, and it was important that it was unanimous in order to avoid the allegation that, oh, the Republicans on the court saved Trump. So the issue here is, can the States interpret the fourteenth Amendment in their own unique way, even if they disagree with each other, in such a manner as to affect a national election,
And the Court said no, there needs to be one uniform interpretation of The states can interpret the fourteenth Amendment how they want for their own elections. So somebody running to be the mayor of Boulder, Colorado, or somebody running to be the governor of Colorado could be removed from the ballot by a court in Colorado if the court found that that person aided or abetted and then after they took an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. There's no dispute about that.
They just can't do it for federal office. Why because the fourteenth Amendment says Congress shall have the authority to enforce the Amendment, and Congress has yet to speak on this issue with respect to the presidency. Now, sometimes I don't want to beat the skunk at the garden party here, Jamie. But sometimes one needs to look as much as at as much at what the court didn't say as what it did say. It did say what I just did my
best to explain. It didn't give Donald Trump all the relief he wanted. Remember, a trial judge in Colorado found that he aided and abedded an insurrection. He asked the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse that finding. They did not. The Supreme Court of Colorado found that the president is an officer of the United States. Trump asked them to reverse that. They did
not. They only ruled on that narrow issue of whether the states can interpret a clause of the Constitution different from each other in the manner so as to affect a national election. And by ruling in that way, it's obvious that they can't. Otherwise we'd have fifty different meanings to the Constitution. So that's how they got their unanimity. So they didn't even It wasn't even about whether or not he was convicted of an insurrection either. It was just on the
remerits of that Fourteenth Amendment element right, correct. It was almost as if This was a law school hypothetical exam, not one based on actual effects, because there's no analysis here of what Trump did or didn't do. It's just whether or not it's just what the state of Colorado did. Now, of course this effects all states. There's a ruling in Maine that has now been
invalidated, and there's a ruling in Illinois that has now been invalidated. Those even though those rulings aren't even mentioned in the case because they came about after the case was argued and after the case was decided, but before it was published. Right, So it's interesting what the words of Amy Carr. I don't know about her and tell you the truth of Amy Cony Barrett. And she did kind of do what some people are calling kind of a passive aggressive
take on the ballot issue. Where do you think that came from. There's a principle of law that appellate courts follow, which say you decide cases on the narrowest issue, and you don't decide more than you need to decide in order to decide the narrow issue. She chastised the majority for deciding more than they needed to. What does she mean when the court said only Congress can address this. The Court actually said what it will accept and what it won't
accept from Congress. Now that's not unprecedented, but it's very unusual for the Court to pre guess, to prejudge what Congress is going to do. Courts don't do that because the Court and the Congress are equal branches of the government. So the Court's not in the business of saying to Congress, don't do this is what we expect you to do. The Court can evaluate the constitutionality of what Congress has done in the past, but it can't prescribe what Congress
needs to do in the future. That's what she chastised them for. There's a part of Supreme Court opinions called dicta diicta Latin word just meaning it has been stated, it has been said, But dick to is the part of a Supreme Court opinion that is not binding on future Supreme Courts because it wasn't necessary for the Court to go there. That's what Justice Barrett and the other actually the men against the women. The four concurring justices chastised the five in
the majority of four female and five male justices. The four concurring justices three liberals. One conservative chastise the five male justices, all conservatives, for going beyond where they needed to go. This is hair splitting that is of interest only to those of us who are in this business of monitoring what the Court does and commenting on it. This really doesn't mean anything, in my view, to the public or to the outcome of the case. Well, she
did mention something that to me is disturbing. I obviously don't like chaos and strife and that kind of thing. But when she said that, particularly in this circumstances, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. Since when is it the Supreme Court's job to have anything to do with a national temperature? I mean, isn't that The problem sometimes with the Supreme Court is that it's making decisions not necessarily by law or even writing them
by law. It's making them on the whim of the public, which is disturbing to me, Which must explain why she went ahead and allowed I can't remember what state it was to to bar people singing in church during COVID It it was Indiana, that's the case you're talking about. It very upsetting to you and me. It was particularly upsetting because she was brand new on the Court. It was especially upsetting because it was inconsistent with some other rules of
