Here's a nine for twenty one to four K seat advisor tonight at eight probably longer air quality alert till tomorrow. Midnight today hot ninety six with the high with isolated evening storms seventy one overnight with muggy conditions ninety six with late afternoon storms tomorrow, a possibility anyway overnight down to seventy three and a chance of storms after two pm on Friday, and a high of ninety eight. It is seventy six right now. Ty for traffic from the ucut Tramphic Center.
At the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute, you can access the leading brain, spine and nerve experts right here in Cincinnati. Westbound two seventy five continues to run just over an extra hour between Milford and Montgomery thanks to several accidents earlier. South Bend seventy five break lights continue out of Sharonville through Lachland. There's a wreck in Bend seventy four that hands the North Bend seventy five rand blocked off. That's
banking traffic to the North Bend. Coming up next, Special guests, who is ready to celebrate National Red Wine Day. As a matter of fact, he happens to be a wine expert, so he's thinking about starting a new podcast for his recommendations for a good merlot on Labor Day weekend. He just can't figure out what to call it. Should it be called Read between the Wines? Or poor decision? To judge us? Next Chuck Ingram on fifty five krs the talk station. I think he worked on that one.
Oh god, he apparently did. It was actually hilarious at the very end. I didn't know where he was going.
Good morning, Brian, Judge you judge editor Poulatada, who does to a podcast. You can find him online Judging Freedom. And of course we always end our segment with the judge every Wednesday with who he's going to be talking to. We will do the same today. I am doing well, your honor, with the exception of things out of my control. Of course, the world seems to be falling apart regardless of where you look. But in my personal space everything is in order, and I appreciate your asking. I hope
you can say the same, my friend. Yes, yes, you look a little distressed there at the outset of our feed. There we're having we're experiencing some technical difficulties throughout the week with the zoom conferencing, so.
Yes, I could tell I was a lot of hoops through which.
To jump and apologies, and Joe Strecker is as frustrated as I am because it's been shutting down and popping back up. So we'll overcome those challenges. You'll remain audio capable, regardless of whether I can see your face, which is always a pleasure seeing. So searching for monsters, you know, I responded to your column which comes out tonight midnight. I'm fortunate enough to get an advanced copy with sort of the old turnabouts fair play. You know, do unto
others as they would do unto you. And I posed the question out loud earlier in anticipation of this conversation with you. You know, what if the Iranians decided somebody here in the United States was an enemy, an evil person. I know they put a hit list out for Donald Trump, among others, and they came into our country, kidnapped them, and took them back to Iran, would that be okay? I think we would be outraged collectively, and yet it's okay for us to do it.
Well, you know, we are according to Joe Biden, and according to the Republicans, the indispensable nation, and we can do things that nobody else can do. We can conduct coups, we can start illegal wars, and we can kidnap people. The President of the United States can even kill people in foreign countries, like Donald Trump with General Solomony, or even worse, Barack Obama with Onwar Alackei and his son, both of whom were Americans, and neither of them had
been charged with any crime whatsoever. General Solomony hadn't been charged with a crime either. This all began when the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI kidnapped a Mexican doctor from his office in Mexico, alleging that he was using false inscriptions to overprescribed fentanyl to Mexican patients. So we're then taking the fentanyl and doing whatever they do with it and selling it in the United States. He was violently kidnapped and brought to Texas for trial. He challenged
the kidnapping. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court before he was tried, and the Supreme Court said, we don't care how he got here.
Now that.
Was permitted because there was at least a nexus between what the government said he did falsifying prescriptions and Americans being harmed. Since then, under Joe Biden's the reason for my column, yeah, has changed the law to remove the American harm nexus. So now federal courts can hear cases of anybody kidnapped anywhere for any reason, as long as they're physically present in the courtroom, whether they have violated an American statute or not, whether they have harmed an
American person or American property or not. There's no longer the nexus of American harm required. That's what has me so aggravated. How does the government decide who the monsters are that it wants to kidnap and bring to the United States for political reasons? What other basis would there be? Is that what the constitution authorizes? Of course not?
Well, is it possible? I mean, my legal brain is trying to process the absurdity of what you just explained very clearly and succinctly, a sort of a reverse standing argument that a defendant could make. You know, there is no harm. There is no statue you can point to that I've violated. I did not harm a single American. You don't have standing to even bring me in the court. Moreover,
you shouldn't be able to kidnap me anyway. But that's almost like it seems like a parenthetical since the Supreme Court ruled that it didn't matter how the guy got there.
You know, Supreme Court's attitude about this is one of two ways. Either they really don't care what the executive branch does prior to the introduction of the person into the courtroom, or or I'll give them credit. They were counting on that American nexus requirement. Okay, you were in Mexico, you violated, You committed an act which if done in the United States would have been a serious crime. But
you did harm Americans. I can understand that. But by Congress removing the nexus connection, the connection between what the defendant did and a harm to an American person or American property, and telling the federal courts they must hear these cases, Congress has permitted the President of the United States to dispatch a private army to kidnap whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, concoct the case against him he's never been to the United States of America and
bring him to the United States. Could a future president kidnap Benjamin Netanyahu and claim that he committed to genocide, which is against American law, even though he had nothing. Well, the United States paid for it. Maybe it's not a good example, but theoretically, under this, under this statute, and under the Supreme Court's prior ruling, the answer is yes, wow, you know.
And I also think to extradition treaties, I mean, there's an incentive for us to engage in diplomacy and enjoy reciprocal extradition if you know what.