the Court. The Court should have no concern with the temperature of the public. The court should The Court is the anti democratic branch. It does not exist to reflect what the public wants. Its job is to protect life, liberty, property, and the constitution from the overreaching of the popular branches of the government or the state. And the Court should do the right thing though the heavens fall. Now I say, though the heaven's fall. There's a
model of the Justice. The model of the Justice Department is, uh, let there be justice though the heavens fall, meaning we are not concerned with popularity. We are only concerned with doing the right thing. Yeah, I mean, and that's why you know when you look back, for instance, that we've talked about this before to the Bush Gore decision. That was a super gutsy decision given the volatility. Uh, and the they did it anyway,
and it took the case. And so you said, actually in heights, I never forget you talk about this, because I was brilliant when you said, actually, they should never have taken the case. You should just let it play out. But still I think that was one where I don't think they really paid attention to the national temperature at all. I think Roversu's way was right. Well, Rovers's Wade was decided at a time when abortion was very rare and almost novel in the United States, and there were only
very few states in New York among them, that permitted abortions. But and you and I have condemned the opinion. There's one or two parts of it unworthy of condemnation. But what it ultimately did, of course, was to permit the slaughter of fifty million babies in the womb in the United States. However, it was written without regard to what the public thought, and the Supreme Court should not have regard for what the public thinks. That's why they
have lifetime tenure. They can't be removed from office because what they did was unpopular. Again, the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be anti democratic. It's to put breaks on the popular will when that popular will interferes with rights guaranteed by nature or guaranteed by the Constitution. Yeah, it's really kind of shocking. It was very uncomfortable seeing her say that, and just knowing that's a Supreme court, the demand is that it be really assertively and
aggressively independent from any opinion outside of it. So that's crazy to be. So the Democrats now in their grief, are trying to come up with ways that Congress can move in and what is the constitutionality of how that works. If Congress were to step in and do something about this, what would what would what would it be? Well, I can't imagine it would be anything, because the Congress can't agree on the time of day, yeah, or
couldn't agree on a speed limit. Even those speed limits are outside the constitutional confidence of Congress. But I think what the Supreme Court was inviting was a statute saying, in order to be disqualified under Section three of the fourteenth Amendment, the following would have to happen. A the person would had to have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. B they would have had to have avetted an insurrection, and we define an insurrection as follows. Then they have
to define it. Then they'd have to define a betting, and then they'd have to give the standard a proof. Can this be proven in a criminal trial by a preponderance of the evidence that's like fifty one percent of evidence or does that have to be proven in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is like ninety seven, ninety eight, ninety nine percent of the evidence.
So Congress would have to lay lay that out. Congressman Jamie raskin Maryland, a former professor of constitutional law, is introducing legislation to that effect this week. But again it's not going to pass. This would be irrelevant for Donald Trump and for twenty twenty four. They may want to address this for the future, but it's a fool's errand to think that they're going to get anything done between now and the time ballots are printed for the general election,
which would be six or seven months from now. In October of this you mentioned speeding. I want to ask you a quick question, quick personal question. So I was going up to Des Moines, Iowa to see Cardinal Burke, not to Moinn, Iowa, up too to Wisconsin to see Cardinal Burke. Had to go through Iowa because my mapping took me all through these almost these crazy rural areas, and I wound up. I got back home and I had two speed camera tickets taken by a camera and They even showed me
video of me speeding, and that was taken by some camera. It was on some kind of rural road and all that kind of stuff, and so I don't want to pay them. I've gotten red light cameras before, and I don't really run red lights that much, but you know how, it happened sometimes way back in the day. And I never paid a red light camera ticket never. And I did look it up though, and there are apparently some cases that uphold the robot issued ticket, aren't there. Well,
it's different in different states. The robot issued tickets are unlawful and invalid in New Jersey, so theoretically it doesn't even happen because it would be a waste the government's money even to have these cameras. So under Governor CHRISTI, the cameras were reverted from giving tickets to just monitoring what happens in an intersection. So, god forbid, you have an accident there, your lawyer can get a video of what happened and help decide whose fault it is, but the
camera can't issue the ticket. But my understanding is that these are valid in other states. I don't know what the law of Iowa is it is repellent that something like this can happen, but it does happen. Yeah, well, okay, well I guess I got to rethink my position on that.
Then I suppose I mean you don't what you don't want is and here I am giving one of my best friends in the world legal advice on a nationally broadcast But what you don't want is for them to adjudicate you guilty in your absence, and then this thing is hanging out there and they may suspend your license in Iowa, and God forbid your driving in Iowa? Was it Iowa? Idaho? It was? It was to Iowa people that I'm saying this, But I'm from New Jersey's right, Iowa and Idaho is the same,
Okay, d Exagerinney. You don't want them to suspend your license in that state. You might end up driving in that state and the next thing you know, you'll be arrested without a license. So they never take a better to bite the bullet and pay the fine then than risk the consequences. Yeah, the other hand, you want to hire lawyers to challenge this thing. There are civil liberties lawyers who will challenge the power of the state to use a robot to give you a ticket. Yeah, go all the way to
Supreme Court. Man. Maybe that time, Amy Cony Barret will be on my side, all right. And then and then the New York case. Uh. It just so happens that this ruling came down almost amazingly on the very same day that Trump's trial on the insurrection issue was supposed to yesterday. Well, yeah, the original trial. Yeah, I mean you're talking about the federal the federal case now, not the Georgia case, right right, Yeah. And when that federal case is on hold because of the issue of
immunity, she has indicated she'll be ready to the trial judge. She'll be ready to go as soon as the court rules. Unless they really has total and absolute immunity, I don't think they will. That would be a radical change from the law. But he has a very busy spring and summer. He has a criminal trial starting on March twenty fifth, and he has to be in court one of that trial time starting March twenty fifth. That's the New York It's the Stormy Daniels case. Stormy Daniels is going to testify,
Michael Cohen is going to testify. The former president's going to testify. This is going to be a bit of a circus. Wow, Yeah, no doubt so. Now, last time I talked to you about the Fanny Willis case in Georgia, you were not You didn't have the opinion that this was actually well even if it disqualifies, or it wasn't going to make the case
totally go down the tubes. Since that time, have you heard anything and some of this information's got a little testier and crazier with all these people testifying. Has your mind changed on that at all? Or is this going to be a case it sticks, but the people might not be there to prosecute it. I don't think he's even going to remove her from the case. I think that he may refer her to the ethics people for an ethics investigation, but I don't think he's going to remove her from the case. I
don't think it affects the case at all. I also think he totally mishandled this. I am generally reluctant to criticize other judges, particularly a judge who's so young and new. Yeah, I'm sure that I made a lot of mistakes early on in my time on the bench. But this thing should have taken about two days instead of a month. He really, really really dragged it out in ways that, in my view, were unnecessary, and he
should have rolled by. Now. You have a lot of human beings and a lot of assets involved in prosecuting and defending this case, and everybody has a right to know who's the prosecutor, when's the case happening, where are we going, what's taking you so long? So but my view is there's not enough misbehavior on her part here to remove her, and there's no evidence
of contamination of the case itself. I had to think the case against Trump and the others is very weak, but there is no evidence of its having
been contaminated by the personal relationship between these two prosecutors. Yeah, her attorney, in listening to some of the courtroom appearances, her attorney actually did a pretty good job of establishing that, regardless of what, for instance, her boyfriend's colleague in the law office said, there's no way actually that he would know, and there's a lot of Really, he really did a good job in establishing the plethora of hearsay that was going on, and I was I
was kind of impressed. Tell you, the truth, and that's what I was thinking. Oh, no, she's not going to be disqualified then probably Yeah, listen, I'm not saying that the judge was unfair or that the proceedings were unfair. I'm just saying they took far, far too long. But then again, I'm Italian, so I don't have a lot of patience. This is a good old Southern boy, and he moves at a different
pace than we two in the northeast. Yeah. Well, and again, even if she's not disqualified, though, there are some real problematic transactions, and you know, I don't know how she can run for reelection. I would think I'm going to assume she's a Democrat, and I'm going to assume that the Democrats would want to challenge her in the primary, maybe not even give her the party line. I don't know, but I would think politically she is seriously damaged over this. Yeah. Well, this is a system