We have an extradition treaty with Mexico.
I thought so.
And this is where the Supreme Court's logic was really off base, because the extradition treaty does not prohibit kidnapping, therefore it condones it. I mean, that is absurd. That would flunk a first year law school test.
And we're our law enforcement folks. My understanding of course, because of your column and it's well written, and I'm courage my listeners to get a copy of it. Searching for monsters were we invited into their country because this is this would be like you know of a police force from say, I don't know, Nebraska coming into Cincinnati and grabbing someone and taking them, even though if they went through proper channels, they could get that person delivered
to Nebraska for an outstanding warrant. We would cooperate were we there by invitation.
Not invited into their country. But guess how we got in there by bribing the local police chief with your tax dollars and mine and the tax dollars of everybody listening to us. Now, what happens when the government breaks its own laws. It kidnaps and bribes the very crimes for which it investigates and prosecutes people.
You know, it's funny because there are laws on the books. You're honor and I know you know this, but are just saying it out aloud. To draw the contrast. It's like if government does it, it's okay, but you're not allowed to do it. If you're a company doing business in a foreign country that is a corrupt country, say Mexico to a certain degree, and locals there are prohibiting you from doing business unless you pay them a bribe.
If you pay them a bribe, you could be prosecuted in the United States for engaging in acts of bribery.
Correct. But if you are the federal government and you bribe them, no harm, no foul, The courts couldn't care less.
Wow. And again I read.
My first book is called This Is Twenty years Ago Constitutional Chaos. What happens when the government breaks its own laws? And the book is filled with these examples. And my favorite is a federal district court judge who was set up by the Feds and prosecuted for bribery, and at his they bribed a witness to testify against him. He was convicted, and the Tenth Circuit throughout the conviction and
large measure because of that. That is the most extreme example I've ever heard of the Feds bribing a witness to testify against a judge and a bribery case.
Wow. I brought up in an illustration. Earlier, someone brought up Kamala Harris's a brilliant, economically miserable, stupid idea of price fixing. You know, you're being gouged, and we're going to set a price, some maximum price it can be charged. You know, if private businesses went behind the doors of a closed room and sat down together and collectively agreed that they would not charge less than X dollars amount per pound of bee or chicken, or whatever. They'd be
prosecuted for violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. But if our lords and masters in Washington decide what the price of chicken is going to be, it's okay for them to do it.
You know. I'm giving a talk at the run Pall Institute along with my friend and colleague, Professor John Meerscheimer of the University Chicago this weekend, and my talk is on taking rights seriously. And in that talk, I'm going to compare natural law based on morality the same for everybody and positivism. The law is whatever the lawgiver says it is, so we can allow ourselves to do whatever
we want. You could count on one hand the members of Congress, Thomas Massey of course, among them, who believe that morality restrains the government. Everybody else Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives believe the government can do whatever the hell it wants.
As greatly illustrated and brilliantly illustrated by your column again Searching for Monsters, available tonight at midnight. Judging Freedom is a judge of Paultona's podcast and conversations with some wonderful guests, Your honor, who is on the plate today.
Oh, I have my heaviest hitters on today because I need to be with the run prol group on Friday. Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven o'clock Eastern and Scott Ritter at four o'clock Eastern. These are my biggest draws and they are close friends of mine and am looking forward to the conversations McGregor about the coming war in the Middle East and Ridder about the coming war with Russia. Does anybody know how close we are to war? Well?
As you know, I always like to say I like to end on a positive note with you, in a comical note, but we're not going to be able to do that today because yes, I am painfully aware of how close we are. It scares the hell out of me. Judge Outnapaula Towna. God bless you, sir. They'll be looking for your podcast Judging Freedom. I'm looking forward to next Wednesday. Already, have a great day and a great week, sir.
Right back at you, Brian, all the best.
Thanks very much. Hey, forty one, come out of an eight forty two fifty five care see the talk station and it's time to get to mention covers since he and I talked to John Rowman every Sunday on the Morning Show. It's not the Morning Show on Sunday, it's we call it Rethink Healthcare Together. Just brilliant John Roman
and his team at Cover. Since you know every single thing there is possible to know about medical insurance, including for my friends that are getting up in years getting ready to get on medicare some real big red flags. It's important for you to talk with one of the team that covers SINCEY. Have them look at your current insurance. It doesn't take very long. They'll evaluate what you've got and tell you what you can do which will be better.
They work with hundreds of insurance companies thousands of medical plans, which allows them to customize medical insurance for your specific set of circumstances. Point in life where you are, maybe you've got a family with small kids, maybe you're getting ready to retire. There's a bunch of different areas in any point in life. It's worth calling cover SINCEY because you're probably paying too much, and you're paying too much out of pocket, so premium and then out of pocket responsibility.
How about dollar one coverage? There are so many ways to make medical insurance far more flexible and more convenient, like not having a network that's really small. That means when you travel, you're not gonna be able to get medical care without you know, paying massive sums out of pocket. It doesn't take much but a phone call or a form to fill out online, and you will be amazed what they do every single day. They're saving, say couples under sixty five, five hundred to one thousand dollars a
month with better coverage. Yep, time is all. It takes in a very little amount. Five one three eight hundred two two five five, no obligation, just let them look under the hood of what you got. Five one three eight hundred. Call online. That's where the form can be filled out and you can learn more about the team coversincy dot com fifty five KRC the talk station a U line they know