where processed. It's alien to me. And New Jersey has the federal system where judges are appointed for life. Proskers are appointed for five years. They don't seek a political base or seek political public political endorsements, but in Georgia they do well. And then you have the aspect of the Biden operative or the alleged Biden operative who was also in her office, and there was this sense or this insinuation somehow there was a commanding presence of this Biden operative kind
of running the show there. But I guess that's for somebody else to investigate. Correct, correct, correct, don't. I don't know how that again infects the case. Maybe it does, but it certainly is not at a level where it would require dismissal of the case. Yeah, gotcha, at least not at this stage. I mean, something may come up during the
trial which would shock the conscience of the court. I think the great example of this is the trial of Daniel Ellsberg for stealing the Pentagon papers and giving them to the New York Times. They had already been published. The Supreme Court said, the Times and the Washington Post can publish them. The thief can be prosecuted, but not the publisher. So the papers were out there. The next administration was humiliated, the LBJA administration was humiliated, the generals
who were humiliated. Elsberg's on trial and the government is really claboring him in the courtroom, and then a couple of FBI agents decide we're going to help the guy government out. We're gonna break into his psychiatrist's office and get the records of what he told is Shrink. Well, the judge was so outraged that what they did. He dismissed the indictment right there, and the FEDS
decided not to appeal and not to reprosecute. So occasionally government behavior so shocks the conscience of the court, And admittedly what I just told you is an extreme example, rarely happens, but occasionally government behavior so shocks the conscience that the court throws the case out, even though it has nothing to do with the merits of the case. There is no question but that Daniel Ellsberg,
and I think he's an American hero. He's now deceased, and now there's no question but that Daniel Elsberg committed espionage by stealing national security secrets to which he was entitled ye to hold but not to reveal. All right, well, judgeph Aultello, what's happening on Judging Freedom today? Well? Nothing, I'm on my way to Rome, so you're actually even today? Oh yes, yes, I got a lovely note in the middle of the night from
our favorite member of the College of Cardinals. So that began with Unfortunately I am still in Wisconsin in Rome, but he answered immediately and it was a very upbeat, uplifting Jamie Ullman like email. Yes, yeah, well that's good because I well, I'm going to talk to you later on this morning, or at least about about an hour from now about what's we're planning with you later on in the springtime. But I'm glad you connected with him.
And he did tell me that he was probably going to be spending more time in was Concinent, especially after the Pope basically kicked him out. I don't know whatever it became of that thing, but it was really just a bad treatment on the part of the Pope. And yes, yes, he did tell me he's going to be back in Rome by the end of March, so I missed him by a couple of weeks. Yeah. Well, he loves Lacrosse. I'll tell you that. That's that's his home bank. So
he built that magnificent, magnificent structure there. Oh yeah, that is a beautiful place. The shrine is just absolutely amazing. I managed to be able to get through a lot of it and hang out there and it's really truly moving and beautiful up there. Yes, all right, judge, Well, I'll talk you a little bit and looking forward to excited about you getting to Italy and it'll be a ton of fun. Where exactly you're going to go or you can go all over. Where's your family from? Again? Well,
this is a work trip. My family. Three quarters are from Naples, one quarter is from Florence. I'm giving a lecture on natural law at the Pontifical Academy in the Vatican. I am staying in the guest house where the Pope lives in the Vatican. Really, I'm told the breakfasts are communal, but if he wants to talk to you, he'll send a Swiss guard to come over and tap you on the shoulders retaps. That means the Holy Father wants you. Wow. So do you think you're going to see the
Pope? Chances are I will, but I don't want to get my expectations up. It's not a very large place and I'm gonna be The Vatican's about the size of Central Park and I'm going to be there for four days. Wow. Well, uh, how are you gonna tell us staying to him? Are you just gonna be just what you know, my traditionalist friends want me to say, Oh, your holiness, I am a big fan of your immediate predecessor. But I think he wants to hear that. Yeah.
Yeah, well maybe you can give him my phone numbers we can call into the show sometime. He does speak English. That'd be great coming up next to the pope. Wow, all right, buddy, my column scoped out my breakfast with the Pope. But we'll see if it happens. Okay, well that sounds great. All right, Judge to Politano judging freedom, I appreciate you so much, and I'll talk to you a little bit. My friend you Jamie. All right, then, is Judge you hadda Poloitano?
Yeah? I mean, you know, for all of our bluster right about the Pope, I don't know I saw him, I would be like, oh, hi, mister Pope, how are you? Oh lordy